diff options
Diffstat (limited to '35733-h/35733-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | 35733-h/35733-h.htm | 7966 |
1 files changed, 7966 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/35733-h/35733-h.htm b/35733-h/35733-h.htm new file mode 100644 index 0000000..73e0add --- /dev/null +++ b/35733-h/35733-h.htm @@ -0,0 +1,7966 @@ +<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" + "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> + +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" /> + <title> + The Project Gutenberg eBook of Leigh Hunt's Relations with Byron, Shelley and Keats, by Barnette Miller. + </title> + + <style type="text/css"> + + p {margin-top: .75em; text-align: justify; margin-bottom: .75em;} + + body {margin-left: 12%; margin-right: 12%;} + + .pagenum {position: absolute; left: 92%; font-size: smaller; text-align: right; font-style: normal;} + + h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6 {text-align: center; clear: both;} + + hr {width: 33%; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 2em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; clear: both;} + + table {margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;} + .bb {border-bottom: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .br {border-right: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .bt {border-top: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .btr {border-top: solid black 1px; border-right: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .bbr {border-bottom: solid black 1px; border-right: solid black 1px; padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + .dent {padding-left: 0.5em; padding-right: 0.5em;} + + .huge {font-size: 150%} + .big {font-size: 125%} + + .blockquot {margin-left: 5%; margin-right: 10%;} + .poem {margin-left:15%;} + .note {margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%;} + + .right {text-align: right;} + .center {text-align: center;} + + .smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} + .smcaplc {text-transform: lowercase; font-variant: small-caps;} + + a:link {color:#0000ff; text-decoration:none} + a:visited {color:#6633cc; text-decoration:none} + + .spacer {padding-left: 1em; padding-right: 1em;} + .spacer2 {padding-left: .25em; padding-right: .25em;} + + ins.correction {text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin solid gray;} + + .verts {margin-left: 20%; margin-right: 20%;} + + .fnanc {font-size: .8em; text-decoration: none; } + + </style> + </head> +<body> + + +<pre> + +The Project Gutenberg EBook of Leigh Hunt's Relations with Byron, Shelley +and Keats, by Barnette Miller + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + + +Title: Leigh Hunt's Relations with Byron, Shelley and Keats + +Author: Barnette Miller + +Release Date: March 31, 2011 [EBook #35733] + +Language: English + +Character set encoding: ISO-8859-1 + +*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LEIGH HUNT'S RELATIONS *** + + + + +Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images +generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian +Libraries.) + + + + + + +</pre> + + + + +<p class="center">COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY STUDIES IN ENGLISH</p> +<p> </p> +<p class="center">LEIGH HUNT’S RELATIONS WITH<br />BYRON, SHELLEY AND KEATS</p> +<p> </p><p> </p> + +<p class="center"><span class="huge">LEIGH HUNT’S RELATIONS WITH<br />BYRON, SHELLEY AND KEATS</span></p> +<p> </p> +<p class="center">BY<br /><span class="big">BARNETTE MILLER, <span class="smcap">Ph.D.</span></span></p> +<p> </p> +<p class="center">New York<br />THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS<br />1910</p> +<p class="center"><i>All rights reserved</i></p> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p class="center">Copyright, 1910<br /> +<span class="smcap">By The Columbia University Press</span><br /> +Printed from type April, 1910</p> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">Press of<br />The New Era Printing Company<br />Lancaster, Pa.</span></p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<div class="note"> +<p><i>This Monograph has been approved by the Department of English in Columbia +University as a contribution to knowledge worthy of publication.</i></p> + +<p class="right">A. H. THORNDIKE,<br /><i>Secretary</i>.</p></div> + + +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<h2>PREFACE</h2> + +<p>The relations of Leigh Hunt to Byron, Shelley and Keats have been treated +in a fragmentary way in various works of biography and criticism, and from +many points of view. Yet hitherto there has been no attempt to construct a +whole out of the parts. This led Professor Trent to suggest the subject to +me about five years ago. The publication of the results of my +investigation has been unfortunately delayed for nearly four years after +the work was finished.</p> + +<p>I am indebted to Mr. S. L. Wolff for reading the first and second +chapters; to Professors G. R. Krapp, W. W. Lawrence, A. H. Thorndike, of +Columbia University, and Professor William Alan Nielson, now of Harvard, +for suggestions throughout. I am especially glad to have this opportunity +to record my gratitude to Prof. Trent, whose inspiration and guidance and +kindness from beginning to end have alone made completion of the study +possible.</p> + +<p>B. M.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1em;"><span class="smcap">Constantinople, Turkey.</span></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">March 21, 1910.</span></p> + + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<h2>CONTENTS</h2> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td>CHAPTER</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_I">I.</a></td><td><span class="smcap">Leigh Hunt</span> 1784-1823</td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td></tr> +<tr><td>CHAPTER</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_II">II.</a></td><td><span class="smcap">Keats</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_32">32</a></td></tr> +<tr><td>CHAPTER</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_III">III.</a></td><td><span class="smcap">Shelley</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_65">65</a></td></tr> +<tr><td>CHAPTER</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_IV">IV.</a></td><td><span class="smcap">Byron and</span> <i>The Liberal</i></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td></tr> +<tr><td>CHAPTER</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_V">V.</a></td><td><span class="smcap">The Cockney School</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_121">121</a></td></tr> +<tr><td>CHAPTER</td><td align="right"><a href="#CHAPTER_VI">VI.</a></td><td><span class="smcap">Conclusion</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_159">159</a></td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="3"><span class="smcap">Bibliography</span></td><td align="right"><a href="#Page_164">164</a></td></tr></table> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_I" id="CHAPTER_I"></a>CHAPTER I</h2> + +<p class="note">Revolutionary tendencies of the age—The Reaction—Counter Reform +movement—Leigh Hunt—His Ancestry—School days—Career as a +Journalist—Imprisonment—Finances—Politics—Religion—Poetry.</p> + +<p>Since contemporary social conditions played an important part in the +relations of Leigh Hunt with Byron, Shelley, and Keats, a brief survey of +the period in question is necessary to an understanding of the forces at +play on their intellect and conduct. The English mind had been admirably +prepared for the principles of the French Revolution by the progressive +tendency since the Revolution of 1688. The new order promised by France +was acclaimed in England as one destined to right the wrongs of humanity; +through unending progress mankind was to attain unlimited perfection. Upon +such a prospect both parties were agreed, and the warnings of Burke were +vain when Pitt, rationalizing, led the Tories, and Fox, rhapsodizing, led +the Whigs. In 1793, Godwin’s <i>Political Justice</i>, with its anarchistic +doctrines of individual perfectibility and of individual self-reliance, +rallied more recruits to the standard of liberty, though his theories of +community of property and annulment of the marriage bond were somewhat +charily received. The early writings of Wordsworth, Southey and Coleridge +were colored with enthusiasm for the new movement. The agitation and the +enactment of reform measures made actual advances towards the expected +millennium.</p> + +<p>But the excesses of the Revolutionary régime in France bred in England, +ever inclined to order, an opposition in many conservative minds that +resulted in positive panic at the menace to state and church and property. +The reaction swung the pendulum far in the opposite direction from justice +and philanthropy. The first two decades of the new century continued to +suffer from a counter-reform movement when the actual fright had subsided. +During that period, anything which savored of reform was labelled as +seditious. At the very <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span>beginning of this reaction William Pitt’s efforts +for the extension of the franchise were summarily put an end to, and the +House of Commons remained as little representative of the English people +as formerly. Catholics and Non-Conformists were denied, from the period of +the union of Ireland with England in 1800 until 1829, the right to vote +and to hold office. Pitt’s efforts to frustrate such discrimination in +Ireland were as unavailing as in his own country, for the prejudices and +obstinacy of George III, in both instances, neutralized the good +intentions of the liberal Ministry. The corrupt influence of the Crown in +Parliament was undiminished except by the disfranchisement of persons +holding contracts from the crown and of incumbents of revenue offices. The +wars with America and with France greatly increased the public debt, +threatened the national credit and burdened with taxes an already +overburdened people. Oppressive industrial conditions made the life of the +masses still more unendurable. The rise of manufacturing and the +consequent adoption of inventions that dispensed with much hand labor +decreased the number of the employed and reduced wages, while the enormous +increase in population during the eighteenth century multiplied the number +of the idle and the poor. It is true that the wealth of the country became +much greater through the development of new resources, but the profits +were distributed among the few and gave no relief to the majority. The +government was indifferent to the sufferings of the poor, to the severity +of the penal code, to the horrors of the slave traffic. In Great Britain +the Habeas Corpus act was suspended, public assemblies were forbidden, the +press was more narrowly restricted, right of petition was limited, and the +legal definition of treason was greatly extended; in Scotland the +barbarous statute of transportation for political offenses was revived; in +Ireland industry and commerce were discouraged.</p> + +<p>The re-accession of the Tories to power in 1807, followed by their long +ascendancy and abuse of power, led inevitably to a revival of the +questions of revolution and of reform. Lord Byron, Shelley and Leigh Hunt +were among the leaders of this second band of agitators, the “new camp,” +as Professor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span> Dowden has designated them. It was their love of humanity, +perhaps to a greater degree than their poetic genius and their æsthetic +ideals, that made these men akin. Of the four poets with whom we deal +Keats alone was comparatively indifferent to the strife about him.</p> + +<hr style="width: 25%;" /> + +<p>Besides the political background of the times, personal influence and +literary imitation enter into consideration in the present study. +Especially in the case of Hunt, whose unique personality has been so +variously interpreted, a brief biographical review is necessary. James +Henry Leigh Hunt was born October 19, 1784, in the village of Southgate, +Middlesex. He was descended on the father’s side from “Tory cavaliers” of +West Indian adoption, and on the mother’s from American Quakers of Irish +extraction—an exotic combination of Celtic and Creole strains which never +coalesced but in turn affected his temperament. His father was an engaging +and gifted clergyman who quoted Horace and drank claret—a sanguine, +careless child of the South who made the acquaintance alike of good +society and of debtor’s prisons. This parent’s cheerfulness and courage +were his most fortunate legacies to his son; a speculative turn in matters +of religion and government and a general financial irresponsibility +constituted his most unfortunate legacy. His mother was as shrinking as +his father was convivial, but, like her husband, possessed a strong sense +of duty and of loyalty. Her son inherited her love of books and of nature. +Of his heritage from his parents Leigh Hunt wrote: “I may call myself, in +every sense of the word ... a son of mirth and melancholy;... And, indeed, +as I do not remember to have ever seen my mother smile, except in +sorrowful tenderness, so my father’s shouts of laughter are now ringing in +my ears.”<a name="fna1_1" id="fna1_1"></a><a href="#f1_1" class="fnanc">[1]</a></p> + +<p>As Leigh Hunt was heir to his ancestry in an unusual degree, so in an +extraordinary measure was the child father of the man. The atmosphere of +the home, tense with discussions of theology and politics and bitter with +hardships of poverty and prisons, gave him a precocious acquaintance with +weighty <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span>matters and with many miseries. In 1791 he entered Christ’s +Hospital. Like Shelley he rebelled against the time-honored custom of +fagging, and chose instead a beating every night with a knotted +handkerchief. He avoided personal encounters in self-defense, but was +valiant enough where others were concerned, or where a principle was +involved. Haydon said: “He was a man who would have died at the stake for +a principle, though he might have cried like a child from physical pain, +and would have screamed still louder if he put his foot in the gutter! Yet +not one iota of recantation would have quivered on his lips, if all the +elysium of all the religions on earth had been offered and realized to +induce him to do so.”<a name="fna2_2" id="fna2_2"></a><a href="#f2_2" class="fnanc">[2]</a></p> + +<p>His wonderful power of forming friendships—a power with which the present +study is so much concerned—was first developed at Christ’s Hospital. As +he sentimentally expressed it, “the first heavenly taste it gave me of +that most spiritual of the affections. I use the word ‘heavenly’ +advisedly; and I call friendship the most spiritual of the affections, +because even one’s kindred, in partaking of our flesh and blood, become, +in a manner, mixed up with our entire being. Not that I would disparage +any other form of affection, worshipping as I do, all forms of it, love in +particular, which in its highest state, is friendship and something more. +But if I ever tasted a disembodied transport on earth, it was in those +friendships which I entertained at school, before I dreamt of any maturer +feeling.”<a name="fna3_3" id="fna3_3"></a><a href="#f3_3" class="fnanc">[3]</a> Like Shelley, Hunt had so great an inclination to +sentimentalize and idealize friendship that sometimes after the first +brief rhapsody of fresh acquaintance he suffered bitter disillusionment. +The majority, however, of the ties formed were lasting.<a name="fna4_4" id="fna4_4"></a><a href="#f4_4" class="fnanc">[4]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span>The abridgements of the <i>Spectator</i>, set Hunt as a school task, instilled +a dislike of prose-writing that may account for his preference through +life for verse composition, although he was by nature less a poet than an +essayist. From Cooke’s edition of the <i>British Poets</i> he learned to love +Gray, Collins, Thomson, Blair and Spenser—influences responsible in part +for his dislike of eighteenth century convention and for his historical +prominence in the romantic movement. Spenser later became the literary +passion of his life. Other books which he read at this period were Tooke’s +<i>Pantheon</i>, Lemprière’s <i>Classical Dictionary</i>, and Spence’s <i>Polymetis</i>, +three favorites with Keats; <i>Peter Wilkins</i>, <i>Thalaba</i> and <i>German +Romances</i>, three favorites with Shelley. Later Hunt and Shelley’s reading +was closely paralleled in Godwin’s <i>Political Justice</i>, <i>Lucretius</i>, +<i>Pliny</i>, <i>Plato</i>, <i>Aristotle</i>, <i>Voltaire</i>, <i>Condorcet</i> and the +<i>Dictionnaire Philosophique</i>. With the years Hunt’s list swelled to an +almost incredible degree. It was through books that he knew life.</p> + +<p>He left Christ Hospital in 1799. The eight years spent there were his only +formal preparation for a literary profession. He greatly regretted his +lack of a university education, but he consoled himself by quoting with +true Cockney spirit Goldsmith’s saying: “London is the first of +Universities.”<a name="fna5_5" id="fna5_5"></a><a href="#f5_5" class="fnanc">[5]</a> Through his father’s connections he met many prominent +men in London and was made much of. This premature association accounts +for some of the arrogance so conspicuous in his early journalistic work, +which, in middle life, sobered down into a harmless vanity.</p> + +<p>In 1808 Hunt started a Sunday newspaper, <i>The Examiner</i>. The letter +tendering his resignation<a name="fna6_6" id="fna6_6"></a><a href="#f6_6" class="fnanc">[6]</a> of a position in the office of the Secretary +of War, coming from an inexperienced man of twenty-four is pompous in tone +and heavy with the weight of his duty to the English nation. His +subsequent assurance<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> and boldness resulted in 1812 in his being indicted +for a libel of the Prince Regent, afterwards George IV, and in an +imprisonment for two years dating from February 15, 1813. His elder +brother John, the publisher of the paper, served the same sentence in a +separate prison. They shared between them a fine of £1,000. By special +dispensation Hunt’s family was allowed to reside with him in prison and, +stranger still, he was allowed to continue his work on the libellous +journal. At the same time he wrote in jail the <i>Descent of Liberty</i> and +part of the <i>Story of Rimini</i>. He transformed his prison yard into a +garden and his prison room into a bower by papering the walls with +trellises of roses and by coloring his ceiling like the sky. His books and +piano-forte, his flowers and plaster casts surrounded him as at home. Old +friends gathered about and new ones sought him as a martyr to the liberal +cause.</p> + +<p>But the picture has a darker side which it is necessary to notice in order +to understand Hunt’s personal relations. An imaginative and over-sensitive +brain in a feeble body had peopled his childhood with creatures of fear, +the precursors of the morbid fancies of later years. From 1805 to 1807 he +suffered from a trouble that seems to have been mental rather than +physical, probably a form of melancholia or hypochondria. He tortured +himself with problems of metaphysics and philosophy. He was haunted with +the hallucination that he was deficient in physical courage, and therefore +subjected himself to all kinds of tests. At the beginning of his +imprisonment he was suffering from a second attack of his malady. The +injurious effects upon his health of close confinement at this time can be +traced to the end of his life. After his release his morbid fear of +cowardice and his habit of seclusion were so strong upon him that for +months at a time he would not venture out upon the streets. Yet in spite +of all this and of frequent illnesses, his animal spirits were invincible. +His optimism was proverbial; indeed, it was a part of his religion. +Coventry Patmore tells us that on entering a room and being presented to +Hunt for the first time, he received the greeting “This is a beautiful +world, Mr. Patmore.”<a name="fna7_7" id="fna7_7"></a><a href="#f7_7" class="fnanc">[7]</a> His wonderful +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> fancy colored his life as it +colored his poetry. With his flowers and his friends and his fancies he +turned life into a perpetual Arcadia. It has been many times asserted that +Leigh Hunt was morally weak. His self-depreciation is largely responsible +for such assertions. It is true that he fell short of great accomplishment +and that he was guilty of small foibles which Haydon exaggerated into +“petticoat twaddling and Grandisonian cant.”<a name="fna8_8" id="fna8_8"></a><a href="#f8_8" class="fnanc">[8]</a> Yet the struggle and the +suffering of his life show more virility and nobility than he is generally +credited with, and prove that beneath a veneer of affectation lay strong +and healthy qualities.</p> + +<p>A second lasting and disastrous result that followed Hunt’s incarceration +and that greatly affected his relations with Byron and Shelley was the +crippling of his finances. While it cannot be said that he ever showed any +real business ability, yet, at the beginning of the trials for libel, his +money matters were in fair condition. The heavy fine and costs permanently +disabled him. In 1821 his affairs were in such a bad state that, with the +hope of bettering them, he left England on a precarious journalistic +venture, an injudicious step, the cause of which can be traced to the +lingering effects of his labors in the cause of liberalism. From 1834 to +1840 his misfortunes reached a climax. He sold his books to get something +to eat. The pain of giving up his beloved <i>Parnaso Italiano</i> was like that +of a violinist parting with his instrument. He lived in continual fear of +arrest for debt. At the same time, family troubles and ill-health combined +to torment him.</p> + +<p>In 1844 Sir Percy Shelley gave him an annuity of £120, and in 1847, the +same year of the benefit performance of <i>Every Man in His Humour</i>, he was +granted through the efforts of Lord John Russell, Macaulay and Carlyle, an +annual pension of £200 on the Civil List. There were also two separate +grants of £200 each from the Royal Bounty, one from William IV, and the +other from Queen Victoria. In his last years there is no mention made of +want.<a name="fna9_9" id="fna9_9"></a><a href="#f9_9" class="fnanc">[9]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span>Hunt’s attitude in respect to money obligations was unique, but +well-defined and consistent. It was not, as is often inferred, either +puling or unscrupulous.<a name="fna10_10" id="fna10_10"></a><a href="#f10_10" class="fnanc">[10]</a> He was absolutely incapable of the Skimpole +vices.<a name="fna11_11" id="fna11_11"></a><a href="#f11_11" class="fnanc">[11]</a> His dilemmas were not due to indolence. On the contrary, he +labored indefatigably as results show. The trouble was his “hugger-mugger” +management, as Carlyle expressed it. He adopted William Godwin’s doctrine +that the distribution of property should depend on justice and necessity, +and thought with him that the teachers of religion were pernicious in +treating the practice of justice “not as a debt, but as an affair of +spontaneous generosity and bounty. They have called upon the rich to be +clement and merciful to the poor. The consequence of this has been that +the rich, when they bestowed the slender pittance of their <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span>enormous +wealth in acts of charity, as they were called, took merit to themselves +for what they gave, instead of considering themselves delinquents for what +they withheld.”<a name="fna12_12" id="fna12_12"></a><a href="#f12_12" class="fnanc">[12]</a> Godwin held gratitude to be a superstition.</p> + +<p>Consequently, when in need, Hunt thought he had a right to assistance from +such friends as had the wherewithal to give. He accepted obligations, as +will be shown in the following chapters, much as a matter of course.<a name="fna13_13" id="fna13_13"></a><a href="#f13_13" class="fnanc">[13]</a> +But even in his worst distresses, he never desired nor accepted +promiscuous charity; and he did not always willingly accept aid even from +his friends. He refused offers of help from Trelawney. He returned a bank +bill sent him by his sister-in-law, £5 sent by De Wilde as part of the +Compensation Fund, and $500 presented by James Russell Lowell. In 1832 +Reynell forfeited £200 as security for Hunt. Twenty years later, on the +payment of the first installment of the Shelley legacy, Hunt discharged +the debt.<a name="fna14_14" id="fna14_14"></a><a href="#f14_14" class="fnanc">[14]</a> He rejected several offers to pay his fine at the time of +his imprisonment.<a name="fna15_15" id="fna15_15"></a><a href="#f15_15" class="fnanc">[15]</a> Mary Shelley, who more than any one had cause to +complain of Hunt’s attitude in money matters, wrote in 1844 in announcing +to him the forthcoming annuity from her son: “I know your real delicacy +about money matters.”<a name="fna16_16" id="fna16_16"></a><a href="#f16_16" class="fnanc">[16]</a></p> + +<p>In the <i>Correspondence</i> there are mysterious allusions made by Hunt and by +his son Thornton to a veiled influence on Hunt’s<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span> life, to some one who +acted as trustee for him and who, without his knowledge or consent, made +indiscriminating appeals in his behalf. The discovery of refusals and +repulses led him to write the following to William Story, through whom +came Lowell’s offer: “Nor do I think the man truly generous who cannot +both give and receive. But, my dear Story, my heart has been deeply +wounded, some time back, in consequence of being supposed to carry such +opinions to a practical extreme.... It gave me a shock so great that, as +long as I live, it will be impossible for me to forego the hope of +outliving all similar chances, by conduct which none can +misinterpret.”<a name="fna17_17" id="fna17_17"></a><a href="#f17_17" class="fnanc">[17]</a></p> + +<hr style="width: 25%;" /> + +<p>Leigh Hunt’s work which comes into the period of his association with +Byron, Shelley and Keats falls into four divisions: his theatrical +criticism, his political journals, his poetry and his miscellaneous +essays. The first and the last, although important in themselves, do not +enter into his relations with the three men in question and will not be +considered here. His political activity is important in his relations with +Byron and Shelley; his poetry in his relations with Keats and Shelley.</p> + +<p>In Leigh Hunt’s career, the step most significant in its far-reaching +effects was the establishment of <i>The Examiner</i>.<a name="fna18_18" id="fna18_18"></a><a href="#f18_18" class="fnanc">[18]</a> Its professed object +was the discussion of politics. It contained, in addition to foreign and +provincial intelligence, criticism of the theatre, of literature, and of +the fine arts. Full reports were given of the proceedings in Parliament. +At different times, various series of articles appeared, such as the +<i>Essays on Methodism</i> by Hunt, and <i>The Round Table</i> by Hunt and Hazlitt. +Fox-Bourne says that previous to Hunt’s <i>Examiner</i> there had been weeklies +or “essay sheets” such as Defoe, Steele, Addison and Goldsmith had +developed, and that there had been dailies or “news sheets” which gave +bare facts, but that <i>The Examiner</i> was the first to give the news +faithfully in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> essay +style.<a name="fna19_19" id="fna19_19"></a><a href="#f19_19" class="fnanc">[19]</a> It soon raised the character of the +weeklies. During the first year the circulation reached 2,200, a large +number at that time. Carlyle said: “I well remember how its weekly coming +was looked for in our village in Scotland. The place of its delivery was +besieged by an eager crowd, and its columns furnished the town talk till +the next number came.”<a name="fna20_20" id="fna20_20"></a><a href="#f20_20" class="fnanc">[20]</a> Redding says “everybody in those days read <i>The +Examiner</i>.”<a name="fna21_21" id="fna21_21"></a><a href="#f21_21" class="fnanc">[21]</a></p> + +<p>The prospectus contained a severe criticism of contemporary +journalism:<a name="fna22_22" id="fna22_22"></a><a href="#f22_22" class="fnanc">[22]</a></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“mean in its subserviency to the follies of the day, very miserably +merry in its fuss and stories, extremely furious in politics, and +quite as feeble in criticism. You are invited to a literary +conversation, and you find nothing but scandal and commonplace. There +is a flourish of trumpets, and enter Tom Thumb. There is an +earthquake and a worm is thrown up.... The gentleman who until lately +conducted the <span class="smcap">Theatrical Department</span> in the <i>News</i> will criticise the +Theatre in the <span class="smcap">Examiner</span>; and as the public have allowed the +possibility of <span class="smcap">Impartiality</span> in that department, we do not see why the +same possibility may not be obtained in <span class="smcap">Politics</span>.”</p></div> + +<p>Then followed a declaration against party as a factor in politics: party, +it was declared, should not exist “abstracted from its utility”; in the +present day every man must belong to some class; “he is either Pittite or +Foxite, Windhamite, Wilberforcite or Burdettite; though, at the same time, +two thirds of these disturbers of coffee-houses might with as much reason +call themselves Hivites, or Shunamites, or perhaps Bedlamites.”<a name="fna23_23" id="fna23_23"></a><a href="#f23_23" class="fnanc">[23]</a> +Although <i>The Examiner</i> thus firmly announced its intentions, nevertheless +in the heat of political contest it soon became the organ of a group of +men known as “reformers,” who were laboring and clamoring for +constitutional and administrative improvement. It became the avowed enemy +of the Tory party and its journals, and in particular of the ministry +during the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span> long Tory ascendancy; the enemy, at times, of royalty itself.</p> + +<p>The prospectus likewise announced an intention to reform the manners and +morals of the age. Hunt could write a sermon with the same ease as a song +or a satire. Horse-racing, cock-fighting and prize-fighting were +condemned; most of all the publication of scandal and crime. A passage on +advertisements is humorous and still of living interest:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“the public shall neither be tempted to listen to somebody in the +shape of wit who turns out to be a lottery-keeper, nor seduced to +hear a magnificent oration which finishes by retreating into a +peruke, or rolling off into a blacking ball ... and as there is +perhaps about one person in a hundred who is pleased to see two or +three columns occupied with the mutabilities of cotton and the +vicissitudes of leather, the proprietors will have as little to do +with bulls and raw-hides, as with lottery-men and wig-makers.”</p></div> + +<p>The editorials, which occupied the foremost columns of the paper, attacked +corruption and injustice of every kind without respect of persons, +currying favor with neither party nor individual, and laboring above all +for the people. International relations and continental conditions were +kept track of, but chief prominence was given to domestic affairs. The +editor warred against all abuses of power in the cabinet and in all +offices under the crown. In particular he attacked with merciless +persistence the Prince Regent in regard to his private life and his public +conduct, and his brother Frederick the Duke of York, for his inefficiency +as Commander-in-Chief of the army.<a name="fna24_24" id="fna24_24"></a><a href="#f24_24" class="fnanc">[24]</a> His definition of the English Army +was “a host of laced jackets and long pigtails.”<a name="fna25_25" id="fna25_25"></a><a href="#f25_25" class="fnanc">[25]</a> He condemned the +numerous subsidies of the crown, the royal pensions and salaries for +nominal service. He ridiculed the divine right of kings and exposed court +scandal and immorality. The chief measures<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> for which he labored were +Catholic Emancipation; reform of Parliamentary representation; liberty of +the press; reduction and equalization of taxes; greater discretion in +increasing the public debt; education of the poor and amelioration of +their sufferings; abolition of child-labor and of the slave trade; reform +of military discipline, of prison conditions, and of the criminal and +civil laws, particularly those governing debtors.</p> + +<p>It is not a matter of marvel that the paper made hosts of enemies on every +side. Charges of libel quickly followed its onslaughts. Before the paper +was a year old a prosecution was begun in connection with the Major Hogan +and Mrs. Clarke case,<a name="fna26_26" id="fna26_26"></a><a href="#f26_26" class="fnanc">[26]</a> but it was dropped when an investigation was +begun by the House of Commons. Within a year’s time after this prosecution +a second indictment was brought because of the sentence: “Of all monarchs +since the Revolution the successor of George the Third will have the +finest opportunity of becoming nobly popular.”<a name="fna27_27" id="fna27_27"></a><a href="#f27_27" class="fnanc">[27]</a> The <i>Morning Chronicle</i> +copied it, and was indicted, but both cases were dismissed. The third +offense was the quotation of an article by John Scott on the cruelty of +military flogging<a name="fna28_28" id="fna28_28"></a><a href="#f28_28" class="fnanc">[28]</a> but, like the others, this prosecution came to +nothing.</p> + +<p>The fourth and most disastrous misdemeanor was libel of the Prince Regent, +a man of shocking morals and of unstable character. Before his appointment +as Regent he had leaned to the Whig party and advocated Catholic +Emancipation, but at his accession to power he retained the Tory ministry. +The Whigs were greatly angered in consequence, and <i>The Examiner</i> took<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> it +upon itself to voice their indignation.<a name="fna29_29" id="fna29_29"></a><a href="#f29_29" class="fnanc">[29]</a> At a dinner given at the +Freemason’s Tavern on St. Patrick’s day, March 22, 1812, Lord Moira, an +old friend of the Prince’s, omitted mentioning him in his speech. Later, +when a toast was proposed to the Prince, it was greeted with hisses. Mr. +Sheridan, because of Lord Moira’s omission, spoke later in the evening in +defense of the Regent, but he, too, was received with hisses. The <i>Morning +Chronicle</i> reported the dinner; the <i>Morning Post</i> replied with fulsome +praise of the Prince; <i>The Examiner</i> with its usual alacrity joined in the +fray and took sides with the <i>Chronicle</i>, dissecting, phrase by phrase, +the adulation heaped upon the Prince by the <i>Post</i>. The following is the +bitterest part of the polemic against him:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“What person, unacquainted with the true state of the case, would +imagine, in reading these astounding eulogies, that this ‘Glory of +the people’ was the subject of millions of shrugs and +reproaches!—that this ‘Protector of the arts’ had named a wretched +foreigner his historical painter, in disparagement or in ignorance of +the merits of his own countrymen!—that this ‘Mæcenas of the age’ +patronized not a single deserving writer!—that this ‘Breather of +eloquence’ could not say a few decent extempore words, if we are to +judge, at least, from what he said to his regiment on its embarkation +for Portugal!—that this ‘Conqueror of hearts’ was the disappointer +of hopes!—that this ‘Exciter of desire’ [bravo! Messieurs of the +Post!]—this ‘Adonis in loveliness’, was a corpulent man of +fifty!—in short, this <i>delightful</i>, <i>blissful</i>, <i>wise</i>, +<i>pleasurable</i>, <i>honourable</i>, <i>virtuous</i>, <i>true</i> and <i>immortal</i> +prince, was a violator of his word, a libertine over head and ears in +disgrace, a dispiser of domestic ties, the companion of gamblers and +demireps, a man who has just closed half a century without one single +claim on the gratitude of his country, or the respect of +posterity!”<a name="fna30_30" id="fna30_30"></a><a href="#f30_30" class="fnanc">[30]</a></p></div> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span>It was said that the chief offense was given by the statement that “this +‘Adonis in loveliness’ was a corpulent man of fifty.” The article, +although true, was of doubtful expediency and offensively violent and +personal. Further, the unremitting attacks of <i>The Examiner</i> had been +neither dignified nor charitable in their searchlight penetration into the +Prince’s private affairs.<a name="fna31_31" id="fna31_31"></a><a href="#f31_31" class="fnanc">[31]</a> An indictment for libel naturally followed +at once. Lord Brougham’s “masterly defense”<a name="fna32_32" id="fna32_32"></a><a href="#f32_32" class="fnanc">[32]</a> failed to avert the +determined efforts of the prosecution to make an example of the editor and +the publisher of <i>The Examiner</i>. They were sentenced to the imprisonment +and fine already mentioned. They refused all overtures for alleviation of +the sentence:—overtures from the government; from the Whigs who, in the +person of Perry of the <i>Morning Chronicle</i>, proposed to obtain a +compromise from the prosecution by threatening the Regent with the +publication of state secrets from friends; and even from a juror who +offered to pay the fine. Leigh Hunt wrote: “I am an Englishman setting an +example to my children and my country; and it would be hard, under all +these circumstances, if I could not suffer my extremity rather than +disgrace myself by effeminate lamentation or worse compromise.”<a name="fna33_33" id="fna33_33"></a><a href="#f33_33" class="fnanc">[33]</a> The +two Hunts thought that the serving of the sentence would be beneficial to +the liberal cause, particularly in increasing the freedom of the press.</p> + +<p>The general method of <i>The Examiner</i> was vigorous attack. There was no +circumlocution, no mincing of language, but aggressive candour, and, when +it was considered necessary, wholesale censure and vituperation. A typical +illustration is given in this passage, describing a dinner of the Common +Council:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“It is the fashion just now to call Bonaparte Antichrist, the Beast +with Seven Heads and Ten Horns, ... but if you wish to see those who +have the ‘real mark of the beast’ upon them, go to a City dinner, +and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span> after battles for trout and the buffetings for turtle, after the +rattling of wine glasses and plethoric throats, after the swillings +and the gormandizings, and the maudlin hobs-and-nobs, and the +disquisitions on smothered rabbits, and the bloated hectics, and the +blinking eyes and slurred voices, and the hiccups, the rantings, and +the roars, hear an unwieldy Loan-jobber descanting on our Glorious +King and Unshaken Constitution. The stranger, that after this sight, +goes to see the beasts in the Tower, is an enemy to all true +climax.”<a name="fna34_34" id="fna34_34"></a><a href="#f34_34" class="fnanc">[34]</a></p></div> + +<p>In actual results <i>The Examiner</i> accomplished a great deal in the counter +movement for reform. While Hunt had no original or constructive political +theory, little power of philosophical or logical thought, and no special +equipment besides wide general knowledge, he had great sincerity and +courage and a defiant attitude toward corruption of all kinds.<a name="fna35_35" id="fna35_35"></a><a href="#f35_35" class="fnanc">[35]</a> He was +himself absolutely incorruptible. If he preferred any form of government +above another—for he was more interested in the pure administration of an +established government than in the form itself—his preference was for a +liberal monarchy. Notwithstanding this moderate attitude, <i>The Examiner</i> +was accused of radical, even revolutionary opinions. It was charged with +being an enemy of the constitution, a traitor to the king, a foe to the +established church.<a name="fna36_36" id="fna36_36"></a><a href="#f36_36" class="fnanc">[36]</a> Hunt’s positive achievement in political +journalism was two-fold: he obtained additional freedom for the press and +he elevated journalistic style to a literary level. Monkhouse says that +Hunt “established for the first time a paper which fought, and fought +effectively, with prejudice and privilege, with superstition and tyranny, +which was a bearer of light to all men of Liberal principles in that +country, and set the example of the independent thought and fearless +expression of opinion, which has since become the very light and power of +the press.”<a name="fna37_37" id="fna37_37"></a><a href="#f37_37" class="fnanc">[37]</a> Of the Hunt brothers Coventry Patmore writes: “I verily +believe that, without the manly firmness, the immaculate political +honesty, and the vigorous good sense of the one, and the exquisite genius +and varied accomplishments, guided by the all-pervading and all-embracing +humanity of the other, we should at this moment<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> have been without many of +those writers and thinkers on whose unceasing efforts the slow but sure +march of our political, and with it, our social regeneration as a people +mainly depends.”<a name="fna38_38" id="fna38_38"></a><a href="#f38_38" class="fnanc">[38]</a></p> + +<p>Hunt assisted in bringing about reforms in the interest of the people by +calling attention to abuses that demanded investigation, and by advocating +correction. His ideas on national finance and practical administration are +wonderful when contrasted with his inefficiency in his own affairs. He +lacked largeness of perspective and masculine grasp. His work is all the +more remarkable when his temperament and tastes are considered; for his +was a nature, as Professor Dowden has put it, “framed less for the rough +and tumble of English radical politics than for ‘dance and Provençal Song +and sunburnt mirth.’” As a factor in the reform movement begun in the +first decade of the nineteenth century Leigh Hunt has not yet come into +his own.<a name="fna39_39" id="fna39_39"></a><a href="#f39_39" class="fnanc">[39]</a> His was no cosmic theory, nor search after the origin of +evil, nor magnificent rebellion like Shelley’s and Byron’s; but in his own +smaller way he played as courageous and as effective a part in the cause +of liberty as those greater spirits.<a name="fna40_40" id="fna40_40"></a><a href="#f40_40" class="fnanc">[40]</a></p> + +<p>In 1810, the two brothers had established a quarterly, <i>The Reflector</i>, of +much the same nature and creed as <i>The Examiner</i>. It was unsuccessful and +was discontinued after the fourth<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span> number. It differed from its +predecessor in combining literature with politics. Hunt’s reason for this +innovation displays a rare power to judge of contemporary movements: +“Politics, in times like these, should naturally take the lead in +periodical discussion, because they have an importance almost unexampled +in history, and because <i>they are now, in their turn, exhibiting their +reaction upon literature, as literature in the preceding age exhibited its +action upon them</i>.”<a name="fna41_41" id="fna41_41"></a><a href="#f41_41" class="fnanc">[41]</a></p> + +<p>Although Hunt continued to be editor of <i>The Examiner</i> until he went to +Italy in 1822, his aggressive political activity seemed to die out of him +after his release from prison. He was never so prominently again before +the public; in 1828, he ceased altogether to write on political questions. +He retired more and more into the seclusion of his books, and from about +1849, denied himself to all but a small circle of congenial spirits.</p> + +<p>Hunt, like the others of his group, was deeply influenced by the liberal +movement in religion as well as in politics. He had seen his father’s +progress from the Anglican Church through the Unitarian<a name="fna42_42" id="fna42_42"></a><a href="#f42_42" class="fnanc">[42]</a> to the +Universalist. At the age of twelve he repudiated the doctrine of eternal +punishment and declared himself a believer in the “exclusive goodness of +futurity.” In his early manhood he decried the superstition of +Catholicism, the intolerance of Calvinism, and the emotionality of +Methodism. Yet he acknowledged a Great First Cause and a Divine Paternity. +He refused, like Shelley, to recognize the existence of evil, and thought +everything finally good and beautiful in nature.<a name="fna43_43" id="fna43_43"></a><a href="#f43_43" class="fnanc">[43]</a> He believed that +universal happiness would come<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> about through individual excellence, +through performance of duty and avoidance of excess. Those who disagreed +with him in this respect he considered blasphemers of nature. As Lord +Houghton in his address in the cemetery of Kensal Green on the unveiling +of a bust of Hunt remarked, he had an “absolute superstition for good.” +Similar testimony was borne by R. H. Horne when he said that Chaucer’s +“‘Ah, benedicite’ was falling forever from his lips.”<a name="fna44_44" id="fna44_44"></a><a href="#f44_44" class="fnanc">[44]</a> His religion was +one of charity and cheerfulness, of love and truth, which is but to affirm +that the humanitarian moral of <i>Abou Ben Adhem</i> was realized in his own +life.<a name="fna45_45" id="fna45_45"></a><a href="#f45_45" class="fnanc">[45]</a> On the death of Shelley’s child William, Hunt wrote to the +bereaved father: “I do not know that a soul is born with us; but we seem, +to me, to <i>attain</i> to a soul, some later, some earlier; and when we have +got that, there is a look in our eye, a sympathy in our cheerfulness, and +a yearning and grave beauty in our thoughtfulness that seems to say, ‘Our +mortal dress may fall off when it will; our trunk and our leaves may go; +we have shot up our blossom into an immortal air.’”<a name="fna46_46" id="fna46_46"></a><a href="#f46_46" class="fnanc">[46]</a></p> + +<p>Hunt, like Byron and Shelley, had curious ideas about the relation of the +sexes, ideas which Hazlitt said, were “always coming out like a rash.”<a name="fna47_47" id="fna47_47"></a><a href="#f47_47" class="fnanc">[47]</a> +This “crotchet” was taken over likewise from Godwin, who thought it +checked the progress of the mind for one individual to be obliged to live +for a long period in conformity to the desires of another and therefore +disapproved of the marriage relation. But, like Godwin and Shelley, Hunt +bowed to the conventions. His life was a singularly pure one.</p> + +<p>The influence of Hunt’s poetry upon Keats and Shelley, in its general +romantic tendencies, particularly in respect to diction and metre, +deserves equal consideration with the influence of his politics upon +Shelley and Byron. <i>Juvenilia</i>, a volume of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> Hunt’s poems collected by his +father and issued by subscription in 1801 contains original work and +translations which show wide reading for a boy of seventeen and some +fluency in versification. Otherwise the writer’s own opinion in 1850 is +correct: “My work was a heap of imitations, all but absolutely +worthless.... I wrote ‘odes’ because Collins and Gray had written them, +‘pastorals’ because Pope had written them, ‘blank verse’ because Akenside +and Thomson had written blank verse, and a ‘Palace of Pleasure’ because +Spenser had written a ‘Bower of Bliss.’”<a name="fna48_48" id="fna48_48"></a><a href="#f48_48" class="fnanc">[48]</a> Hunt’s chief defect in taste, +that of introducing in the midst of highly poetical conceptions, +disagreeable physical conditions or symptoms, is as conspicuous in this +volume<a name="fna49_49" id="fna49_49"></a><a href="#f49_49" class="fnanc">[49]</a> as in his more mature work.</p> + +<p>The <i>Feast of the Poets</i>, 1814,<a name="fna50_50" id="fna50_50"></a><a href="#f50_50" class="fnanc">[50]</a> is a light satire in the manner of Sir +John Suckling’s <i>Session of the Poets</i>. It spares few poets since the days +of Milton and Dryden, and it includes in its revilings most of Hunt’s +contemporaries. Gifford, the editor of the <i>Quarterly Review</i>, comes in +for the worst castigation. It is not remarkable that the satire +antagonized people on every side in the literary world as <i>The Examiner</i> +had done in the political. Hunt believed that “its offences, both of +commission and of omission, gave rise to some of the most inveterate +enmities” of his life.<a name="fna51_51" id="fna51_51"></a><a href="#f51_51" class="fnanc">[51]</a> It is important in the history to be discussed +in a later chapter of the literary feud which resulted in the creation of +the so-called Cockney School. Later revisions included some poets who had +been intentionally ignored at first in both poems and notes, or who, like +Shelley and Keats, naturally would not have been included in the 1814 +edition; and it softened down the harsh criticism of those who were +unfortunate enough to have been included, except Gifford, whom Hunt could +never forgive. The irony is fresh and there are occasional spicy flashes +of wit. The narrative is clear and the characterization vivid. Byron +pronounced it “the best Session we have.”<a name="fna52_52" id="fna52_52"></a><a href="#f52_52" class="fnanc">[52]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span>The <i>Descent of +Liberty</i>,<a name="fna53_53" id="fna53_53"></a><a href="#f53_53" class="fnanc">[53]</a> 1815, is a masque celebrating the triumph of +Liberty, in the person of the Allies, over the Enchanter, Napoleon. There +is little plot or human interest; the natural, the supernatural, and the +mythical are confusedly interwoven. The pictorial effect, however, is one +of great richness and color, and some of the songs and passages have fine +lyrical feeling and melody. It is interesting in this connection to note a +vague general resemblance between the <i>Descent of Liberty</i> and Shelley’s +<i>Queen Mab</i> (1812-13) in the worship of Liberty, in the hope and promise +of her ultimate triumph, and in the wild imagination which Hunt probably +never again equalled. It is not likely, however, that Hunt knew Shelley’s +poem at the time he was writing his own.</p> + +<p><i>The Story of Rimini</i>, produced in 1816 and dedicated to Lord Byron, is +the most important of Hunt’s works in a consideration of his relations +with the enemies of the Cockney School<a name="fna54_54" id="fna54_54"></a><a href="#f54_54" class="fnanc">[54]</a> and with Byron, Shelley, and +Keats. Byron criticised it severely. Shelley thought it carried uncommon +and irresistible interest with it, but he agreed with Byron in thinking +that the style had fettered Hunt’s genius.<a name="fna55_55" id="fna55_55"></a><a href="#f55_55" class="fnanc">[55]</a> Keats +wrote a sonnet<a name="fna56_56" id="fna56_56"></a><a href="#f56_56" class="fnanc">[56]</a> on +<i>Rimini</i> in 1817, and in his own works shows unmistakably the influence of +Hunt’s poem in diction and versification.</p> + +<p>The story is founded, of course, on the <ins class="correction" title="original: Francesea">Francesca</ins> episode in the fifth +canto of the <i>Inferno</i> of Dante. It was a dangerous<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span> thing for Hunt to +undertake an elaboration of the marvelous episode of Dante. Had he been a +man of greater genius it would have been a risk; as it was, he produced a +diffuse and sentimental narrative which bears little resemblance to the +singular perfection of the original. On the other hand, the <i>Story of +Rimini</i> does possess indubitable merits: directness of narrative, minute +observation, sensuous richness of pictorial description, and occasional +delicate felicity of language.<a name="fna57_57" id="fna57_57"></a><a href="#f57_57" class="fnanc">[57]</a> Byron wrote of the third canto which he +saw in manuscript:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“You have excelled yourself—if not all your contemporaries—in the +canto which I have just finished. I think it above the former books; +but that is as it should be; it rises with the subject, the +conception seems to me perfect, and the execution perhaps as nearly +so as verse will admit. There is more originality than I recollect to +have seen elsewhere within the same compass, and frequent and great +happiness of expression.” The faults he said were “occasional +quaintnesses and obscurity, and a kind of harsh and yet colloquial +compounding of epithets, as if to avoid saying common things in a +common way.”<a name="fna58_58" id="fna58_58"></a><a href="#f58_58" class="fnanc">[58]</a></p></div> + +<p>October 30, 1815, in reply to these objections Hunt sent forth this +defense: “we accomodate ourselves to certain habitual, sophisticated +phrases of <i>written</i> language, and thus take away from real feeling of any +sort the only language <i>it ever actually uses</i>, which is the <i>spoken</i> +language.” At the same time he made a few alterations at Byron’s +suggestion.<a name="fna59_59" id="fna59_59"></a><a href="#f59_59" class="fnanc">[59]</a> And again the latter wrote: “You have two excellent points +in that poem—originality and Italianism.”<a name="fna60_60" id="fna60_60"></a><a href="#f60_60" class="fnanc">[60]</a> After the <i>Story of Rimini</i> +appeared he wrote to Moore: “Leigh Hunt’s poem is a devilish good +one—quaint, here and there, but with the substratum of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span> originality, and +with poetry about it that will stand the test.”<a name="fna61_61" id="fna61_61"></a><a href="#f61_61" class="fnanc">[61]</a> In 1818 Byron’s +opinion had changed somewhat:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“When I saw <i>Rimini</i> in Ms., I told him I deemed it good poetry at +bottom, disfigured only by a strange style. His answer was, that his +style was a system, or <i>upon system</i>, or some other such cant; and +when a man talks of system, his case is hopeless; so I said no more +to him, and very little to anyone else. He believed his trash of +vulgar phrases tortured into compound barbarisms to be <i>old</i> +English<a name="fna62_62" id="fna62_62"></a><a href="#f62_62" class="fnanc">[62]</a> ... Hunt, who had powers to make the <i>Story of Rimini</i> as +perfect as a fable of Dryden, has thought fit to sacrifice his genius +to some unintelligible notion of Wordsworth, which I defy him to +explain.<a name="fna63_63" id="fna63_63"></a><a href="#f63_63" class="fnanc">[63]</a>... A friend of mine calls ‘Rimini’ <i>Nimini Pimini</i>; and +‘Foliage’ <i>Follyage</i>. Perhaps he had a tumble in ‘climbing trees in +the Hesperides’! But Rimini has a great deal of merit. There never +were so many fine things spoiled as in ‘Rimini.’”<a name="fna64_64" id="fna64_64"></a><a href="#f64_64" class="fnanc">[64]</a></p></div> + +<p>Hunt had a distinct theory of language based on a few crude principles. As +his practical application of them had its effect upon Keats, a somewhat +full consideration of them is desirable here. The first and most +conspicuous one, promoted by what Hunt called “an idiomatic spirit in +verse,”<a name="fna65_65" id="fna65_65"></a><a href="#f65_65" class="fnanc">[65]</a> was a +preference for colloquial words.<a name="fna66_66" id="fna66_66"></a><a href="#f66_66" class="fnanc">[66]</a> He mistook for +grace and fluency of diction, a turn of phrase that was without poetic +connection and often in very poor taste. In dialogue, particularly, the +effect is undignified. This professed doctrine was a fuller +development<a name="fna67_67" id="fna67_67"></a><a href="#f67_67" class="fnanc">[67]</a> of the statement +in the Advertisement<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> to the <i>Lyrical +Ballads</i> of 1798: in Hunt’s opinion, Wordsworth failed to consider duly +meter in its essential relations to poetry, and while Hunt himself desired +a “return to nature and a natural style” he thought that Wordsworth had +substituted puerility for simplicity and affectation for nature. Hunt’s +acknowledged model for the poem was Dryden,<a name="fna68_68" id="fna68_68"></a><a href="#f68_68" class="fnanc">[68]</a> but Hunt’s colloquial +phrasing, peculiar diction, elision,<a name="fna69_69" id="fna69_69"></a><a href="#f69_69" class="fnanc">[69]</a> and loose expansion approach much +more closely to Chamberlayne’s <i>Pharronida</i> (1689) than to anything in +Dryden.<a name="fna70_70" id="fna70_70"></a><a href="#f70_70" class="fnanc">[70]</a> The following extract is one of many that might be cited as +suggestive of Hunt’s <i>Story of Rimini</i>:</p> + +<p class="poem"><span style="margin-left: 7em;">“To his cold clammy lips</span><br /> +Joining her balmy twins, she from them sips<br /> +So much of death’s oppressing dews, that, by<br /> +That touch revived, his soul, though winged to fly<br /> +Her ruined seat, takes time to breathe<br /> +These sad notes forth: “farewell, my dear, beneath<br /> +My fainting spirits sink.”<a name="fna71_71" id="fna71_71"></a><a href="#f71_71" class="fnanc">[71]</a></p> + +<p>Occasionally Hunt’s choice of colloquial words fitted the subject, as in +the <i>Feast of the Poets</i>, where humor and satire permit such expressions +as “bards of Old England had all been rung in,” “twiddling a sunbeam,” +“bloated his wits,” “tricksy tenuity” or such words as “smack,” “pop-in” +and “sing-song.” His poetical epistles suffer without injury such +departures from dignified diction, but in other cases, of which the <i>Story +of Rimini</i> is a notable example, a grave subject in the garb of everyday +language is degraded into the incongruous and prosaic. It is in physical +descriptions that this undignified diction most strikingly violates good +taste. Examples are:</p> + +<p class="poem">“And both their cheeks, like peaches on a tree,<br /> +Leaned with a touch together, thrillingly.”<br /> +<br /> +“So lightsomely dropped in, his lordly back,<br /> +His thigh so fitted for the tilt or dance.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span>Sometimes the prosaic quality of Hunt’s diction is due to its being +pitched upon a merely “society” level:</p> + +<p class="poem">“May I come in? said he:—it made her start,—<br /> +That smiling voice;—she coloured, pressed her heart<br /> +A moment, as for breath and then with free<br /> +And usual tone said, ‘O Yes,—certainly.’”</p> + +<p>Such a treatment of the meeting of Paolo and Francesca in the bower is +wholly inadequate to the situation and the emotion of the moment. +Additional illustrations of his colloquialisms from the <i>Story of Rimini</i> +and from other poems of the same period are: “to bless his shabby eyes,” +“that to the stander near looks awfully,” “banquet small, and cheerful, +and considerate,” “clipsome waist,” “jauntiness behind and strength +before” (description of a horse), “lend their streaming tails to the fond +air,” “sweepy shape,” “cored in our complacencies,” “lumps of flowers,” +“smooth, down-arching thigh,” “tapering with tremulous mass internally.”</p> + +<p>Hunt’s second principle to be considered is the excessive use of vague and +passionless words. Instances of such words to be found very frequently in +his poetry are: fond, amiable, fair, rural, cordial, cheerful, gentle, +calm, smooth, serene, earnest, lovely, balmy, dainty, mild, meek, tender, +kind, elegant, quiet, sweet, fresh, pleasant, warm, social, and many +others of like character.</p> + +<p>A third principle was the employment of unusual words; examples are found +in the <i>Story of Rimini</i> in the first edition and in other poems produced +about this same time. In the <i>Poetical Works</i>, 1832, most of them have +been discarded. The preface states that the “occasional quaintnesses and +neologisms” which “formerly disfigured the poems did not arise from +affectation but from the sheer license of animal spirits”; that they are +not worth defending and that he has left only two in the <i>Story of +Rimini</i>, “swirl” and “cored.” “Swaling” had been the most famous one in +the poem because of the ridicule heaped upon it by the enemies of the +Cockney School.</p> + +<p>To use ordinary words in an extraordinary sense was a fourth principle. +The effect was often extremely awkward.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> Core passes as a synonym for +heart; fry occurs in <i>Rimini</i> in a strange sense; hip and tiptoe are +employed with a special Huntian significance. Nouns and adjectives are +used as verbs and verbs as nouns and adjectives with an unpoetical effect: +cored (verb); drag (noun); frets (noun); feel (noun); patting (adjective); +spanning (adjective); lull’d (adjective); smearings; measuring; +doings.<a name="fna72_72" id="fna72_72"></a><a href="#f72_72" class="fnanc">[72]</a></p> + +<p>The use of compounds is a fifth distinguishing feature. Such combinations +are found as bathing-air, house-warm lips, side-long pillowed meekness, +fore-thoughted chess, pin-drop silence, tear-dipped feeling.</p> + +<p>The sixth and last peculiarity is the preference for adjectives in <i>y</i> and +<i>ing</i>, many of them of his own coinage; for adverbs in <i>ly</i>; and for +unauthorized or awkward comparatives: examples are plumpy (cheeks), knify, +perky, sweepy, farmy, bosomy, pillowy, arrowy, liny, leafy, scattery, +winy, globy; hasting, silvering, doling, blubbing, firming, thickening, +quickening, differing, perking; lightsomely, refreshfully, thrillingly, +kneadingly, lumpishly, smilingly, preparingly, crushingly,<a name="fna73_73" id="fna73_73"></a><a href="#f73_73" class="fnanc">[73]</a> finelier, +martialler, tastefuller, apter.</p> + +<p>The colloquial vocabulary, the familiar tone, and the expansion of thought +into phrases and clauses where it would have gained by condensed +expression, give to the <i>Story of Rimini</i> a prosaic and eccentric style. +Yet Hunt declared he held in horror eccentricity and prosiness.<a name="fna74_74" id="fna74_74"></a><a href="#f74_74" class="fnanc">[74]</a></p> + +<p>In a discussion of the influence of Leigh Hunt upon the versification of +his contemporaries and successors it is necessary to consider not only his +theory but also the active part played by him as a conscious reviver of +the older heroic couplet. In this reaction against the school of Pope, as +also in the use of blank verse, he showed great independence in discarding +approved models. The notes added to the <i>Feast of the Poets</i> in 1814, when +it was republished from the <i>Reflector</i> of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> 1812, are important in this +connection. They show a wide familiarity with modern poetry. He writes:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“The late Dr. Darwin, whose notion of poetical music, in common with +that of Goldsmith and others, was of the school of Pope, though his +taste was otherwise different, was perhaps the first, who by carrying +it to the extreme pitch of sameness, and ringing it affectedly in +one’s ears, gave the public at large a suspicion that there was +something wrong in its nature. But of those who saw its deficiencies, +part had the ambition without the taste or attention requisite for +striking into a better path, and became eccentric in another extreme; +while others, who saw the folly of both, were content to keep the +beaten track and set a proper example to neither. By these appeals, +however, the public ear has been excited to expect something better; +and perhaps there was never a more favourable time than the present +for an attempt to bring back the real harmonies of the English +heroic, and to restore it to half the true principle of its music, +variety. I am not here joining the cry of those, who affect to +consider Pope as no poet at all. He is, I confess, in my judgment, at +a good distance from Dryden, and at an immeasurable one from such men +as Spenser and Milton; but if the author of the <i>Rape of the Lock</i>, +of <i>Eloisa to Abelard</i>, and of the <i>Elegy on an Unfortunate Lady</i>, is +no poet, then are fancy and feeling no properties belonging to +poetry. I am only considering his versification; and upon that point +I do not hesitate to say, that I regard him, not only as no master of +his art, but as a very indifferent practiser, and one whose +reputation will grow less and less, in proportion as the lovers of +poetry become intimate with his great predecessors, and with the +principles of musical beauty in general.”<a name="fna75_75" id="fna75_75"></a><a href="#f75_75" class="fnanc">[75]</a></p></div> + +<p>The remarks on Pope close with the hope that the imitation of the best +work of Dryden, Milton and Spenser “might lead the poets of the present +age to that proper mixture of sweetness and strength—of modern finish and +ancient variety—from which Pope and his rhyming facilities have so long +withheld us.”<a name="fna76_76" id="fna76_76"></a><a href="#f76_76" class="fnanc">[76]</a> Hunt closes with an appeal for the return to Italian +models, and says that Hayley, in his <i>Triumphs of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> Temper</i> was “the +quickest of our late writers to point out the great superiority of the +Italian school over the French.” He protests against the wide influence of +Boileau.<a name="fna77_77" id="fna77_77"></a><a href="#f77_77" class="fnanc">[77]</a></p> + +<p>The Introduction to the <i>Poetical Works</i> of 1832 contains a concise and +technical statement of Hunt’s theory of the heroic couplet. He argues that +the triplet tends to condensation, three lines instead of four; that it +carries onward the fervor of the poet’s feeling, delivering him from the +ordinary laws of his verse, and that it expresses continuity. Of the +bracket he says: “I confess I like the very bracket that marks out the +triplet to the reader’s eye, and prepares him for the music of it. It has +a look like the bridge of a lute.”<a name="fna78_78" id="fna78_78"></a><a href="#f78_78" class="fnanc">[78]</a> The use of the Alexandrine in the +heroic couplet, he avers, gives variety and energy. Double rhymes are +defended on historical grounds. For himself he claims credit as a +restorer, not an innovator, and prophesies that the perfection of the +heroic couplet is “to come about by a blending between the inharmonious +freedom of our old poets in general ... and the regularity of Dryden +himself.... If anyone could unite the vigor of Dryden with the ready and +easy variety of pause in the works of the late Mr. Crabbe, and the lovely +poetic consciousness in the <i>Lamia</i> of Keats ... he would be a perfect +master of the rhyming couplet.” A study of the heroic couplet from Dryden +to Shelley based on two hundred lines from each poet has yielded the +results indicated in the table on the following page.</p> + +<p>Professor Saintsbury says: “There is no doubt that his [Hunt’s] +versification in <i>Rimini</i> (which may be described as Chaucerian in basis +with a strong admixture of Dryden, further crossed and dashed slightly +with the peculiar music of the followers of Spenser, especially Browne and +Wither) had a very strong influence both on Keats and on Shelley, and that +it drew from them music much better than itself. This fluent, musical, +many-colored-verse was a capital medium for tale telling.”<a name="fna79_79" id="fna79_79"></a><a href="#f79_79" class="fnanc">[79]</a> Professor +Herford marks it as the “starting point of that free or Chaucerian +treatment of the heroic couplet and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> of the colloquial style, eschewing +epigram and full of familiar turns, which Shelley in <i>Julian and Maddalo</i>, +and Keats in <i>Lamia</i>, made classical.”<a name="fna82_82" id="fna82_82"></a><a href="#f82_82" class="fnanc">[82]</a> Mr. R. B. Johnson calls it “a +protest against the polished couplet of Pope—a protest already expressed +to some extent in the <i>Lyrical Ballads</i>, but through Hunt’s influence, +guiding the pens of Keats, Shelley and some of his noblest successors.”<a name="fna83_83" id="fna83_83"></a><a href="#f83_83" class="fnanc">[83]</a> +Mr. A. J. Kent says that “No one-sided sentiment of reaction against our +so-called Augustan literature disqualified Leigh Hunt from becoming, as he +afterwards became, the greatest master since the days of Dryden of the +heroic couplet.”<a name="fna84_84" id="fna84_84"></a><a href="#f84_84" class="fnanc">[84]</a> Leigh Hunt’s greatest mistake in the handling of the +couplet has been clearly pointed out by Mr. Colvin, who says that he +“blended the grave and the colloquial cadences of Dryden, without his +characteristic nerve and energy in either.”<a name="fna85_85" id="fna85_85"></a><a href="#f85_85" class="fnanc">[85]</a> The late Dr. Garnett said +that the ease and variety of Dryden was restored by Hunt to English +literature.<a name="fna86_86" id="fna86_86"></a><a href="#f86_86" class="fnanc">[86]</a> Monkhouse pointed out that Keats and Shelley, more than +Hunt, reaped the rewards of his revivification of the heroic couplet. The +diffuseness of the diction of the <i>Story of Rimini</i> results in a movement +weaker than Dryden’s and less buoyant than Chaucer’s. Yet the verse is +distinguished by a fluency and grace and melody that at times are very +pleasing. It had a notable influence on English verse—an influence begun +by others but strongly reinforced by Hunt. Further treatment of the +influence of Hunt’s diction and versification upon Keats and Shelley is +reserved for chapters II and III of the present study.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span></p> +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" summary="table"> +<tr><td class="btr"> </td> + <td class="btr" align="center">Dryden,<br /><i>Absalom & Achitophel</i>,<br />1682.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">Wm. Chamberlayne,<br /><i>Pharronida</i>,<br />1689.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">Alexander Pope,<br /><i>Dunciad</i>,<br />1727.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">Leigh Hunt,<a name="fna80_80" id="fna80_80"></a><a href="#f80_80" class="fnanc">[80]</a><br /><i>Story of Rimini</i>,<br />1816.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">John Keats,<br /><i>I stood tiptoe</i>,<br />1817.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">Keats,<br /><i>Sleep and Poetry</i>,<br />1817.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">Keats,<br /><i>Endymion</i>,<br />1818.</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">Keats,<a name="fna81_81" id="fna81_81"></a><a href="#f81_81" class="fnanc">[81]</a><br /><i>Lamia</i>,<br />1820.</td> + <td class="bt" align="center">Shelley,<br /><i>Julian & Maddalo</i>,<br />1819.</td></tr> +<tr><td class="btr">Run-on Couplets</td> + <td class="btr" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">4</span></td> + <td class="btr" align="center">61</td> + <td class="btr" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">1</span></td> + <td class="btr" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">3</span></td> + <td class="btr" align="center">23</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">47</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">54</td> + <td class="btr" align="center">20</td> + <td class="bt" align="center">45</td></tr> +<tr><td class="br">Run-on Lines</td> + <td class="br" align="center">16</td> + <td class="br" align="center">71</td> + <td class="br" align="center">12</td> + <td class="br" align="center">26</td> + <td class="br" align="center">41</td> + <td class="br" align="center">48</td> + <td class="br" align="center">44</td> + <td class="br" align="center">35</td> + <td class="dent" align="center">52</td></tr> +<tr><td class="br">Triplets</td> + <td class="br" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">3</span></td> + <td class="br" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">0</span></td> + <td class="br" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">0</span></td> + <td class="br" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">2</span></td> + <td class="br" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">0</span></td> + <td class="br" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">0</span></td> + <td class="br" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">0</span></td> + <td class="br" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">5</span></td> + <td class="dent" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">4</span></td></tr> +<tr><td class="bbr">Alexandrines</td> + <td class="bbr" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">3</span></td> + <td class="bbr" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">0</span></td> + <td class="bbr" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">1</span></td> + <td class="bbr" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">2</span></td> + <td class="bbr" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">0</span></td> + <td class="bbr" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">0</span></td> + <td class="bbr" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">3</span></td> + <td class="bbr" align="center">12</td> + <td class="bb" align="center"><span style="margin-left: .5em;">0</span></td></tr></table> + +<p>Hunt’s next poetical work after <i>Rimini</i> was <i>Foliage</i>, published in 1818. +It is a collection of original poems under the title <i>Greenwoods</i>, and of +translations under the title <i>Evergreens</i>.<a name="fna87_87" id="fna87_87"></a><a href="#f87_87" class="fnanc">[87]</a> In the preface Hunt +announces the main features to be a love of sociability, of the country, +and of the “fine imagination of the Greeks.”<a name="fna88_88" id="fna88_88"></a><a href="#f88_88" class="fnanc">[88]</a> The first predilection +runs the gamut from “sociability” to “domestic interest” and is the most +fundamental characteristic of the author and of his writing. In the +preface to <i>One Hundred Romances of Real Life</i> he declares sociability to +be “the greatest of all interests.” It rarely failed to crop out when he +was writing even on the gravest and most impersonal of subjects. In his +intercourse with strangers, this same “sociability,” added to a natural +kindliness and sympathy, caused a familiarity of bearing that was often +misunderstood. The <i>Nymphs</i>, the longest poem of the volume, is founded on +Greek mythology and is interesting in connection with Keats’s poems on +classical subjects. Shelley said that the <i>Nymphs</i> was “truly <i>poetical</i>, +in the intense and emphatic sense of the word. If 600 miles were not +between us, I should say what pity that <i>glib</i> was not omitted, and that +the poem is not so faultless as it is beautiful.”<a name="fna89_89" id="fna89_89"></a><a href="#f89_89" class="fnanc">[89]</a> In general Shelley +overestimated Hunt’s poetry, though he saw some of its affectations. +Shorter pieces were epistles to Byron, Moore, Hazlitt and Lamb—a kind of +verse in which Hunt excelled, for his attitude and style<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span> were peculiarly +adapted to the familiar tone permissible in such writing. Among Hunt’s +best poems may be counted the sonnets to Shelley, Keats, Haydon, Raphael, +and Kosciusko; those entitled the <i>Grasshopper and the Cricket</i>, <i>To the +Nile</i>, <i>On a Lock of Milton’s Hair</i>, and the series on Hampstead. The +suburban charms of Hampstead were very dear to Hunt and he never tired of +celebrating them in poetry and in prose. No amount of derision from the +<i>Quarterly</i> or <i>Blackwood’s</i> stopped him. The general characteristics of +<i>Foliage</i> are much the same as those of the <i>Story of Rimini</i>. There are +poor lines and good ones, never sustained power, and no poetry of a very +high order. The subjects themselves are often unpoetical. Hunt obtrudes +himself too frequently in a breezy, offhand manner. Byron’s opinion of the +book was scathing:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Of all the ineffable Centaurs that were ever begotten by self-love +upon a Nightmare, I think ‘this monstrous Sagittary’ the most +prodigious. <i>He</i> (Leigh H.) is an honest charlatan, who has persuaded +himself into a belief of his own impostures, and talks Punch in pure +simplicity of heart, taking himself (as poor Fitzgerald said of +<i>him</i>self in the <i>Morning Post</i>) for Vates in both senses and +nonsenses of the word. Did you [Moore] look at the translations of +his own which he prefers to Pope and Cowper, and says so?—Did you +read his skimble-skamble about Wordsworth being at the head of his +own <i>profession</i>, in the <i>eyes</i> of <i>those</i> who followed it? I thought +that poetry was an <i>art</i>, or an <i>attribute</i>, and not a <i>profession</i>; +but be it one, is that ... at the head of <i>your</i> profession in your +eyes?”<a name="fna90_90" id="fna90_90"></a><a href="#f90_90" class="fnanc">[90]</a></p></div> + +<p>Other poems belonging to this period are <i>Hero and Leander</i> and <i>Bacchus +and Ariadne</i> in 1819, and a translation of Tasso’s <i>Aminta</i> in 1820. The +first two show Hunt’s faculty for poetical narrative and description, and, +in common with Keats, a partiality for classical subjects. The three are +in no way radically different from the poems already considered.</p> + +<p>The <i>Literary Pocket Book</i> which Hunt edited in 1820, 1821 and 1822, the +<i>New Monthly Magazine</i> to which he began contributing in 1821, and the +<i>Literary Examiner</i>, which he established in 1823, complete the +enumeration of his writings during the period of his association with +Byron, Shelley and Keats. Beyond the contributions of Shelley and Keats to +the first and the reviews of Byron’s poems in the third, they are +unimportant here.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_II" id="CHAPTER_II"></a>CHAPTER II</h2> + +<p class="note">Keats’s meeting with Hunt—Growth of their friendship—Haydon’s +intervention—Keats’s residence with Hunt—His departure for Italy—Hunt’s +Criticism of Keats’s poetry—His influence on the <i>Poems of 1817</i>.</p> + + +<p>It was about the year 1815 that Keats showed to his former school friend, +Charles Cowden Clarke, the following sonnet, the first indication the +latter had that Keats had written poetry:</p> + +<p class="poem">“What though, for showing truth to flatter’d state,<br /> +Kind Hunt was shut in prison, yet has he,<br /> +In his immortal spirit been as free<br /> +As the sky-searching lark, and as elate.<br /> +Minion of grandeur! think you he did wait?<br /> +Think you he nought but prison walls did see,<br /> +Till, so unwilling thou unturn’dst the key?<br /> +Ah, no! far happier, nobler was his fate!<br /> +In Spenser’s halls he stray’d, and bowers fair,<br /> +Culling enchanted flowers; and he flew<br /> +With daring Milton through the fields of air:<br /> +To regions of his own his genius true<br /> +Took happy flights. Who shall his fame impair<br /> +When thou art dead, and all thy wretched crew?”</p> + +<p>This admiration, expressed before Keats had met Hunt, was due to the +influence of the Clarke family and to Keats’s acquaintance with <i>The +Examiner</i>, which he saw regularly during his school days at Enfield and +which he continued to borrow from Clarke during his medical +apprenticeship. Clarke later showed to Leigh Hunt two or three of Keats’s +poems. Of the reception of one of them (<i>How Many Bards Gild the Lapses of +Time</i>) Clarke said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“I could not but anticipate that Hunt would speak encouragingly, and +indeed approvingly, of the compositions—written, too, by a youth +under age; but my partial spirit was not prepared for the +unhesitating and prompt admiration which broke forth before he had +read twenty lines of the first poem.”<a name="fna91_91" id="fna91_91"></a><a href="#f91_91" class="fnanc">[91]</a></p></div> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span>Hunt invited Keats to visit him. Of this first meeting between the two +men, Clarke wrote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“That was a red letter day in the young poet’s life, and one which +will never fade with me while memory lasts. The character and +expression of Keats’s features would arrest even the casual passenger +in the street; and now they were wrought to a tone of animation that +I could not but watch with interest, knowing what was in store for +him from the bland encouragement, and Spartan deference in attention, +with fascinating conversational eloquence, that he was to encounter +and receive.... The interview, which stretched into three ‘morning +calls’, was the prelude to many after-scenes and saunterings about +Caen Wood and its neighborhood; for Keats was suddenly made a +familiar of the household, and was always welcomed.”<a name="fna92_92" id="fna92_92"></a><a href="#f92_92" class="fnanc">[92]</a></p></div> + +<p>Hunt’s account of the meeting is as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“I shall never forget the impression made upon me by the exuberant +specimens of genuine though young poetry that were laid before me, +and the promise of which was seconded by the fine fervid countenance +of the writer. We became intimate on the spot, and I found the young +poet’s heart as warm as his imagination. We read and we walked +together, and used to write verse of an evening upon a given subject. +No imaginative pleasure was left untouched by us, or unenjoyed; from +the recollections of the bards and patriots of old, to the luxury of +a summer rain at our window, or the clicking of the coal in the +winter-time. Not long afterwards, having the pleasure of entertaining +at dinner Mr. Godwin, Mr. Hazlitt, and Mr. Basil Montagu, I showed +the verses of my young friend, and they were pronounced to be as +extraordinary as I thought them.”<a name="fna93_93" id="fna93_93"></a><a href="#f93_93" class="fnanc">[93]</a></p></div> + +<p>Leigh Hunt discovered Keats, by no means a small thing, for as he himself +has said: “To admire and comment upon the genius that two or three hundred +years have applauded, and to discover what will partake of applause two or +three hundred years hence, are processes of a very different +description.”<a name="fna94_94" id="fna94_94"></a><a href="#f94_94" class="fnanc">[94]</a> With the same power of prophetic discernment, writing in +1828, he realized to the full the greatness of Keats and predicted that +growth of his fame in the future which has since taken place.<a name="fna95_95" id="fna95_95"></a><a href="#f95_95" class="fnanc">[95]</a> Keats’s +account of his reception is given in the sonnet <i>Keen fitful gusts are +whisp’ring here and there</i>:</p> + +<p class="poem"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> +“For I am brimfull of the friendliness<br /> +That in a little cottage I have found;<br /> +Of fair hair’d Milton’s eloquent distress,<br /> +And all his love for gentle Lycid drown’d;<br /> +Of lovely Laura in her light green dress,<br /> +And faithful Petrarch gloriously crowned.”</p> + +<p>The date of the introduction of Keats to Hunt has been placed variously +from November, 1815, to the end of the year 1816. He says:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“It was not at Hampstead that I first saw Keats. It was in York +Buildings, in the New Road (No. 8), where I wrote part of the +<i>Indicator</i>—and he resided with me while in Mortimer Terrace, +Kentish Town (No. 13), where I concluded it. I mention this for the +curious in such things, among whom I am one.”<a name="fna96_96" id="fna96_96"></a><a href="#f96_96" class="fnanc">[96]</a></p></div> + +<p>If this statement were correct, it would make the meeting about two or +three years later than has generally been supposed, for Leigh Hunt did not +move to York Buildings until 1818, and he did not begin work on the +<i>Indicator</i> until October, 1819. Clarke states positively that the meeting +took place at Hampstead. From this evidence Mr. Colvin has suggested the +early spring of 1816 as the most probable date.<a name="fna97_97" id="fna97_97"></a><a href="#f97_97" class="fnanc">[97]</a> What seems better +evidence than any that has yet been brought forward is a passage in <i>The +Examiner</i> of June 1, 1817, in Hunt’s review of Keats’s <i>Poems</i> of 1817, +where he says that the poet is a personal friend whom he announced to the +public a short time ago (this allusion can only be to an article in <i>The +Examiner</i> of December 1, 1816) and that the friendship dates from “no +greater distance of time than the announcement above mentioned. We had +published one of his sonnets in our paper,<a name="fna98_98" id="fna98_98"></a><a href="#f98_98" class="fnanc">[98]</a> without knowing more of him +than of any other anonymous correspondent; but at the period in question a +friend brought us one morning some copies in verse, which he said were +from the pen of a youth.... We had not read more than a dozen lines when +we recognized a young poet indeed.” This seems<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> conclusive evidence that +the meeting did not take place until the winter of 1816, for Hunt’s +testimony written in 1817, when the circumstance was fresh in his mind is +certainly more trustworthy than his impression of it at the time that he +revised his <i>Autobiography</i> in 1859 at the age of seventy-five years.</p> + +<p>The two men, before they came in contact, had much in common, and Hunt’s +influence, while in some cases an inspiring force, more often fostered +instincts already existing in Keats. Both possessed by nature a deep love +of poetry, color and melody, and both “were given to ‘luxuriating’ +somewhat voluptuously over the ‘deliciousness’ of the beautiful in art, +books or nature.”<a name="fna99_99" id="fna99_99"></a><a href="#f99_99" class="fnanc">[99]</a> At the very beginning of their acquaintance, +notwithstanding a disparity in age of eleven years, they were wonderfully +drawn to each other. Spenser was their favorite poet. Both had a great +love for Chaucer, for Oriental fable and for Chivalric romance, and an +unusual knowledge of Greek myth. But even at the height of their intimacy, +the friendship seems to have remained more intellectual than personal, a +fact due no doubt to Keats’s reserve and Hunt’s “incuriousness.”<a name="fna100_100" id="fna100_100"></a><a href="#f100_100" class="fnanc">[100]</a> +Except for this drawback Hunt considered the friendship ideal. He says: +“Mr. Keats and I were old friends of the old stamp, between whom there was +no such thing as obligation, except the pleasure of it. He enjoyed the +privilege of greatness with all whom he knew, rendering it delightful to +be obliged by him, and an equal, but not a greater delight, to oblige. It +was a pleasure to his friends to have him in their houses, and he did not +grude it.”<a name="fna101_101" id="fna101_101"></a><a href="#f101_101" class="fnanc">[101]</a></p> + +<p>Through Hunt, Keats was introduced to a circle of literary men whose +companionship was an important factor in his development, notably Haydon, +Godwin, Hazlitt, Shelley, Vincent Novello, Horace Smith, Cornelius Webbe, +Basil Montagu, the Olliers, Barry Cornwall, and later Wordsworth.</p> + +<p>For about a year following the meeting of the two, Hunt undoubtedly +exerted the strongest influence of any living man over the young poet. +Severn said that Keats’s introduction to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> Hunt wrought a great change in +him and “intoxicated him with an excess of enthusiasm which kept by him +four or five years.”<a name="fna102_102" id="fna102_102"></a><a href="#f102_102" class="fnanc">[102]</a> Mr. Forman says that “Charles Cowden Clarke, as +his early mentor, Leigh Hunt and Haydon as his most powerful encouragers +at the important epoch of adolescence, must be credited with much of the +active influence that took Keats out of the path to a medical +practitioner’s life, and set his feet in the devious paths of +literature.”<a name="fna103_103" id="fna103_103"></a><a href="#f103_103" class="fnanc">[103]</a> Keats’s interest in his profession had decreased as his +knowledge and love of poetry grew. With the publication of his <i>Poems</i> in +1817, and his retirement in April of that year from London to the Isle of +Wight “to be alone and improve” himself and to continue <i>Endymion</i>, his +decision was finally made in favor of a literary life. Hunt’s aid at this +time took the practical form of publishing Keats’s poems in <i>The Examiner</i> +and of drawing the attention of the public to them by comments and +reviews. Whether he ever paid Keats for any of his contributions to his +periodicals is not known.<a name="fna104_104" id="fna104_104"></a><a href="#f104_104" class="fnanc">[104]</a> Through the influence of Hunt the Ollier +brothers were induced to undertake the publication of Keats’s first volume +of poems. It is dedicated to Leigh Hunt in the sonnet <i>Glory and +loveliness have passed away</i>. The sestet refers directly to him:</p> + +<p class="poem">“But there are left delights as high as these,<br /> +And I shall ever bless my destiny,<br /> +That in a time, when under pleasant trees<br /> +Pan is no longer sought, I feel a free<br /> +A leafy luxury, seeing I could please<br /> +With these poor offerings, a man like thee.”<a name="fna105_105" id="fna105_105"></a><a href="#f105_105" class="fnanc">[105]</a></p> + +<p>Hunt replied in the sonnet <i>To John Keats</i>, quoted here in full because of +its inacessibility:</p> + +<p class="poem">“’Tis well you think me truly one of those,<br /> +Whose sense discerns the loveliness of things;<br /> +For surely as I feel the bird that sings<br /> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span>Behind the leaves, or dawn as it up grows,<br /> +Or the rich bee rejoicing as he goes,<br /> +Or the glad issue of emerging springs,<br /> +Or overhead the glide of a dove’s wings,<br /> +Or turf, or trees, or midst of all, repose.<br /> +And surely as I feel things lovelier still,<br /> +The human look, and the harmonious form<br /> +Containing woman, and the smile in ill,<br /> +And such a heart as Charles’s wise and warm,—<br /> +As surely as all this, I see ev’n now,<br /> +Young Keats, a flowering laurel on your brow.”<a name="fna106_106" id="fna106_106"></a><a href="#f106_106" class="fnanc">[106]</a></p> + +<p>In 1820, Hunt dedicated his translation of Tasso’s <i>Aminta</i> to Keats.</p> + +<p>In spite of a eulogistic article by Hunt running in <i>The Examiners</i> of +June 1, July 6 and 13, 1817, and other notices in some of the provincial +papers, the <i>Poems</i> sold not very well at first, and later, not at +all.<a name="fna107_107" id="fna107_107"></a><a href="#f107_107" class="fnanc">[107]</a> Praise from the editor of <i>The Examiner</i>, although offered with +the kindest intentions in the world, was about the worst thing that could +possibly have happened to Keats, for, politically and poetically, Leigh +Hunt was most unpopular at this time;<a name="fna108_108" id="fna108_108"></a><a href="#f108_108" class="fnanc">[108]</a> and it was noised abroad that +Keats too was a radical in politics and in religion, a disciple of the +apostate in his attack on the established and accepted creed of poetry. As +a matter of fact, Keats’s interest in politics decreased as his knowledge +of poetry increased, although, “as a party-badge and sign of +ultra-liberalism,” he, like Hunt, Byron and Shelley continued to wear the +soft turn-down collars in contrast to the stiff collars and enormous +cravats of the time.<a name="fna109_109" id="fna109_109"></a><a href="#f109_109" class="fnanc">[109]</a> In religion Keats vented his dislike of sect and +creed on the Kirk of Scotland, as Hunt had on the Methodists. His +“simply-sensuous Beauty-worship” Palgrave attributes to the “moral laxity” +of Hunt.<a name="fna110_110" id="fna110_110"></a><a href="#f110_110" class="fnanc">[110]</a> Unless Palgrave, like Haydon, refers to Hunt’s unorthodoxy +in matters of church and state, it is difficult to understand on what +evidence<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> he bases this statement; in the first place, a charge of moral +laxity is not borne out by the recorded facts of Hunt’s life, but only by +such untrustworthy tradition as still lingers in the public mind from the +Cockney School articles of <i>Blackwood’s</i> and the <i>Quarterly</i>. Carlyle said +that he was of “most exemplary private deportment.”<a name="fna111_111" id="fna111_111"></a><a href="#f111_111" class="fnanc">[111]</a> Byron, Shelley +and Lamb testified to his virtuous life. In the second place, a close +comparison of the works of the two now leads one to conclude that +“simply-sensuous Beauty-worship” existed to a much higher degree in Keats +than in Hunt, and that so strong an innate tendency would have developed +without outward stimulus from any one. While both men sought the good and +worshipped the beautiful, Keats, unlike Hunt, recognized somewhat “the +burthen and the mystery” of human life.</p> + +<p>Keats, during his stay in the Isle of Wight and a visit to Oxford with +Bailey in the spring and summer of 1817, worked on <i>Endymion</i>, finishing +it in the fall. The letters exchanged between him and Hunt during his +absence were friendly, but a feeling of coolness began before his return. +In a letter from Margate May 10, 1817, there is a curiously obscure +reference to the <i>Nymphs</i>:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“How have you got on among them? How are the <i>Nymphs</i>? I suppose they +have led you a fine dance. Where are you now?—in Judea, Cappadocia, +or the parts of Lybia about Cyrene? Stranger from ‘Heaven, Hues, and +Prototypes’ I wager you have given several new turns to the old +saying, ‘Now the maid was fair and pleasant to look on,’ as well as +made a little variation in ‘Once upon a time.’ Perhaps, too, you have +rather varied, ‘Here endeth the first lesson.’ Thus I hope you have +made a horseshoe business of ‘unsuperfluous life,’ ‘faint bowers’ and +fibrous roots.”<a name="fna112_112" id="fna112_112"></a><a href="#f112_112" class="fnanc">[112]</a></p></div> + +<p>A letter written by Haydon to Keats, dated May 11, 1817, warned Keats +against Hunt, and, with others of its kind, was possibly the insidious +beginning of the coolness which followed: “Beware, for God’s sake of the +delusions and sophistications that are ripping up the talents and morality +of our friend! He will go out of the world the victim of his own weakness +and the dupe of his own self-delusions, with the contempt of his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> enemies +and the sorrow of his friends, and the cause he undertook to support +injured by his own neglect of character.”<a name="fna113_113" id="fna113_113"></a><a href="#f113_113" class="fnanc">[113]</a> +A<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span> letter in reply from +Keats, written the day after he wrote the passage about the <i>Nymphs</i>, +accounts for its dissembling tone:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“I wrote to Hunt yesterday—scarcely know what I said in it. I could +not talk about Poetry in the way I should have liked for I was not in +humour with either his or mine. His self delusions are very +lamentable—they have inticed him into a Situation which I should be +less eager after than that of a galley Slave,—what you observe +thereon is very true must be in time [sic].</p> + +<p>Perhaps it is a self delusion to say so—but I think I could not be +deceived in the manner that Hunt is—may I die to-morrow if I am to +be. There is no greater Sin after the seven deadly than to flatter +oneself into the idea of being a great Poet....”<a name="fna114_114" id="fna114_114"></a><a href="#f114_114" class="fnanc">[114]</a></p></div> + +<p>To judge from the testimony of his brother George it is not surprising +that Keats succumbed to Haydon’s influence against Hunt: “his nervous, +morbid temperament led him to misconstrue the motives of his best +friends.”<a name="fna115_115" id="fna115_115"></a><a href="#f115_115" class="fnanc">[115]</a> In the last days of his life, his suspicion and bitterness +were general. In a letter to Bailey, June, 1818, Keats says: “I have +suspected everybody.”<a name="fna116_116" id="fna116_116"></a><a href="#f116_116" class="fnanc">[116]</a> January, 1820, he wrote Georgiana Keats, “Upon +the whole I dislike mankind.”<a name="fna117_117" id="fna117_117"></a><a href="#f117_117" class="fnanc">[117]</a> Haydon may have sincerely believed +Hunt’s influence to be injurious because of the latter’s unorthodoxy in +matters of religion. He wrote that Keats “could not bring his mind to bear +on one object, and was at the mercy of every petty theory that Leigh +Hunt’s ingenuity would suggest.... He had a tendency to religion when I +first knew him, but Leigh Hunt soon forced it from his mind.... Leigh Hunt +was the unhinger of his best dispositions. Latterly, Keats saw Leigh +Hunt’s weaknesses. I distrusted his leader, but Keats would not cease to +visit him, because he thought Hunt ill-used. This<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> shows Keats’s goodness +of heart.”<a name="fna118_118" id="fna118_118"></a><a href="#f118_118" class="fnanc">[118]</a> It is not to be regretted that Haydon lessened Keats’s +estimate of Hunt’s literary infallibility, for his influence was most +injurious in that direction; but it is to be regretted that he impugned a +friendship in which Hunt was certainly sincere and by which Keats had +benefited.</p> + +<p>In September, just before Keats’s return, he seems somewhat mollified and +writes to John Hamilton Reynolds of Leigh Hunt’s pleasant companionship; +he has failings, “but then his make-ups are very good.”<a name="fna119_119" id="fna119_119"></a><a href="#f119_119" class="fnanc">[119]</a></p> + +<p>On his return to Hampstead in October, 1817, Keats found affairs among the +circle in a very bad way.<a name="fna120_120" id="fna120_120"></a><a href="#f120_120" class="fnanc">[120]</a></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Everybody “seems at Loggerheads—There’s Hunt infatuated—there’s +Haydon’s picture in statu quo—There’s Hunt walks up and down his +painting room—criticising every head most unmercifully. There’s +Horace Smith tired of Hunt. ‘The web of our life is of mingled +yarn.’... I am quite disgusted with literary men and will never know +another except Wordsworth—no not even Byron. Here is an instance of +the friendship of such. Haydon and Hunt have known each other many +years.... Haydon says to me, Keats, don’t show your lines to Hunt on +any Account or he will have done half for you—so it appears Hunt +wishes it to be thought. When he met Reynolds in the Theatre, John +told him that I was getting on to the completion of 4,000 lines—Ah! +says Hunt, had it not been for me they would have been 7,000! If he +will say this to Reynolds, what would he to other people? Haydon +received a Letter a little while back on this subject from some +Lady—which contains a caution to me, thro’ him, on the subject—now +is not all this a most paultry (sic) thing to think about?”<a name="fna121_121" id="fna121_121"></a><a href="#f121_121" class="fnanc">[121]</a></p></div> + +<p>Hunt had tried to persuade Keats not to write a long poem. Keats wrote of +this: “Hunt’s dissuasion was of no avail<a name="fna122_122" id="fna122_122"></a><a href="#f122_122" class="fnanc">[122]</a>—I refused to visit Shelley +that I might have my own unfettered scope; and after all, I shall have the +reputation of Hunt’s élève. His corrections and amputations will by the +knowing ones be traced in the poem.”<a name="fna123_123" id="fna123_123"></a><a href="#f123_123" class="fnanc">[123]</a></p> + +<p>During 1818, Leigh Hunt in his critical work remained silent concerning +Keats, probably because of his sincere disapproval of <i>Endymion</i> and +secondly, because he realized that his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> praise would be injurious. The +attacks on Hunt in <i>Blackwood’s</i> and the <i>Quarterly</i> had foreshadowed an +attack of the same virulent kind on Keats. The realization came with the +publication of <i>Endymion</i>. The article on “Johnny Keats,” fourth of the +series on the Cockney School in <i>Blackwood’s Magazine</i>, appeared almost +simultaneously with his return from Scotland, and the one in the +<i>Quarterly</i> in September of the same year. These will be discussed in a +later chapter. Suspicions of neglect on the part of Hunt murmured in +Keats’s mind like a discordant undertone, although the friendship +continued as warm as ever on Hunt’s part. Keats was passive, without, +however, the old sense of dependence and trust. December 28, 1817, he +writes to his brothers of the “drivelling egotism” of <i>The Examiner</i> +article on the obsoletion of Christmas gambols and pastimes.<a name="fna124_124" id="fna124_124"></a><a href="#f124_124" class="fnanc">[124]</a> In a +journal letter written to George Keats and his wife in Louisville during +December and January, 1819, the old liking has become almost repugnance: +“Hunt keeps on in his old way—I am completely tired of it all. He has +lately published a Pocket Book called the literary Pocket-Book—full of +the most sickening stuff you can imagine”;<a name="fna125_125" id="fna125_125"></a><a href="#f125_125" class="fnanc">[125]</a> yet Keats suffered himself +to become a contributor to this same book with two sonnets, <i>The Human +Seasons</i> and <i>To Ailsa Rock</i>. Again in the same letter:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“The night we went to Novello’s there was a complete set-to of Mozart +and punning. I was so completely tired of it that if I were to follow +my own inclinations I should never meet any of that set again, not +even Hunt who is certainly a pleasant fellow in the main when you are +with him, but in reality he is vain, egotistical, and disgusting in +matters of taste and morals. He understands many a beautiful thing; +but then, instead of giving other minds credit for the same degree of +perception as he himself possesses,—he begins an explanation in such +a curious manner that our taste and self-love is offended +continually. Hunt does one harm by making fine things petty and +beautiful things hateful. Through him I am indifferent to Mozart, I +care not for white Busts—and many a glorious thing when associated +with him becomes a nothing.”<a name="fna126_126" id="fna126_126"></a><a href="#f126_126" class="fnanc">[126]</a></p></div> + +<p>Continuing in the same strain:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“I will have no more Wordsworth or Hunt in particular. Why should we +be of the tribe of Manasseh when we can wander with Esau? Why should<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> +we kick against the Pricks, when we can walk on Roses?... I don’t +mean to deny Wordsworth’s grandeur and Hunt’s merit, but I mean to +say that we need not to be teazed with grandeur and merit, when we +can have them uncontaminated and unobtrusive. Let us have the old +Poets and Robin Hood.”<a name="fna127_127" id="fna127_127"></a><a href="#f127_127" class="fnanc">[127]</a></p></div> + +<p>And again:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Hunt has damned Hampstead and masks and sonnets and Italian tales. +Wordsworth has damned the lakes—Milman has damned the old +drama—West has damned wholesale. Peacock has damned satire—Ollier +has damned Music—Hazlitt has damned the bigoted and the +blue-stockinged; how durst the Man?!”<a name="fna128_128" id="fna128_128"></a><a href="#f128_128" class="fnanc">[128]</a></p></div> + +<p>A parody on the conversation of Hunt’s set, in which he is the principal +actor, carries with it a ridicule that is unkinder than the bitterness of +dislike, and difficult to reconcile with the fact that Keats at the same +time preserved the semblance of friendship.<a name="fna129_129" id="fna129_129"></a><a href="#f129_129" class="fnanc">[129]</a></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Scene, a little Parlour—Enter Hunt—Gattie—Hazlitt—Mrs. +Novello—Ollier. <i>Gattie</i>:—Ha! Hunt got into your new house? Ha! +Mrs. Novello: seen Altam and his wife? <i>Mrs. N.</i>: Yes (with a grin) +it’s Mr. Hunt’s isn’t it? <i>Gattie</i>: Hunt’s? no, ha! Mr. Ollier, I +congratulate you upon the highest compliment I ever heard paid to the +Book. Mr. Hazlitt, I hope you are well. <i>Hazlitt</i>:—Yes Sir, no +Sir—<i>Mr. Hunt</i> (at the Music) ‘La Biondina’ etc. Hazlitt, did you +ever hear this?—“La Biondina” &c. <i>Hazlitt</i>: O no Sir—I +never—<i>Ollier</i>:—Do Hunt give it us over +again—divine—<i>Gattie</i>:—divino—Hunt when does your Pocket-Book +come out—<i>Hunt</i>:—‘What is this absorbs me quite?’ O we are spinning +on a little, we shall floridize soon I hope. Such a thing was very +much wanting—people think of nothing but money getting—now for me I +am rather inclined to the liberal side of things. I am reckoned lax +in my Christian principles, etc., etc., etc., etc.”<a name="fna130_130" id="fna130_130"></a><a href="#f130_130" class="fnanc">[130]</a></p></div> + +<p>Such a dual attitude in Keats can be explained only by a dual feeling in +his mind, for it is impossible to believe him capable of deliberate +deceit. He may have realized Hunt’s affectation and superficiality and +“disgusting taste”; he was probably swayed by Haydon to distrust Hunt’s +morals; the suspicions planted by Haydon concerning <i>Endymion</i> rankled; +but at the same time Hunt’s charm of personality, and the assistance and +encouragement given in the first days of their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> friendship, formed a bond +difficult to break. Of Leigh Hunt’s attitude there can be no doubt, for +through his long life of more than threescore years and ten, filled with +many friendships of many kinds, he can in no instance be charged with +insincerity. There is no conclusive proof on record to show him deserving +of the insinuations which Keats believed in respect to <i>Endymion</i>, for +Haydon is not trustworthy, and the opinion of a lady given through Haydon +may be dismissed on the same grounds.<a name="fna131_131" id="fna131_131"></a><a href="#f131_131" class="fnanc">[131]</a> Reynolds’ testimony is not +damaging in itself, and in the absence of facts to the contrary may have +been wrongly construed by Keats. To the charges against himself, Leigh +Hunt has replied in the following passage, “affecting and persuasive in +its unrestrained pathos of remonstrance”:<a name="fna132_132" id="fna132_132"></a><a href="#f132_132" class="fnanc">[132]</a></p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“an irritable morbidity appears even to have driven his suspicions to +excess; and this not only with regard to the acquaintance whom he +might reasonably suppose to have had some advantages over him, but to +myself, who had none; for I learned the other day, with extreme pain, +such as I am sure so kind and reflecting a man as Mr. Monckton Milnes +would not have inflicted on me could he have foreseen it, that Keats +at one period of his intercourse suspected Shelley and myself of a +wish to see him undervalued! Such are the tricks which constant +infelicity can play with the most noble natures. For Shelley, let +<i>Adonais</i> answer. For myself, let every word answer which I uttered +about him, living and dead, and such as I now proceed to repeat. I +might as well have been told that I wished to see the flowers or the +stars undervalued, or my own heart that loved him.”<a name="fna133_133" id="fna133_133"></a><a href="#f133_133" class="fnanc">[133]</a></p></div> + +<p>Hunt’s feeling towards Keats is nowhere better expressed than in his +<i>Autobiography</i>: “I could not love him as deeply as I did Shelley. That +was impossible. But my affection was only second to the one which I +entertained for that heart of hearts.”<a name="fna134_134" id="fna134_134"></a><a href="#f134_134" class="fnanc">[134]</a></p> + +<p>Keats’s atonement is contained in the last letter that he ever wrote: “If +I recover, I will do all in my power to correct the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span> mistakes made during +sickness, and if I should not, all my faults will be forgiven.”<a name="fna135_135" id="fna135_135"></a><a href="#f135_135" class="fnanc">[135]</a></p> + +<p>Haydon’s influence over Keats was at its height in 1817 and 1818.<a name="fna136_136" id="fna136_136"></a><a href="#f136_136" class="fnanc">[136]</a> His +gifts and his enthusiasm, his “fresh magnificence”<a name="fna137_137" id="fna137_137"></a><a href="#f137_137" class="fnanc">[137]</a> carried Keats by +storm. It was not until about July 1818 that a reaction against Haydon in +favor of Hunt set in, brought about by money transactions between Keats +and Haydon, and the indifference of the latter in repaying a debt when he +knew Keats’s necessity.<a name="fna138_138" id="fna138_138"></a><a href="#f138_138" class="fnanc">[138]</a> Keats probably never ceased to feel that +Hunt’s influence as a poet had been injurious, as indeed it was, but the +relative stability of his two friends adjusted itself after this +experience with Haydon. Affairs seem to have been smoothed over with Hunt, +and were not disturbed again until a short time before Keats’s departure +for Italy, when his morbid suspicions, which even led him to accuse his +friend Brown of flirting with Fanny Brawne,<a name="fna139_139" id="fna139_139"></a><a href="#f139_139" class="fnanc">[139]</a> seem to have been +renewed.</p> + +<p>In 1820, Brown, with whom Keats had been living since his brother Tom’s +death, went on a second tour to Scotland. Keats, unable to accompany him, +took a lodging in Wesleyan Place, Kentish Town, to be near Hunt, who was +living in Mortimer Street. Brown says: “It was his choice, during my +absence to lodge at Kentish Town, that he might be near his friend, Leigh +Hunt, in whose companionship he was ever happy.”<a name="fna140_140" id="fna140_140"></a><a href="#f140_140" class="fnanc">[140]</a> In a letter to Fanny +Brawne, Keats said Hunt “amuses me very kindly.”<a name="fna141_141" id="fna141_141"></a><a href="#f141_141" class="fnanc">[141]</a> It is not likely, +judging from this overture, that there had ever been an actual cessation +of intercourse, notwithstanding what Keats wrote in his letters; and the +act points to a revival of the old feeling on his part. About the +twenty-second or twenty-third of June, 1820, Keats left<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> his rooms and +moved to Leigh Hunt’s home to be nursed.<a name="fna142_142" id="fna142_142"></a><a href="#f142_142" class="fnanc">[142]</a> He remained about seven +weeks with the family, when there occurred an unfortunate incident which +resulted in his abrupt departure August 12, 1820. A letter of Fanny +Brawne’s was delivered to him two days late with the seal broken. The +contretemps was due to the misconduct of a servant, but it was interpreted +by Keats as treachery on the part of the family. At the moment he would +accept no explanations or apologies. He writes of this incident to Fanny +Brawne:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“My friends have behaved well to me in every instance but one, and +there they have become tattlers, and inquisitors into my conduct: +spying upon a secret I would rather die than share it with anybody’s +confidence. For this I cannot wish them well, I care not to see any +of them again. If I am the Theme, I will not be the Friend of idle +Gossips. Good gods what a shame it is our Loves should be put into +the microscope of a Coterie. Their laughs should not affect you (I +may perhaps give you reasons some day for these laughs, for I suspect +a few people to hate me well enough, <i>for reasons I know of</i>, who +have pretended a great friendship for me) when in competition with +one, who if he should never see you again would make you the Saint of +his memory. These Laughers, who do not like you, who envy you for +your Beauty, who would have God-bless’d me from you for ever: who +were plying me with disencouragements with respect to you eternally. +People are revengeful—do not mind them—do nothing but love +me.”<a name="fna143_143" id="fna143_143"></a><a href="#f143_143" class="fnanc">[143]</a></p></div> + +<p>In his next letter to her he says:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“I shall never be able to endure any more the society of any of those +who used to meet at Elm Cottage and Wentworth Place. The last two +years taste like brass upon my Palate.”<a name="fna144_144" id="fna144_144"></a><a href="#f144_144" class="fnanc">[144]</a></p></div> + +<p>The lack of self-control and the distrust seen in these extracts show that +Keats was laboring under hallucinations produced by an ill mind and body; +the letters from which they have been taken are unnatural, almost +terrible, in their passion and rebellion against fate.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span>Keats moved to the residence of the Brawnes. While he was here the trouble +seems to have been smoothed over, for in a letter to Hunt he says: “You +will be glad to hear I am going to delay a little at Mrs. Brawne’s. I hope +to see you whenever you get time, for I feel really attached to you for +your many sympathies with me, and patience at all my <i>lunes</i>.... Your +affectionate friend, John Keats.”<a name="fna145_145" id="fna145_145"></a><a href="#f145_145" class="fnanc">[145]</a> To Brown he says: “Hunt has behaved +very kindly to me”; and again: “The seal-breaking business is over-blown. +I think no more of it.”<a name="fna146_146" id="fna146_146"></a><a href="#f146_146" class="fnanc">[146]</a> Hunt’s reply is couched in most affectionate +terms:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Giovani [sic] Mio,</p> + +<p>“I shall see you this afternoon, and most probably every day. You +judge rightly when you think I shall be glad at your putting up +awhile where you are, instead of that solitary place. There are +humanities in the house; and if wisdom loves to live with children +round her knees (the tax-gatherer apart), sick wisdom, I think, +should love to live with arms about it’s waist. I need not say how +you gratify me by the impulse that led you to write a particular +sentence in your letter, for you must have seen by this time how much +I am attached to yourself.</p> + +<p>“I am indicating at as dull a rate as a battered finger-post in wet +weather. Not that I am ill: for I am very well altogether. Your +affectionate Friend, Leigh Hunt.”<a name="fna147_147" id="fna147_147"></a><a href="#f147_147" class="fnanc">[147]</a></p></div> + +<p>This was probably the last letter written by him to Keats. In September +Keats went to Rome with Severn to escape the hardships of the winter +climate, after having declined an invitation from Shelley to visit him at +Pisa. In the same month, Hunt published an affectionate farewell to him in +<i>The Indicator</i>. An announcement of his death appeared in <i>The Examiner</i> +of March 25, 1821. The story of the personal relations of the two men +could not be better closed than with the words of Hunt written March 8, +1821, to Severn in Rome when he believed Keats still alive:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“If he can bear to hear of us, pray tell him; but he knows it +already, and can put it into better language than any man. I hear +that he does not like to be told that he may get better; nor is it to +be wondered at, considering his firm persuasion that he shall not +survive. He can only regard it as a puerile thing, and an insinuation +that he shall die. But if his persuasion should happen to be no +longer so strong, or if he can now put up<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span> with attempts to console +him, tell him of what I have said a thousand times, and what I still +(upon my honour) think always, that I have seen too many instances of +recovery from apparently desperate cases of consumption not to be in +hope to the very last. If he still cannot bear to hear this, tell +him—tell that great poet and noblehearted man—that we shall all +bear his memory in the most precious part of our hearts, and that the +world shall bow their heads to it, as our loves do. Or if this, +again, will trouble his spirit, tell him that we shall never cease to +remember and love him; and that, Christian or infidel, the most +sceptical of us has faith enough in the high things that nature puts +into our heads, to think all who are of one accord in mind and heart +are journeying to one and the same place, and shall unite somewhere +or other again, face to face, mutually conscious, mutually +delighted.”<a name="fna148_148" id="fna148_148"></a><a href="#f148_148" class="fnanc">[148]</a></p></div> + +<p>The literary relations of Keats and Hunt will be considered under two +heads; first, the criticism of Keats’s writings by Hunt; and second, his +direct influence upon them.</p> + +<p><i>On first looking into Chapman’s Homer</i> in <i>The Examiner</i> of December 1st, +1816, was embodied in an article entitled “Young Poets.” It was the first +notice of Keats to appear in print and is in part as follows:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“The last of these young aspirants whom we have met with, and who +promise to help the new school to revive Nature and</p> + +<p class="poem">‘To put a spirit of youth in <ins class="correction" title="original: everthing">everything</ins>,’—</p> + +<p>is we believe, the youngest of them all, and just of age. His name is +John Keats. He has not yet published anything except in a newspaper, +but a set of his manuscripts was handed us the other day, and fairly +surprised us with the truth of their ambition, and ardent grappling +with Nature.”</p></div> + +<p>In <i>Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries</i>, the last line of the same +sonnet—</p> + +<p class="poem">“Silent upon a peak in Darien”—</p> + +<p>is called “a basis of gigantic tranquillity.”<a name="fna149_149" id="fna149_149"></a><a href="#f149_149" class="fnanc">[149]</a></p> + +<p>Leigh Hunt’s review of the <i>Poems</i> of 1817<a name="fna150_150" id="fna150_150"></a><a href="#f150_150" class="fnanc">[150]</a> was kind and +discriminating. He writes characteristically of the first poem, <i>I stood +tiptoe</i>, that it “consists of a piece of luxury in a rural spot”; of the +epistles and sonnets, that they “contain strong evidences of warm and +social feelings.” This comment is quite<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span> characteristic of Hunt. He was as +fond of finding “warm and social feelings” in the poetry of others as of +putting them into his own. In his anxiety he sometimes found them when +they did not exist. He continues: “The best poem is certainly the last and +the longest, entitled <i>Sleep and Poetry</i>. It originated in sleeping in a +room adorned with busts and pictures [Hunt’s library], and is a striking +specimen of the restlessness of the young poetical appetite, obtaining its +food by the very desire of it, and glancing for fit subjects of creation +‘from earth to heaven.’ Nor do we like it the less for an impatient, and +as it may be thought by some irreverend [sic] assault upon the late French +school of criticism<a name="fna151_151" id="fna151_151"></a><a href="#f151_151" class="fnanc">[151]</a> and monotony.” But Hunt did not allow his +affection for Keats or his approval of Keats’s poetical doctrine to blunt +his critical acumen. In summarizing he says: “The very faults of Mr. Keats +arise from a passion for beauties, and a young impatience to vindicate +them; and as we have mentioned these, we shall refer to them at once. They +may be comprised in two;—first, a tendency to notice everything too +indiscriminately, and without an eye to natural proportion and effect; and +second, a sense of the proper variety of versification without a due +consideration of its principles.” In conclusion, the beauties “outnumber +the faults a hundred fold” and “they are of a nature decidedly opposed to +what is false and inharmonious. Their characteristics indeed are a fine +ear, a fancy and imagination at will, and an intense feeling of external +beauty in its most natural and least inexpressible simplicity.”</p> + +<p>Hunt was disappointed with <i>Endymion</i> and did not hesitate to say so. +Keats writes to his brothers:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Leigh Hunt I showed my 1st book to—he allows it not much merit as a +whole; says it is unnatural and made ten objections to it in the mere +skimming over. He says the conversation is unnatural and too +high-flown for Brother and Sister—says it should be simple, +forgetting do ye mind that they are both overshadowed by a +supernatural Power, and of force could not speak like Francesca in +the <i>Rimini</i>. He must first prove that Caliban’s poetry is unnatural. +This with me completely overturns his objections. The fact is he and +Shelley are hurt, and perhaps justly, at my not having showed them +the affair officiously (sic); and from several hints I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> have had they +appear much disposed to dissect and anatomize any trip or slip I may +have made.—But who’s afraid? Aye! Tom! Demme if I am.”<a name="fna152_152" id="fna152_152"></a><a href="#f152_152" class="fnanc">[152]</a></p></div> + +<p>Leigh Hunt expressed himself thus in 1828: “<i>Endymion</i>, it must be allowed +was not a little calculated to perplex the critics. It was a wilderness of +sweets, but it was truly a wilderness; a domain of young, luxuriant, +uncompromising poetry.”<a name="fna153_153" id="fna153_153"></a><a href="#f153_153" class="fnanc">[153]</a></p> + +<p><i>La Belle Dame sans Merci</i>, which appeared first in <i>The Indicator</i>,<a name="fna154_154" id="fna154_154"></a><a href="#f154_154" class="fnanc">[154]</a> +was accompanied with an introduction by Hunt, who says that it was +suggested by Alain Chartier’s poem of the same title and “that the union +of the imagination and the real is very striking throughout, particularly +in the dream. The wild gentleness of the rest of the thoughts and of the +music are alike old, and they are alike young.” <i>The Indicator</i> of August +2 and 9, 1820, contained a review of the volume of 1820. The part dealing +with philosophy in poetry is of more than passing interest:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“We wish that for the purpose of his story he had not appeared to +give in to the commonplace of supposing that Apollonius’s sophistry +must always prevail, and that modern experiment has done a deadly +thing to poetry by discovering the nature of the rainbow, the air, +etc.; that is to say, that the knowledge of natural science and +physics, by showing us the nature of things, does away the +imaginations that once adorned them. This is a condescension to a +learned vulgarism, which so excellent a poet as Mr. Keats ought not +to have made. The world will always have fine poetry, so long as it +has events, passions, affections, and a philosophy that sees deeper +than this philosophy. There will be a poetry of the heart, as long as +there are tears and smiles: there will be a poetry of the +imagination, as long as the first causes of things remain a mystery. +A man who is no poet, may think he is none, as soon as he finds out +the first causes of the rainbow; but he need not alarm himself:—he +was none before.”<a name="fna155_155" id="fna155_155"></a><a href="#f155_155" class="fnanc">[155]</a></p></div> + +<p>Much the same line of discussion is reported of the conversation at +Haydon’s “immortal dinner,” December 28, 1817, when Keats and Lamb +denounced Sir Isaac Newton and his demolition of the things of the +imagination, Keats saying he<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> “destroyed the poetry of the rainbow by +reducing it to a prism.”<a name="fna156_156" id="fna156_156"></a><a href="#f156_156" class="fnanc">[156]</a> The pictorial features of the <i>Eve of St. +Agnes</i> were particularly admired by Hunt, as one might be led to expect +from the decorative detail of his own narrative poetry. The portrait of +“Agnes” (<i>sic</i> for Madeline) is said to be “remarkable for its union of +extreme richness and good taste” and “affords a striking specimen of the +sudden and strong maturity of the author’s genius. When he wrote +<i>Endymion</i> he could not have resisted doing too much. To the description +before me, it would be a great injury either to add or to diminish. It +falls at once gorgeously and delicately upon us, like the colours of the +painted glass.” Of the description of the casement window, Hunt asks +“Could all the pomp and graces of aristocracy with Titian’s and Raphael’s +aid to boot, go beyond the rich religion of this picture, with its +‘twilight saints’ and its ‘scutcheons blushing with the blood of queens’?” +Elsewhere he says that “Persian Kings would have filled a poet’s mouth +with gold” for such poetry. Hunt calls <i>Hyperion</i><a name="fna157_157" id="fna157_157"></a><a href="#f157_157" class="fnanc">[157]</a> “a fragment, a +gigantic one, like a ruin in the desert, or the bones of the mastodon. It +is truly of a piece with its subject, which is the downfall of the elder +gods.” Later, in <i>Imagination and Fancy</i>, Hunt declared that Keats’s +greatest poetry is to be found in <i>Hyperion</i>. His opinion of the whole is +thus summed up:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Mr. Keats’s versification sometimes reminds us of Milton in his +blank verse, and sometimes of Chapman both in his blank verse and in +his rhyme; but his faculties, essentially speaking, though partaking +of the unearthly aspirations and abstract yearnings of both these +poets, are altogether his own. They are ambitious, but less directly +so. They are more <i>social</i>, and in the finer sense of the word, +sensual, than either. They are more coloured by the modern philosophy +of sympathy and natural justice. <i>Endymion</i>, with all its +extraordinary powers, partook of the faults of youth, though the best +ones; but the reader of <i>Hyperion</i> and these other stories<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span> would +never guess that they were written at twenty.<a name="fna158_158" id="fna158_158"></a><a href="#f158_158" class="fnanc">[158]</a> The author’s +versification is now perfected, the exuberances of his imagination +restrained, and a calm power, the surest and loftiest of all power, +takes place of the impatient workings of the younger god within him. +The character of his genius is that of energy and voluptuousness, +each able at will to take leave of the other, and possessing in their +union, a high feeling of humanity not common to the best authors who +can combine them. Mr. Keats undoubtedly takes his seat with the +oldest and best of our living poets.”<a name="fna159_159" id="fna159_159"></a><a href="#f159_159" class="fnanc">[159]</a></p></div> + +<p>The more important division of the literary relations of the two men is +the direct influence of Hunt’s work upon that of Keats.</p> + +<p>On Keats’s prose style Hunt’s influence was very slight and can be quickly +dismissed. At one time Keats, affected perhaps by Hunt’s example, thought +of becoming a theatrical critic. He did actually contribute four articles +to <i>The Champion</i>. Keats’s favorite of Hunt’s essays, <i>A Now</i>, contains +several passages composed by Keats. Mr. Forman considers that “the greater +part of the paper is so much in the taste and humor of Keats” that he is +justified in including it in his edition of Keats. He has also called +attention to a passage in Keats’s letter to Haydon of April 10, 1818, +which bears a striking likeness to Hunt’s occasional essay style: “The +Hedges by this time are beginning to leaf—Cats are becoming more +vociferous—Young Ladies who wear Watches are always looking at them. +Women about forty-five think the Season very backward.”</p> + +<p>The <i>Poems</i> of 1817 show Hunt’s influences in spirit, diction and +versification. There are epistles and sonnets in the manner of Hunt. <i>I +stood tiptoe upon a little hill</i> opens the volume with a motto from the +<i>Story of Rimini</i>. The <i>Specimen of an Induction</i> and <i>Calidore</i> so nearly +approach Hunt’s work in manner, that they might easily be mistaken for it. +<i>Sleep and Poetry</i> attacks French models as Hunt had previously done. The +colloquial style of certain passages is significant of Hunt’s influence +upon the poems. A few examples are:</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span></p> + +<p class="poem">“To peer about upon variety.”<a name="fna160_160" id="fna160_160"></a><a href="#f160_160" class="fnanc">[160]</a><br /> +<br /> +“Or by the bowery clefts, and leafy shelves<br /> +Guess where the jaunty streams refresh themselves.”<a name="fna161_161" id="fna161_161"></a><a href="#f161_161" class="fnanc">[161]</a><br /> +<br /> +“The ripples seem right glad to reach those cresses.”<a name="fna162_162" id="fna162_162"></a><a href="#f162_162" class="fnanc">[162]</a><br /> +<br /> +“... you just now are stooping<br /> +To pick up the keepsake intended for me.”<a name="fna163_163" id="fna163_163"></a><a href="#f163_163" class="fnanc">[163]</a><br /> +<br /> +“Of this fair world, and all its gentle livers.”<a name="fna164_164" id="fna164_164"></a><a href="#f164_164" class="fnanc">[164]</a><br /> +<br /> +“The evening weather was so bright, and clear,<br /> +That men of health were of unusual cheer.”<a name="fna165_165" id="fna165_165"></a><a href="#f165_165" class="fnanc">[165]</a><br /> +<br /> +“Linger awhile upon some bending planks<br /> +That lean against a streamlet’s rushy banks,<br /> +And watch intently Nature’s gentle doings:<br /> +They will be found softer than the ring-dove’s cooings.”<a name="fna166_166" id="fna166_166"></a><a href="#f166_166" class="fnanc">[166]</a><br /> +<br /> +“The lamps that from the high roof’d wall were pendant<br /> +And gave the steel a shining quite transcendent.”<a name="fna167_167" id="fna167_167"></a><a href="#f167_167" class="fnanc">[167]</a><br /> +<br /> +“Or on the wavy grass outstretch’d supinely,<br /> +Pry ’mong the stars, to strive to think divinely.”<a name="fna168_168" id="fna168_168"></a><a href="#f168_168" class="fnanc">[168]</a></p> + +<p>The following are infelicitous passages reflecting Leigh Hunt’s bad taste, +especially in the description of physical appearance, or of situations +involving emotion:</p> + +<p class="poem">“... what amorous and fondling nips<br /> +They gave each other’s cheeks.”<a name="fna169_169" id="fna169_169"></a><a href="#f169_169" class="fnanc">[169]</a><br /> +<br /> +“... some lady sweet<br /> +Who cannot feel for cold her tender feet.”<a name="fna170_170" id="fna170_170"></a><a href="#f170_170" class="fnanc">[170]</a><br /> +<br /> +“Rein in the swelling of his ample might.”<a name="fna171_171" id="fna171_171"></a><a href="#f171_171" class="fnanc">[171]</a><br /> +<br /> +“Nor will a bee buzz round two swelling peaches.”<a name="fna172_172" id="fna172_172"></a><a href="#f172_172" class="fnanc">[172]</a><br /> +<br /> +“... What a kiss,<br /> +What gentle squeeze he gave each lady’s hand!<br /> +How tremblingly their delicate ankles spann’d!<br /> +Into how sweet a trance his soul was gone,<br /> +While whisperings of affection<br /> +Made him delay to let their tender feet<br /> +Come to the earth; with an incline so sweet<br /> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span>From their low palfreys o’er his neck they bent:<br /> +And whether there were tears of languishment,<br /> +Or that the evening dew had pearl’d their tresses,<br /> +He felt a moisture on his cheek and blesses<br /> +With lips that tremble, and with glistening eye,<br /> +All the soft luxury<br /> +That nestled in his arms.”<a name="fna173_173" id="fna173_173"></a><a href="#f173_173" class="fnanc">[173]</a><br /> +<br /> +“... Add too, the sweetness<br /> +Of thy honey’d voice; the neatness<br /> +Of thine ankle, lightly turned:<br /> +With those beauties, scarce discern’d<br /> +Kept with such sweet privacy,<br /> +That they seldom meet the eye<br /> +Of the little loves that fly<br /> +Round about with eager pry.”<a name="fna174_174" id="fna174_174"></a><a href="#f174_174" class="fnanc">[174]</a></p> + +<p>Descriptive passages in the Huntian style are not infrequent: the opening +lines from the <i>Imitation of Spenser</i><a name="fna175_175" id="fna175_175"></a><a href="#f175_175" class="fnanc">[175]</a> are much nearer to Hunt than to +Spenser.</p> + +<p class="poem">“Now morning from her orient chamber came,<br /> +And her first footsteps touched a verdant hill,<br /> +Crowning its lawny crest with amber flame,<br /> +Silv’ring the untainted gushes of its rill;<br /> +Which, pure from mossy beds, did down distil<br /> +And after parting beds of simple flowers,<br /> +By many streams a little lake did fill,<br /> +Which round its marge reflected woven bowers,<br /> +And in its middle space, a sky that never lowers.”<a name="fna176_176" id="fna176_176"></a><a href="#f176_176" class="fnanc">[176]</a></p> + +<p>These lines of <i>Calidore</i> show a like resemblance:</p> + +<p class="poem">“He bares his forehead to the cool blue sky,<br /> +And smiles at the far clearness all around,<br /> +Until his heart is well nigh over wound,<br /> +And turns for calmness to the pleasant green<br /> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span>Of easy slopes, and shadowy trees that lean<br /> +So elegantly o’er the waters’ brim<br /> +And show their blossoms trim.”<a name="fna177_177" id="fna177_177"></a><a href="#f177_177" class="fnanc">[177]</a></p> + +<p>A third is:</p> + +<p class="poem">“Across the lawny fields, and pebbly water.”</p> + +<p>Single phrases showing the influence of Hunt<a name="fna178_178" id="fna178_178"></a><a href="#f178_178" class="fnanc">[178]</a> are: “airy feel,” +“patting the flowing hair,” “A Man of elegance,” “sweet-lipped ladies,” +“grateful the incense,” “modest pride,” “a sun-beamy tale of a wreath,” +“soft humanity,” “leafy luxury,” “pillowy silkiness,” “swelling apples,” +“the very pleasant rout,” “forms of elegance.”</p> + +<p>The following passages apparently bear as close a resemblance to each +other as it is possible to find by the comparison of individual passages +from the works of the two men:</p> + +<p class="poem">“The sidelong view of swelling leafiness<br /> +Which the glad setting sun in gold doth dress”<a name="fna179_179" id="fna179_179"></a><a href="#f179_179" class="fnanc">[179]</a></p> + +<p>compare with:</p> + +<p class="poem">“And every hill, in passing one by one<br /> +Gleamed out with twinkles of the golden sun:<br /> +For leafy was the road, with tall array.”<a name="fna180_180" id="fna180_180"></a><a href="#f180_180" class="fnanc">[180]</a></p> + +<p>The <i>Epistles</i> are strikingly like Hunt’s epistles in spirit, diction and +metre. Mr. Colvin has pointed out that the one addressed <i>To George Felton +Mathew</i> was written in November, 1815, before Keats had met Hunt and +before the publication of the latter’s epistles;<a name="fna181_181" id="fna181_181"></a><a href="#f181_181" class="fnanc">[181]</a> but Keats may have +known them at the time in manuscript through Clarke. The resemblances may +also have been due, in part, as in other points of comparison, to an +innate similarity of thought and feeling.</p> + +<p>That Hunt’s habit of sonneteering and his preference for the Petrarcan +form influenced Keats, is attested by the similarity of the latter’s +sonnets to Hunt’s in form, subjects, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56 & 57]</a></span> allusions, and by the direct +references<a name="fna182_182" id="fna182_182"></a><a href="#f182_182" class="fnanc">[182]</a> to Hunt. <i>On +the Grasshopper and the Cricket</i><a name="fna183_183" id="fna183_183"></a><a href="#f183_183" class="fnanc">[183]</a> and +<i>To the Nile</i><a name="fna184_184" id="fna184_184"></a><a href="#f184_184" class="fnanc">[184]</a> were written in contest with Hunt. <i>To Spenser</i> is a +refusal to comply with Hunt’s request that he should write a sonnet on +Spenser.<a name="fna185_185" id="fna185_185"></a><a href="#f185_185" class="fnanc">[185]</a> The title of <i>On Leigh Hunt’s Poem, The Story of +Rimini</i><a name="fna186_186" id="fna186_186"></a><a href="#f186_186" class="fnanc">[186]</a> speaks +for itself.<a name="fna187_187" id="fna187_187"></a><a href="#f187_187" class="fnanc">[187]</a></p> + +<p>To put it briefly, the <i>Poems</i> of 1817 show Hunt’s influence in more ways +than any equal number of the young poet’s later verses. It is seen in +Keats’s subject matter<a name="fna188_188" id="fna188_188"></a><a href="#f188_188" class="fnanc">[188]</a> and allusions; in his adoption of a colloquial +style and diction; in his absorption of Hunt’s spirit in the treatment of +nature and in his attitude toward women; and in his imitation and +exaggerated use of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> the free heroic couplet in <i>Sleep and Poetry</i>, <i>I +stood tiptoe</i>, <i>Specimen of an Induction</i> and other poems.</p> + +<p>Of the poem <i>Lines on seeing a Lock of Milton’s Hair</i>, written in January, +1818, Keats wrote in a letter to Bailey: “I was at Hunt’s the other day, +and he surprised me with a real authenticated lock of <i>Milton’s hair</i>. I +know you would like what I wrote thereon, so here it is—as they say of a +Sheep in a Nursery Book.... This I did at Hunt’s, at his request—perhaps +I should have done something better alone and at home.”<a name="fna189_189" id="fna189_189"></a><a href="#f189_189" class="fnanc">[189]</a> Leigh Hunt’s +three sonnets on the same subject, published in <i>Foliage</i>, have been +already spoken of in the preceding chapter.</p> + +<p><i>Endymion</i> shows a decided decrease in the ascendancy of Hunt’s mind over +Keats, for the sway of his intellectual supremacy had been shaken before +suspicions arose in Keats’s mind as to the disinterestedness of his +motives. What influence lingers is seen in the general theory of +versification and in the diction, with some trace in matters of taste. A +marvellous luxury of imagery, glimpses into the heights and depths of +nature, an absorbing love of Greek fable, a deeper infusion of the ideal +have superseded what Mr. Colvin has called the “sentimental chirp” of +Hunt.<a name="fna190_190" id="fna190_190"></a><a href="#f190_190" class="fnanc">[190]</a> Specific passages in <i>Endymion</i> reminiscent of Hunt are rare, +but Book III, ll. 23-30 recalls the general descriptive style in the +<i>Descent of Liberty</i> and summarizes in a few lines pages of Hunt’s +diffuse, spectacular imagery. Once or twice Keats seems to have fallen +into the colloquial manner in dialogue:</p> + +<p class="poem">“But a poor Naiad, I guess not. Farewell!<br /> +I have a ditty for my hollow cell.”<a name="fna191_191" id="fna191_191"></a><a href="#f191_191" class="fnanc">[191]</a></p> + +<p>Again:</p> + +<p class="poem"><span style="margin-left: 9em;">“I own</span><br /> +This may sound strangely: but when, dearest girl,<br /> +Thou seest it for my happiness, no pearl<br /> +Will trespass down those cheeks. Companion fair!<br /> +Wilt be content to dwell with her, to share<br /> +This sister’s love with me? Like one resign’d<br /> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span>And bent by circumstance, and thereby blind<br /> +In self-commitment, thus that meek unknown:<br /> +‘Aye, but a buzzing by my ears has flown,<br /> +Of jubilee to Dian:—truth I heard?<br /> +Well then, I see there is no little bird.’”<a name="fna192_192" id="fna192_192"></a><a href="#f192_192" class="fnanc">[192]</a></p> + +<p>Occasionally there are passages in the bad taste of Hunt, as this example:</p> + +<p class="poem">“Enchantress! tell me by this soft embrace,<br /> +By the most soft completion of thy face,<br /> +Those lips, O slippery blisses, twinkling eyes,<br /> +And by these tenderest, milky sovereignties—<br /> +These tenderest, and by the nectar wine,<br /> +The passion—”<a name="fna193_193" id="fna193_193"></a><a href="#f193_193" class="fnanc">[193]</a></p> + +<p>Likewise:</p> + +<p class="poem"><span style="margin-left: 7em;">“O that I</span><br /> +Were rippling round her dainty fairness now,<br /> +Circling about her waist, and striving how<br /> +To entice her to a dive! then stealing in<br /> +Between her luscious lips and eyelids thin.”<a name="fna194_194" id="fna194_194"></a><a href="#f194_194" class="fnanc">[194]</a></p> + +<p>In July, 1820, appeared the volume <i>Lamia, Isabella, The Eve of St. Agnes +and other Poems</i>. The lingering influence of Hunt is seen in a fondness +for the short poetic tale, in the direct and simple narrative style, and +in the return in <i>Lamia</i> to the use of the heroic couplet; but that, along +with the other poems of the volume, is free from the Huntian +eccentricities of manner and diction found in Keats’s earlier works. He +had come into his own. In treatment, <i>Lamia</i> is almost faultless in +technique and in matters of taste; although Mr. Colvin has pointed out as +an exception the first fifteen lines of the second book, which he says +have Leigh Hunt’s “affected ease and fireside triviality.”<a name="fna195_195" id="fna195_195"></a><a href="#f195_195" class="fnanc">[195]</a> One of the +few occurrences of Hunt’s manner is seen in the <i>Eve of St. Agnes</i>.</p> + +<p class="poem">“Paining with eloquence her balmy side.”<a name="fna196_196" id="fna196_196"></a><a href="#f196_196" class="fnanc">[196]</a></p> + +<p>The famous passage in the <i>Eve of St. Agnes</i> describing all manner of +luscious edibles is very suggestive of one in Hunt’s <i>Bacchus and Ariadne</i> +which enumerates articles of the same<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> +kind.<a name="fna197_197" id="fna197_197"></a><a href="#f197_197" class="fnanc">[197]</a> It is in this latter +poem and in the <i>Story of Rimini</i> that Hunt’s power of description most +nearly approximates to that of Keats. In 1831, in the <i>Gentle Armour</i>, +Hunt is the imitator of Keats, as Mr. Colvin has already pointed out.<a name="fna198_198" id="fna198_198"></a><a href="#f198_198" class="fnanc">[198]</a></p> + +<p>The peculiarities of Keats’s diction are, in the main, two-fold, and may +each be traced to a direct influence: first, archaisms in the manner of +Spenser<a name="fna199_199" id="fna199_199"></a><a href="#f199_199" class="fnanc">[199]</a> and Chatterton; second, colloquialisms and deliberate +departures from established usage in the employment and formation of +words, in imitation of Leigh Hunt. Keats’s theory so far as he had one, is +set forth in a passage in one of his letters: “I shall never become +attached to a foreign idiom, so as to put it into my writings. The +Paradise Lost, though so fine in itself, is a corruption of our language. +It should be kept as it is, unique, a curiosity, a beautiful and grand +curosity, the most remarkable production of the world; a northern dialect +accommodating itself to Greek and Latin inversions and intonations. The +purest English, I think—or what ought to be the purest—is +Chatterton’s.”<a name="fna200_200" id="fna200_200"></a><a href="#f200_200" class="fnanc">[200]</a></p> + +<p>Keats’s <i>Poems</i> of 1817 show Hunt’s influence in diction more strongly +than any of his later works. In the majority of instances, this influence +is reflected in the principles of usage rather than in the actual usages, +although words and phrases used by Hunt are occasionally found in the +writings of Keats. The tendency to a colloquial vocabulary is seen in such +words and combinations as jaunty, right glad, balmy pain, leafy +luxury,<a name="fna201_201" id="fna201_201"></a><a href="#f201_201" class="fnanc">[201]</a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span> +delicious,<a name="fna202_202" id="fna202_202"></a><a href="#f202_202" class="fnanc">[202]</a> tasteful, gentle doings, gentle livers, soft +floatings, frisky leaps, lawny mantle, patting, busy spirits. Among these +words, leafy, balmy, lawny, patting, nest, tiptoe, and variations of +“taste” were special favorites with Hunt. A few expressions only of this +kind, as “nest,” “honey feel,” “infant’s gums,” are found in <i>Endymion</i>, +and almost none at all in the later poems.</p> + +<p>Keats used peculiar words with so much greater felicity and in so much +greater profusion than Hunt, exceeding in richness and individuality of +vocabulary most of the poets of his own time, that one is forced to +believe that Spenser’s influence rather than Hunt’s was dominant here. +Breaches of taste are confined almost entirely to the <i>Poems</i> of 1817.</p> + +<p>Ordinary words used peculiarly include “nips” (they gave each other’s +cheeks), “core” (for heart) and “luxury”<a name="fna203_203" id="fna203_203"></a><a href="#f203_203" class="fnanc">[203]</a> (with a wrong connotation), +nouns and adjectives employed as verbs, and verbs as nouns and adjectives. +These devices likewise cannot be credited to Hunt without reservation, +since both Spenser and Milton used them; but there is little doubt that in +this instance Hunt was an inciting and sustaining influence. Keats +resorted to such artifices frequently and continued to do so to the end. +Instances of nouns and adjectives employed as verbs are: pennanc’d, +luting, passion’d, neighbour’d, syllabling, companion’d, labrynth, +anguish’d, poesied, vineyard’d, woof’d, loaned, medicin’d, zon’d, mesh, +pleasure, legion’d, companion, green’d, gordian’d, character’d, finn’d, +forest’d, tusk’d, monitor. Verbs employed as nouns and adjectives are: +shine, which occurs five times, feel, seeing, hush, pry and amaze.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span>More examples of coined compounds, nouns and adjectives, are to be found +in Keats than in Hunt; in his better work as well as in his early +productions. A few are: cirque-couchant, milder-mooned, tress-lifting, +flitter-winged, silk-pillowed, death-neighing, break-covert, +palsy-twitching, high-sorrowful, sea-foamy, amber-fretted, sweet-lipped, +lush-leaved.</p> + +<p>The last principle is the coining, or choice of, adjectives in <i>y</i> and +<i>ing</i>; of adverbs in <i>ly</i>, when, in many instances, adjectives and adverbs +already existed formed on the same stem. The frequent use of words with +these weak endings gives a very diffuse effect at times in Keats’s early +poems. The following are examples: fenny, fledgy, rushy, lawny, liny, +nervy, pipy, paly, palmy, towery, sluicy, surgy, scummy, mealy, sparry, +heathy, rooty, slumbery, bowery, bloomy, boundly, palmy, surgy, spermy, +ripply, spangly, spherey, orby, oozy, skeyey, clayey, and plashy.<a name="fna204_204" id="fna204_204"></a><a href="#f204_204" class="fnanc">[204]</a> +Adjectives in <i>ing</i> are: cheering, hushing, breeding, combing, dumpling, +sphering, tenting, toying, baaing, far-spooming, peering (hand), searing +(hand), shelving, serpenting. Adverbs are: scantly, elegantly, +refreshingly, freshening (lave), hoveringly, greyly, cooingly, silverly, +refreshfully, whitely, drowningly, wingedly, sighingly, windingly, +bearingly.</p> + +<p>These statements are not very conclusive proof of the frequent occurrences +of the same words in the poems of the two men. They are questionable even +in regard to the principles of usage themselves, since poets of the same +period or young poets may possess the same tendencies. Yet in the light of +their relations already discussed the similarity of a number of principles +seems convincing proof that Hunt influenced Keats considerably in the +<i>principles</i> of diction in his first volume and occasionally in the +selection of individual words; and that Keats never entirely freed himself +from some of Hunt’s peculiarities. Shelley, in writing of <i>Hyperion</i> to +Mrs. Hunt, spoke of the “bad sort of style which is becoming fashionable +among those who fancy that they are imitating<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span> +Hunt and Wordsworth.”<a name="fna205_205" id="fna205_205"></a><a href="#f205_205" class="fnanc">[205]</a> +Medwin reported Shelley as saying “We are certainly indebted to the +Lakists for a more simple and natural phraseology; but the school that has +sprung out of it, have spawned a set of words neither Chaucerian nor +Spencerian (<i>sic</i>), words such as ‘gib,’ and ‘flush,’ ‘whiffling,’ +‘perking up,’ ‘swirling,’ ‘lightsome and brightsome’ and hundreds of +others.”<a name="fna206_206" id="fna206_206"></a><a href="#f206_206" class="fnanc">[206]</a></p> + +<p>Keats, following the lead of Hunt, used the free heroic couplet in several +of the 1817 poems with a license even greater than Hunt’s. In <i>Endymion</i> +he indulged in further vagaries of rhythm and metre that Hunt never +dreamed of and in fact greatly disapproved of. Hunt said that “<i>Endymion</i> +had no versification.”<a name="fna207_207" id="fna207_207"></a><a href="#f207_207" class="fnanc">[207]</a> In its want of couplet and line units, this is +not very far from the truth. Writing of it again in 1828, he says: “The +great fault of <i>Endymion</i> next to its unpruned luxuriance, (or before it, +rather, for it was not a fault on the right side,) was the wilfulness of +its rhymes. The author had a just contempt for the monotonous termination +of everyday couplets; he broke up his lines in order to distribute the +rhyme properly; but going only upon the ground of his contempt, and not +having settled with himself any principles of versification, the very +exuberance of his ideas led him to make use of the first rhymes that +offered; so that, by a new meeting of effects, the extreme was artificial, +and much more obtrusive than the one under the old system. Dryden modestly +thought, that a rhyme had often helped him to a thought. Mr. Keats in the +tyranny of his wealth, forced his rhymes to help him, whether they would +or not; and they obeyed him, in the most singular manner, with equal +promptitude and ungainliness.”<a name="fna208_208" id="fna208_208"></a><a href="#f208_208" class="fnanc">[208]</a> <i>Endymion</i> has been thought by some +critics, to have been written under the metrical influence of +Chamberlayne’s <i>Pharronida</i>. In the number of run-on lines and couplets—a +scheme nearer blank verse than the couplet—there is certainly a striking +correspondence. Mr. Forman thinks that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span> Keats knew the poem. Mr. Colvin +and Mr. De Selincourt can see no real likeness. There is no proof as yet +discovered that Keats ever heard of it.</p> + +<p>In <i>Lamia</i>, after the extreme reaction in <i>Endymion</i>, Keats approached +nearer to the classic form of the couplet used by Dryden, but still with +greater freedom in structure than appears in either Dryden or Hunt. From +the evidence of Brown it is probable that Keats imitated Dryden directly +and not through the medium of Hunt’s work, but it is very likely that Hunt +directed him there in the first instance for a model. Mr. Palgrave says of +the metre of <i>Lamia</i> that Keats “admirably found and sustained the balance +between a blank verse treatment of the ‘Heroic’ and the epigrammatic form +carried to such perfection by Pope.”<a name="fna209_209" id="fna209_209"></a><a href="#f209_209" class="fnanc">[209]</a> Leigh Hunt said that “the lines +seem to take pleasure in the progress of their own beauty like sea nymphs +luxuriating through the water.”<a name="fna210_210" id="fna210_210"></a><a href="#f210_210" class="fnanc">[210]</a></p> + +<p>In conclusion, Keats’s early and late employment of the couplet was marked +always by greater freedom in the use of run-on couplets and lines, and in +the handling of the cæsura than Dryden’s or Hunt’s; he was at first slower +than Hunt to employ the triplet and the Alexandrine, but he later adopted +them in a larger measure; and he introduced the run-on paragraph and the +hemistich independently of Hunt.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_III" id="CHAPTER_III"></a>CHAPTER III</h2> +<p class="center"><span class="huge"><span class="smcap">Shelley</span></span></p> + +<p class="note">Finnerty Case—Correspondence of Hunt and Shelley—Their Political and +Religious Sympathy—Hunt’s Defense of Shelley—Hunt’s Italian +Journey—Shelley’s Death—Hunt’s Criticism—Literary Influence—Shelley’s +Estimate of Hunt.</p> + +<p>The friendship of Shelley and Leigh Hunt is the simple story of an +intimacy founded on a common endowment of independence of thought and of +capacity for self-sacrifice. Although both were sensitive and shrinking by +nature, and preferred to dwell in an isolated world of books and dreams, +yet for the sake of abstract principles and for love of humanity, both +expended much time and endured much pain in the arena of public strife.</p> + +<p>In <i>The Examiners</i> of February 18 and 24, 1811, appeared articles by Hunt +on the Finnerty case. Peter Finnerty, Hunt’s successor as editor of <i>The +Statesman</i>, had been prosecuted and imprisoned on the charge of libelling +Lord Castlereagh. Hunt’s defense drew Shelley’s attention to the case and +may have inspired him, it has been suggested, to write his <i>Political +Essay on the Existing State of Things</i>. The proceeds went to +Finnerty.<a name="fna211_211" id="fna211_211"></a><a href="#f211_211" class="fnanc">[211]</a> On March 2 Shelley subscribed to the Finnerty fund and, on +the same day, wrote Hunt, whom he had never met, a letter from Oxford, +congratulating him on his acquittal from a third charge of libel and +proposing that an association should be formed to establish “rational +liberty,” to resist the enemies of justice, and to protect each +other.<a name="fna212_212" id="fna212_212"></a><a href="#f212_212" class="fnanc">[212]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span>Shelley’s political creed was, in the main, that of William Godwin, with +an admixture of Holbach, Volney and Rousseau at first hand.<a name="fna213_213" id="fna213_213"></a><a href="#f213_213" class="fnanc">[213]</a> In +English philosophic literature he knew Berkeley, Hume, Reid and Locke. His +watchword was the cry of the French Revolution, liberty, equality and +fraternity, to be gained, not by violence and bloodshed, but by a steady +and unyielding resistance of the masses against the corrupt institutions +of church and state. Like Godwin, he believed man capable of his own +redemption and, with tradition and tyranny overthrown and reason and +nature enthroned, he hoped for universal justice and ultimate +perfectibility of mankind. His poetry and his prose represent a +development from the impassioned and imaginative enthusiasm of an +uncompromising youth, who would single-handed revolutionize the world in +the twinkling of an eye, to the saner hope of a man who took somewhat into +account the necessarily gradual nature of ethical evolution. His chief +fallacy lay in the failure to recognize evil as an inherent force in human +nature and to acknowledge sect and state, to which he attributed the +origin of all error, as inventions of man’s ingenuity. Neither did he +perceive the necessity of certain restrictions on the individual for the +preservation of law and order. He believed in no distinctions of rank +except those based on individual talent and virtue. He wrote in 1811: “I +am no aristocrat, nor ‘<i>crat</i>’ at all, but vehemently long for the time +when men may dare to live in accordance with Nature and Reason—in +consequence with Virtue, to which I firmly believe that Religion and its +establishments, Polity and its establishments, are the formidable though +destructible barriers.”<a name="fna214_214" id="fna214_214"></a><a href="#f214_214" class="fnanc">[214]</a> Shelley knew of Leigh Hunt first as a +political writer of considerable importance. In this respect he never +ceased to admire him or to be influenced by <i>The Examiner</i> in the campaign +against government corruption. Yet his own equipment of mind and training, +visionary as his theories seem, gave him a power of speculation and grasp +of situation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span> that ignored the limitations of time and space, while Hunt, +with his narrower view, never got beyond the petty and immediate details +of one nation or of one age.</p> + +<p>The social improvements which Shelley advocated were Catholic +Emancipation, brought about later, as has been pointed out by Symonds, by +the very means which Shelley foresaw and prophesied; reform of +parliamentary representation<a name="fna215_215" id="fna215_215"></a><a href="#f215_215" class="fnanc">[215]</a> similar to that carried into effect in +1832, 1867 and 1882; freedom of the press<a name="fna216_216" id="fna216_216"></a><a href="#f216_216" class="fnanc">[216]</a> and repeal of the union of +Great Britain and Ireland; the abolition of capital punishment and of +war.<a name="fna217_217" id="fna217_217"></a><a href="#f217_217" class="fnanc">[217]</a> During the fourteen years of Hunt’s editorship, among the +reforms for which he fought in <i>The Examiner</i> were the first three of +these measures. He denounced capital punishment and war in the same paper +and later in his poem <i>Captain Sword and Captain Pen</i>.<a name="fna218_218" id="fna218_218"></a><a href="#f218_218" class="fnanc">[218]</a></p> + +<p>Shelley’s moral code was based on an idealized sense of justice, and was a +kind of “natural piety.”<a name="fna219_219" id="fna219_219"></a><a href="#f219_219" class="fnanc">[219]</a> With one marked exception, he seems to have +been true to the pursuit of it, both in his standards of conduct and in +his relations with others. His life was a model of generosity, purity of +thought, and unselfish devotion. Hunt reported Shelley as having said: +“What a divine religion might be found out, if charity were really the +principle of it, instead of faith.”<a name="fna220_220" id="fna220_220"></a><a href="#f220_220" class="fnanc">[220]</a> He was atheist only in the sense +of discarding the dogmas of theology and of superstition, and in his +spirit of scientific inquiry. He did not deny the existence in nature of +an all-pervading spirit. Hunt thought the popular misconception of +Shelley’s opinions was due to his misapplication of the names of the Deity +and to his identification of them with vulgar superstitions. Of Shelley’s +attitude he wrote: “His want of faith in the letter, and his exceeding +faith in the spirit of Christianity, formed a comment, the one on the +other, very formidable to those who<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> chose to forget what Scripture itself +observes on that point.”<a name="fna221_221" id="fna221_221"></a><a href="#f221_221" class="fnanc">[221]</a> Whether or not <ins class="correction" title="original: Shelly">Shelley</ins> believed in +immortality is still a vexed question and is likely to remain so, since he +had not reached convictions sufficiently stable to permit a formal +statement on his part. Many of the passages in <i>Adonais</i> would lead one to +believe that he did; certainly he did, like Hunt, cling to the idea of the +persistence, in some form or other, of the good and the beautiful. The +close conformity of their views is seen in the latter’s two sonnets in +<i>Foliage</i><a name="fna222_222" id="fna222_222"></a><a href="#f222_222" class="fnanc">[222]</a> addressed to Shelley, where the poet condemns the degrading +notions so prevalent concerning the Deity and celebrates the Spirit of +Beauty and Goodness in all things. But, in religion as in politics, +Shelley was bolder and more speculative than Hunt.</p> + +<p>The fine of £1,000 and imprisonment of the Hunt brothers in 1813 drew from +Shelley a vehement protest. In a letter to Hogg<a name="fna223_223" id="fna223_223"></a><a href="#f223_223" class="fnanc">[223]</a> he lamented the +inadequacy of Lord Brougham’s defense and fairly boiled with indignation +at “the horrible injustice and tyranny of the sentence” and pronounced +Hunt “a brave, a good, and an enlightened man.” He started a subscription +with twenty pounds, and later he must have offered to pay the entire fine, +for Hunt recorded in his <i>Autobiography</i> that Shelley had made him “a +princely offer,”<a name="fna224_224" id="fna224_224"></a><a href="#f224_224" class="fnanc">[224]</a> which he declined, as he did not need it. The offer +was actuated solely by a hatred of oppression, for the two men had little +or no personal knowledge of each other at the time.</p> + +<p>It is impossible to decide the exact date of their first meeting. Hunt +says that it took place before the indictment for libel on the Prince +Regent.<a name="fna225_225" id="fna225_225"></a><a href="#f225_225" class="fnanc">[225]</a> This evidence would make it fall sometime between March, +1812, the date of Shelley’s letter mentioned above, and February, 1813, +the beginning of the incarceration. But a letter from Shelley to Hunt +dated December 7, 1813, demanding if he had made the statement that Milton +had died an atheist, from its very formal tone, leads one to believe that +they had not met up to that time and that Hunt, writing from memory many +years afterwards, made a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> mistake. Thornton Hunt gives as the immediate +cause of the two men coming together, Shelley’s application to Mr. Rowland +Hunter, the publisher and stepfather of Mrs. Hunt, for advice regarding +the publication of a poem. He referred Shelley to Leigh Hunt. The next +meeting was in Surrey Street Gaol. Thornton Hunt, in a delightful +reminiscence of Shelley,<a name="fna226_226" id="fna226_226"></a><a href="#f226_226" class="fnanc">[226]</a> says that he had no recollection of him +among his father’s visitors in prison, but he remembered perfectly the +latter’s description of his “angelic” appearance, his classic thoughts, +and his dreams for the emancipation of mankind. The real intimacy began +after Shelley’s return from the continent in 1816 when Shelley, in search +of a house before he settled at Marlow, was the guest of Hunt at Hampstead +during a part of December.<a name="fna227_227" id="fna227_227"></a><a href="#f227_227" class="fnanc">[227]</a> A close companionship followed +uninterruptedly for two years until Shelley went to Italy, and there are +recorded in the letters and journals of each many pleasant evenings at +Hampstead and at Marlow, filled with poetry and music, with talks on art +and trials of wit, with dinners and theater parties. Mary Shelley and Mrs. +Hunt became as great friends as their husbands.</p> + +<p>When Harriet committed suicide and Shelley went up to London to institute +proceedings for possession of their children, Hunt remained constantly +with him and gave him as much sympathy and support as it is possible for +one fellow-being to extend to another whom all the world has +deserted.<a name="fna228_228" id="fna228_228"></a><a href="#f228_228" class="fnanc">[228]</a> He attended the Chancery suit and stated Shelley’s position +in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span> <i>The +Examiner</i>.<a name="fna229_229" id="fna229_229"></a><a href="#f229_229" class="fnanc">[229]</a> This sympathy and support, given Shelley in his +hour of greatest need and desolation, have never been sufficiently valued +in a comparative estimate of the relative indebtedness of the two men. If +Shelley gave freely of his money, Hunt, devoid of <ins class="correction" title="original: wordly">worldly</ins> goods, gave +unstintingly, to the detriment of his reputation, of those things which +money cannot purchase. That he incurred the displeasure of men in power, +and ran the risk of being misunderstood by the public in befriending +Shelley, did not deter him for an instant.</p> + +<p>During 1817 Shelley made the acquaintance, through Hunt, of the Cockney +circle, including Keats, Reynolds, Hazlitt, Brougham, Novello and Horace +Smith. The last-named became one of Shelley’s most trusted friends.<a name="fna230_230" id="fna230_230"></a><a href="#f230_230" class="fnanc">[230]</a> +These new friends enlarged his list of acquaintances considerably, for up +to this time he seems to have had no friends except Godwin, Hogg and +Peacock.</p> + +<p>In the early spring of 1818, the Shelleys went to Italy, melancholy with +the thought of separation from the Hunts.<a name="fna231_231" id="fna231_231"></a><a href="#f231_231" class="fnanc">[231]</a> The letters from Shelley to +Hunt during the next four years form an important part of Shelley’s +correspondence.</p> + +<p>The part played by Shelley in the invitation extended to Hunt to join Lord +Byron and himself in Italy and to become one of the editors of a +periodical will be treated minutely in the next chapter. It is sufficient +here to say that he was actuated by a desire to better Hunt’s finances and +to enjoy his society—a pleasure he had been pining for ever since they +had been separated, and, in case of a return to England, regarded as the +one joy “among all the other sources of regret and discomfort with which +England abounds for me.... Shaking hands with you is worth all the +trouble; the rest is clear loss.”<a name="fna232_232" id="fna232_232"></a><a href="#f232_232" class="fnanc">[232]</a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span>Further, he knew that Hunt longed +for Italy, and he wished to help Byron in the cause of liberalism. To +bring both ends about, he shouldered a burden that he was ill able to +bear. An annuity of £200 for the support of his two children, an annuity +of £100 to Peacock, perpetual demand for large sums from Godwin, +occasional assistance rendered the Gisbornes, partial support of Jane +Claremont, loans to Byron, and the support of his family, were the drains +already upon him—met, in the main by money raised on <i>post obits</i> at half +value.</p> + +<p>The amount of Hunt’s indebtedness to Shelley can be estimated only +approximately. The first reference to a financial transaction between them +after the “princely offer”<a name="fna233_233" id="fna233_233"></a><a href="#f233_233" class="fnanc">[233]</a> is to be found in Mary Shelley’s letter of +December 6, 1816, in which she wondered that Hunt had not acknowledged the +“receipt of so large a sum.” Professor Dowden thinks this may be an +allusion to Shelley’s response to an appeal for the poor of Spitalfields +which had appeared in <i>The Examiner</i> five days previously.<a name="fna234_234" id="fna234_234"></a><a href="#f234_234" class="fnanc">[234]</a> Shelley’s +offers to Hunt to borrow £100 from Byron<a name="fna235_235" id="fna235_235"></a><a href="#f235_235" class="fnanc">[235]</a> and to stand security for a +loan from Charles Cowden Clarke,<a name="fna236_236" id="fna236_236"></a><a href="#f236_236" class="fnanc">[236]</a> and an attempt to borrow from Samuel +Rogers<a name="fna237_237" id="fna237_237"></a><a href="#f237_237" class="fnanc">[237]</a> are not developed by any further facts, but it is necessary to +take note of them in a general estimate. Before leaving England, Shelley +arranged with Ollier for a loan of £100 for Hunt, a debt which was later +liquidated by the sale of the <i>Literary Pocket Book</i>.<a name="fna238_238" id="fna238_238"></a><a href="#f238_238" class="fnanc">[238]</a> At some time +before leaving England, Shelley also gave Hunt in one year £1,400<a name="fna239_239" id="fna239_239"></a><a href="#f239_239" class="fnanc">[239]</a> for +the liquidation of his debts, which money was, Medwin says, borrowed from +Horace Smith.<a name="fna240_240" id="fna240_240"></a><a href="#f240_240" class="fnanc">[240]</a> Unfortunately for +Shelley, the sum was insufficient<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span> to +extricate Hunt from his difficulties. Miss Mitford gives the amount as +£1,500, instead of £1,400, and adds that Shelley’s furniture and bedding +were swept off to pay Hunt’s creditors;<a name="fna241_241" id="fna241_241"></a><a href="#f241_241" class="fnanc">[241]</a> the inaccuracy of the first +statement and the lack of any evidence to support the second, lead one to +doubt the story. But it is true that Shelley’s income at the time was only +£1,000. Even when so far away as Italy, Hunt’s money troubles weighed +heavily upon Shelley in a continual regret that he could not set him +entirely free from his creditors;<a name="fna242_242" id="fna242_242"></a><a href="#f242_242" class="fnanc">[242]</a> he feared that the incredible +exertions Hunt was making on <i>The Indicator</i> and on <i>The Examiner</i>, and +the privations that he endured, would undermine his health.<a name="fna243_243" id="fna243_243"></a><a href="#f243_243" class="fnanc">[243]</a> When Hunt +finally decided to go to Italy, Shelley assumed, as a matter of course, +the chief responsibility of providing the means.</p> + +<p>As early as 1818, when Shelley and Byron met in Venice, the matter of the +journal was discussed between them and broached to Hunt. December 22, +1818, Shelley wrote him that Byron wished him to come to Italy and that, +if money considerations prevented, Byron would lend him £400 or £500. He +added that Hunt should not feel uncomfortable in accepting the offer, as +it was frankly made, and that his society would give Byron pleasure and +service.<a name="fna244_244" id="fna244_244"></a><a href="#f244_244" class="fnanc">[244]</a> Hunt does not seem to have seriously considered the +proposition, for there are few references to it in his correspondence of +this year. On the renewal of the plan in 1821, Shelley would never have +called on Byron for assistance for Hunt if he himself could have provided +otherwise, for his opinion of Byron had changed in the meantime.<a name="fna245_245" id="fna245_245"></a><a href="#f245_245" class="fnanc">[245]</a> +January 25, 1822, Shelley sent £150 for the expenses of the voyage, +“within 30 or 40 pounds of what I have contrived to scrape<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> +together”;<a name="fna246_246" id="fna246_246"></a><a href="#f246_246" class="fnanc">[246]</a> and again on +February 23, £250,<a name="fna247_247" id="fna247_247"></a><a href="#f247_247" class="fnanc">[247]</a> borrowed with +security from Byron. Yet Shelley’s own exchequer at the time was so low +that Mary Shelley wrote in the spring: “We are drearily behindhand with +money at present. Hunt and our furniture has swallowed up more than our +savings.”<a name="fna248_248" id="fna248_248"></a><a href="#f248_248" class="fnanc">[248]</a> On April 10 Shelley stated that he was trying to finish +<i>Charles the First</i> in order that he might earn £100 for Hunt.</p> + +<p>In round numbers it may be calculated that the sum total of Hunt’s +indebtedness, exclusive of the yearly bequest of £120 paid by Shelley’s +son, was about £2,500, a very large sum in the light of Shelley’s limited +resources and other obligations. But it was as ungrudgingly given as it +was graciously received. Between the two men there was no distinction of +<i>meum</i> and <i>tuum</i>. More remarkable still, Mary Shelley gave as willingly +as her husband. If one is inclined to marvel at such an unusual state of +affairs, it must be recalled that both men were under the spell of William +Godwin’s theories of community of property. Shelley gave as his duty and +Hunt received as his due. That the effort involved much deprivation and +distress of mind on the part of the giver mars the justice of acceptance +by the recipient, retrieved only in part by the belief that Hunt probably +did not know the full extent of Shelley’s sacrifice, and the knowledge +that the former would gladly have endured as much if the conditions had +been reversed. The element of self-sacrifice and delicacy on the part of +Shelley in concealing it, in after years only added to the beauty of the +gift in Hunt’s eyes, and even at the time he cannot be accused of +indifference.<a name="fna249_249" id="fna249_249"></a><a href="#f249_249" class="fnanc">[249]</a> Jeaffreson makes +the absurd suggestion that Shelley<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span> +gave the money as a bribe to the editor of a powerful and flourishing +literary journal.<a name="fna250_250" id="fna250_250"></a><a href="#f250_250" class="fnanc">[250]</a> He thinks dodging creditors was a strong bond of +mutual interest between the two men. There is evidence that Hunt was in +difficulty at the time and that Shelley left a surgeon’s bill unpaid,<a name="fna251_251" id="fna251_251"></a><a href="#f251_251" class="fnanc">[251]</a> +but there is no proof extant of deliberate mutual protection. On the +contrary, it is most unlikely.</p> + +<p>The Hunts sailed from England in November, 1821, and reached Leghorn +nearly nine months after first setting out on a voyage which, in its +delays and dangers, Byron compared to the “periplus of Hanno the +Carthaginian, and with much the same speed”;<a name="fna252_252" id="fna252_252"></a><a href="#f252_252" class="fnanc">[252]</a> Peacock to that of +Ulysses.<a name="fna253_253" id="fna253_253"></a><a href="#f253_253" class="fnanc">[253]</a> Of Shelley’s suggestion to make the trip by sea, Hunt wrote: +“if he had recommended a balloon, I should have been inclined to try +it.”<a name="fna254_254" id="fna254_254"></a><a href="#f254_254" class="fnanc">[254]</a> Hogg, with his characteristic humour, remarked that a journey by +land would have taken equally long, since Hunt would have stopped to +gather all the daisies by the wayside from Paris to Pisa. Both men looked +forward to many years together<a name="fna255_255" id="fna255_255"></a><a href="#f255_255" class="fnanc">[255]</a> and Shelley, in his letter of welcome, +wrote that wind and waves parted them no more,<a name="fna256_256" id="fna256_256"></a><a href="#f256_256" class="fnanc">[256]</a> an assertion which now +sounds like a knell of doom. From Leghorn Shelley conveyed the party to +Pisa and installed them in the lower floor of Byron’s dwelling, the +Lanfranchi Palace.<a name="fna257_257" id="fna257_257"></a><a href="#f257_257" class="fnanc">[257]</a> To Shelley fell the difficult task of keeping Lord +Byron in heart for the new undertaking and of reviving Hunt’s drooping +spirits. Hunt’s funds were all gone and in their place was a debt of sixty +crowns. The next few days were full of grave anxiety and foreboding for +the future, broken only by a delightful Sunday spent in seeing the +Cathedral and the Tower. Of this day Hunt wrote: “Good God! what a day was +that, compared with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> all that have followed it! I had my friend with me, +arm-in-arm, after a separation of years: he was looking better than I had +ever seen him—we talked of a thousand things—we anticipated a thousand +pleasures.”<a name="fna258_258" id="fna258_258"></a><a href="#f258_258" class="fnanc">[258]</a> Then came the fatal Monday with its shipwreck of many +hopes—in its tragic sequel too well known to need repetition here. Hunt’s +last services to his friend were his assistance rendered at the cremation +and his contribution of the now famous Latin epitaph “<i>cor cordium</i>.”<a name="fna259_259" id="fna259_259"></a><a href="#f259_259" class="fnanc">[259]</a></p> + +<p>With Shelley perished Hunt’s chief hope in life; in the opinion of his +son, he was never the same man again. In 1832, at his period of darkest +depression, he wrote: “If you ask me how it is that I bear all this, I +answer, that I love nature and books, and think well of the capabilities +of human kind. I have known Shelley, I have known my mother.”<a name="fna260_260" id="fna260_260"></a><a href="#f260_260" class="fnanc">[260]</a> In 1844 +he claimed as his proudest title, the “Friend of Shelley.”<a name="fna261_261" id="fna261_261"></a><a href="#f261_261" class="fnanc">[261]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span>The first printed notice of Shelley was in <i>The Examiner</i> of December 1, +1816. Therefore to Hunt belongs in this case, as in that of Keats, the +credit of discovery. It is difficult to account for Hunt’s tardiness of +recognition,<a name="fna262_262" id="fna262_262"></a><a href="#f262_262" class="fnanc">[262]</a> coming as it did six years after Shelley first wrote +him, five years after the Finnerty poem, three years after <i>Queen Mab</i>, +and two years after the visit in prison.<a name="fna263_263" id="fna263_263"></a><a href="#f263_263" class="fnanc">[263]</a> Also Shelley had sent +contributions to <i>The Examiner</i>, which Hunt had not accepted, but which he +vaguely recalled at the time of writing his first review on Shelley. It +was inspired by the announcement of <i>Alastor</i>, and consisted of about ten +lines, embodied in the article on Keats and Reynolds already referred to. +Hunt pronounced Shelley “a very striking and original thinker.” Shelley’s +reply to a letter from Hunt, telling him of the notice, pictures him +anxiously scouring the countryside about Bath for the sight of a copy and +buoyed up at last by the news of one five miles distant.</p> + +<p>This notice was followed by the publication of the <i>Hymn to Intellectual +Beauty</i> in <i>The Examiner</i> of January 19, 1817; a notice of the Chancery +suit, January 26 and February 2; and an extract from <i>Laon and Cythna</i>, +November 30. A review of the <i>Revolt of Islam</i> ran through three numbers, +January 25, February 8 and 22, 1818. Shelley’s system of charity and his +crusade against tyranny, as set forth in the preface, Hunt loudly +applauded. Many extracts were italicized for the guidance of the public. +The beauties of the poem were pronounced to be its mysticism, its +wildness, its depth of sentiment, its grandeur of imagery, and its varied +and sweet versification. In the boldness of speculation and in the love of +virtue Hunt saw a resemblance to Lucretius, while in the gloom and +imagination of certain passages, particularly in the grandeur of the +supernatural architecture, he was reminded of Dante. The defects were +pronounced to be obscurity of narrative and sameness of image and +metaphor. The review closed with the prophecy “we have no doubt he is +destined to be one of the leading spirits of the age.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span>The <i>Quarterly Review</i> of +May, 1818, accused Shelley<a name="fna264_264" id="fna264_264"></a><a href="#f264_264" class="fnanc">[264]</a> of atheism and +of dissolute conduct in private life; the same journal of April, 1819, +reviewing the <i>Revolt of Islam</i> on the basis of the suppressed version of +<i>Laon and Cythna</i>, though it did not fail to appreciate the genius and +beauty of the poem, charged Shelley with a predilection for incest and +with a frantic dislike for Christianity. It called the support of <i>The +Examiner</i> “the sweet undersong of the weekly journal.”<a name="fna265_265" id="fna265_265"></a><a href="#f265_265" class="fnanc">[265]</a> The two +attacks were met by a strong protest from Hunt,<a name="fna266_266" id="fna266_266"></a><a href="#f266_266" class="fnanc">[266]</a> particularly in +regard to the part dealing with Shelley’s life. He denied the propriety of +such discussion in public criticism and declared that he had never known +Shelley to “deviate, notwithstanding his theories, even into a single +action which those who differ with him might think blameable.” His life at +Marlow was described as spent in “beautiful charity and generosity” and +was likened to that of Plato. In 1821 an attack on Shelley by Hazlitt was +met by an angry warning from Hunt and a threat to become his public enemy, +if the offense were repeated.<a name="fna267_267" id="fna267_267"></a><a href="#f267_267" class="fnanc">[267]</a> Hunt’s reason for taking this defensive +attitude was that he knew that Shelley suffered greatly from such +malignant exploitations and that he would not defend himself; therefore he +made his friend’s cause his own and wrote: “I reckon upon your leaving +your personal battles to me,”<a name="fna268_268" id="fna268_268"></a><a href="#f268_268" class="fnanc">[268]</a> much in the same manner as Shelley had +assumed his money troubles.</p> + +<p>Following the review of the <i>Revolt of Islam</i>, a notice of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> <i>Rosalind and +Helen</i> and of <i>Lines Written among the Euganean Hills</i><a name="fna269_269" id="fna269_269"></a><a href="#f269_269" class="fnanc">[269]</a> appeared in +<i>The Examiner</i> of May 9, 1819. Attention was called to the poet’s optimism +and to his great love of nature: “the beauty of the external world has an +answering heart, and the very whispers of the wind a meaning.” <i>The +Cenci</i>, published in 1820, contained in its dedication a glowing tribute +to Hunt, an honour in Shelley’s opinion only in a small degree worthy of +his friend.<a name="fna270_270" id="fna270_270"></a><a href="#f270_270" class="fnanc">[270]</a> Hunt was intoxicated with the honour and wrote: “I feel +as if you had bound, not only my head, but my very soul and body with +laurels.”<a name="fna271_271" id="fna271_271"></a><a href="#f271_271" class="fnanc">[271]</a> On the subject of the tragedy he was equally enthusiastic: +“What a noble book, Shelley, have you given us! What a true, stately, and +yet affectionate mixture of poetry, philosophy, and human nature, horror, +and all redeeming sweetness of intention, for there is an undersong of +suggestion through it all, that sings, as it were, after the storm is +over, like a brook in April.”<a name="fna272_272" id="fna272_272"></a><a href="#f272_272" class="fnanc">[272]</a> In a public expression of his opinion +in <i>The Examiner</i> of March 19, 1820, Hunt pronounced <i>The Cenci</i> the +greatest dramatic production of the day. Writing of the drama again in the +same journal of July 19 and 26, 1820, he called Shelley “a framer of +mighty lines” and continued: “Majesty and Love do sit on one throne in the +lofty buildings of his poetry; and they will be found there, at a late and +we trust a happier day, on a seat immortal as themselves.”</p> + +<p>One of Hunt’s most perfect poems, <i>Jaffár</i>, is inscribed to the memory of +Shelley. The praise of <i>Jaffár</i> and his friend’s undying loyalty +immediately suggest to the reader that Hunt<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> may have been celebrating his +own and Shelley’s friendship. The last review to appear during Shelley’s +lifetime by Hunt was that of <i>Prometheus Unbound</i> in three numbers of <i>The +Examiner</i> of 1822. A projected review of <i>Adonais</i> alluded to in a letter +of Hunt’s does not seem to have seen the light of publication, but a +reference in a letter at the time is worth noting: “It is the most Delphic +poety I have seen in a long while: full of those embodyings of the most +subtle and airy imaginations,—those arrestings and explanations of the +most shadowy yearnings of our being.”<a name="fna273_273" id="fna273_273"></a><a href="#f273_273" class="fnanc">[273]</a> The well-known account of +Shelley’s rescue of a woman on Hampstead Heath was told in <i>The Literary +Examiner</i> of August 23, 1823.<a name="fna274_274" id="fna274_274"></a><a href="#f274_274" class="fnanc">[274]</a> The same magazine of September 20 of +the same year<a name="fna275_275" id="fna275_275"></a><a href="#f275_275" class="fnanc">[275]</a> contained the following <i>Sonnet to Percy Shelley</i>, +given here because of its general inaccessibility:</p> + +<p class="poem">“Hast thou from earth, then, really passed away,<br /> +And mingled with the shadowy mass of things<br /> +Which were, but are not? Will thy harp’s dear strings<br /> +No more yield music to the rapid play<br /> +Of thy swift thoughts, now turned thou art to clay?<br /> +Hark! Is that rushing of thy spirit’s wings,<br /> +When (like the skylark, who in mounting sings)<br /> +Soaring through high imagination’s way,<br /> +Thou pour’dst thy melody upon the earth,<br /> +Silent for ever? Yes, wild ocean’s wave<br /> +Hath o’er thee rolled. But whilst within the grave<br /> +Thou sleepst, let me in the love of thy pure worth<br /> +One thing foretell,—that thy great fame shall be<br /> +Progressive as Time’s flood, eternal as the sea!”</p> + +<p>In <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i> appeared the first +biographical memoir of Shelley, a sketch of some seventy pages.<a name="fna276_276" id="fna276_276"></a><a href="#f276_276" class="fnanc">[276]</a> It +shows great appreciation of the fine and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> gentle qualities of his rare +genius and defends some of the weak points of his career. The description +of his personal appearance, of the life at Marlowe, and the few anecdotes +are often quoted. But on the whole, it lacks the bold strokes of vivid +portraiture and it is very disappointing.<a name="fna277_277" id="fna277_277"></a><a href="#f277_277" class="fnanc">[277]</a> There was probably no one, +with the exception of his wife, who knew Shelley so well as Hunt and who +was, therefore, in a position to give as complete and intimate an idea of +him. It was Mrs. Shelley’s wish that Hunt should be her husband’s +biographer, for she thought that he, “perhaps above all others, understood +his nature and his genius.”<a name="fna278_278" id="fna278_278"></a><a href="#f278_278" class="fnanc">[278]</a> Hunt, in <i>The Spectator</i> of August 13, +1859, gave as his reason for not writing Shelley’s life that he “could not +survive enough persons.” But it is to be questioned if he were fitted for +the task. His son did not think that he was because of his attention to +details and his irresistible tendency to analysis: “a mind, in short, like +that of Hamlet, cultivated rather than corrected by the trials of life, +was scarcely suited to comprehend the strong instincts, indomitable will, +and complete unity of idea which distinguished Shelley.”<a name="fna279_279" id="fna279_279"></a><a href="#f279_279" class="fnanc">[279]</a></p> + +<p>In the <i>Tatler</i> of August 1, 1831, Hunt wrote that “Mr. Shelley was a +platonic philosopher, of the acutest and loftiest kind,” and that he +belonged to the school of Plato and Æschylus, as Keats belonged to that of +Spenser and Milton. Following <i>The Tatler</i> was the preface to <i>The Mask of +Anarchy</i>,<a name="fna280_280" id="fna280_280"></a><a href="#f280_280" class="fnanc">[280]</a> published in 1832, originally designed for <i>The Examiner</i> +in 1819, but laid aside by the editor because he thought the public not +discerning enough “to do justice to the sincerity and kindheartedness of +the spirit that walked in this flaming robe of verse.” The preface +eulogizes the poet’s spiritual nature and his “seraphic purpose of good.” +In <i>The Seer</i>, 1841, Shelley’s qualities of heart were pronounced more +enduring than his genius.<a name="fna281_281" id="fna281_281"></a><a href="#f281_281" class="fnanc">[281]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span><i>Imagination and Fancy</i> contained an essay and selections from his poems. +Here Hunt makes the curious statement that little in the poems is purely +poetical, but rather moral, political, and speculative. It is noteworthy +that he predicts, probably for the first time, that, had Shelley lived, he +would have been the greatest dramatic writer since the days of Elizabeth, +if not, indeed, actually so, through what he did accomplish; a statement +often repeated. He says: “If Coleridge is the sweetest of our poets, +Shelley is at once the most ethereal and gorgeous, the one who has clothed +his thought in draperies of the most evanescent and most magnificent words +and imagery.... Shelley ... might well call himself Ariel.”<a name="fna282_282" id="fna282_282"></a><a href="#f282_282" class="fnanc">[282]</a> In +connection with Shelley’s ethereal qualities, Mrs. James T. Fields quotes +Hunt as having said on another occasion that Shelley always seemed to him +as if he were “just alit from the planet Mercury, bearing a winged wand +tipped with flame.”<a name="fna283_283" id="fna283_283"></a><a href="#f283_283" class="fnanc">[283]</a> In <i>Imagination and Fancy</i>, Hunt continues: “Not +Milton himself is more learned in Grecisms, or nicer in entomological +propriety; and nobody, throughout, has a style so Orphic and primeval.”</p> + +<p>It is a touching circumstance that Hunt’s last letter bore reference to +Shelley, and that his last effort as a public writer, made only a few days +before his death, was in vindication of Shelley’s character.<a name="fna284_284" id="fna284_284"></a><a href="#f284_284" class="fnanc">[284]</a> The +publication of the <i>Shelley Memorials</i>, 1859, in which Hunt had a part, +provoked an unfavorable review in <i>The Spectator</i>. Hunt replied in the +next number<a name="fna285_285" id="fna285_285"></a><a href="#f285_285" class="fnanc">[285]</a> of the same paper. In particular he asserted Shelley’s +truthfulness, which had been assailed in respect to his story of the +attempted assassination in Wales. He held that Shelley was not a man to be +judged by ordinary rules, but that he was the highest possible exponent of +humanity—an approach to divinity.</p> + +<p>Hunt’s literary relation with Shelley falls into two divisions; +publications written for Hunt’s periodicals, and received by Hunt<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span> in +order to give Shelley an outlet of expression denied him in the more +conservative papers; and second, positive literary imitation. Besides the +poems quoted in Hunt’s criticisms of Shelley, the first includes a review +of Godwin’s <i>Mandeville</i>,<a name="fna286_286" id="fna286_286"></a><a href="#f286_286" class="fnanc">[286]</a> a letter of protest regarding the second +edition of <i>Queen Mab</i>,<a name="fna287_287" id="fna287_287"></a><a href="#f287_287" class="fnanc">[287]</a> <i>Marianne’s +Dream</i>,<a name="fna288_288" id="fna288_288"></a><a href="#f288_288" class="fnanc">[288]</a> <i>Song on a Faded +Violet</i>,<a name="fna289_289" id="fna289_289"></a><a href="#f289_289" class="fnanc">[289]</a> <i>The +Sunset</i>,<a name="fna290_290" id="fna290_290"></a><a href="#f290_290" class="fnanc">[290]</a> <i>The +Question</i>,<a name="fna291_291" id="fna291_291"></a><a href="#f291_291" class="fnanc">[291]</a> <i>Good +Night</i>,<a name="fna292_292" id="fna292_292"></a><a href="#f292_292" class="fnanc">[292]</a> +<i>Sonnet, Ye Hasten to the Grave</i>,<a name="fna293_293" id="fna293_293"></a><a href="#f293_293" class="fnanc">[293]</a> <i>To —— (Lines to a +Reviewer)</i>,<a name="fna294_294" id="fna294_294"></a><a href="#f294_294" class="fnanc">[294]</a> <i>November, +1815</i>,<a name="fna295_295" id="fna295_295"></a><a href="#f295_295" class="fnanc">[295]</a> <i>Love’s +Philosophy</i>,<a name="fna296_296" id="fna296_296"></a><a href="#f296_296" class="fnanc">[296]</a> and the +contributions designed by Shelley for <i>The Liberal</i> and published after +his death.<a name="fna297_297" id="fna297_297"></a><a href="#f297_297" class="fnanc">[297]</a> Productions which were written for Hunt’s papers, but were +not accepted, were <i>Peter Bell the Third</i>, <i>The Mask of Anarchy</i>, <i>Julian +and Maddalo</i>, a letter on the persecution of Richard Carlile,<a name="fna298_298" id="fna298_298"></a><a href="#f298_298" class="fnanc">[298]</a> letters +on Italy, and a review of Peacock’s <i>Rhododaphne</i>. Hunt’s failure to +accept what was sent him greatly discouraged Shelley at times: “Mine is a +life of failures; Peacock says my poetry is composed of day dreams and +nightmares, and Leigh Hunt does not think it good enough for <i>The +Examiner</i>.”</p> + +<p><i>On a Fete at Carlton House</i>, an attack on the Prince Regent, though +perhaps directly inspired by the account in the dailies of the ball at +Carlton House on June 20, 1811, was doubtless influenced by the continued +attacks of <i>The Examiner</i>. As there are extant only two or three lines of +the poem,<a name="fna299_299" id="fna299_299"></a><a href="#f299_299" class="fnanc">[299]</a> it is +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span>impossible to judge of the extent of the influence, +but in Shelley’s letters to Hogg and to Edward Graham describing the poem, +there is resemblance in tone and epithet to <i>The Examiner</i>. A letter from +Shelley to Lord Ellenborough on the occasion of Eaton’s sentence for +publishing the third part of Paine’s <i>Age of Reason</i> followed a long +series of articles by Hunt on the prerogative of liberty of speech.<a name="fna300_300" id="fna300_300"></a><a href="#f300_300" class="fnanc">[300]</a></p> + +<p>A meeting of Reformers at Manchester on the sixteenth of August, 1819, for +the purpose of discussing quietly the annual meeting of Parliament, +universal suffrage, and voting by ballot, was dispersed by military force. +Articles setting forth the long sufferings of the Reformers, charging the +authorities with wanton bloodshed, and ridiculing the absurd trial of the +offenders, appeared in <i>The Examiner</i> of August 22, 29, September 5, 19 +and 26. <i>The Mask of Anarchy</i>, written on the occasion of the massacre at +Manchester, was sent to Leigh Hunt for publication sometime before the +first of November, 1819. The sentiment of both men is the same regarding +the affair.</p> + +<p>Accounts of the death of the Princess Charlotte and of the executions for +high treason at Derby of Brandreth, Ludlam and Turner, after a horrible +imprisonment, two articles in <i>The Examiner</i> of November 9, 1819, inspired +Shelley’s <i>Address to the People on the Death of the Princess Charlotte</i>, +sometimes known as <i>We Pity the Plumage, but Forget the Dying Bird</i>, dated +November 12 of the same year. Hunt followed with a second article, <i>Death +of the Princess Charlotte and Indecent Advantage Taken of It</i>, November +16, 1819. Both writers called attention to the disposition of the public +to forget the sufferings of the poor, while it mourned hysterically with +royalty; they declared that the administration of justice and the events +leading to such crimes were of much greater importance. Three articles in +<i>The Examiner</i> of October 17, 24 and 31, 1819, on the trial of Richard +Carlile for libel, were followed by an open letter on the same case from +Shelley to Hunt dated November 3, 1819. By scattered references it can be +seen that Shelley fully agreed with Hunt in his opinion of the Prince<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span> +Regent and of the Ministers, in his attitude toward the corruption of the +court and of the army; and in his proposed regulation of taxes and of the +public debt.</p> + +<p><i>Œdipus Tyrannus or Swellfoot the Tyrant</i>, begun August, 1820, +succeeded a series of articles, beginning in <i>The Examiner</i> of June 11, +1820, and continuing throughout nineteen numbers,<a name="fna301_301" id="fna301_301"></a><a href="#f301_301" class="fnanc">[301]</a> on the subject of +George IV’s attempt to divorce his wife.<a name="fna302_302" id="fna302_302"></a><a href="#f302_302" class="fnanc">[302]</a> Abhorrence of the king’s +perfidy and of his ministers’ support, sympathy for Queen Caroline, and +minor details parallel closely Hunt’s version in <i>The Examiner</i>. This +passage occurs in the article of June 9: “An animal sets himself down, +month after month, at Milan, to watch at her doors and windows, to +intercept discarded servants and others who know what a deposition might +be worth, and thus to gather poison for one of those venomous Green Bags, +which have so long infected and nauseated the people, and are now to +infect the Queen.” This seems to be the germ of the passage in Shelley’s +poem beginning:</p> + +<p class="poem"><span style="margin-left: 3em;">“Behold this bag! it is</span><br /> +The poison Bag of that Green Spider huge,<br /> +On which our spies sulked in ovation through<br /> +The streets of Thebes, when they were paved with dead.”</p> + +<p>Then follows the plot to throw the contents upon the Queen.</p> + +<p>The handling of the heroic couplet, employed in the <i>Letter to Maria +Gisborne</i> and in <i>Epipsychidon</i>, as well as in <i>Julian and Maddalo</i>,<a name="fna303_303" id="fna303_303"></a><a href="#f303_303" class="fnanc">[303]</a> +has been already discussed in its relationship to Hunt’s use of the same. +Shelley, in a letter to Hunt, explains his position in regard to the +language of <i>Julian and Maddalo</i>:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“You will find the little piece, I think, in some degree consistent +with your own ideas of the manner in which poetry ought to be +written. I have employed a certain familiar style of language to +express the actual way in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span> which people talk to each other, whom +education and a certain refinement of sentiment have placed above the +use of vulgar idioms. I use the word <i>vulgar</i> in its most extensive +sense. The vulgarity of rank and fashion is as gross, in its way, as +that of poverty, and its cant terms equally expressive of base +conceptions, and therefore, equally unfit for poetry. Not that the +familiar style is to be admitted in the treatment of a subject wholly +ideal, or in that part of any subject which relates to common life, +where the passion, exceeding a certain limit, touches the boundary of +that which is ideal. Strong passion expresses itself in metaphor, +borrowed alike from subjects remote or near, and casts over all the +shadow of its own greatness.”<a name="fna304_304" id="fna304_304"></a><a href="#f304_304" class="fnanc">[304]</a></p></div> + +<p><i>Rosalind and Helen</i>, the <i>Letter to Maria Gisborne</i>, <i>Swellfoot the +Tyrant</i>, and <i>Peter Bell the Third</i><a name="fna305_305" id="fna305_305"></a><a href="#f305_305" class="fnanc">[305]</a> show a similar influence. <i>The +Letter to Maria Gisborne</i> bears a resemblance to Hunt’s epistolary style, +and was written, Mr. Forman thinks, for circulation in the Hunt circle +only.<a name="fna306_306" id="fna306_306"></a><a href="#f306_306" class="fnanc">[306]</a> It was through Hunt, so Shelley states in the dedication, that +he knew the <i>Peter Bells</i> of Wordsworth and of John Hamilton Reynolds. +Shelley’s qualified adoption in these poems of Hunt’s theory of poetic +language is seen in the choice of a vocabulary in dialogue nearer everyday +usage than the more remote one of his other poems. Yet the result does not +bear any great resemblance to Hunt. Shelley’s unvarying refinement and +sensibility kept him from committing the same errors of taste, but his +work suffered rather than gained by an innovation which was probably a +concession to his friendship for Hunt and not a strong conviction. With +the exception of the descriptive passages, the keynote of these poems is +on a lower poetic pitch.</p> + +<p>On subjects of Italian art and literature the friends held much the same +opinion. At times Shelley seems to have been led by Hunt’s judgment, as in +his conclusions regarding Raphael<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span> and +Michaelangelo.<a name="fna307_307" id="fna307_307"></a><a href="#f307_307" class="fnanc">[307]</a> One passage on +the Italian poets indicates a possible borrowing of thought and figure on +Shelley’s part when he wrote of Boccaccio that he was superior to Ariosto +and to Tasso, “the children of a later and colder day.... How much do I +admire Boccaccio! What descriptions of nature are those in his little +introduction to every new day! It is the morning of life stripped of that +mist of familiarity which makes it obscure to us.”<a name="fna308_308" id="fna308_308"></a><a href="#f308_308" class="fnanc">[308]</a> Hunt wrote: +“Petrarch, Boccaccio and Dante are the morning, noon and night of the +great Italian day.”<a name="fna309_309" id="fna309_309"></a><a href="#f309_309" class="fnanc">[309]</a></p> + +<p>Poems which refer directly to Hunt are the fourteen lines in the <i>Letter +to Maria Gisborne</i>;<a name="fna310_310" id="fna310_310"></a><a href="#f310_310" class="fnanc">[310]</a> possibly the fragment, beginning, “For me, my +friend, if not that tears did tremble.”<a name="fna311_311" id="fna311_311"></a><a href="#f311_311" class="fnanc">[311]</a> A cancelled passage of the +<i>Adonais</i> describes Hunt thus:</p> + +<p class="poem">And then came one of sweet and carnal looks,<br /> +Those soft smiles to his dark and night-like eyes<br /> +Were as the clear and ever-living brooks<br /> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span>Are to the obscure fountains whence they rise,<br /> +Showing how pure they are; a Paradise<br /> +Of happy truth upon his forehead low<br /> +Lay, making wisdom lovely, in the guise<br /> +Of earth-awakening morn upon the brow<br /> +Of star-deserted heaven, while ocean gleams below,<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><span class="spacer">·</span><span class="spacer">·</span><span class="spacer">·</span><span class="spacer">·</span><span class="spacer">·</span><span class="spacer">·</span></span><br /> +His song, though very sweet, was low and faint,<br /> +A single strain—<a name="fna312_312" id="fna312_312"></a><a href="#f312_312" class="fnanc">[312]</a></p> + +<p>The thirty-fifth strophe of the present version refers to Hunt.</p> + +<p>Shelley’s last letter had reference to Hunt.<a name="fna313_313" id="fna313_313"></a><a href="#f313_313" class="fnanc">[313]</a> His last literary effort +was a poem comparing Hunt to a firefly and welcoming him to Italy, just as +Hunt’s last letter and last public utterance bore reference to +Shelley—strange coincidence, but striking testimony to their mutual +devotion. An instance of Shelley’s overestimation of Hunt’s ability is +seen in a passage where he says that Hunt excels in tragedy in the power +of delineating passion and, what is more necessary, of connecting and +developing it, “the last an incredible effort for himself but easy for +Hunt.”<a name="fna314_314" id="fna314_314"></a><a href="#f314_314" class="fnanc">[314]</a> He greatly valued and trusted Hunt’s affection, at times +calling him his best<a name="fna315_315" id="fna315_315"></a><a href="#f315_315" class="fnanc">[315]</a> and his +only friend.<a name="fna316_316" id="fna316_316"></a><a href="#f316_316" class="fnanc">[316]</a> If the tender +solicitude and veneration of a beautiful spirit for a man of vastly +inferior abilities seems strange, it is but a witness to the humility of +true genius.</p> + + + +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_IV" id="CHAPTER_IV"></a>CHAPTER IV.</h2> + +<p class="note">Byron’s Politics and Religion—His sympathy with Hunt in prison—His +impression of the man—Hunt’s Defense of Byron and Criticism of his +works—<i>The Liberal</i>—<i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>.</p> + +<p>It is not strange that Lord Byron, son of an English father and a Scotch +mother, born of a long line of adventurous and warlike sailors and +illustrious and loyal knights, with a strain of royalty and madness on one +side and eccentricity and immorality on the other, should have fallen heir +in an unusual degree to a nature whose virtues and vices were complex and +contradictory. Its singularities are nowhere more apparent than in the +mutations of his friendships.</p> + +<p>Prior to his acquaintance with Hunt, Byron had taken his seat in the House +of Lords and had made speeches against the framebreakers of Nottingham and +in behalf of Catholic emancipation. A month after their meeting he made a +third speech introducing Major Cartwright’s petition for reform in +Parliament. The second and third of these measures, in particular, were +warmly advocated by <i>The Examiner</i>, with which paper Byron was familiar, +as references in his letters show. It is therefore not hazardous to +surmise that his sympathy with liberal policies, alien to his Tory blood +and aristocratic spirit, was due, in part at least, to this influence. +Byron’s political principles on the whole were as evanescent and +intermittent as a will-o’-the-wisp.<a name="fna317_317" id="fna317_317"></a><a href="#f317_317" class="fnanc">[317]</a> His chief tenets were the +assertion of the individual; antagonism against all authority; a striving +after<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span> freedom. Brandes, Elze and Treitscke agree in attributing his +political enthusiasm to the intense passion of his nature rather than to +his moral convictions.<a name="fna318_318" id="fna318_318"></a><a href="#f318_318" class="fnanc">[318]</a> His religious convictions were as fugitive as +his political and, like those of Hunt and other advanced thinkers of the +age, seem to have been without deference to any existing creed or dogma. +At his gloomiest moments he confessed that he denied nothing but doubted +everything. Hunt says of Byron’s religion that he “did not know what he +was.... He was a Christian by education, he was an infidel by reading. He +was a Christian by habit, but he was no Christian upon reflection.”<a name="fna319_319" id="fna319_319"></a><a href="#f319_319" class="fnanc">[319]</a> +The phrase, “I am of the opposition” applies to his religion as well as to +his politics, as indeed it serves as the key-note to almost every action +of his life.</p> + +<p>Leigh Hunt has given a characteristic account of his first sight of Byron +“rehearsing the part of Leander,” in the River Thames sometime before he +went to Greece in 1809:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“I saw nothing in Lord Byron at that time, but a young man, who, like +myself, had written a bad volume of poems; and though I had sympathy +with him on this account, and more respect for his rank than I was +willing to suppose, my sympathy was not an agreeable one; so, +contenting myself with seeing his lordship’s head bob up and down in +the water, like a buoy, I came away. Lord Byron when he afterwards +came to see me in prison, was pleased to regret that I had not +stayed. He told me, that the sight of my volume at Harrow had been +one of his incentives to write verses, and that he had had the same +passion for friendship which I had displayed in it. To my +astonishment he quoted some of the lines, and would not hear me speak +ill of them.”<a name="fna320_320" id="fna320_320"></a><a href="#f320_320" class="fnanc">[320]</a></p></div> + +<p>Hunt’s <i>Juvenilia</i>, beyond having served as one of the incentives to the +writing of Byron’s <i>Hours of Idleness</i>, does not seem to have affected it. +For Hunt’s undercurrent of friendship and cheerfulness were substituted +Byron’s prevailing notes of amorousness and melancholy.</p> + +<p>The actual acquaintance of the two men did not begin until 1813, when +Thomas Moore, since 1811 a staunch admirer of Hunt’s political courage and +of his literary talent, and one of the visitors welcomed to Surrey Gaol, +mentioned the <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span>circumstances of his imprisonment to Lord Byron, likewise a +sympathizer with the attitude of <i>The Examiner</i> towards the Prince Regent. +Mr. Cordy Jeaffreson<a name="fna321_321" id="fna321_321"></a><a href="#f321_321" class="fnanc">[321]</a> thinks that it was this reckless sympathy with +the libeller of the Prince Regent that led Byron to reprint with <i>The +Corsair</i>, eight lines addressed in 1812 to the Princess Charlotte, <i>Weep, +daughter of a Royal Line</i>. The retaliation of one of the Tory papers +goaded Byron to write in return an article which strongly resembles Hunt’s +famous libel<a name="fna322_322" id="fna322_322"></a><a href="#f322_322" class="fnanc">[322]</a> on the Prince Regent. Byron expressed a wish to call on +Hunt with Moore, and a visit <ins class="correction" title="original: followd">followed</ins> on May 20, 1813.<a name="fna323_323" id="fna323_323"></a><a href="#f323_323" class="fnanc">[323]</a> Five days +later Hunt wrote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“I have had Lord B. here again. He came on Sunday, by himself, in a +very frank, unceremonious manner, and knowing what I wanted for my +poem [<i>Story of Rimini</i>] brought me the last new <i>Travels in Italy</i> +in two quarto volumes, of which he requests my acceptance, with the +air of one who did not seem to think himself conferring the least +obligation. This will please you. It strikes me that he and I shall +become <i>friends</i>, literally and cordially speaking: there is +something in the texture of his mind and feelings that seems to +resemble mine to a thread; I think we are cut out of the same piece, +only a little different wear may have altered our respective naps a +little.”<a name="fna324_324" id="fna324_324"></a><a href="#f324_324" class="fnanc">[324]</a></p></div> + +<p>With the pride of a sycophant in the presence of a lord Hunt relates that +Byron would not let the footman carry the books but gave “you to +understand that he was prouder of being a friend and a man of letters than +a lord. It was thus by flattering one’s vanity he persuaded us of his own +freedom from it: for he could see very well, that I had more value for +lords than I supposed.”<a name="fna325_325" id="fna325_325"></a><a href="#f325_325" class="fnanc">[325]</a> In June of the same year Hunt invited Byron, +Moore and Mitchell to dine with him in prison. Among several others who +came in during the evening was Mr. John Scott, later a severe critic of +Byron in <i>The Champion</i>.<a name="fna326_326" id="fna326_326"></a><a href="#f326_326" class="fnanc">[326]</a> Many years after Moore, in his <i>Life of +Byron</i>, wrote of the gathering with venom, recalling Scott as an assailant +of Byron’s<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span> “living fame, while another [Hunt] less manful, would reserve +the cool venom for his grave.”<a name="fna327_327" id="fna327_327"></a><a href="#f327_327" class="fnanc">[327]</a></p> + +<p>Byron esteemed Hunt greatly during the first year of their acquaintance. +His advances show a desire for intimacy which goes far toward +contradicting the statements sometimes made that the overtures were on +Hunt’s side only.<a name="fna328_328" id="fna328_328"></a><a href="#f328_328" class="fnanc">[328]</a> Byron expressed himself thus at the time:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Hunt is an extraordinary character and not exactly of the present +age. He reminds me more of the Pym and Hampden times—much talent, +great independence of spirit, and an austere, yet not repulsive, +aspect. If he goes on <i>qualis ab incepto</i>, I know few men who will +deserve more praise or obtain it. I must go and see him again—a +rapid succession of adventures since last summer, added to some +serious uneasiness and business, have interrupted our acquaintance; +but he is a man worth knowing; and though for his own sake, I wish +him out of prison, I like to study character in such situations. He +has been unshaken and will continue so. I don’t think him deeply +versed in life:—he is the bigot of virtue (not religion) and +enamoured of the beauty of that ‘empty name,’ as the last breath of +Brutus pronounced and every day proves it. He is perhaps, a little +opinionated, as all men who are the <i>center of circles</i>, wide or +narrow—the Sir Oracles—in whose name two or three are gathered +together—must be, and as even Johnson was: but withal, a valuable +man, and less vain than success and even the consciousness of +preferring ‘the right to the expedient,’ might excuse.”</p></div> + +<p>December 2, 1813, he wrote to Hunt: “It is my wish that our acquaintance, +or, if you please to accept it, friendship, may be permanent.... I have a +thorough esteem for that independence of spirit which you have maintained +with sterling talent, and at the expense of some suffering.”<a name="fna329_329" id="fna329_329"></a><a href="#f329_329" class="fnanc">[329]</a> Cordial +intercourse between the two men continued after Hunt’s removal from Surrey +Gaol to lodgings in Edgeware Road, where Byron became one of his most +frequent visitors and correspondents. In the Hunt household Byron laid +aside his ordinary reserve. There are records of his riding the children’s +rocking horse; of presents of game; loans of books; letters presented from +a Paris correspondent for <i>The Examiner</i>; and gifts of boxes and tickets +for Drury Lane Theatre, of which he was one of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> managers. This last +Hunt would not accept for fear of sacrificing his critical independence. +In <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, Hunt claims that this +familiarity proceeded from an “instinct of immeasureable distance.”<a name="fna330_330" id="fna330_330"></a><a href="#f330_330" class="fnanc">[330]</a></p> + +<p>It was not until Byron’s matrimonial difficulties in 1816 that Hunt, inert +and depressed from his long confinement, bestirred himself to return a +single one of the calls. Byron’s separation from his wife in 1816 and the +subsequent scandal aroused in Hunt that instinctive protection and active +loyalty for friends abused, already discussed in a review of his relations +with Keats and Shelley. The conjugal troubles and libertinism of the +Prince Regent had brought forth only scorn and vituperation from the +editor of <i>The Examiner</i>, but difficulties of equal notoriety at closer +range in the lives of his friends evoked only sympathy and protection. He +asserted that there was no positive knowledge as to the cause of the +trouble and much depraved speculation, envy and falsehood, yet “had he +[Byron] been as the scandal-mongers represented him, we should +nevertheless, if we thought our arm worth his using, have stood by him in +his misfortunes to the last.”<a name="fna331_331" id="fna331_331"></a><a href="#f331_331" class="fnanc">[331]</a> A prophecy of a near reconciliation and +a too-gushing picture of renewed domesticity are somewhat grotesque in the +light of later events. For this defense Byron was very grateful. January +12, 1822, he wrote that Scott, Jeffrey and Leigh Hunt “were the only +literary men of numbers whom I know (and some of whom I have served,) who +dared venture even an anonymous word in my favour, just then ... the third +was under no kind of obligation to me.”<a name="fna332_332" id="fna332_332"></a><a href="#f332_332" class="fnanc">[332]</a> Hunt’s opinion in the matter +underwent a transformation after the fateful Italian visit; he then +declared that Byron wooed with genius, married for money, and strove for a +reconciliation because of pique.<a name="fna333_333" id="fna333_333"></a><a href="#f333_333" class="fnanc">[333]</a></p> + +<p>The <i>Story of Rimini</i>, which had been submitted to Byron from time to time +and which was dedicated to him, appeared likewise in 1816. Byron seems to +have accepted the familiar tone of the inscription at the time in all good +faith “as a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> public +compliment and a private kindness”<a name="fna334_334" id="fna334_334"></a><a href="#f334_334" class="fnanc">[334]</a> although +<i>Blackwood’s</i> of March, 1828, states, perhaps not seriously, that Byron in +his copy had substituted for Hunt’s name “impudent varlet.” As late as +April 11, 1817, Byron wrote from Italy that he expected to return to +Venice by Ravenna and Rimini that he might take notes of the scenery for +Hunt.<a name="fna335_335" id="fna335_335"></a><a href="#f335_335" class="fnanc">[335]</a></p> + +<p>But a letter to Moore from Venice, June 1, 1818, seems to mark a +disillusionment on the part of Byron:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Hunt’s letter is probably the exact piece of vulgar coxcombry that +you might expect from his situation. He is a good man with some +practical element in his chaos, but spoilt by the Christ Church +Hospital and a Sunday newspaper to say nothing of the Surrey Gaol, +which converted him into a martyr.... Of my friend Hunt, I have +already said that he is anything but vulgar in his manners [a +statement repeated again in 1822<a name="fna336_336" id="fna336_336"></a><a href="#f336_336" class="fnanc">[336]</a>]; and of his disciples, +therefore, I will not judge of their manners from their verses. They +may be honourable and gentlemanly men for what I know; but the latter +quality is studiously excluded from their publications.”<a name="fna337_337" id="fna337_337"></a><a href="#f337_337" class="fnanc">[337]</a></p></div> + +<p>Hunt did not see or hear from Byron from 1817 until 1821. No further +mention of Hunt occurs in Byron’s writings during this period except the +reference to his influence on Barry Cornwall’s <i>Sicilian Story</i> and +<i>Marcian Colonna</i>,<a name="fna338_338" id="fna338_338"></a><a href="#f338_338" class="fnanc">[338]</a> and another to the Cockney School in Byron’s +controversy with Bowles. In explanation of this break in the intercourse +Hunt said, in 1828, that “Byron had become not very fond of his reforming +acquaintances.”<a name="fna339_339" id="fna339_339"></a><a href="#f339_339" class="fnanc">[339]</a></p> + +<p>Hunt’s criticism of Byron’s writings was not an important factor in his +early literary development, as was the case with Shelley and Keats. Yet it +deserves brief attention. <i>The Examiner</i> of October 18, 1812, contained +the address of Byron on the opening of the Drury Lane Theatre and a +commendation of its “natural domestic touch” and of its independence. +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span>Hunt’s <i>Feast of the Poets</i> as it appeared first in <i>The Reflector</i> +contained no mention of Byron. The separate edition of 1814 devoted seven +pages of the added notes to a wordy discussion of his work and to personal +advice. Byron in a letter of February 9, 1814, thanked Hunt for the +“handsome note.” The next mentions of Bryon were in <i>The Examiner</i>: a +notice of his ode on Napoleon April 24, 1814; <i>Illustrations of Lord +Byron’s Works</i> on September 4 of the same year; an elegy, <i>Oh Snatched +Away in Beauty’s Bloom</i>, April 23, 1815; <i>The Renegade’s Feelings Among +the Tombs of Heroes</i>, March 3, 1816; and finally, an announcement of an +opera founded on <i>The Corsair</i>, August 31, 1817. A review of the first and +second cantos of <i>Don Juan</i> appeared in <i>The Examiner</i> of October 31, +1819. Byron’s extraordinary variety and sudden transition of mood, his +power in wielding satire and humor, his knowledge of human nature in its +highest and lowest passions, his contribution to the mock-heroic and the +sincere, the “strain of rich and deep beauty” in the descriptions were +pointed out. Any immoral tendency is denied: “The fact is at the bottom of +these questions, that many things are made vicious which are not so by +nature; and many things made virtuous, which are only so by calling and +agreement; and it is on the horns of this self-created dilemma, that +society is continually writhing and getting desperate!” <i>The Examiner</i> of +August 26, 1821 containing a critique of the third and fourth cantos of +<i>Don Juan</i>, condemned the “careless contempt of canting moralists.” +January 23, 1820, there was a notice in <i>The Examiner</i> telling of Byron’s +munificence to a shoemaker; in comment <i>The Examiner</i> said: “His +lordship’s virtues are his own. His frailties have been made for him, in +more respects than one, by the faults and follies of society.” January 21, +1822, appeared a reprint of <i>My Boat Is on the Shore</i>; April 22, the two +stanzas from Childe Harold beginning, <i>Italia, Oh! Italia</i>; April 29, +<i>Byron’s Letters on Bowles’s Strictures on Pope</i>; May 26, a review of two +of Bowles’s letters to Byron; July 29, an article entitled <i>Sketches of +the Living Poets</i>.<a name="fna340_340" id="fna340_340"></a><a href="#f340_340" class="fnanc">[340]</a> The last +gave a biographical account<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> of Byron. +The general traits of his poety were said to be passion, humour, and +learning. It criticized the narrative poems as “too melodramatic, hasty +and vague.” Hunt’s summary of the dramas and of <i>Don Juan</i> shows excellent +judgment: “For the drama, whatever good passages such a writer will always +put forth, we hold that he has no more qualifications than we have; his +tendency being to spin every thing out of his own perceptions, and colour +it with his own eye. His <i>Don Juan</i> is perhaps his best work, and the one +by which he will stand or fall with readers who see beyond time and +toilets. It far surpasses, in our opinion, all the Italian models on which +it is founded, not excepting the far famed <i>Secchia Rapita</i>.”<a name="fna341_341" id="fna341_341"></a><a href="#f341_341" class="fnanc">[341]</a> On June +2, 1822, <i>The Examiner</i> reviewed <i>Cain</i>. The article is chiefly a +discussion of the origin of evil. The issue of September 30 contained a +reprint of <i>America</i>; that of November 18 denied Byron’s authorship of +<i>Anastasius</i>. From July 5, 1823, to November 29 of the same year, there +appeared in the <i>Literary Examiner</i> friendly criticisms of the sixth, +seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and +fourteenth cantos of <i>Don Juan</i>. The reviews consisted chiefly of extracts +and a summary of the narrative.</p> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">The Liberal.</span></p> + +<p>A letter from Lord Byron dated December 25, 1820, had proposed to Thomas +Moore to set up secretly, on their return to London, a weekly newspaper +for the purpose of giving</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“the age some new lights upon policy, poesy, biography, criticism, +morality, theology, and all other ism, ality and ology whatsoever. +Why, man, if we were to take to this in good earnest, your debts +would be paid off in a twelvemonth, and by dint of a little diligence +and practice, I doubt not that we could distance the common-place +blackguards who have so long disgraced common sense and the common +reader. They have no merit but practice and imprudence, both of which +we may acquire; and, as for talent and culture, the devil’s in’t if +such proofs as we have given of both can’t furnish out something +better than the ‘funeral baked meats’ which have coldly set forth the +breakfast table of Great Britain for so many years.”<a name="fna342_342" id="fna342_342"></a><a href="#f342_342" class="fnanc">[342]</a></p></div> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span>Moore cautiously refused the offer and the idea lay dormant in Byron’s +mind until he met Shelley at Ravenna in 1821. He then proposed that they +should establish a radical paper with Leigh Hunt as editor, the three to +be equal partners. Power, money, and notoriety were Byron’s chief objects. +He frankly acknowledged a desire for enormous gains. He designed to use +his proprietory privileges to publish those of his writings that Murray +dared not. At the same time Byron had, without doubt, a desire to reform +home government and to repay Hunt for his public defense in 1816.<a name="fna343_343" id="fna343_343"></a><a href="#f343_343" class="fnanc">[343]</a> He +may have wished to please Shelley by asking Hunt.<a name="fna344_344" id="fna344_344"></a><a href="#f344_344" class="fnanc">[344]</a> Undoubtedly he +valued Hunt’s wide journalistic experience. Moore asserts that in +extending the invitation, Byron inconsistently admitted Hunt “not to any +degree of confidence or intimacy but to a declared fellowship of fame and +interest.”<a name="fna345_345" id="fna345_345"></a><a href="#f345_345" class="fnanc">[345]</a> This, like other of Moore’s statements regarding Hunt, is +not very plausible in view of the past intimacy.</p> + +<p>The most discussed question regarding Byron’s motives in inviting Hunt is +the extent of his relation to <i>The Examiner</i> at that time, and Byron’s +knowledge of it. Trelawny states that when Byron “<i>consented</i> to join +Leigh Hunt and others in writing for the ‘Liberal,’ I think his principal +inducement was in the belief that John and Leigh Hunt were proprietors of +the ‘Examiner’;—so when Leigh Hunt at Pisa told him that he was no longer +connected with that paper, Byron was taken aback, finding that Hunt would +be entirely dependent upon the success of their hazardous project, while +he himself would be deprived of that on which he had set his heart,—the +use of a weekly paper in great circulation.”<a name="fna346_346" id="fna346_346"></a><a href="#f346_346" class="fnanc">[346]</a> Moore heard indirectly +in 1821 that Byron, Shelley and Hunt were to “<i>conspire</i> together” in <i>The +Examiner</i><a name="fna347_347" id="fna347_347"></a><a href="#f347_347" class="fnanc">[347]</a>—a plan nowhere mentioned in the writings of the three men +concerned and most unlikely. What Trelawney “thought” conflicts with what<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> +Moore “heard.” The suggestions of both are open to doubt. Byron was most +assuredly the projector of <i>The Liberal</i> and did not “<i>consent</i> to join +Leigh Hunt and others.” Besides, granting that Trelawney’s opinion was +based on a statement of Byron’s, even that would not be convincing, since +Byron made a number of mis-statements about the matter after he grew weary +of it. Questionable as the assertion is, it has been made the basis of +accusations against Hunt of deliberate deceit and of breach of contract. +Had it been true that there was an understanding of coöperation between +the two papers, Byron and Moore would have made much of the charge. +Trelawney’s opinion, first noticed by <i>Blackwood’s</i> in March, 1828, has +been elaborated by Jeaffreson,<a name="fna348_348" id="fna348_348"></a><a href="#f348_348" class="fnanc">[348]</a> and +accepted by Leslie Stephen<a name="fna349_349" id="fna349_349"></a><a href="#f349_349" class="fnanc">[349]</a> +and Kent.<a name="fna350_350" id="fna350_350"></a><a href="#f350_350" class="fnanc">[350]</a> Elze, who seems to have labored under the impression that +Harold Skimpole was a faithful portraiture of Hunt, states that his +connection with Byron began with a falsehood.<a name="fna351_351" id="fna351_351"></a><a href="#f351_351" class="fnanc">[351]</a> R. B. Johnson says, in +defense of Hunt, that the accusation “is quite unreasonable and contrary +to all the evidence.”<a name="fna352_352" id="fna352_352"></a><a href="#f352_352" class="fnanc">[352]</a> Monkhouse thinks that it is doubtful if Byron +reckoned on the support of the London paper.<a name="fna353_353" id="fna353_353"></a><a href="#f353_353" class="fnanc">[353]</a> J. Ashcroft Noble says +that Byron had much to say about the Hunts in his letters, “and made the +most of all kinds of trivial or imaginary grievances; it is simply +incredible that had a grievance of such reality and magnitude as this +really existed he would have refrained from mentioning it.” As proof +against it, he quotes Byron’s belief in Hunt’s honesty as late as +September 1822; and he points out the “obvious absurdity of the idea that +in the year 1822 a weekly newspaper could be conducted successfully, or at +all, by an editor in Pisa or Genoa.”<a name="fna354_354" id="fna354_354"></a><a href="#f354_354" class="fnanc">[354]</a> The strong probability, gathered +from all the extant evidence, is that Byron and Shelley, in inviting Hunt +to Italy, expected, and very naturally, that he would continue to share in +the profits of <i>The Examiner</i>. Shelley, indeed, in a letter dated<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span> as late +as January 25, 1822, urged Hunt not to leave England without a regular +income from that journal<a name="fna355_355" id="fna355_355"></a><a href="#f355_355" class="fnanc">[355]</a>—an injunction which Hunt unfairly +disregarded. It is also likely that his connection with <i>The Examiner</i> was +one of Byron’s reasons in extending the partnership to include Hunt. But +it is practically certain that there was no contract nor even +understanding as regards the coöperation of <i>The Liberal</i> and the London +paper. The question does not therefore, involve Hunt’s honor at all. If +Byron expected to profit by the influence of <i>The Examiner</i>, his silence +shows a manliness that Noble does not credit him with.</p> + +<p>Hunt, in accepting Byron’s offer, was actuated by motives both selfish and +unselfish. The fine of £1,000 imposed at the time of his conviction of +libel was not all paid; <i>The Indicator</i> had been abandoned; <i>The Examiner</i> +was on its last legs; his health was broken by overwork undertaken in the +effort not to call upon his friends for aid;<a name="fna356_356" id="fna356_356"></a><a href="#f356_356" class="fnanc">[356]</a> an invalid wife and +seven children were to be supported by his pen; his brother John was in +prison. From January, 1821, to August of the same year he had been unable +to write. In accepting Byron’s offer he thought to recover his health in a +southern climate, to regain his political influence which had been on the +decrease during the last four or five years, and at the same time to aid +aggressively the liberal movement.<a name="fna357_357" id="fna357_357"></a><a href="#f357_357" class="fnanc">[357]</a> Moreover, he was flattered +immensely by the prospective public association with Lord Byron. He had +little to lose and a prospect of large gain. Hunt should have weighed more +gravely such a step before he embarked on such a hazardous venture with so +large a family, but, with a buoyancy and irresponsibility in practical +affairs peculiar to himself, he clutched at the new proposition as a way +out of all difficulties and did not look beyond immediate necessities. He +pictured himself and his family healthy and wealthy in a land he had +always sighed for. If the skies lowered, he fancied Shelley always at +hand. His description of preparations for the voyage is as airy as his +pocketbook was light: “My family, therefore, packed up such goods and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> +chattels as they had a regard for, my books in particular, and we took, +with strange new thoughts and feelings, but in high expectation, our +journey by sea.”<a name="fna358_358" id="fna358_358"></a><a href="#f358_358" class="fnanc">[358]</a></p> + +<p>The part Shelley played in the invitation to Hunt is more difficult of +interpretation. The original proposition to become an equal partner in the +transaction he never seriously entertained. He consented to become a +contributor only. His reasons for his refusal he gave to others, but, for +fear of endangering Hunt’s prospects, withheld from Byron; for the same +reason he dissembled at times concerning his real feelings. Yet he was +equally responsible with Byron in extending the invitation to Hunt, as +will be shown later. Although Shelley could not have foreseen the full +consequences of such a course of action, he was deficient in frankness +toward Byron and undoubtedly sacrificed him somewhat in the transaction to +his affection for Hunt. While Byron continued to hold the highest opinion +of Shelley, between the time of their meeting in Switzerland and at +Ravenna, Shelley had experienced three separate revulsions of +feeling.<a name="fna359_359" id="fna359_359"></a><a href="#f359_359" class="fnanc">[359]</a> At the time in question his distrust had returned.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span>Hunt’s pecuniary troubles made their relations still more difficult. This +state of affairs between Byron and Shelley must have given Hunt great +concern, and Shelley suspecting his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> distress wrote March 2, 1822: “The +aspect of affairs has somewhat changed since the date of that in which I +expressed a repugnance to a continuance of intimacy with Lord Byron as +close as that which now exists; at least it has changed so far as regards +you and the intended journal.”<a name="fna360_360" id="fna360_360"></a><a href="#f360_360" class="fnanc">[360]</a></p> + +<p>In January, 1821, Mrs. Hunt wrote Mary Shelley, begging<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span> that they might +come to Italy. The subject was thus revived and a formal invitation was +conveyed in a letter of August 26, 1821, from Shelley to Hunt. It proves +beyond a doubt that Byron was the chief projector of the journal:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“He (Byron) proposes that you should come out and go shares with him +and me, in a periodical work, to be conducted here; in which each of +the contracting parties should publish all their original +compositions and share the profits.... There can be no doubt that the +<i>profits</i> of any scheme in which you and Lord Byron engage, must, +from various, yet co-operating reasons, be very great. As for myself, +I am, for the present, only a sort of link between you and him, until +you can know each other and effectuate the arrangement; since (to +entrust you with a secret which, for your sake, I withhold from Lord +Byron), nothing would induce me to share in the profits, and still +less, in the borrowed splendor of such a partnership. You and he, in +different manners, would be equal, and would bring, in a different +manner, but in the same proportion, equal stocks of reputation and +success.... I did not ask Lord Byron to assist me in sending a +remittance for your journey; because there are men, however +excellent, from whom we would never receive an obligation, in the +worldly sense of the word; and I am as jealous for my friend as for +myself.... He has many generous and exalted qualities, but the canker +of aristocracy wants to be cut out.”<a name="fna361_361" id="fna361_361"></a><a href="#f361_361" class="fnanc">[361]</a></p></div> + +<p>Hunt’s answer was full of expectation and hope. He wrote that “Are there +not three of us?... We will divide the world between us, like the +Triumvirate, and you shall be the sleeping partner, if you will.”<a name="fna362_362" id="fna362_362"></a><a href="#f362_362" class="fnanc">[362]</a> To +Shelley’s reply of October 6, thanking him for coming, Hunt answered: “You +say, Shelley, you thank me for coming. The pleasure of being obliged by +those we love is so great that I do not wonder that you continue to muster +up some obligation to me, but if you are obliged, how much am I?”<a name="fna363_363" id="fna363_363"></a><a href="#f363_363" class="fnanc">[363]</a></p> + +<p>From the beginning of the enterprise Thomas Moore and John Murray scented +trouble and made more. They continued their intermeddling after <i>The +Liberal</i> was launched, and doubtless ministered to Byron’s vacillation. +Hunt and Murray had disagreed over the <i>Story of Rimini</i><a name="fna364_364" id="fna364_364"></a><a href="#f364_364" class="fnanc">[364]</a> and an +attack on Southey in <i>The Examiner</i> of May 11 and 18, 1817, had <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span>included +Murray as well. Moreover, Murray saw in John Hunt,<a name="fna365_365" id="fna365_365"></a><a href="#f365_365" class="fnanc">[365]</a> the publisher of +the new periodical, a dangerous future rival in his business relations +with Byron. After matters became unpleasant in Italy, Murray took his +revenge by making public Byron’s letters containing ill-natured remarks +about Hunt.<a name="fna366_366" id="fna366_366"></a><a href="#f366_366" class="fnanc">[366]</a> The relations of Moore and Hunt had been very +friendly<a name="fna367_367" id="fna367_367"></a><a href="#f367_367" class="fnanc">[367]</a> but at this juncture both became too proud of having a +“noble lord” for a friend.<a name="fna368_368" id="fna368_368"></a><a href="#f368_368" class="fnanc">[368]</a></p> + +<p>Moore, writing to Byron in the latter part of 1821, said: “I heard some +time ago that Leigh Hunt was on his way to Genoa with all of his family; +and the idea seems to be, that you and Shelley and he are to <i>conspire</i> +together in <i>The Examiner</i>. I cannot believe this—and deprecate such a +plan with all my might. <i>Alone</i> you may do anything, but partnerships in +fame, like those in trade, make the strongest party answerable for the +deficiencies or delinquencies of the rest, and I tremble even for you with +such a bankrupt company.... They are both clever fellows, and Shelley I +look upon as a man of real genius; but, I must say again, you could not +give your enemies (the ... s ‘et hoc genus omne’) a greater triumph than +by joining such an unequal and unholy alliance,”<a name="fna369_369" id="fna369_369"></a><a href="#f369_369" class="fnanc">[369]</a> an astounding +statement from a man of pronounced liberal views. Byron’s answer of +January 24 was indefinite and perhaps intentionally misleading: “Be +assured that there is no such coalition as you apprehend.”<a name="fna370_370" id="fna370_370"></a><a href="#f370_370" class="fnanc">[370]</a> February +19, Moore advised Byron not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> to discuss religious matters in the new work, +but to confine himself to political theories; “if you have any political +catamarans to explode this (London) is your place.”<a name="fna371_371" id="fna371_371"></a><a href="#f371_371" class="fnanc">[371]</a> After <i>The +Liberal</i> was begun, Moore wrote: “It grieves me to urge anything so much +against Hunt’s interest, but I should not hesitate to use the same +language to himself were I near him. I would, if I were you, serve him in +every possible way but this—I would give him (if he would accept of it) +the profits of the same works, published separately—but I would not mix +myself up in this way with others. I would not become a partner in this +sort of miscellaneous ‘<i>pot au feu</i>’ where the bad flavour of one +ingredient is sure to taint all the rest. I would be, if I were <i>you</i>, +alone, single-handed and as such, invincible.”<a name="fna372_372" id="fna372_372"></a><a href="#f372_372" class="fnanc">[372]</a></p> + +<p>The Hunts started for Italy November 15, 1821, but on account of various +setbacks and delays did not really leave the coast of England until May +13, 1822. In the ten months which elapsed between the invitation to Hunt +and his arrival, it is not surprising that Byron’s enthusiasm had cooled. +He would have withdrawn if he could have done so, although Byron, Trelawny +says, was at first more eager than Shelley for Hunt’s arrival.<a name="fna373_373" id="fna373_373"></a><a href="#f373_373" class="fnanc">[373]</a> As has +already been stated above, affairs between Byron and Shelley had been very +strained in January. In the letter of March 2, already referred to, +Shelley informed Hunt that matters had improved between Byron and himself +and that Byron expressed the “greatest eagerness to proceed with the +journal, he dilates with impatience on the delay, and he disregards the +opinion of those who have advised him against it.”</p> + +<p>Shelley thought that their strained relations would in no way interfere +with Hunt’s prospects, and, with what looks a little like double-dealing, +that it would be possible for him to preserve what influence he had over +the “Proteus” until Hunt arrived: “It will be no very difficult task to +execute that you have assigned me—to keep him in heart with the project<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span> +until your arrival.”<a name="fna374_374" id="fna374_374"></a><a href="#f374_374" class="fnanc">[374]</a> April 10, Shelley wrote again to Hunt of Byron’s +eagerness for his arrival: “he urges me to press you to depart.” But a +reference to the state of affairs in the two households in Italy carries a +foreboding note: “Lord Byron has made me bitterly feel the inferiority +which the world has presumed to place between us, and which subsists +nowhere in reality but in our own talents, which are not our own but +Nature’s—or in our rank, which is not our own but Fortune’s.” With his +usual humility, Shelley closes the letter with an apology for carrying his +jealousy of Byron into Hunt’s relations with him, and says: “You in the +superiority of a wise and tranquil nature have well corrected and justly +reproved me ... you will find much in me to correct and reprove.”<a name="fna375_375" id="fna375_375"></a><a href="#f375_375" class="fnanc">[375]</a> +During the summer Shelley continued to shrink more than ever from Byron; +June 18 he declared to Hunt that he would not be the link between them for +Byron is the “nucleus of all that is hateful.” His one dread was that he +might injure Hunt’s prospects.<a name="fna376_376" id="fna376_376"></a><a href="#f376_376" class="fnanc">[376]</a> Between April and July Byron’s +enthusiasm had again cooled. Trelawny relates that Shelley when he went to +Leghorn to meet Hunt, was greatly depressed by Lord Byron’s “shuffling and +equivocating,” and, “but for imperilling Hunt’s prospects,” that Shelley +would have abruptly terminated their intercourse.<a name="fna377_377" id="fna377_377"></a><a href="#f377_377" class="fnanc">[377]</a> On July 4 Shelley +wrote to Mary from Pisa that “things are in the worst possible situation +with respect to poor Hunt.... Lord Byron must of course furnish the +requisite funds at present, as I cannot, but he seems inclined to depart +without the necessary explanations and arrangements due to such a +situation as Hunt’s. These, in spite of delicacy, I must procure.”<a name="fna378_378" id="fna378_378"></a><a href="#f378_378" class="fnanc">[378]</a> +This dual attitude of Shelley has been variously viewed. Professor Dowden +thinks it a “triumph of diplomacy,”<a name="fna379_379" id="fna379_379"></a><a href="#f379_379" class="fnanc">[379]</a> while Jeaffreson deems it a +conspiracy of Hunt and Shelley against the innocent and unsuspecting +Byron.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span>Hunt gave the following ominous description of his first call upon Lord +Byron: “The day was very hot; the road to Mount Nero was very hot, through +dusty suburbs; and when I got there I found the hottest looking house I +ever saw. It was salmon colour. Think of this, flaring over the country in +a hot Italian sun! But the greatest of all the heats was within. Upon +seeing Lord Byron, I hardly knew him, he was grown so fat; and he was +longer in recognizing me, I had grown so thin.”<a name="fna380_380" id="fna380_380"></a><a href="#f380_380" class="fnanc">[380]</a> Hunt wrote to England +that Byron received him with marked cordiality<a name="fna381_381" id="fna381_381"></a><a href="#f381_381" class="fnanc">[381]</a> but Shelley’s friend +Williams, in his last letter to his wife, stated that Byron treated Hunt +vilely and “actually said as much that he did not wish his name to be +attached to the work, and of course to theirs”; that his treatment of Mrs. +Hunt was “most shameful”; and that his “conduct cut H. to the +soul.”<a name="fna382_382" id="fna382_382"></a><a href="#f382_382" class="fnanc">[382]</a> +The Hunt family was quickly quartered on the ground floor of Byron’s +palace, which Byron had furnished at a cost of £60.<a name="fna383_383" id="fna383_383"></a><a href="#f383_383" class="fnanc">[383]</a> Shelley’s +sensible suggestions to Hunt about his furniture,<a name="fna384_384" id="fna384_384"></a><a href="#f384_384" class="fnanc">[384]</a> about the income +from <i>The Examiner</i>, and worse still, his delicately given advice that it +was not possible for him to bring <i>all</i> of his family, had been +ignored.<a name="fna385_385" id="fna385_385"></a><a href="#f385_385" class="fnanc">[385]</a></p> + +<p>With Shelley’s tragic death a few days after their arrival, the only “link +of the two thunderbolts,”<a name="fna386_386" id="fna386_386"></a><a href="#f386_386" class="fnanc">[386]</a> as he had called himself, was broken. Hunt +was left in an awkward position which no one could have foreseen. A few +days later he wrote to friends at home of Byron’s kindness.<a name="fna387_387" id="fna387_387"></a><a href="#f387_387" class="fnanc">[387]</a> In 1828 +he gave a different version:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Lord Byron requested me to look upon him as standing in Mr. S.’s +place. My heart died within me to hear him; I made the proper +acknowledgment, but I knew what he meant, and I more than doubted +whether even in that, the most trivial part of the friendship, he +could resemble Mr. Shelley, if<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span> he would. Circumstances unfortunately +rendered the matter of too much importance to me at the moment. I had +reason to fear:—I was compelled to try:—and things turned out as I +had dreaded. The public have been given to understand that Lord +Byron’s purse was at my command, and that I used it according to the +spirit with which it was offered. <i>I did so.</i> Stern necessity and a +family compelled me.”<a name="fna388_388" id="fna388_388"></a><a href="#f388_388" class="fnanc">[388]</a></p></div> + +<p>With the magazine scarcely likely to yield an income for some time, it was +absolutely necessary for Hunt to get money from somewhere for living +expenses and, Shelley gone, there was no one left to tide over the +interval but Byron. The latter did not relish the position of sole banker +to a family of nine and doled out £70 in small doses through his steward, +Hunt says, just as if his “disgraces were being counted.”<a name="fna389_389" id="fna389_389"></a><a href="#f389_389" class="fnanc">[389]</a> He was +embittered by his position as suppliant and dependent, though there is +nothing to show that he was ever refused what he asked for or requested to +pay back what he owed.<a name="fna390_390" id="fna390_390"></a><a href="#f390_390" class="fnanc">[390]</a></p> + +<p>Hunt’s entire money obligation to Byron has been comprehensively +calculated by Galt at £500: £200 for the journey from England, £70 at Pisa +for living expenses, the cost of the journey from Pisa to Genoa, and £30 +from Genoa to Florence. Galt thought the use of the ground floor a small +favor since Byron could use only one floor for himself. Such practices +were very common, Italian palaces often being built for that purpose.<a name="fna391_391" id="fna391_391"></a><a href="#f391_391" class="fnanc">[391]</a> +It is likely that until the step was irrevocable Byron did not correctly +gauge Hunt’s resources and the responsibility which he was assuming in +transporting a large family to a foreign country. If he did, he expected +to share the burden with Shelley. Had Hunt been financially independent, +it is probable that he and Byron would have remained on amicable enough +terms, for the former asserts that the first time he was treated with +disrespect was when Byron knew he was in want.<a name="fna392_392" id="fna392_392"></a><a href="#f392_392" class="fnanc">[392]</a> Yet that neither +Shelley nor Byron were wholly ignorant of what to expect before Hunt’s +arrival in Italy is apparent from Shelley’s letter to Byron, February 15, +1822:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span>“Hunt had urged +me more than once to ask you to lend him this money. My answer consisted in sending him all I could spare, which I have +now literally done. Your kindness in fitting up a part of your own +home for his accommodation I sensibly felt, and willingly accept from +you on his part, but, believe me, without the slightest intention of +imposing, or, if I could help it, of allowing to be imposed, any +heavier task on your purse. As it has come to this in spite of my +exertions, I will not conceal from you the low ebb of my own money +affairs in the present moment,—that is, my absolute incapacity of +assisting Hunt further. I do not think poor Hunt’s promise to pay in +a given time is worth very much, but mine is less subject to +uncertainty, and I should be happy to be responsible for any +engagement he may have proposed to you.”<a name="fna393_393" id="fna393_393"></a><a href="#f393_393" class="fnanc">[393]</a></p></div> + +<p>Mrs. Hunt seems to have widened further the breach between the two +men.<a name="fna394_394" id="fna394_394"></a><a href="#f394_394" class="fnanc">[394]</a> She did not speak Italian and the Countess Guiccioli, the head +of Byron’s establishment, did not speak English. Neither made any +linguistic efforts and consequently there was no intercourse between the +families of the two households. This, Hunt later says, was the first cause +of diminished cordiality between Byron and himself. The Hunt children were +a further cause of trouble. Byron wrote of them to Mrs. Shelley: “They +were dirtier and more mischievous than Yahoos. What they can’t destroy +with their feet they will with their fingers.”<a name="fna395_395" id="fna395_395"></a><a href="#f395_395" class="fnanc">[395]</a> Again he described +them as “six little blackguards ... kraal out of the Hottentot +country.”<a name="fna396_396" id="fna396_396"></a><a href="#f396_396" class="fnanc">[396]</a></p> + +<p>The question of rank was a thorn in the flesh, particularly to Hunt. While +in open theory he had no respect for titles,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span> in actual practice he +groveled before them. Pride, as he thought, had made him decline all +advances from men of rank, but it was more with the air of being afraid to +trust himself than with real indifference. His exception, made in the case +of Lord Byron, is thus explained: “But talents, poetry, similarity of +political opinion, flattery of early sympathy with my boyish writings, +more flattering offers of friendship and the last climax of flattery, an +earnest waiving of his rank, were too much for me in the person of Lord +Byron.”<a name="fna397_397" id="fna397_397"></a><a href="#f397_397" class="fnanc">[397]</a> On the renewal of the acquaintance in Italy, the very +familiar attitude seen in the dedication of the <i>Story of Rimini</i>, which +Hunt himself had decided was “foolish,” was changed at the advice of +Shelley to an extremely formal manner of address. Hunt says that Byron did +not like the change.<a name="fna398_398" id="fna398_398"></a><a href="#f398_398" class="fnanc">[398]</a> As a matter of fact, six years of separation had +brought about other more important changes: Byron had grown more selfish +and avaricious, Hunt more helpless and vain.</p> + +<p>Three months were spent in Pisa after Shelley’s death. In September the +two families left for Genoa, travelling in separate parties and, on their +arrival, settling in separate homes, the Hunts with Mrs. Shelley. From +this time on there was little intercourse between Byron and Hunt. October +9, 1822, Byron wrote to England and denied that all three families were +living under one roof. He said that he rarely saw Hunt, not more than once +a month.<a name="fna399_399" id="fna399_399"></a><a href="#f399_399" class="fnanc">[399]</a> Hunt to the contrary said that they saw less of each other +than in Genoa yet “considerable.”<a name="fna400_400" id="fna400_400"></a><a href="#f400_400" class="fnanc">[400]</a> Although at no time was there an +open breach, yet cordiality and sympathy were wholly lost on both sides in +the strain of the financial situation. They failed of agreement even on +impersonal matters. Byron had looked forward with great pleasure to Hunt’s +companionship. Before they met he had written: “When Leigh Hunt comes we +shall have banter enough about those old <i>ruffiani</i>, the old dramatists, +with their tiresome conceits, their jingling rhymes, and endless play upon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span> +words.”<a name="fna401_401" id="fna401_401"></a><a href="#f401_401" class="fnanc">[401]</a> This pleasant anticipation was not realized, for Hunt’s +sensitiveness in petty matters and Byron’s scorn of Hunt’s affectation and +of his ill-bred personal applications,<a name="fna402_402" id="fna402_402"></a><a href="#f402_402" class="fnanc">[402]</a> or so the hearer interpreted +them, reduced safe topics to Boswell’s <i>Life of Johnson</i>. Even a mutual +admiration of Pope and Dryden was forgotten. Literary jealousy and vanity +fed the flames. Hunt was unable to appreciate manhood of Byron’s virile +type, and he did not try to conceal the fact from one who was hungry for +praise. On the other hand, Byron did not render to Hunt the homage he was +accustomed to receive from the Cockney circle and had nothing but contempt +for all his works except the <i>Story of Rimini</i>. A statement in the +anonymous <i>Life of Lord Byron</i>, published by Iley, that the +misunderstanding was the result of a criticism by Hunt of <i>Parisina</i> in +the Leghorn and Lucca newspapers and that Byron never spoke to him after +the discovery<a name="fna403_403" id="fna403_403"></a><a href="#f403_403" class="fnanc">[403]</a> is a fabrication as unsubstantial as the greater part +of the other statements in the same book. Hunt denied the charge. His sole +connection with <i>Parisina</i> was that he supplied the incident of the +heroine talking in her sleep,<a name="fna404_404" id="fna404_404"></a><a href="#f404_404" class="fnanc">[404]</a> a device that he had already made use +of in <i>Rimini</i>.</p> + +<p>On his arrival in Italy Hunt wrote back to England that Byron entered into +<i>The Liberal</i> with great ardor, and that he had presented the <i>Vision of +Judgment</i> to his brother and himself for their mutual benefit.<a name="fna405_405" id="fna405_405"></a><a href="#f405_405" class="fnanc">[405]</a> Yet +four days later in a letter to Moore Byron wrote: “Hunt seems sanguine +about the matter but (entre nous) I am not. I do not, however, like to put +him out of spirits by saying so, for he is bilious and unwell. Do, pray, +answer <i>this</i> letter immediately. Do send Hunt anything in prose or verse +of yours, to start him handsomely—and lyrical, <i>iri</i>cal, or what you +please.”<a name="fna406_406" id="fna406_406"></a><a href="#f406_406" class="fnanc">[406]</a> At the time of Trelawny’s first visit after the work had +begun, Byron said impatiently: “It will be an abortion,” and again in +Trelawny’s presence he called to his bull-dog on the stairway, “Don’t<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> let +any Cockneys pass this way.”<a name="fna407_407" id="fna407_407"></a><a href="#f407_407" class="fnanc">[407]</a> Sometime previous to October his +endurance must have given way completely, for in that month Hunt wrote +that Byron was <i>again</i> for the plan.<a name="fna408_408" id="fna408_408"></a><a href="#f408_408" class="fnanc">[408]</a> In January Byron urged John Hunt +to employ good writers for <i>The Liberal</i> that it might succeed.<a name="fna409_409" id="fna409_409"></a><a href="#f409_409" class="fnanc">[409]</a> March +17, 1823, Byron, in a letter to John Hunt, said that he attributed the +failure of <i>The Liberal</i> to his own contributions and that the magazine +would stand a better chance without him. He desired to sever the +partnership if the magazine was to be continued.<a name="fna410_410" id="fna410_410"></a><a href="#f410_410" class="fnanc">[410]</a> His constant +vacillation in part supports the charge made by Hunt that Byron under +protest contributed his worse productions in order to make a show of +coöperation.<a name="fna411_411" id="fna411_411"></a><a href="#f411_411" class="fnanc">[411]</a> Insinuations from Moore and Murray had fallen on fertile +ground and had persuaded Byron that the association jeopardized his +reputation. Hobhouse, Byron’s friend, joined his dissenting voice to +theirs, and “rushed over the Alps” to add to his disapproval.<a name="fna412_412" id="fna412_412"></a><a href="#f412_412" class="fnanc">[412]</a> +Hazlitt’s account of the conspiracy of Byron’s friends against <i>The +Liberal</i> is very fiery.<a name="fna413_413" id="fna413_413"></a><a href="#f413_413" class="fnanc">[413]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span>The first number of <i>The Liberal</i> appeared October 15, 1822. There were +three subsequent numbers. Byron’s contributions were his brilliant and +masterly satire, the <i>Vision of Judgment</i>, <i>Heaven and Earth</i>, <i>A Letter +to the Editor of my Grandmother’s Review</i>, <i>The Blues</i>, and his +translation of the first canto of Pulci’s <i>Morgante Maggiore</i>. Murray had +withheld the preface to the <i>Vision of Judgment</i> and this omission, +combined with an unwise announcement in <i>The Examiner</i> of September 29, +1822, by John Hunt, made the reception even worse than it might otherwise +have been. Hunt said the <i>Vision of Judgment</i> “played the devil with all +of us.”<a name="fna414_414" id="fna414_414"></a><a href="#f414_414" class="fnanc">[414]</a> Shelley had made ready for the forthcoming magazine his +exquisite translation of Goethe’s <i>May Day Night</i> and a prose narrative, +<i>A German Apologue</i>. These appeared in the first number. Hunt’s best +contributions were two poems, <i>Lines to a Spider</i> and <i>Mahmoud</i>. <i>Letters +from Abroad</i> are good in spots only. His two satires, <i>The Dogs</i> and <i>The +Book of Beginners</i>, are pale reflections in meter and tone of <i>Don Juan</i> +and <i>Beppo</i> combined. The <i>Florentine Lovers</i> is a good story spoiled. +<i>Rhyme and Reason</i>, <i>The Guili Tre</i>, and the rest are purely hack work, +with the possible exceptions of the translation from Ariosto and the +modernization of the <i>Squire’s Tale</i>. Hazlitt contributed <i>Pulpit +Oratory</i>, <i>On the Spirit of Monarchy</i>, a pithy dissertation <i>On the Scotch +Character</i>, and a delightful reminiscence of Coleridge in <i>My First +Acquaintance with Poets</i>. Mrs. Shelley wrote <i>A Tale of the Passions</i>, +<i>Mme. D’Houdetot</i>, and <i>Giovanni Villani</i>, all rather stilted and heavy. +Charles Browne contributed <i>Shakespear’s Fools</i>. A number of unidentified +prose articles and poems, many of the latter translations from Alfieri, +completed the list.</p> + +<p>The causes of the failure of <i>The Liberal</i> were very complex, but quite +obvious. There was no definite political campaign mapped out, no +proportion outlined for the various departments, no assignments of +individual responsibility, no attempt to cater to the public appetite or +to mollify the public prejudices for expediency’s sake, and an utter want +of harmony among its supporters. Each contributor rode his own<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span> hobby. +Each vented his private spleen without regard to the common good. It was a +vague, up-in-the-air scheme, wholly lacking in coördination and common +sense. Byron’s fickleness and want of genuine interest in a small affair +among many other greater ones; the disappointment of both Byron<a name="fna415_415" id="fna415_415"></a><a href="#f415_415" class="fnanc">[415]</a> and +Hunt in not realizing the enormous profits that they had looked forward +to—although Hunt wrote later that the “moderate profits” were quite +enough to have encouraged perseverance on the part of Byron; Hunt’s +ill-health and unhappy situation which rendered it difficult for him to +write; John Hunt’s inexperience as a bookseller; the general unpopularity +of the editor, the publisher, and the contributors; and last, the pent-up +storm of rage from the press which greeted the first number of <i>The +Liberal</i>,<a name="fna416_416" id="fna416_416"></a><a href="#f416_416" class="fnanc">[416]</a> were other reasons that contributed to its ultimate +downfall. In seeking Hunt for the editor of such a venture, as Gait had +pointed out,<a name="fna417_417" id="fna417_417"></a><a href="#f417_417" class="fnanc">[417]</a> Byron had mistaken his political notoriety for solid +literary reputation.</p> + +<p>Hunt, notwithstanding his confession<a name="fna418_418" id="fna418_418"></a><a href="#f418_418" class="fnanc">[418]</a> of an inability to write at his +best and of his brother’s inexperience, throws the burden of failure +solely on Byron. He asserts that <i>The Liberal</i> had no enemies and, worst +of all, that Byron when he foresaw hostility and failure, gave him and his +brother the profits that they might carry the responsibility of an +“ominous partnership”<a name="fna419_419" id="fna419_419"></a><a href="#f419_419" class="fnanc">[419]</a>—a statement ungenerously distorted by bitter +memories, for when John Hunt was prosecuted for the publication of the +<i>Vision of Judgment</i>, Byron offered to stand trial in his stead. Neither +does Hunt state that Byron’s contributions were <i>gratis</i> and that the +“moderate profits” enabled him and his brother to pay off some of their +old debts.<a name="fna420_420" id="fna420_420"></a><a href="#f420_420" class="fnanc">[420]</a> +Byron,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span> strong with the prescience of failure, likewise +shifted the blame to other shoulders and with the aid of a strong +imagination tried to persuade himself and his friends that the Hunts had +projected the affair and that he had consented in an evil hour to engage +in it;<a name="fna421_421" id="fna421_421"></a><a href="#f421_421" class="fnanc">[421]</a> that they were the cause of the failure; that his motives +throughout had been philanthropic only in nature;<a name="fna422_422" id="fna422_422"></a><a href="#f422_422" class="fnanc">[422]</a> and that he was +sacrificing himself for others. Such statements are inventions born of +self-accusation and of self-defense. The worst that can be said of Byron +from beginning to end of the affair is that he was not conscientious in +his endeavors to make the journal a success; that, after it failed, he +evaded financial responsibility by placing barriers of coldness and +ungraciousness between Hunt and himself.</p> + +<p>On October 9, 1822, he wrote to Moore that he had done all he could for +Hunt “but in the affairs of this world he himself is a child”;<a name="fna423_423" id="fna423_423"></a><a href="#f423_423" class="fnanc">[423]</a> “As it +is, I will not quit them (the Hunts) in their adversity, though it should +cost me my character, fame, money, and the usual et cetera.... Had their +journal gone on well, and I could have aided to make it better for them, I +should then have left them; after my safe pilotage off a lee shore, to +make a prosperous voyage by themselves. As it is, I can’t, or would not, +if I could, leave them amidst the breakers. As to any community of +feeling, thought, or opinions between L. H. and me, there is little or +none; we meet rarely, hardly ever; but I think him a good-principled and +able man.<a name="fna424_424" id="fna424_424"></a><a href="#f424_424" class="fnanc">[424]</a>... You would not have had me leave him in the street with +his family, would you? And as to the other plan you mention, you forget +how it would humiliate him—that his writings should be supposed to be +dead weight! Think a moment—he is perhaps the vainest man on earth, at +least his own friends say so pretty loudly; and if he were in other +circumstances I might be tempted to take him down a peg; but not now—it +would be cruel.<a name="fna425_425" id="fna425_425"></a><a href="#f425_425" class="fnanc">[425]</a>... A more +amiable man in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span> society I know not, nor +(when he will allow his sense to prevail over his sectarian principles) a +better writer. When he was writing his <i>Rimini</i> I was not the last to +discover its beauties, long before it was published. Even then I +remonstrated against its vulgarisms; which are the more extraordinary, +because the author is anything but a vulgar man.”<a name="fna426_426" id="fna426_426"></a><a href="#f426_426" class="fnanc">[426]</a> During April, 1823, +the Countess of Blessington had a conversation with Byron in which he said +that while he regretted having embarked in <i>The Liberal</i>, yet he had a +good opinion of the talents and principles of Hunt, despite their +diametrically opposed tastes.<a name="fna427_427" id="fna427_427"></a><a href="#f427_427" class="fnanc">[427]</a> On April 2, 1823, he wrote that Hunt +was incapable or unwilling to help himself; that he could not keep up this +“genuine philanthropy” permanently; and that he would furnish Hunt with +the means to return to England in comfort.<a name="fna428_428" id="fna428_428"></a><a href="#f428_428" class="fnanc">[428]</a> There is no proof that +Byron ever made such an offer to Hunt. The purchase money of Hunt’s +journey home was <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>. On July 23, +1823, Byron went to Greece. The Hunts, provided by him with £30 for the +trip, left Genoa about the same time for Florence, where they were +literally stranded, in ill-health and without sufficient means for +support,<a name="fna429_429" id="fna429_429"></a><a href="#f429_429" class="fnanc">[429]</a> until their departure for England in September, 1825. The +suffering there and the foul calumny at home magnified in Hunt’s mind<a name="fna430_430" id="fna430_430"></a><a href="#f430_430" class="fnanc">[430]</a> +the indignity and injustice that had been put upon him and warped his +sense of gratitude and honor in the whole affair. He wrote from Florence: +“The stiffness of age has come into my joints; my legs are sore and +fevered; and I sometimes feel as if I were a ship rotting in a stagnant +harbour.”<a name="fna431_431" id="fna431_431"></a><a href="#f431_431" class="fnanc">[431]</a> Mrs. Shelley protested to Byron concerning his treatment of +Hunt<a name="fna432_432" id="fna432_432"></a><a href="#f432_432" class="fnanc">[432]</a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span>but she received no further satisfaction than the statement +that he had engaged in the journal for good-will and respect for Hunt +solely.<a name="fna433_433" id="fna433_433"></a><a href="#f433_433" class="fnanc">[433]</a></p> + +<p>The publisher Colburn in 1825 made Hunt an advance of money for the return +journey, to be repaid by a volume of selections from <i>his own writings +preceded by a biographical sketch</i>.<a name="fna434_434" id="fna434_434"></a><a href="#f434_434" class="fnanc">[434]</a> An irresistible longing for +England and a crisis in the disagreement with John Hunt regarding the +proprietary rights of <i>The Examiner</i> and the publication of the <i>Wishing +Cap Papers</i> in that paper, made Hunt seize at the first opportunity by +which he might return home. From Paris, on his way to England, he wrote: +“If I delayed I might be pinned forever to a distance, like a fluttering +bird to a wall, and so die in helpless yearning. I have been mistaken. +During my strength my weakness perhaps, was only apparent; now that I am +weaker, indignation has given a fillip to my strength.”<a name="fna435_435" id="fna435_435"></a><a href="#f435_435" class="fnanc">[435]</a> From his +severance with <i>The Examiner</i> and the publication of <i>Bacchus in Tuscany</i> +in 1825, Hunt was idle until 1828. Then, pressed by his obligation to +Colburn and stung by the misrepresentations of the press regarding his +relations with Byron in Italy, he scored even, as he thought, by producing +<i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, the blunder of his life and +the one blot upon his honor. In addition to the part dealing with Byron, +it contained autobiographical reminiscences and memoirs of Shelley, Keats, +Moore, Lamb and others. It went rapidly through three editions. The body +of the work is a discussion of the defects of Byron’s character and a +detailed analysis of his actions. In brief, he is charged with insincerity +in the cause of liberty; an impatience of any despotism save his own; a +vain pride of rank, although his friends were of humble origin; a +“libelling all around” of friends; an ignorance of real love, +consanguineous or sexual; coarseness in speaking of women or to them;<a name="fna436_436" id="fna436_436"></a><a href="#f436_436" class="fnanc">[436]</a> +a voluptuous indolence; weak impulses; a habit of miscellaneous +confidences and <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span>exaggeration; untruthfulness; susceptibility to +influence; avarice even in his patriotism and debauchery; a willingness to +receive petty obligations; jealousy of the great and small; no powers of +conversation and a want of self-possession; bad temper and self-will; an +inordinate desire for flattery; egotism and love of notoriety. More petty +accusations are excess in his eating and drinking, though Hunt complains +that Byron would not “drink like a lord”; his fondness for communicating +unpleasant tidings; his inclination to the mock heroic; his effeminacy and +old-womanish superstition; his easily-aroused suspicions; his +imitativeness in writing poetry; his slight knowledge of languages; his +physical cowardice. The virtues of this monster, small in number and +grudgingly allowed, were admitted to be good horsemanship, good looks, a +delicate hand, amusing powers of mimicry, pleasantry in his cups, masterly +swimming. Unfortunately these statements were usually damned with a “but” +or “yet.”</p> + +<p>While it is now generally believed that many of the accusations made by +Hunt were true,<a name="fna437_437" id="fna437_437"></a><a href="#f437_437" class="fnanc">[437]</a> inasmuch +as they are <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span>confirmed in large part by +contemporary evidence, and as truthfulness was one of Hunt’s dominant +traits, yet, on the other hand, it is quite necessary to make large +allowance for the point of view and the color given by prejudice and +bitterness of spirit. That Hunt told only the truth does not justify the +injury in the slightest, for he had slept under Byron’s roof and eaten of +his bread. The obligations conferred were not exactly those of benefactor +to suppliant; they were perhaps no more than Hunt’s due in the light of +the responsibility voluntarily assumed by Byron; yet they could not be +destroyed or forgotten because of a refusal to acknowledge them. Worse +still, Hunt’s motives proceeded from impecuniosity and revenge. Such petty +gossip of private affairs was worthy of a smaller and meaner soul. That +Hunt did not have the sanction of his own judgment and conscience is +clearly seen in the preface to the first edition where he confesses an +unwilling hand and gives as a reason for the change of scheme a too long +holiday taken after the advance of money from Colburn. He says that the +book would never have been written at all, or consigned to the flames when +finished, if he could have repaid the money.<a name="fna438_438" id="fna438_438"></a><a href="#f438_438" class="fnanc">[438]</a> His one poor defense is +that “Byron talked freely of me and mine,” that the public had talked, and +that Byron knew how he felt.<a name="fna439_439" id="fna439_439"></a><a href="#f439_439" class="fnanc">[439]</a></p> + +<p>The book had a very large circulation. But Hunt, who had hoped to defend +himself in this manner from the calumnies afloat since the failure of <i>The +Liberal</i>, brought down a storm of abuse from the press that resulted in +his degradation and Byron’s canonization. Moore’s welcome was a poem, <i>The +Living Dog and the Dead Lion</i>.<a name="fna440_440" id="fna440_440"></a><a href="#f440_440" class="fnanc">[440]</a> Hunt’s friends replied with <i>The Giant +and the Dwarf</i>.<a name="fna441_441" id="fna441_441"></a><a href="#f441_441" class="fnanc">[441]</a> In his life of Byron published some years later, +Moore speaks reservedly of the book, merely saying it had sunk into +deserved oblivion.<a name="fna442_442" id="fna442_442"></a><a href="#f442_442" class="fnanc">[442]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span>Hunt’s public apology and reparation, in so far as such lay in his power, +were first made in 1847 in <i>A Saunter Through the West End</i>: “No. 140 +(formerly No. 13 of what was Piccadilly Terrace) was the last house which +Byron inhabited in England. Nobody needs to be told what a great wit and +fine poet he was: but everybody does not know that he was by nature a +genial and generous man spoiled by the most untoward circumstances in +early life. He vexed his enemies, and sometimes his friends; but his very +advantages have been hard upon him, and subjected him to all sorts of +temptations. May peace rest upon his infirmities, and his fame brighten as +it advances.”<a name="fna443_443" id="fna443_443"></a><a href="#f443_443" class="fnanc">[443]</a> In 1848, he wrote in praise of the Ave Maria stanza in +<i>Don Juan</i>.<a name="fna444_444" id="fna444_444"></a><a href="#f444_444" class="fnanc">[444]</a> And finally and completely in his <i>Autobiography</i> he +apologized for the heat and venom of <i>Lord Byron and Some of His +Contemporaries</i>:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“I wrote nothing which I did not feel to be true, or think so. But I +can say with Alamanni, that I was then a young man, and that I am now +advanced in years. I can say, that I was agitated by grief and anger, +and that I am now free from anger. I can say, that I was far more +alive to other people’s defects than to my own, and that I am now +sufficiently sensible of my own to show to others the charity which I +need myself. I can say, moreover, that apart from a little allowance +for provocation, I do not think it right to exhibit what is amiss, or +may be thought amiss, in the character of a fellow-creature, out of +any feeling but unmistakable sorrow, or the wish to lessen evils +which society itself may have caused.</p> + +<p>“Lord Byron, with respect to the points on which he erred and +suffered (for on all others, a man like himself, poet and wit, could +not but give and receive pleasure), was the victim of a bad bringing +up, of a series of false positions in society, of evils arising from +the mistakes of society itself, of a personal disadvantage (which his +feelings exaggerated), nay, of his very advantages of person, and of +a face so handsome as to render with strong tendencies of natural +affection,” and declared that his fickleness had been “nurtured by an +excessively bad training.” In exoneration of Hunt he said that if +“disappointment and the fervour of a new literary work—which often +draws the pen beyond its original intention—led Leigh Hunt into a +book that was too severe, perhaps too one-sided in its views, he +himself afterwards corrected the one-sidedness, and recalled to mind +the earlier and undoubtedly the more correct impression he had had of +Lord Byron.” I, 202-203.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span>him an object of admiration. Even the lameness, of which he had such +a resentment, only softened the admiration with tenderness.</p> + +<p>“But he did not begin life under good influences. He had a mother, +herself, in all probability, the victim of bad training, who would +fling the dishes from table at his head, and tell him he would be a +scoundrel like his father. His father, who was cousin to the previous +lord, had been what is called a man upon town, and was neither rich +nor very respectable. The young lord, whose means had not yet +recovered themselves, went to school, noble but poor, expecting to be +in the ascendant with his title, yet kept down by the inconsistency +of his condition. He left school to put on the cap with the gold +tuft, which is worshipped at college:—he left college to fall into +some of the worst hands on the town:—his first productions were +contemptuously criticised, and his genius was thus provoked into +satire:—his next were overpraised, which increased his +self-love:—he married when his temper had been soured by +difficulties, and his will and pleasure pampered by the sex:—and he +went companionless into a foreign country, where all this perplexity +could repose without being taught better, and where the sense of a +lost popularity could be drowned in license.</p> + +<p>“I am sorry I ever wrote a syllable respecting Lord Byron which might +have been spared. I have still to relate my connection with him, but +it will be related in a different manner. Pride, it is said, will +have a fall; and I must own, that on this subject I have experienced +the truth of the saying. I had prided myself—I should pride myself +now if I had not been thus rebuked—on not being one of those who +talk against others. I went counter to this feeling in a book; and to +crown the absurdity of the contradiction, I am foolish enough to +suppose that the very fact of my so doing would show that I had done +it in no other instance! that having been thus public in the error, +credit would be given me for never having been privately so! Such are +the delusions inflicted on us by self-love. When the consequence was +represented to me as characterized by my enemies, I felt, enemies +though they were, as if I blushed from head to foot. It is true I had +been goaded to the task by misrepresentation:—I had resisted every +other species of temptation to do it:—and, after all, I said more in +his excuse, and less to his disadvantage, than many of those who +reproved me. But enough. I owed the acknowledgment to him and to +myself; and I shall proceed on my course with a sigh for both, and I +trust in the good will of the sincere.”<a name="fna445_445" id="fna445_445"></a><a href="#f445_445" class="fnanc">[445]</a></p></div> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_V" id="CHAPTER_V"></a>CHAPTER V</h2> + +<p class="note">Characteristics of the “Cockney School”—Reasons for Tory +enmity—Establishment of <i>Blackwood’s Magazine</i> and the <i>Quarterly +Review</i>—Their methods of attack—Other targets—Authorship of anonymous +articles—Members of the Cockney group—Byron—Hunt—Keats—Shelley— +Hazlitt.</p> + +<p>The word “Cockney” says Bulwer-Lytton, signifies the “archetype of the +Londoner east of Temple Bar, and is as grotesquely identified with the +Bells of Bow as Quasimodo with those of Notre Dame.”<a name="fna446_446" id="fna446_446"></a><a href="#f446_446" class="fnanc">[446]</a> The epithet +remains doubtful in origin but is proverbially significant of odium and of +ridicule. R. H. Horne asserts that, in its first application, it meant +merely “pastoral, minus nature.”<a name="fna447_447" id="fna447_447"></a><a href="#f447_447" class="fnanc">[447]</a> The word did not long carry so +harmless a connotation. It was first applied to Hunt by the Tory journals +in 1817 and, in the phrase “Cockney School,” was gradually extended until +it included most of his associates. The group of men thus arbitrarily +banded together did not form a <i>school</i> or cult, and themselves resented +such a classification. They differed widely in their fundamental +principles of life and art. They were not all of one vocation. On the +other hand they had certain superficial points in common which made them +collectively vulnerable to the dart of the enemy. They were Londoners<a name="fna448_448" id="fna448_448"></a><a href="#f448_448" class="fnanc">[448]</a> +by birth or by adoption; with the exception of Shelley they may all be +said to have belonged<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span> to the middle class; the most Cockneyfied of them +had certain vulgar mannerisms; they egotistically paraded their personal +affairs in public; they praised each other somewhat fulsomely in +dedications and elsewhere, though not always to the full satisfaction of +everybody concerned; they presented each other with wreaths of bay, +laurel, and roses, and with locks of hair; they agreed in liking Thomas +Moore and in disliking Southey; they moved with complacency within a +limited circle to the exclusion of a large city; in general they were +liberal in politics and in religion; they were in revolt against French +criticism; they chose Elizabethan or Italian models, and, as a rule, they +conceitedly ignored or contemned contemporary writers.</p> + +<p>The gatherings of the coterie have been nowhere better described than by +Cowden Clarke:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Evenings of Mozartian operatic and chamber music at Vincent +Novello’s own house, where Leigh Hunt, Shelley, Keats and the Lambs +were invited guests; the brilliant supper parties at the alternate +dwellings of the Novellos, the Hunts and the Lambs, who had mutually +agreed that bread and cheese, with celery, and Elia’s immortalized +‘Lutheran beer’ were to be the sole cates provided; the meetings at +the theatres, when Munden, Dowton, Liston, Bannister, Elliston and +Fanny Kelly were on the stage; the picnic repasts enjoyed together by +appointment in the fields that lay spread in green breadth and +luxuriance between the west end of Oxford Street and the western +slope of Hampstead Hill—are things never to be forgotten.”<a name="fna449_449" id="fna449_449"></a><a href="#f449_449" class="fnanc">[449]</a></p></div> + +<p>Miss Mitford relates a ludicrous incident of one of these meetings:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Leigh Hunt (not the notorious Mr. Henry Hunt, but the fop, poet and +politician of the ‘Examiner’) is a great keeper of birthdays. He was +celebrating that of Haydn, the great composer—giving a dinner, +crowning his bust with laurels, berhyming the poor dear German, and +conducting an apotheosis in full form. Somebody told Mr. Haydon they +were celebrating <i>his</i> birthday. So off he trotted to Hampstead, and +bolted into the company—made a very fine animated speech—thanked +him most sincerely for what they had done him and the arts in his +person.”<a name="fna450_450" id="fna450_450"></a><a href="#f450_450" class="fnanc">[450]</a></p></div> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span>At one time the set became violently vegetarian. The enthusiasm came to a +sudden end, as narrated by Joseph Severn:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Leigh Hunt most eloquently discussed the charms and advantages of +these vegetable banquets, depicting in glowing words the cauliflowers +swimming in melted butter, and the peas and beans never profaned with +animal gravy. In the midst of his rhapsody he was interrupted by the +venerable Wordsworth, who begged permission to ask a question. ‘If,’ +he said, ‘by chance of good luck they ever met with a caterpillar, +they thanked their stars for the delicious morsel of animal food.’ +This absurdity all came to an end by an ugly discovery. Haydon, whose +ruddy face had kept the other enthusiasts from sinking under their +scanty diet—for they clung fondly to the hope that they would become +like him, although they increased daily in pallor and leanness—this +Haydon was discovered one day coming out of a chop-house. He was +promptly taxed with treachery, when he honestly confessed that every +day after the vegetable repast he ate a good beef-steak. This fact +plunged the others in despair, and Leigh Hunt assured me that on +vegetable diet his constitution had received a blow from which he had +never recovered. With Shelley it was different, for he was by nature +formed to regard animal food repulsively.”<a name="fna451_451" id="fna451_451"></a><a href="#f451_451" class="fnanc">[451]</a></p></div> + +<p>The causes of the enmity of the press were political rather than literary +or personal and have already been sufficiently dwelt upon in the preceding +chapters. The strong rivalry between Edinburgh and London as publishing +strongholds intensified the strife. Hunt in particular had centered +attention upon himself by his persistent and violent attacks on Gifford +and Southey for several years previous to 1817. Besides <i>The Examiner’s</i> +persistent allusions to these two unregenerates, a savage diatribe had +appeared in the <i>Feast of the Poets</i>, which alluded to Gifford’s humble +origin and mediocre ability, charged him with being a government tool, and +continued: “But a vile, peevish temper, the more inexcusable in its +indulgence, because he appears to have had early warning of its effects, +breaks out in every page of his criticism, and only renders his affected +grinning the more obnoxious ... I pass over the nauseous epistle to Peter +Pindar, and even notes to his Baviad and Mœviad, where though less +vulgar in his language, he has a great deal of the pert cant and snip-snap +which he deprecates.”<a name="fna452_452" id="fna452_452"></a><a href="#f452_452" class="fnanc">[452]</a> During 1817, <i>The Examiner</i> had concerned +itself particularly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> with Southey. He had been called an apostate, a +hypocrite, and almost every other name in Hunt’s abusive vocabulary. Sir +Walter Scott had not been spared. His politics were said to be easily +estimated by the “simple fact, that of all the advocates of Charles the +Second, he is the least scrupulous in mentioning his crimes, because he is +the least abashed;” his command of prose was declared equal to nothing +beyond “a plain statement or a brief piece of criticism;” his poetry “a +little thinking conveyed in a great many words.”<a name="fna453_453" id="fna453_453"></a><a href="#f453_453" class="fnanc">[453]</a> Hunt thus secured to +himself, through offensive and aggressive abuse, the hostility of the +Tories both in England and in Scotland. His weaknesses and affectations +made him a conspicuous and assailable target for the inevitable return +fire.<a name="fna454_454" id="fna454_454"></a><a href="#f454_454" class="fnanc">[454]</a></p> + +<p>The establishment by the Tories of the <i>Quarterly Review</i> in 1809 and of +<i>Blackwood’s Magazine</i> in 1817 was with the view of opposing and, if +possible, of suppressing the <i>Edinburgh Review</i> and <i>The Examiner</i>. The +brunt of the hostility fell upon the latter, for Hunt, by reason of his +extreme social and religious policy, could not always rally the <i>Edinburgh +Review</i> to his support. With the founding of the <i>London Magazine</i> in 1820 +he had a new ally in its editor, John Scott, but the war had then already +raged for three years, and Scott fell a victim to it in two years’ +time.<a name="fna455_455" id="fna455_455"></a><a href="#f455_455" class="fnanc">[455]</a> By a process of elimination +Scott<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span> fixed the identity of +“Z”—such was the only signature of the articles on the Cockney School in +<i>Blackwood’s</i>—upon Lockhart. He also asserted that Lockhart was the +editor of the magazine. Lockhart demanded an apology. His friend Christie +took up the quarrel. In the duel which followed Scott was fatally wounded. +His death followed Keats’s within four days.</p> + +<p>The method of attack with the <i>Quarterly</i> and with <i>Blackwood’s</i> was much +the same. They differed chiefly in the style of approach. The former may +be compared to heavy artillery, slow, cumbrous and crushing. The reviews +indeed often verge on dullness and stupidity. Neither Gifford nor Southey +seemed to have been blessed with the saving grace of humor in dealing with +the Cockney School. <i>Blackwood’s</i>, on the other hand, had too much, for +whenever one of the so-called Cockneys was mentioned, its contributors +wallowed in the mire of coarse buffoonery and cruel satire, disgusting +scandal and vulgar parody. The only counter-irritant to such a dose is the +clever joking and keen humor; but even when this is clean, which is rare, +the whole is rendered unpalatable by the thought of its cruelty and of its +frequent falsity. Furthermore, <i>Blackwood’s</i> was more merciless in its +persecution than the <i>Quarterly</i> in that it was untiring. It was +perpetually discharging a fresh fusilade. Both magazines disguised their +real motives under a cloak of religious zeal and monarchical loyalty.</p> + +<p>While Hunt did much to bring the hornet’s nest about his ears, he was not +wholly deserving of the amount, and not at all of the kind, of stinging +calumny that he had to endure. Neither were the members of the Cockney +School the only ones who provoked such antagonism from the same magazine. +Other famous libels of <i>Blackwood’s</i> that should be mentioned to show the +disposition of its controllers were the <i>Chaldee<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span> Manuscript</i>; the +<i>Madonna of Dresden</i> and other effusions of the “<i>Baron von +Lauerwinckel</i>”; the <i>Diary</i> and <i>Horæ Sinicæ of Ensign O’Doherty</i>; and the +<i>Diary of William Wastle, Blackwood and Dr. Morris</i>. <i>Letter to Sir Walter +Scott, Bart., on the Moral and other Characteristics of the Ebony and +Shandrydan School</i>,<a name="fna456_456" id="fna456_456"></a><a href="#f456_456" class="fnanc">[456]</a> cites a full list of <i>Blackwood’s</i> victims. +These, besides those of the Cockney School, were said to be Jeffrey, +Professor Playfair, Professor Dugald Stewart, Professor Leslie, James +Macintosh, Lord Brougham, Moore, Professor David Ricardo, Wordsworth, +Coleridge, Pringle, Dalzell, Cleghorn, Graham, Sharpe, Jameson, and Hogg, +the Ettrick Shepherd. The characters in <i>Noctes Ambrosianæ</i>, Ticklers, +Scorpions and Shepherds, were said by the pamphleteer to respectively +tickle, sting and stultify, and to make a business “of insulting worth, +offending delicacy, caluminating genius, and outraging the decencies and +violating all the sanctities of life.” Their weapons were “loathsome +billingsgate and brutality,” and “sublime bathos.” An interesting +statement, not elsewhere found, is made by the anonymous author of the +pamphlet that the proprietor of the Black Bull Inn imputed the death of +his wife to the first volume of <i>Peter’s Letters to his Kinsfolk</i>, a +series similar to the <i>Noctes Ambrosianæ</i>. Sir Walter Scott is told that +he cannot remain innocent if he remains indifferent to the machinations of +the “Ebony and Shandrydan School”—as the writer pleases to call the +<i>Blackwood’s</i> group. Another interesting pamphlet of like nature is <i>The +Scorpion Critic Unmasked; or Animadversions on a Pretended Review of +“Fleurs, a Poem, in Four Books,” which appeared in Blackwood’s Edinburgh +Magazine for June, 1821, in a Letter to a Friend</i>.<a name="fna457_457" id="fna457_457"></a><a href="#f457_457" class="fnanc">[457]</a> <i>Blackwood’s</i> had +called Nathaniel John Hollingsworth, the author of the poem, and others of +his type, the “Leg of Mutton School.”<a name="fna458_458" id="fna458_458"></a><a href="#f458_458" class="fnanc">[458]</a> +Nothing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span> in fact seems to have +given this magazine so much malicious delight as to create schools, +perhaps in a spirit of rivalry with the “Lake School” of the <i>Edinburgh +Review</i>. In the preceding April the “Manchester School” had been presented +by <i>Blackwood’s</i> to the public. Hollingsworth in turn created the +“Scorpion School” in order to deride <i>Blackwood’s</i>. Other pamphlets of the +same kind were <i>Rebellion again Gulliver; or R-D-C-L-SM in Lilliput</i>. <i>A +Poetical Fragment from a Lilliputian Manuscript</i>, an anonymous publication +which appeared in Edinburgh in 1820; <i>Aspersions answered: an explanatory +Statement, advanced to the Public at Large, and to Every Reader of The +Quarterly Review in Particular</i>;<a name="fna459_459" id="fna459_459"></a><a href="#f459_459" class="fnanc">[459]</a> and <i>Another Article for the +Quarterly Review</i>;<a name="fna460_460" id="fna460_460"></a><a href="#f460_460" class="fnanc">[460]</a> both by William Hone in reply to the charge of +irreligion made by the <i>Quarterly</i> against him.</p> + +<p>William Blackwood, John Wilson or “Christopher North,” Lockhart, and +perhaps Maginn, share the blame severally of <i>Blackwood’s</i>; while in the +case of the <i>Quarterly</i>, to Gifford and Southey, already mentioned, must +be added Sir Walter Scott and Croker. The two last certainly countenanced +the actions of the others, even if they took no more active part. There +seems to be no way of determining the individual authorship of the various +articles. It was a secret jealously guarded at the time and it is unlikely +that any further disclosures will come to light. The victims themselves +hazarded as many guesses as more recent critics with no greater degree of +certainty. Leigh Hunt thought that the articles were written by Sir Walter +Scott;<a name="fna461_461" id="fna461_461"></a><a href="#f461_461" class="fnanc">[461]</a> Hazlitt said, “To pay those fellows <i>in their own coin</i>, the +way would be to begin with Walter Scott <i>and have at his clump +foot</i>;”<a name="fna462_462" id="fna462_462"></a><a href="#f462_462" class="fnanc">[462]</a> Charles Dilke thought that the articles were written by +Lockhart with the encouragement of Scott;<a name="fna463_463" id="fna463_463"></a><a href="#f463_463" class="fnanc">[463]</a> Haydon thought that “Z” was +Terry the actor, an intimate of the Blackwood party, who had been +exasperated because Hunt<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span> had +failed to notice him in <i>The Examiner</i>;<a name="fna464_464" id="fna464_464"></a><a href="#f464_464" class="fnanc">[464]</a> +Shelley fancied that the articles in the <i>Quarterly</i> were by Southey, and, +on his denial, attributed them to Henry Hart Milman.<a name="fna465_465" id="fna465_465"></a><a href="#f465_465" class="fnanc">[465]</a> Mrs. Oliphant in +her two ponderous volumes, <i>William Blackwood and His Sons</i>, practically +asserts that “Z” was Lockhart.<a name="fna466_466" id="fna466_466"></a><a href="#f466_466" class="fnanc">[466]</a> If the extent of her research is to be +the gauge of its value, her opinion is a very valuable one. Mr. Colvin +advances the theory that “Z” was Wilson or Lockhart, possibly revised by +William Blackwood.<a name="fna467_467" id="fna467_467"></a><a href="#f467_467" class="fnanc">[467]</a> Mr. Courthope thinks that Croker was the author of +the articles on <i>Endymion</i> in the <i>Quarterly</i>.<a name="fna468_468" id="fna468_468"></a><a href="#f468_468" class="fnanc">[468]</a> Mr. Herford thinks +that the whole campaign against the Cockney School was “largely worked +out” by Lockhart.<a name="fna469_469" id="fna469_469"></a><a href="#f469_469" class="fnanc">[469]</a></p> + +<hr style="width: 25%;" /> + +<p>Hunt, Shelley, Hazlitt and Keats were the chief targets in the Cockney +School. The attacks on each of these are of such length as to require +separate discussion and will be returned to later. Those who attained +lesser notoriety were Charles Lamb, Haydon, Barry Cornwall, John Hamilton +Reynolds, Cornelius Webb, Charles Wells, Charles Dilke, Charles Lloyd, P. +G. Patmore and John Ketch (Abraham Franklin). Those who moved within the +same circle and who may by attraction be considered Cockneys are Charles +Cowden Clarke and his wife, Vincent Novello, Charles Armitage Brown, the +Olliers, Horace and James Smith, Douglas Jerrold, Joseph Severn, Laman +Blanchard, Thomas Noon Talfourd, Thomas Love Peacock, and perhaps Thomas +Hood.</p> + +<p>Charles Lamb was first attacked in 1820. He had written essays somewhat in +the manner of Hunt and he was a contributor to the <i>London Magazine</i>, +which had blundered by censuring Castlereagh, Canning, and Wilberforce. +The much-despised Hazlitt was another of its force. Accordingly, “Elia” +was pronounced a “Cockney Scribbler,” <i>Christ’s Hospital</i> an essay full of +offensive and reprehensible <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span> +personalities,<a name="fna470_470" id="fna470_470"></a><a href="#f470_470" class="fnanc">[470]</a> and <i>All Fool’s Day</i> +“mere inanity and very Cockneyism.”<a name="fna471_471" id="fna471_471"></a><a href="#f471_471" class="fnanc">[471]</a> In April, 1822, <i>Blackwood’s</i> +returned to the attack but with more than usual good nature. In <i>Noctes +Ambrosianæ</i> of that month Tickler is made to say:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Elia in his happiest moods delights me; he is a fine soul; but when +he is dull, his dullness sets human stupidity at defiance. He is like +a well-bred, ill-trained pointer. He has a fine nose, but he can’t or +won’t range. He always keeps close to your foot, and then he points +larks or tit-mice. You see him snuffing and snoking and brandishing +his tail with the most impassioned enthusiasm, and then drawn round +into a semi-circle he stands beautifully—dead set. You expect a +burst of partridges, or a towering cock-pheasant, when lo, and +behold, away flits a lark, or you discover a mouse’s nest, or there +is absolutely nothing at all. Perhaps a shrew has been there the day +before. Yet if Elia were mine, I would not part with him, for all his +faults.”</p></div> + +<p>A few years later Lamb became one of <i>Blackwood’s</i> contributors. Two +attacks on Lamb proceeded from the <i>Quarterly</i>. The <i>Confessions of a +Drunkard</i>, the writer says, “affords a fearful picture of the consequences +of intemperance which we have reason to know is a true tale.”<a name="fna472_472" id="fna472_472"></a><a href="#f472_472" class="fnanc">[472]</a> In his +<i><ins class="correction" title="original: Progess">Progress</ins> of Infidelity</i>, Southey asserted that Elia’s volume of essays +wanted “only sounder religious feeling, to be as delightful as it is +original.”<a name="fna473_473" id="fna473_473"></a><a href="#f473_473" class="fnanc">[473]</a> Lamb’s wrath had been slowly gathering under the strain of +repeated attacks on Hunt, Hazlitt and himself. It culminated with +Southey’s article. In the <i>London Magazine</i> of October, 1823, he +repudiated at considerable length the compliments thrust upon him at the +expense of his friends, and denied the arraignment of drunkenness and +heterodoxy. Matters were then smoothed over between him and Southey +through an explanation which his unfailing good nature could not resist.</p> + +<p>Haydon was nick-named the “Raphael of the Cockneys.”<a name="fna474_474" id="fna474_474"></a><a href="#f474_474" class="fnanc">[474]</a> Until the +exhibition of <i>Christ’s Entry into Jerusalem</i> in Edinburgh in 1820, he +underwent the same kind of persecution as his friends. His “greasy hair” +was about as notorious as Hazlett’s “pimpled face.” But the picture +converted <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span><i>Blackwood’s</i> crew. They apologized and confessed that their +misapprehensions had been due to the absurd style of laudation in <i>The +Examiner</i>. Henceforward they acknowledged him to be “a high Tory and an +aristocrat, and a sound Christian.”<a name="fna475_475" id="fna475_475"></a><a href="#f475_475" class="fnanc">[475]</a></p> + +<p>Bryan Waller Procter, or Barry Cornwall, was satirized in <i>Blackwood’s</i> +for his so-called effeminacy. In October, 1823, the following facetious +passage occurs: “the merry thought of a chick—three tea-spoonsfulls of +peas, the eighth part of a French roll, a sprig of cauliflower, and an +almost imperceptible dew of parsley” would dine the author of <i>The +Deluge</i>. The article on Shelley’s <i>Posthumous Poems</i> in the <i>Edinburgh</i> of +July, 1824, was attributed to Procter by <i>Blackwood’s</i> and assailed in a +most disgusting manner. The article was by Hazlitt.</p> + +<p>John Hamilton Reynolds was a friend of Keats, one of the <i>Young Poets</i> +reviewed by Hunt in <i>The Examiner</i>, and a contributor to the <i>London +Magazine</i>. His two poems, <i>Eden of the Imagination</i> and <i>Fairies</i>, showed +Hunt’s influence. In the former he had even dared to praise Hunt in the +notes.</p> + +<p>Cornelius Webb was the author of numerous poems which exhibit in a marked +degree the Huntian peculiarities of diction pointed out in the first +chapter. He is moreover responsible for the unfortunate lines so often +quoted in derision by Blackwood’s:</p> + +<p class="poem"><span style="margin-left: 12em;">“Keats</span><br /> +The Muses’ son of promise! and what feats<br /> +He yet may do.”</p> + +<p>His sonnets in the <i>Literary Pocket Book</i> were thus reviewed in +<i>Blackwood’s</i> of December, 1821: “Now, Cornelius Webbe is a Jaw-breaker. +Let any man who desires to have his ivory dislodged, read the above sonnet +to March. Or shall we call Cornelius, the grinder? After reading aloud +these fourteen lines, we called in our Odontist, and he found that every +tooth in our head was loosened, and a slight fracture in the jaw. ‘My +dearest Christopher’, said the Odontist, in his wonted classical spirit, +‘beware the Ides of March.’ So saying, he bounced up in our faces and +disappeared.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span>Charles Wells was a friend of Hazlitt and of Keats. In true Cockney +fashion he sent the latter a sonnet and some roses and thus began the +acquaintance. Dilke was a friend of Keats, a radical, and an independent +critic in the manner of Hunt. Charles Lloyd was Lamb’s friend, one of the +contributors to the <i>Literary Pocket Book</i> of 1820, and a poet of +sentimental and descriptive propensities. P. G. Patmore was “Count Tims, +the Cockney.”<a name="fna476_476" id="fna476_476"></a><a href="#f476_476" class="fnanc">[476]</a> Although he was a correspondent of <i>Blackwood’s</i>, his +son has remarked that he was not <i>persona grata</i>, but was employed to +secure news from London; and permitted to write only when he did not +defend his friends too much.<a name="fna477_477" id="fna477_477"></a><a href="#f477_477" class="fnanc">[477]</a> “John Ketch” (Abraham Franklin) is +mentioned by Lord Byron as one of the “Cockney Scribblers.”<a name="fna478_478" id="fna478_478"></a><a href="#f478_478" class="fnanc">[478]</a> Thomas +Hood, as brother-in-law of Reynolds, as assistant editor of the <i>London +Magazine</i>, and as an imitator in a small degree in his early work of Lamb +and of Hunt may be enumerated among the Cockneys, although he is not +usually included. Laman Blanchard was the friend of Procter, Lamb and +Hunt. He imitated Procter’s <i>Dramatic Sketches</i> and Lamb’s <i>Essays</i>. +Talfourd was a member of the circle and the friend and biographer of Lamb. +He defended Edward Moxon when he was prosecuted for publishing <i>Queen +Mab</i>. Peacock was the friend of Shelley. The Ollier brothers, publishers, +introduced Keats, Shelley, Hunt, Lamb and Procter to the public.<a name="fna479_479" id="fna479_479"></a><a href="#f479_479" class="fnanc">[479]</a></p> + +<p>Although Byron was frequently at war with <i>Blackwood’s</i> and the +<i>Quarterly</i>, and although he was closely associated with Shelley and Hunt, +he was never stigmatized as a member of the Cockney School. Yet through +his alliance with them he came in for some opprobrium that he would +otherwise have escaped. <i>Blackwood’s</i> strove through ridicule to prevent +any growth of familiarity with Hunt or his fraternity. Its attitude +towards the dedication to Byron of the <i>Story of Rimini</i> has already been +mentioned. Hunt’s statement already quoted on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> p. 95 that “for the drama, +whatever good passages such a writer will always put forth, we hold that +he (Byron) has no more qualification than we have” was a choice morsel for +the Scotch birds of prey, enjoyed to the fullest extent in a review of +<i>Lyndsay’s Dramas of the Ancient World</i>:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Prigs will be preaching—and nothing but conceit cometh out of +Cockaigne. What an emasculated band of dramatists have deployed upon +our boards. A pale-faced, sallow set, like the misses of some Cockney +boarding-school, taking a constitutional walk, to get rid of their +habits of eating lime out of the wall.... But it was reserved to the +spirit of atheism of an age, to talk of a Cockney writing a tragedy. +When the mind ceases to believe in a Providence, it can believe in +anything else; but the pious soul feels that while to dream, even in +sleep, that a Cockney had written a successful tragedy, would be +repugnant to reason; certainly a more successful tragedy could not be +imagined, from the utter destruction of Cockaigne and all its +inhabitants. An earthquake or a shower of lava would be too +complimentary to the Cockneys; but what do you think of a shower of +soot from a multitude of foul chimneys, and the smell of gas from +exploded pipes. Something might be made of the idea.... The truth is, +that these mongrel and doggerel drivellers have an instinctive +abhorrence of a true poet; and they all ran out like so many curs +baying at the feet of the Pegasus on which Byron rode ... and the +eulogists of homely, and fireside, and little back-parlour incest, +what could they imagine of the unseduceable spirit of the spotless +Angiolina?... When Elliston, ignorant of what one gentleman owes to +another, or driven by stupidity to forget it, brought the Doge on the +stage, how crowed the Bantam Cocks of Cockaigne to see it damned!... +But Manfred and the Doge are not dead; while all that small fry have +disappeared in the mud, and are dried up like so many tadpoles in a +ditch, under the summer drowth. ‘Lord Byron,’ quoth Mr. Leigh Hunt, +‘has about as much dramatic genius as <i>ourselves</i>!’ He might as well +have said, ‘Lucretia had about as much chastity as my own heroine in +Rimini;’ or, ‘Sir Phillip Sidney was about as much of the gentleman +as myself!’”<a name="fna480_480" id="fna480_480"></a><a href="#f480_480" class="fnanc">[480]</a></p></div> + +<p>Byron’s attitude toward the Cockney School was expressed in a letter +written to John Murray during the Bowles controversy:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“With the rest of his (Hunt’s) young people I have no acquaintance, +except through some things of theirs (which have been sent out +without my desire), and I confess that till I had read them I was not +aware of the full extent of human absurdity. Like Garrick’s ‘Ode to +Shakespeare,’ <i>they</i> ‘<i>defy criticism</i>.’ These are of the personages +who decry Pope.... <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span>Mr. Hunt redeems himself by occasional beauties; +but the rest of these poor creatures seem so far gone that I would +not ‘march through Coventry with them, that’s flat!’ were I in Mr. +Hunt’s place. To be sure, he has ‘led his ragamuffins where they will +be well peppered’; but a system-maker must receive all sorts of +proselytes. When they have really seen life—when they have felt +it—when they have travelled beyond the far distant boundaries of the +wilds of Middlesex—when they have overpassed the Alps of Highgate, +and traced to its sources the Nile of the New River—then, and not +till then, can it properly be permitted to them to despise Pope.... +The grand distinction of the under forms of the new school of poets +is their <i>vulgarity</i>. By this I do not mean that they are coarse, but +‘shabby-genteel,’ as it is termed. A man may be <i>coarse</i> and yet not +<i>vulgar</i>, and the reverse.... It is in their <i>finery</i> that the new +school are <i>most</i> vulgar, and they may be known by this at once; as +what we called at Harrow “A Sunday blood” might be easily +distinguished from a gentleman, although his clothes might be the +better cut, and his boots the best blackened of the two:—probably +because he made the one or cleaned the other, with his own hands.... +In the present case, I speak of writing, not of persons. Of the +latter I know nothing; of the former I judge as it is found.”<a name="fna481_481" id="fna481_481"></a><a href="#f481_481" class="fnanc">[481]</a></p></div> + +<p>Byron’s opinion of Keats is too well known to need repetition. He thought +there was hope for Barry Cornwall if “he don’t get spoiled by green tea +and the praises of Pentonville and Paradise Row. The pity of these men is, +that they never lived in <i>high life</i> nor in <i>solitude</i>: there is no medium +for the knowledge of the <i>busy</i> or the <i>still</i> world. If admitted into +high life for a season, it is merely as <i>spectators</i>—they form no part of +the mechanism thereof.”<a name="fna482_482" id="fna482_482"></a><a href="#f482_482" class="fnanc">[482]</a></p> + +<p><i>Blackwood’s</i> of December, 1822, in a review of <i>The Liberal</i>, advised +Byron to “cut the Cockney”—“by far the most unaccountable of God’s +works.” Hunt is denominated “the menial of a lord.” When Byron +notwithstanding its advice continued his “conjunction with these deluded +drivellers of Cockaigne” <i>Blackwood’s</i> grew savage towards the peer +himself: it is said that he suffered himself</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“to be so enervated by the unworthy Delilahs which have enslaved his +imagination, as to be reduced to the foul office of displaying blind +buffooneries before the Philistines of Cockaigne ... I feel a moral +conviction that his lordship must have taken the Examiner, the +Liberal, the Rimini, <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span>the Round Table, as his model, and endeavored +to write himself down to the level of the capacities and the swinish +tastes of those with whom he has the misfortune, originally, I +believe, from charitable motives, to associate. This is the most +charitable hypothesis which I can frame. Indeed there are some verses +which have all the appearance of having been interpolated by the King +of the Cockneys.”<a name="fna483_483" id="fna483_483"></a><a href="#f483_483" class="fnanc">[483]</a></p></div> + +<p>When Byron and Hunt had separated, <i>Blackwood’s</i> attempted to reinstate +Byron in his former position by declaring that he had been disgusted +beyond endurance on Hunt’s arrival in Italy and that he had cut him very +soon in a “paroxysm of loathing.”<a name="fna484_484" id="fna484_484"></a><a href="#f484_484" class="fnanc">[484]</a></p> + +<hr style="width: 25%;" /> + +<p>The declaration of war between the Cockneys and the Tory press was made +with a review of the <i>Story of Rimini</i> in the <i>Quarterly</i> of January, +1816. From this time on Hunt was the choice prey of the two magazines, and +others were attacked principally on account of him, or reached through +him. Hunt’s writings were termed “eruptions of a disease” with which he +insists upon “inoculating mankind;” his language “an ungrammatical, +unauthorized, chaotic jargon.” <i>Blackwood’s</i> of October, 1817, contained +the first of the long series of abusive articles which appeared in its +columns. Hazlitt in the <i>Edinburgh Review</i> in June of the preceding year +had acclaimed the <i>Story of Rimini</i> to be “a reminder of the pure and +glorious style that prevailed among us before French modes and French +methods of criticism.” In it he had discovered a resemblance to Chaucer, +to the voluptuous pathos of Boccaccio and to the laughing graces of +Ariosto. To offset such statements <i>Blackwood’s</i> dubbed the new school the +“Cockney School” and made Hunt its chief doctor and professor. (Later, in +1823, <i>Blackwood’s</i> proudly claimed the honor of christening and said that +the <i>Quarterly</i> used the epithet only when it had become a part of English +criticism.) It declared the dedication to Byron an insult and the poem the +product of affectation and gaudiness and continued:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“The beaux are attorney’s apprentices, with chapeau bras and Limerick +gloves—fiddlers, harp teachers, and clerks of genius: the belles are +faded,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span> fan-twinkling spinsters, prurient vulgar misses from school, +and enormous citizen’s wives. The company are entertained with +luke-warm negus, and the sounds of a paltry piano forte.... His +poetry resembles that of a man who has kept company with +kept-mistresses. His muse talks indelicately like the tea-sipping +milliner’s girl. Some excuse for her there might have been, had she +been hurried away by imagination or passion; but with her, indecency +seems a disease, she appears to speak unclean things from perfect +inanition.” Hunt “would fain be always tripping and waltzing, and he +is very sorry that he cannot be allowed to walk about in the morning +with yellow breeches and flesh-colored silk stockings. He sticks an +artificial rosebud in his button hole in the midst of winter. He +wears no neckcloth, and cuts his hair in imitation of the prints of +Petrarch.”</p></div> + +<p>Nature in the eyes of a Cockney was said to consist only of “green fields, +jaunty streams, and o’er-arching leafiness;” no mountains were higher than +Highgate-hill nor streams more pastoral than the Serpentine River.<a name="fna485_485" id="fna485_485"></a><a href="#f485_485" class="fnanc">[485]</a> +<i>Blackwood’s</i> was near the truth in its criticism of Hunt’s conception of +nature. While his appreciation was very genuine, it was restricted to +rural or suburban scenes, “of the town, towny.”<a name="fna486_486" id="fna486_486"></a><a href="#f486_486" class="fnanc">[486]</a> The scale was that of +the window garden or a flower pot. Who but he could rhapsodize over a cut +flower or a bit of green; or could speak in spring “of being gay and +vernal and daffodilean?”<a name="fna487_487" id="fna487_487"></a><a href="#f487_487" class="fnanc">[487]</a> Yet he produced some delightful rural +poetry. Take this for instance:</p> + +<p class="poem">“You know the rural feeling, and the charm<br /> +That stillness has for a world-fretted ear,<br /> +’Tis now deep whispering all about me here,<br /> +With thousand tiny bushings, like a swarm<br /> +Of atom bees, or fairies in alarm<br /> +Or noise of numerous bliss from distant spheres.”<a name="fna488_488" id="fna488_488"></a><a href="#f488_488" class="fnanc">[488]</a></p> + +<p>The general characteristics of the school, briefly summarized, were said +to be ignorance and vulgarity, an entire absence of religion, a vague and +sour Jacobinism for patriotism, admiration of Chaucer and Spenser when +they resemble Hunt, and extreme moral depravity and obscenity. November, +1817, of <i>Blackwood’s</i> contained the notorious accusation against the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span> +<i>Story of Rimini</i> of immorality of purpose.<a name="fna489_489" id="fna489_489"></a><a href="#f489_489" class="fnanc">[489]</a> The poem was called “the +genteel comedy of incest.” Francesca’s sin was declared voluntary and her +sufferings sentimental. The changes from the historical version, an +espousal by proxy instead of betrothal, the omission of deformity, the +substitution of the duel for murder, and the happy opening, were +pronounced wilful perversions for the furtherance of corruption. Ford’s +treatment of the same theme much more elevated. Hunt’s defense was that +the catastrophe was Francesca’s sufficient punishment.<a name="fna490_490" id="fna490_490"></a><a href="#f490_490" class="fnanc">[490]</a> In May, 1818, +the same charge was repeated: “No woman who has not either lost her +chastity, or is desirous of losing it, ever read the ‘Story of Rimini’ +without the flushings of shame and of self-reproach.”</p> + +<p><i>The Examiner</i> of November 2 and 16, 1817, quoted extracts from the first +of these articles and called upon the author to avow himself; otherwise to +an “utter disregard of <i>Truth</i> and Decency, he adds the height of Meanness +and <span class="smcap">Cowardice</span>.”<a name="fna491_491" id="fna491_491"></a><a href="#f491_491" class="fnanc">[491]</a> As might +have been expected, this demand brought forth nothing more than a disavowal from the London publishers who handled +<i>Blackwood’s</i> of all responsibility in the matter. June 14, 1818, <i>The +Examiner</i> assailed the editor of the <i>Quarterly</i> as a government critic +who disguised a political quarrel in literary garb, as a sycophant to +power and wealth:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span>“Grown old in the service of corruption, he drivels on to the last +with prostituted impotence, and shameless effrontery; salves a meagre +reputation for wit, by venting the driblets of his spleen and +impertinence on others; answers their arguments by confuting himself; +mistakes habitual obtuseness of intellect for a particular acuteness, +not to be imposed upon by shallow pretensions; unprincipled rancor +for zealous loyalty; and the irritable, discontented, vindictive, and +peevish effusions of bodily pain and mental infirmity, for proofs of +refinement of taste and strength of understanding.”</p></div> + +<p>This condescension to a use of his enemies’ weapons only weakened Hunt’s +position. Yet in the light of the secrecy maintained at the time and the +mystery surrounding the matter ever since, it is interesting to read +<i>Blackwood’s</i> contorted reply to Hunt’s demand for an open fight, written +as late as January, 1826:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Nor let it be said that, either on this or any other occasion, the +moral Satyrists (sic) in this magazine ever wished to remain unknown. +How, indeed, could they wish for what they well knew was impossible? +All the world has all along known the names of the gentlemen who have +uttered our winged words. Nor did it ever, for one single moment, +enter into the head of any one of them to wish—not to scorn +concealment. To gentlemen, too, they at all times acted like +gentlemen; but was it ever dreamt by the wildest that they were to +consider as such the scum of the earth? ‘If I but knew who was my +slanderer,’ was at one time the ludicrous skraigh of the convicted +Cockney. Why did he not ask? and what would he have got by asking? +Shame and confusion of face—unanswerable argument and cruel +chastisement. For before one word would have been deigned to the +sinner, he must have eaten—and the bitter roll is yet ready for +him—all the lies he had told for the last twenty years, and must +either have choked or been kicked.”</p></div> + +<p>In January, 1818, <i>Blackwood’s</i> issued a manifesto of their future +campaign. The Keatses, Shelleys, and Webbes, were to be taken in turn. The +charges of profligacy and obscenity against Hunt’s poem were repeated, but +it was emphatically stated that there was no implication made in reference +to his private character—an ominous statement that any one with any +knowledge of <i>Blackwood’s</i> usual methods could only construe into a +warning that such an implication would speedily follow. The article was +signed “Z,” a shadowy personage who sorrowfully called himself the +“present object” of Hunt’s resentment and dislike. He seems to have +expected gratitude<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span> and affection in return for articles that would +compare favorably with the most scurrilous billingsgate of any of the +Humanistic controversies. In May, 1818, with due ceremony, Hunt was +proclaimed “King of the Cockneys” and editor of the Cockney Court-gazette. +His kingdom was the “Land of Cockaigne,” a borrowing, most probably, from +the thirteenth century satire by that name. Keats’s sonnet containing the +line “He of the rose, the violet, the spring” became the official Cockney +poem—by an “amiable but infatuated bardling.” John Hunt was made Prince +John. With the lapse of time Hunt’s crimes seem to have multiplied. He is +called a lunatic, a libeller, an abettor of murder and of assassination, a +coward, an incendiary, a Jacobin, a plebeian and a foe to virtue. He is +instructed, if sickened with the sins and follies of mankind, to withdraw</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“to the holy contemplation of your own divine perfections, and there +‘perk up with timid mouth’ ‘and lamping eyes’ (as you have it) upon +what to you is dearer and more glorious than all created things +besides, till you become absorbed in your own identity—motionless, +mighty, and magnificent, in the pure calm of Cockneyism ... instead +of rousing yourself from your lair, like some noble beast when +attacked by the hunter, you roll yourself round like a sick hedgehog, +that has crawled out into the ‘crisp’ gravel walk round your box at +Hampstead, and oppose only the feeble pricks of your hunch’d-up back +to the kicks of any one who wishes less to hurt you, than to drive +you into your den.”</p></div> + +<p>The <i>Quarterly</i> of the same month contained the notorious review of +<i>Foliage</i>. Southey, in a counterfeited Cockney style, contorts Hunt’s +devotion to his leafy luxuries, his flowerets, wine, music and other +social joys into Epicureanism<a name="fna492_492" id="fna492_492"></a><a href="#f492_492" class="fnanc">[492]</a> and like unsound principles. He <ins class="correction" title="original: ever">even</ins> +goes so far as to accuse him of incest and adultery in his private life. +There are disguised but unmistakable references to Keats and to Shelley; +the latter is credited with evil doings that fall little short of +machinations with the devil. The volume of poems, which was the ostensible +pretext for this parade of foul slander, not a word of which was true, +has, Southey says, richness of language and picturesqueness<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span> of +imagery.<a name="fna493_493" id="fna493_493"></a><a href="#f493_493" class="fnanc">[493]</a> The July number of <i>Blackwood’s</i> went a step beyond Southey +and identified the characters of the <i>Story of Rimini</i> with Hunt and his +sister-in-law, Elizabeth Kent. After ostentatiously giving currency to the +scandal, “Z” then proceeds to deny the rumor—which had no existence save +in the minds of Hunt’s vilifiers—in order to preserve immunity from +libel. At the time that Lamb replied to Southey in 1823 he took up these +charges made against Hunt in 1818. He said:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“I was admitted to his household for several years, and do most +solemnly aver that I believe him to be in his domestic relations as +correct as any man. He chose an ill-judged subject for a poem.... In +spite of ‘Rimini,’ I must look upon its author as a man of taste and +a poet. He is better than so; he is one of the most cordial-minded +men that I ever knew, and matchless as a fireside companion. I do not +mean to affront or wound your feelings when I say that in his more +genial moods, he has often reminded me of you.”<a name="fna494_494" id="fna494_494"></a><a href="#f494_494" class="fnanc">[494]</a></p></div> + +<p>A facetious bit of prose <i>On Sonnet Writing</i> and a <i>Sonnet on Myself</i> in +<i>Blackwood’s</i> of April, 1819, parodied excellently the Cockney conceit and +mannerisms. The September number contrasted Henry Hunt, the representative +of the Cockney School of Politics, with Leigh Hunt, of the Cockney School +of Poetry; resenting loudly the claim of the two to prominence for “even +Douglasses never had more than one Bell-the-cat at a time.” While Henry +Hunt “the brawny white feather of Cockspur-street” addresses street mobs, +the other Hunt, “the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span> lank and sallow hypochondriac of the ‘leafy rise’ +and ‘farmy fields’ of Hampstead,” “the whining milk-sop sonneteer of the +Examiner” is said to speak to a “sorely depressed remnant of ‘single +gentlemen’ in lodgings, and single ladies we know not where—a generation +affected with headaches, tea-drinking and all the nostalgia of the +nerves.” It is hardly necessary to add that there was no connection +whatsoever between the two men.</p> + +<p><i>Blackwood’s</i> of October, 1819, announced <i>Foliage</i> to be a posthumous +publication of Hunt’s, presented to the public by his three friends, +Keats, Haydon and Novello. An affecting picture is drawn of the +now-departed Hunt in his once familiar costume of dressing-gown, yellow +breeches and red slippers, sipping tea, playing whist and writing sonnets. +His statement in the preface that a “love of sociability, of the country, +and the fine imagination of the Greeks” had prompted the poems is greatly +ridiculed. The first is said to have caused his death by an +over-indulgence in tea-drinking; his feeling for nature is said to be +limited to the lawns, stiles and hedges of Hampstead and his knowledge of +the imagination of the Greeks to quotations. The <i>Sonnet On Receiving a +Crown of Ivy from Keats</i> came in for especial derision—“a blister clapped +on his head” would have been considered more appropriate.</p> + +<p>Hunt’s <i>Literary Pocket Books</i> for 1819 and 1820 were reviewed in +<i>Blackwood’s</i> in December, 1819, in a remarkably kind article. They are +recommended as worth three times the price. The reviewer, who was no other +than “Christopher North,” stated that he had purchased six copies. +<i>Blackwood’s</i> of September, 1820, reviewed <i>The Indicator</i>; of December, +1821, the 1822 <i>Literary Pocket Book</i>; the last contained coarse and +unkind allusions to Hunt’s health. It declared the production of sonnets +in London and its suburbs about equal to the number of births and deaths. +In reply, <i>The Examiner</i> of December 16, 1821, in an article entitled +<i>Modern Criticism</i>, italicised extracts from <i>Blackwood’s</i> to bring out +peculiarities of grammar and diction. <i>Blackwood’s</i> of January, 1822, +contained a sonnet which it was pretended was Hunt’s New Year’s greeting, +but which was instead a clever parody on his sonnet-style.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span>The issue of the next month announced the triumvirate of <i>The Liberal</i> +and, through Byron’s “noble generosity,” Hunt’s departure with his wife +and “little Johnnys” upon a “perilous voyage on the un-cockney ocean.... +He and his companions will now, like his own Nereids,</p> + +<p class="poem"><span style="margin-left: 15em;">turn</span><br /> +And toss upon the ocean’s lifting billows,<br /> +Making them <i>banks and</i> pillows,<br /> +Upon whose <i>springiness</i> they lean and ride;<br /> +Some with an <i>inward back</i>; some <i>upward-eyed</i>,<br /> +Feeling the sky; and some with <i>sidelong hips</i>,<br /> +O’er which the surface of the water slips.”</p> + +<p>The first number of the <i>Noctes Ambrosianæ</i> appeared in March. The +following passage refers to the launching of <i>The Liberal</i> in a dialogue +between the Editor and O’Doherty:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>O. Hand me the lemons. This holy alliance of Pisa will be a queer +affair. <i>The Examiner</i> has let down its price from a tenpenny to a +sevenpenny. They say the Editor here is to be one of that faction, +for they must publish in London, of course.</p> + +<p>Ed. Of course, but I doubt if they will be able to sell many. Byron +is a prince, but these dabbling dogglerers destroy every dish they +dip in.</p> + +<p>O. Apt alliteration’s artful aid.</p> + +<p>Ed. Imagine Shelly [sic], with his spavin, and Hunt, with his +staingalt, going in harness with such a caperer as Byron, +three-a-breast. He’ll knock the wind out of them both the first +canter.</p> + +<p>O. ’Tis pity Keats is dead.—I suppose you could not venture to +publish a sonnet in which he is mentioned now? The <i>Quarterly</i> (who +killed him, as Shelly says) would blame you.</p> + +<p>Ed. Let’s hear it. Is it your own?</p> + +<p>O. No; ’twas written many months ago by a certain great Italian +genius, who cuts a figure about the London routs—one Fudgiolo.</p> + +<p>Ed. Try to recollect it. (Here follows the sonnet.)</p></div> + +<p><i>Blackwood’s</i> of December, 1822, had passages on the Cockney School in +<i>Noctes Ambrosianæ</i>. Number VII. of the series of articles on its members +reviewed Hunt’s <i>Florentine Lovers</i>, or, in their phrasing, his <i>Art of +Love</i>, the story of which is wilfully misrepresented. Hunt is declared +“the most irresistible knight-errant errotic extant ... the most +contemptible little capon of the bantam breed that ever vainly dropped a +wing, or sidled up to a partlet. He can no more crow than a hen. Byron +makes love like Sir Peter, Moore like a tom-tit and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span> Hunt like a bantam.” +The writer then charges Hunt with irreligion, indecency, sensuality and +licentiousness. He is called “A Fool” and an “exquisite idiot.” Such a +burst of rage on the part of the anti-Cockneys, after their wrath had +begun to cool as seen in the review of the <i>Literary Pocket Book</i>, was +doubtless due to Hunt’s association in <i>The Liberal</i> with Byron: “What can +Byron mean by patronizing a Cockney?... by far the most unaccountable of +God’s works ... a scavenger raking in the filth of the common sewers and +stews, for a few gold pieces thrown down by a nobleman.... But that Satan +should stoop to associate with an incubus, shows that there is degeneracy +in hell.” The tirade closes with a poem of six stanzas of which this is a +fair sample:</p> + +<p class="poem">“The kind Cockney Monarch, he bids us farewell<br /> +Taking his place in the Leghorn-bound smack—<br /> +In the smack, in the smack—Ah! will he ne’er come back?”</p> + +<p>At the appearance of the last number of <i>The Liberal</i>, <i>Blackwood’s</i> +rejoiced thus:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Their hum, to be sure, is awfully subdued. They remind me of a +mutchkin of wasps in a bottle, all sticking to each other—heads and +tails—rumps glued with treacle and vinegar, wax and pus—helpless, +hopeless, stingless, wingless, springless—utterly abandoned of +air—choked and choking—mutually entangling and entangled—and +mutually disgusting and disgusted—the last blistering ferment of +incarnate filth working itself into one mass of oblivion in one +bruised and battered sprawl of swipes and venom.”<a name="fna495_495" id="fna495_495"></a><a href="#f495_495" class="fnanc">[495]</a></p></div> + +<p><i>Blackwood’s</i> of October, 1823, declared Hazlitt to be the most loathsome +and Hunt the most ludicrous of the group. Before the close of the year +Hunt threatened the magazine with a suit for libel. This threat did not +prevent in January a notice of Hunt’s <i>Ultra-Crepidarius</i>, a satire on +Gifford much in the vein and style of the <i>Feast of the Poets</i>. Mercury +and Venus come to earth in search of the former’s lost shoe. On their +arrival they discover that it has been converted by command of the gods +into a man named Gifford. The satire is facetiously attributed by +<i>Blackwood’s</i> to Master Hunt, aged ten; a “small, smart, smattering +satirist of an air-haparent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span> ... Cockney chick.” The parent is reproached +for putting a child in such a position.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Had Leigh Hunt, the papa, boldly advanced on any great emergency, at +the peril of his life and crown, to snatch the legitimate issue of +his own loins from the shrivelled hands of some blear-eyed old +beldam, into whose small cabbage-garden Maximilian had headed a +forlorn hope, good and well, and beautiful; but not so, when a +stalwart and cankered carl like Mr. Gifford, with his quarter-staff, +belabours the shoulders of his Majesty, and sire shoves son between +himself and the Pounder ... such pusillanimity involves forfeiture of +the Crown, and from this hour we declare Leigh dethroned, and the +boy-bard of <i>Ultra-Crepidarius</i> King of Cockaigne.”</p></div> + +<p>Wearying of this make-believe, the reviewer discards such a possibility of +authorship and considers Hunt’s grandfather, a legendary personage whose +age is put at ninety-six and who is given the name of Zachariah Hunt: +“What a gross, vulgar, leering old dog it is! Was ever the couch of the +celestials so profaned before! One thinks of some aged cur, with mangy +back, glazed eye-balls dropping rheum, and with most disconsolate muzzard +muzzling among the fleas of his abominable loins, by some accident lying +upon the bed where Love and Beauty are embracing and embraced.” As a final +potentiality the reviewer deliberates whether Hunt by any possibility +could have been the author and closes with this peroration: “There he goes +soaking, and swaling, and straddling up the sky, like Daniel O’Rouke on +goose back!... Toes in if you please. The goose is galloping—why don’t +you stand in the stirrups?... Alas Pegasus smells his native marshes; +instead of making for Olympus, he is off in a wallop to the fens of +Lincolnshire! Bellerophon has lost his seat—now he clings desperately by +the tail—a single feather holds him from eternity.”</p> + +<p>Article VIII of the regular series, reviewing Hunt’s <i>Bacchus in Tuscany</i>, +appeared in <i>Blackwood’s</i> of August, 1825. His allegiance to Apollo in +Cockaigne is declared to have been changed to Bacchus in Tuscany, and his +usual beverage of weak tea to a diet of wine on which he swills like a +hippopotamus. He is depicted as Jupiter Tonans and his manner to Hebe is +compared with a “natty Bagman to the barmaid of the Hen and Chickens.” The +same number noticed Sotheby’s<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> translation of Homer. The opportunity was +not lost to refer unfavorably to Hunt’s translations of the same in +<i>Foliage</i>.</p> + +<p><i>The Rebellion of the Beasts</i>; or <i>The Ass is Dead! Long Live the Ass!!! +By a Late Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge</i>, with the motto “A man +hath pre-eminence above a beast,” was published anonymously by J. & H. L. +Hunt in London in 1825. There is every reason to believe that it was by +Hunt, although he does not mention it elsewhere. It is an exceedingly +clever satire on monarchy and far surpasses anything else of the kind that +he ever did. Had the Tories of Edinburgh suspected the author it would +probably have made them apoplectic with rage.</p> + +<p>With <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i> the rage of the two +periodicals reached a grand climax and seemingly exhausted itself. The +<i>Quarterly</i> in March of the same year in which it appeared said: “The last +wiggle of expiring imbecility appears in these days to be a volume of +personal Reminiscences.” It characterized the book as a melancholy product +of coxcombry and cockneyism: as “dirty gabble about men’s wives and men’s +mistresses—and men’s lackeys, and even the mistresses of the lackeys:” as +“the miserable book of a miserable man; the little airy fopperies of its +manner are like the fantastic trip and convulsive simpers of some poor +worn-out wanton, struggling between famine and remorse, leering through +her tears.” <i>Blackwood’s</i> of the same month pictured Hunt riding in the +tourney lists of Cockaigne to the tune of Cock-a-doodle-doo. It accused +him, besides those misdemeanors many times previously exploited, of clumsy +casuistry, of falsehood regarding his transaction with Colburn, of +ill-breeding in dragging his wife into such a book. The following is the +culmination of the author’s anger:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Mr. Hunt, who to the prating pertness of the parrot, the chattering +impudence of the magpie—to say nothing of the mowling malice of the +monkey—adds the hissiness of the bill-pouting gander, and the +gobble-bluster of the bubbly-jock—to say nothing of the forward +valour of the brock or badger—threatens death and destruction to all +writers of prose or verse, who shall dare to say white is the black +of his eye, or that his book is not like a vase lighted up from +within with the torch of truth ... Frezeland Bantam is the vainest +bird that attempts to crow; and by and by our feverish friend comes +out into the light, and begins to trim his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> plumage! His toilet over +he basks on the ditch side, and has not the smallest doubt in the +world that he is a Bird of Paradise.”</p></div> + +<p>The <i>Literary Gazette</i> joined in the hue-and-cry against “the pert +vulgarity and miserable low-mindedness of Cockney-land,” against “the +disagreeable, envious, bickering, hating, slandering, contemptible, +drivelling and be-devilling wretches.”<a name="fna496_496" id="fna496_496"></a><a href="#f496_496" class="fnanc">[496]</a> <i>Blackwood’s</i> of February, +1830, in a review of Moore’s <i>Life, Letters and Journals of Lord Byron</i>, +satirizes the conversational habits of the Cockneys “who all keep +chattering during meals and after them, like so many monkeys, emulous and +envious of each other’s eloquence, and pulling out with their paws fetid +observations from their cheek-pouches, which are nuts to them, though +instead of kernel, nothing but snuff.”</p> + +<p>Not only did the articles in <i>Blackwood’s</i> cease after this last, but in +1834 a full and complete apology was tendered Hunt by Christopher North:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“And Shelley truly loved Leigh Hunt. Their friendship was honorable +to both, for it was as disinterested as sincere; and I hope Gurney +will let a certain person in the City understand that I treat his +offer of a reviewal of Mr. Hunt’s <i>London Journal</i> with disdain. If +he has anything to say against us or that gentleman, either +conjunctly or severally, let him out with it in some other channel; +and I promise him a touch and taste of the crutch. He talks to me of +<i>Maga’s</i> desertion of principle; but if he were a Christian—nay, a +man—his heart and his head would tell him that the Animosities are +mortal, but the Humanities live for ever—and that Leigh Hunt has +more talent in his little finger than the puling prig, who has taken +upon himself to lecture Christopher North in a scrawl crawling with +forgotten falsehoods.”<a name="fna497_497" id="fna497_497"></a><a href="#f497_497" class="fnanc">[497]</a></p></div> + +<p>Professor Wilson’s invitation to Hunt to contribute to his magazine was +declined politely but firmly. Leigh Hunt wrote to Charles Cowden Clarke: +“<i>Blackwood’s</i> and I, poetically, are becoming the best friends in the +world. The other day there was an Ode in <i>Blackwood</i> in honour of the +memory of Shelley; and I look for one of Keats. I hope this will give you +faith in glimpses of the Golden Age.”<a name="fna498_498" id="fna498_498"></a><a href="#f498_498" class="fnanc">[498]</a> +Nowhere<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span> does Hunt show +resentment or malice for the sufferings of years. Yet Mrs. Oliphant, in +her advocacy of the Blackwood group, goes the length of saying that he +displayed “feebleness of mind and body,” “petty meannesses,” +“unwillingness or incapacity to take a high view even of friends or +benefactors,” a lightheartedness and frivolity, and “enduring spite.” She +grudgingly admits his “almost feminine grace and charm.” She says that he +thought his friends deserved only “casual thanks when they did what was +but their manifest duty ... bitter and spiteful satire when they attended +to their own affairs instead.” She makes a radically false statement when +she says that he defended Byron, Shelley, Keats, Moore, and many others in +<i>The Examiner</i>, but found an opportunity to say an evil word of most of +them afterwards; and that when <i>Blackwood’s</i> or the <i>Quarterly</i> attacked +him, he was convinced that “it must be really one of his friends who was +being struck at through him.”<a name="fna499_499" id="fna499_499"></a><a href="#f499_499" class="fnanc">[499]</a></p> + +<p>The <i>Quarterly</i> delayed longer in assuming a friendly attitude. It +remained silent until 1867, when Bulwer, in a comparison of Hunt and +Hazlitt, conceded to the former a gracefulness and kindliness of +disposition, a smoothness of tone and delicacy of finish in his writing. +There was no formal apology as in the case of <i>Blackwood’s</i>.</p> + +<p>Carlyle says that Hunt suffered an “obloquy and calumny through the Tory +press—perhaps a greater quantity of baseness, persevering, implacable +calumny, than any other living writer has undergone; which long course of +hostility ... may be regarded as the beginning of his worst distresses, +and a main cause of them down to this day.”<a name="fna500_500" id="fna500_500"></a><a href="#f500_500" class="fnanc">[500]</a> Macaulay said: “There is +hardly a man living whose merits have been so grudgingly allowed, and +whose faults have been so cruelly expiated.”<a name="fna501_501" id="fna501_501"></a><a href="#f501_501" class="fnanc">[501]</a> For a period of more +than a quarter of a century, from the beginning of the crusade against him +until about 1845, partly as the result of the misrepresentation of the +press,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span> and partly as a natural consequence of his own foibles and early +blunders, a pretty general antagonism existed against him. At the end of +that time his honesty and talents were recognized and rewarded publicly by +the government. And the public has come more and more to esteem his +personal character.</p> + +<hr style="width: 25%;" /> + +<p>The <i>Quarterly</i> of April, 1818, contained the stupid and savage review of +<i>Endymion</i>, provoked almost solely by the Keats’s offence in being the +friend and public protégé of Leigh Hunt. The simple and manly preface<a name="fna502_502" id="fna502_502"></a><a href="#f502_502" class="fnanc">[502]</a> +was misconstrued into a formula for Huntian poetry, and its allusion to a +“London drizzle or a Scotch mist” into a “deprecation of criticism in a +feverish manner.” Leigh Hunt asked years afterwards how “anybody could +answer such an appeal to the mercy of strength with the cruelty of +weakness. All the good for which Mr. Gifford pretended to be zealous, he +might have effected with pain to no one, and glory to himself; and +therefore all the evil he mixed with it was of his own making.”<a name="fna503_503" id="fna503_503"></a><a href="#f503_503" class="fnanc">[503]</a> The +general trend of the article and the reviewer’s acknowledgment that he had +read only the first book of the poem are well known. The following passage +refers directly to Keats’s connection with Hunt:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“The author is a copyist of Mr. Hunt, but he is more unintelligible, +almost as rugged, twice as diffuse, and ten times more tiresome and +absurd than his prototype; who, though he impudently presumed to seat +himself in the chair of criticism, and to measure his own poetry by +his own standard, yet generally had a meaning. But Mr. Keats advanced +no dogmas which he was bound to support by examples; his nonsense is +therefore quite gratuitous; he writes it for his own sake, and, being +bitten by Mr. Leigh Hunt’s insane criticism, more than rivals the +insanity of his poetry.”<a name="fna504_504" id="fna504_504"></a><a href="#f504_504" class="fnanc">[504]</a></p></div> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span><i>Blackwood’s</i> followed +the <i>Quarterly’s</i> lead in August, reviewing Keats’s +first volume at the same time with <i>Endymion</i>. He is reproached with +madness, with metromania, with low origin, with perversion of talents +suited only to an apprenticeship, all because he admired Hunt sufficiently +to adopt some of his theories and because he had been called in <i>The +Examiner</i> one of “two stars of glorious magnitude.” The sonnet <i>Written on +the day that Mr. Leigh Hunt left prison</i>, the <i>Sonnet to Haydon</i>, and +<i>Sleep and Poetry</i>, are anathematized. In the last Keats is said to speak +with</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“contempt of some of the most exquisite spirits that the world ever +produced, merely because they did not happen to exert their faculties +in laborious affected descriptions of flowers seen in window-pots, or +cascades heard at Vauxhall; in short, because they chose to be wits, +philosophers, patriots, and poets, rather than to found the Cockney +school of versification, morality and politics, a century before its +time. After blaspheming himself into a fury against Boileau, etc., +Mr. Keats comforts himself and his readers with a view of the present +more promising state of affairs; above all, with the ripened glories +of the poet of <i>Rimini</i>.”</p></div> + +<p>The denunciation of the “calm, settled, drivelling idiocy” of <i>Endymion</i> +in the same article is famous, but in a discussion of the Cockney School +it is well to recall the following:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“From his prototype Hunt, John Keats has acquired a sort of vague +idea, that the Greeks were a most tasteful people, and that no +mythology can be so finely adopted for the purpose of poetry as +theirs. It is amusing to see what a hand the Cockneys make of this +mythology; the one confesses that he never read the Greek Tragedians +and the other knows Homer only from Chapman; and both of them write +about Apollo, Pan, Nymphs, Muses, and Mysteries, as might be expected +from persons of their education. We shall not, however, enlarge at +present upon this subject, as we mean to dedicate an entire paper to +the classical attainments and attempts of the Cockney poets.”</p></div> + +<p>The versification is said to expose the defects of Hunt’s system ten times +more than Hunt’s own poetry. The mocking close is as follows: “It is a +better and a wiser thing to be a starved apothecary than a starved poet; +so back to the shop, Mr. John, back to ‘plasters, pills, and ointment +boxes,’ etc. But, for Heaven’s sake, young Sangrado, be a little more +sparing of extenuatives and soporifics in your practice than you have been +in your poetry.”</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span>The delusion that these articles were the direct cause of Keats’s death, +an impression given wide currency by the passages in <i>Adonais</i><a name="fna505_505" id="fna505_505"></a><a href="#f505_505" class="fnanc">[505]</a> and +<i>Don Juan</i>,<a name="fna506_506" id="fna506_506"></a><a href="#f506_506" class="fnanc">[506]</a> has long since been dispelled by the evidence of +Hunt,<a name="fna507_507" id="fna507_507"></a><a href="#f507_507" class="fnanc">[507]</a> Fanny Brawne, C. C. Clarke and, most important of all, Keats’s +own letters.<a name="fna508_508" id="fna508_508"></a><a href="#f508_508" class="fnanc">[508]</a> It is not likely that he was affected by them as much as +either Hunt or Hazlitt, for he showed more indifference and greater +dignity under fire than either. His courage and his craving for future +fame do not seem to have wavered during the year in which they appeared. +Joseph Severn has testified that he never heard Keats mention +<i>Blackwood’s</i> and that he considered what his friend endured from the +press as “one of the least of his miseries”; that he knew so little about +the whole matter that when he met Sir Walter Scott in Rome many years +after he was at a loss to understand Scott’s embarrassment when Keats’s +name was mentioned; and it was not until a friend afterwards explained +that Scott was connected with one of the magazines which was popularly +supposed to have caused Keats’s death that he could fathom it.<a name="fna509_509" id="fna509_509"></a><a href="#f509_509" class="fnanc">[509]</a></p> + +<p>It would have been impossible for a more obtuse man than Leigh Hunt not to +have realized from the import of these two articles that Keats was abused +largely because of the association with himself and, but for that, might +have remained in peaceful obscurity. Hunt therefore wisely refrained from +further defense as it would only have made matters worse. During the year +1818 only one notice of Keats appeared in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span> +<i>The Examiner</i>.<a name="fna510_510" id="fna510_510"></a><a href="#f510_510" class="fnanc">[510]</a> During the +same year three sonnets to Keats appeared in <i>Foliage</i>. Yet it has been +several times stated that Hunt forsook Keats at this time. Keats, under +the hallucination of disease himself, accused Hunt of neglect, yet there +were three reasons which made a persistent defense on the part of Hunt not +to be expected. First, he was unaware, according to his own statement, of +the extent of the defamation; second, he realized that his championship +and friendship had been the original cause of wrath in the enemies’ camp +against Keats and that any activity on his part would only incense them +further,<a name="fna511_511" id="fna511_511"></a><a href="#f511_511" class="fnanc">[511]</a> and third, he did not approve of Keats’s only publication of +that year and could not give it his support, as he frankly told Keats +himself. Mr. Forman and Mr. Rossetti both scout the idea of disertion and +disloyalty. Yet Mr. Hall Caine has made much<a name="fna512_512" id="fna512_512"></a><a href="#f512_512" class="fnanc">[512]</a> of a charge which has +been denied by Hunt and ultimately repudiated by Keats. He has, moreover, +overlooked the fact that Hunt’s bitter satire, <i>Ultra-Crepidarius</i>, was +written in <i>1818</i> as a reply to Keats’s critics but was withheld from +publication, presumably only for reasons of prudence, until 1823. When +Keats’s feeling on the subject was brought to his knowledge years later, +Hunt wrote:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Keats appears to have been of opinion that I ought to have taken +more notice of what the critics said against him. And perhaps I +ought. My notices of them may not have been sufficient. I may have +too much contented myself with panegyrizing his genius, and thinking +the objections to it of no ultimate importance. Had he given me a +hint to another effect, I should have acted upon it. But in truth, as +I have before intimated, I did not see a twentieth part of what was +said against us; nor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> had I the slightest notion, at that period, +that he took criticism so much to heart. I was in the habit, though a +public man, of living in a world of abstractions of my own; and I +regarded him as of a nature still more abstracted, and sure of +renown. Though I was a politician (so to speak), I had scarcely a +political work in my library. Spensers and Arabian Tales filled up +the shelves; and Spenser himself was not remoter, in my eyes, from +all the common-places of life, than my new friend. Our whole talk was +made up of idealisms. In the streets we were in the thick of the old +woods. I little suspected, as I did afterwards, that the hunters had +struck him; and never at any time did I suspect that he could have +imagined it desired by his friends. Let me quit the subject of so +afflicting a delusion.”<a name="fna513_513" id="fna513_513"></a><a href="#f513_513" class="fnanc">[513]</a></p></div> + +<p>The <i>Edinburgh Review</i> of August, 1820, discussed <i>Endymion</i> and the 1820 +volume. While it lamented the extravagances and obscurities, the +“intoxication of sweetness” and the perversion of rhyme, it gave Keats due +credit for his genius and his appreciation of the spirit of poetry. Hunt’s +review of <i>Lamia</i><a name="fna514_514" id="fna514_514"></a><a href="#f514_514" class="fnanc">[514]</a> and the other poems of the 1820 volume appeared in +<i>The Indicator</i> of the same month. <i>Blackwood’s</i> answered the next month, +abusing Hunt roundly and faintly praising the poems. The following proves +that their chief object was to strike Hunt through Keats:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“It is a pity that this young man, John Keats, author of <i>Endymion</i>, +and some other poems, should have belonged to the Cockney School—for +he is evidently possessed of talents that, under better direction, +might have done very considerable things. As it is, he bids fair to +sink himself beneath such a mass of affectation, conceit, and Cockney +pedantry, as I never expected to see heaped together by anybody, +except the first founder of the School.... There is much merit in +some of the stanzas of Mr. Keats’s last volume, which I have just +seen; no doubt he is a fine feeling lad—and I hope he will live to +despise Leigh Hunt and be a poet.”</p></div> + +<p>Hazlitt, in May of the next year wrote of the persecution of Keats in the +<i>Edinburgh Review</i>:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Nor is it only obnoxious writers on politics themselves, but all +their friends and acquaintances, and those whom they casually notice, +that come under their sweeping anathema. It is proper to make a clear +stage. The friends of Caesar must not be suspected of an amicable +intercourse with patriotic and incendiary writers. A young poet comes +forward; an early and favourable notice appears of some boyish verses +of his in the <i>Examiner</i>, independently of all political opinion. +That alone decides fate; and from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> that moment he is set upon, pulled +in pieces, and hunted into his grave by the whole venal crew in full +cry after him. It was crime enough that he dared to accept praise +from so disreputable a quarter.”</p></div> + +<p>In a letter from Hunt in Italy to <i>The Examiner</i>, July 7, 1822, an inquiry +is made why Mr. Gifford has never noticed Keats’s last volume: “that +beautiful volume containing <i>Lamia</i>, the story from Boccaccio, and that +magnificent fragment <i>Hyperion</i>?” <i>Blackwood’s</i> of August replied to these +two defenses in a tirade of twenty-two pages against the <i>Edinburgh +Review</i>, Hazlitt, and Hunt. The <i>Noctes <ins class="correction" title="original: Ambrosianae">Ambrosianæ</ins></i> of October continued +in the same strain and, though the grave should have protected Keats from +such banter, revived the old allusions to the apothecary and his pills.</p> + +<p>In self defense against the charge, that its attacks and those of the +<i>Quarterly</i> had broken Keats’s heart, <i>Blackwood’s</i> in January, 1826, said +that it alone had dealt with Keats, Shelley and Procter with “<i>common +sense</i> or <i>common feeling</i>”; that, seeing Keats in the road to ruin with +the Cockneys, it had “tried to save him by wholesome and severe +discipline—they drove him to poverty, expatriation and death.” The most +remarkable part of this remarkable justification is this: “Keats outhunted +Hunt in a species of emasculated pruriency, that, although invented in +Little Britain, looks as if it were the prospect of some imaginative +Eunuch’s muse within the melancholy inspiration of the Haram” (<i>sic</i>).</p> + +<p>In March, 1828, in a review of <i>Lord Byron and Some of His +Contemporaries</i>, the <i>Quarterly</i> seized the opportunity to revert to the +author’s friendship for Keats in its old hostile manner; and, in a +criticism of Coleridge’s poems in August, 1834, to speak of his “dreamy, +half-swooning style of verse criticised by Lord Byron (in language too +strong for print) as the fatal sin of Mr. John Keats.” Finally in March, +1840, in <i>Journalism in France</i>, there is another feeble effort at +defense; a resentment of the “twaddle” against the <i>Quarterly</i> “when they +had the misfortune to criticise a sickly poet, who died soon afterwards, +apparently for the express purpose of dishonoring us.”</p> + +<p>One of Hunt’s utterances in regard to Keats and his critics disposes +finally of the matter: “his fame may now forgive the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span> critics who disliked +his politics, and did not understand his poetry.”<a name="fna515_515" id="fna515_515"></a><a href="#f515_515" class="fnanc">[515]</a></p> + +<hr style="width: 25%;" /> + +<p>From Italy Shelley wrote to Peacock:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“I most devoutly wish I were living near London.... My inclination +points to Hampstead; but I do not know whether I should not make up +my mind to something more completely suburban. What are mountains, +trees, heaths, or even glorious and ever beautiful sky, with such +sunsets as I have seen at Hampstead, to friends? Social enjoyment, in +some form or other, is the Alpha and the Omega of existence. All that +I see in Italy—and from my tower window I now see the magnificent +peaks of the Apennine half enclosing the plain—is nothing. It +dwindles into smoke in the mind, when I think of some familiar forms +of scenery, little perhaps in themselves, over which old remembrances +have thrown a delightful colour.”<a name="fna516_516" id="fna516_516"></a><a href="#f516_516" class="fnanc">[516]</a></p></div> + +<p>The attacks of the <i>Quarterly</i> of May, 1818, on Shelley’s private life and +of April, 1819, on the <i>Revolt of Islam</i>, and the reply of <i>The Examiner</i>, +have already been discussed on p. 77 of the third chapter. The assault was +renewed in October, 1821. The dominating characteristic of Shelley’s +poetry is said to be “its frequent and total want of meaning.” In +<i>Prometheus Unbound</i> there were said to be many absurdities “in defiance +of common sense and even of grammar ... a mere jumble of words and +heterogeneous ideas, connected by slight and accidental associations, +among which it is impossible to distinguish the principal object from the +accessory.” The poem is declared to be full of “flagrant offences against +morality and religion” and the poet to have gone out of his way to “revile +Christianity and its author.” As a final verdict the reviewer says: “Mr. +Shelley’s poetry is, in sober sadness, <i>drivelling prose run mad</i>.... Be +his private qualities what they may, his poems ... are at war with reason, +with taste, with virtue, in short, with all that dignifies man, or that +man reveres.” The <i>London Literary Gazette</i> joined its forces to the +<i>Quarterly</i> and scored <i>Prometheus Unbound</i> in 1820, <i>Queen Mab</i> in 1821. +<i>The Examiner</i> of June 16, 23 and July 7, 1822, contained Hunt’s answer to +the two onslaughts. He accused the writer in the <i>Quarterly</i> of having +used six stars to indicate an omission, in order to imply that the name of +Christ had been <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span>blasphemously used; of having put quotation marks to +sentences not in the author criticised and of having intentionally left +out so much at times as to make the context seem absurd. At the same time +Hunt stated that he agreed that Shelley’s poetry was of “too abstract and +metaphysical a cast ... too wilful and gratuitous in its metaphors”; and +that it would have been better if he had kept metaphysics and polemics out +of poetry. But at the same time he asserted that Shelley had written much +that was unmetaphysical and poetically beautiful, as <i>The Cenci</i>, the <i>Ode +to a Skylark</i> and <i>Adonais</i>. Of the second he wrote: “I know of nothing +more beautiful than this,—more choice of tones, more natural in words, +more abundant in exquisite, cordial, and most poetic associations.” He +characterized Southey’s reviews as cant, Gifford’s as bitter commonplace +and Croker’s as pettifogging.</p> + +<p><i>Blackwood’s</i> reviewed <i>Adonais</i> and <i>The Cenci</i> in December, 1821. The +Della Cruscans were reported to have come again from “retreats of Cockney +dalliance in the London suburbs” and “by wainloads from Pisa.” The +Cockneys were said to hate everything that was good and true and +honorable, all moral ties and Christian principles, and to be steeped in +desperate licentiousness. <i>Adonais</i> is fifty-five stanzas of +“unintelligible stuff” made up of every possible epithet that the poet has +been able to “conglomerate in his piracy through the Lexicon.” The sense +has been wholly subordinated to the rhymes. The author is a “glutton of +names and colours” and has accomplished no more than might be done on such +subjects as Mother Goose, Waterloo or Tom Thumb. Two cruel and loathsome +parodies follow: <i>Wouther the city marshal broke his leg</i> and an <i>Elegy on +My Tom Cat</i>, which, it is claimed, are less nonsensical, verbose and +inflated than <i>Adonais</i>. <i>The Cenci</i> is “a vulgar vocabulary of rottenness +and reptilism” in an “odiferous, colorific and daisy-enamoured style.” It +is regretted by the writer that it is impossible to believe that Shelley’s +reason is unsettled, for this would be the best apology for the +poem.<a name="fna517_517" id="fna517_517"></a><a href="#f517_517" class="fnanc">[517]</a></p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span>When <i>The Liberal</i> was organized Shelley was spoken of thus:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“But Percy Bysshe Shelly has now published a long series of poems, +the only object of which seems to be the promotion of <i>atheism</i> and +<i>incest</i>; and we can no longer hesitate to avow our belief, that he +is as worthy of co-operating with the King of Cockaigne, as he is +unworthy of co-operating with Lord Byron. Shelley is a man of genius, +but he has no sort of sense or judgment. He is merely ‘an inspired +idiot.’ Leigh Hunt is a man of talents, but vanity and vulgarity +neutralize all his efforts to pollute the public mind. Lord Byron we +regard not only as a man of lofty genius, but of great shrewdness and +knowledge of the world. What can <span class="smcaplc">HE</span> seriously hope from associating +his name with such people as these?”<a name="fna518_518" id="fna518_518"></a><a href="#f518_518" class="fnanc">[518]</a></p></div> + +<p>As in the case of Keats, <i>Blackwood’s</i> did not have the decency to desist +from its indecent articles after Shelley’s death. September, 1824, this +vulgar ridicule of the two dead poets appeared in answer to Bryan Waller +Procter’s review of Shelley’s poems in the preceding number of the +<i>Edinburgh Review</i>:</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“Mr. Shelley died, it seems, with a volume of Mr. Keats’s poetry +grasped with the hand in his bosom—rather an awkward posture, as you +will be convinced if you try it. But what a rash man Shelley was, to +put to sea in a frail boat with Jack’s poetry on board. Why, man, it +would sink a trireme. In the preface to Mr. Shelley’s poems we are +told that his ‘vessel bore out of sight with a favorable wind;’ but +what is that to the purpose? It had Endymion on board, and there was +an end. Seventeen ton of pig iron would not be more fatal ballast. +Down went the boat with a ‘swirl’! I lay a wager that it righted soon +after evicting Jack.”</p></div> + +<p>In the face of these articles against it as evidence, <i>Blackwood’s</i>, as +early as January, 1828, had the audacity to claim—perhaps with the +expectation that its audience was gifted with a sense of subtle +humor—that Shelley had been praised in its pages for his fortitude, +patience, and many other noble qualities, and that this praise had +irritated the other Cockneys and made the whole trouble. If Keats suffered +at the hands of the Edinburgh dictators for his association with Hunt the +balance weighed in the other direction in the case of Shelley. All the +crimes and opinions of which he was deemed guilty were passed on to Hunt. +But Hunt gladly suffered for Shelley.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span>Hazlitt, although of Irish descent and a native of Shropshire, and of such +independence as to belong to no school whatsoever, came in for a share of +abuse second only in virulence to that showered on Hunt.<a name="fna519_519" id="fna519_519"></a><a href="#f519_519" class="fnanc">[519]</a> In the +<i>Quarterly</i> of April, 1817, in a review of the <i>Round Table</i>, probably in +retaliation for his abuse of Southey in <i>The Examiner</i>, Hazlitt’s papers +are denominated “vulgar descriptions, silly paradoxes, flat truisms, misty +sophistry, broken English, ill-humour and rancorous abuse.” His +characterizations of Pitt and Burke are “vulgar and foul invective,” and +“loathsome trash.” The author might have described washerwomen forever, +the reviewer asserts, “but if the creature, in his endeavours to see the +light, must make his way over the tombs of illustrious men, disfiguring +the records of their greatness with the slime and filth which marks his +tracks, it is right to point out that he may be flung back to the +situation in which nature designed that he should grovel.”</p> + +<p>The <i>Characters of Shakespeare’s Plays</i> was made an excuse for dissecting +the morals and understanding of this “poor cankered creature.”<a name="fna520_520" id="fna520_520"></a><a href="#f520_520" class="fnanc">[520]</a> The +<i>Lectures on the English Poets</i> is characterized as a “third predatory +incursion on taste and common sense ... either completely unintelligible, +or exhibits only faint and dubious glimpses of meaning ... of that happy +texture that leaves not a trace in the mind of either reader or +hearer.”<a name="fna521_521" id="fna521_521"></a><a href="#f521_521" class="fnanc">[521]</a> The <i>Political Essays</i> was said to mark the writer as a +death’s head hawk-moth, a creature already placed in a state of damnation, +the drudge of <i>The Examiner</i>, the ward of Billingsgate, the slanderer of +the human race, one of the plagues of England.<a name="fna522_522" id="fna522_522"></a><a href="#f522_522" class="fnanc">[522]</a> Later, in a discussion +of <i>Table Talk</i>,<a name="fna523_523" id="fna523_523"></a><a href="#f523_523" class="fnanc">[523]</a> he becomes a “Slang-Whanger“ (“a gabbler who employs +slang to amuse the rabble”).</p> + +<p>Hazlitt’s <i>Letter to Gifford</i>, 1819, was a reply to all previous attacks +of the <i>Quarterly</i>. For a pamphlet of eighty-seven pages on such a subject +it is “lively reading,” for Hazlitt, like Burke, as Mr. Birrell has +remarked, excelled in a quarrel.<a name="fna524_524" id="fna524_524"></a><a href="#f524_524" class="fnanc">[524]</a> +<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span>He calls Gifford a cat’s paw, the +Government critic, the paymaster of the band of Gentleman Pensioners, a +nuisance, a</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>“dull, envious, pragmatical, low-bred man.... Grown old in the +service of corruption, he drivels on to the last with prostituted +impotence and shameless effrontery; salves a meagre reputation for +wit, by venting the driblets and spleen of his wrath on others; +answers their arguments by confuting himself; mistakes habitual +obtuseness of intellect for a particular acuteness; not to be imposed +upon by shallow appearances; unprincipled rancour for zealous +loyalty; and the irritable, discontented, vindictive, peevish +effusions of bodily pain and mental imbecility for proofs of +refinement of taste and strength of understanding.”<a name="fna525_525" id="fna525_525"></a><a href="#f525_525" class="fnanc">[525]</a></p></div> + +<p><i>Blackwood’s</i> had accepted abstracts of Hazlitt’s <i>Lectures on the English +Poets</i><a name="fna526_526" id="fna526_526"></a><a href="#f526_526" class="fnanc">[526]</a> from P. G. Patmore without comment and even managed a lengthy +comparison of Jeffrey and Hazlitt with an approach to fair dealing. But by +August, 1818, he had been identified with the “Cockney crew” and he +became “that wild, black-bill Hazlitt,” a “lounge in third-rate +bookshops”; and as a critic of Shakspere, a gander gabbling at that +“divine swan.” In April of the following year he was christened the +“Aristotle” of the Cockneys. His <i>Table Talk</i> provoked ten pages of +vituperation,<a name="fna527_527" id="fna527_527"></a><a href="#f527_527" class="fnanc">[527]</a> and <i>Liber Amoris</i>, two reviews as coarse as the +provocation.<a name="fna528_528" id="fna528_528"></a><a href="#f528_528" class="fnanc">[528]</a> In the first of these, apropos of his contributions to +the <i>Edinburgh Review</i> and in particular of his article on the <i>Periodical +Press of Britain</i>, the downfall of the magazine and its editor is +announced as certain. Hazlitt is called a literary flunky, a sore, an +ulcer, a poor devil. In the second he is Hunt’s orderly, the “Mars of the +Hampstead heavy dragoons.”</p> + +<p>Hazlitt found relief for his feelings by threatening <i>Blackwood’s</i> with a +lawsuit. Yet in July, 1824, appeared an elaborate comparison of Hunt and +Hazlitt in <i>Blackwood’s</i> choicest manner and in March, 1825, a review of +the <i>Spirit of the Age</i>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span> After 1828 the defamatory articles ceased +entirely. In 1867 appeared what might be construed into an attempt at +reparation by Bulwer-Lytton. Hazlitt was still spoken of as the most +aggressive of the Cockneys, discourteous and unscrupulous, a bitter +politician who would substitute universal submission to Napoleon for +established monarchial institutions; but he is credited with strong powers +of reason, of judicial criticism and of metaphysical speculation, and with +perception of sentiment, truth and beauty.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span></p> +<h2><a name="CHAPTER_VI" id="CHAPTER_VI"></a>CHAPTER VI</h2> + +<p class="center"><span class="big"><span class="smcap">Conclusion</span></span></p> + +<p>It is curious that, in the lives of three such geniuses as Shelley, Byron +and Keats a man of lesser gifts and of weaker fibre should have played so +large a part as did Leigh Hunt. It is more curious in view of the fact +that the period of intimate association in each case extended over only a +few years. The explanation must be sought in the accident of the age and +in the personality of the man himself. It was an era of stirring action +and of strong feeling. Men were clamoring for freedom from the trammels of +the past and were pressing forward to the new day. Through the union of +some of the qualities of the pioneer and of the prophet, Leigh Hunt was +thrust into a position of prominence that he might not have gained at any +other time, for he lacked the vital requisites of true leadership.</p> + +<p>His personal quality was as rare as his opportunity. He had a personal +ascendancy, a strange fascination born of the sympathy and chivalry, the +sweetness and joyousness of his nature. An exotic warmth and glow worked +its spell upon those about him. Barry Cornwall said that he was a “compact +of all the spring winds that blew.” His lovableness and very “genius for +friendship” bound intimately to him those who were thus attracted. There +was, besides, an elusiveness and an ethereality about him—as Carlyle +expressed it—“a fine tricksy medium between the poet and the wit, half a +sylph and half an Ariel ... a fairy fluctuating bark.” The “vinous +quality” of his mind, Hazlitt said, intoxicated those who came in contact +with him.</p> + +<p>In the case of Shelley it was Hunt the man, rather than the writer, that +held him. Charm was the magnet in a friendship that, in its perfection and +deep intimacy, deserves to be ranked with the fabled ones of old—a love +passing the love of woman.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span> There is no single cloud of distrust or +disloyalty in the whole story of their relations.</p> + +<p>Second to the personal tie may be ranked Hunt’s influence on Shelley’s +politics, greater in this instance than in the case of Byron or Keats. +Hunt’s attitude was an important factor in forming Shelley’s political +creed. With Godwin, he drew Shelley’s attention from the creation of +imaginary universes to the less speculative issues of earth. Indeed, +Shelley’s main reliance for a knowledge of political happenings during +many years, and practically his only one for the last four years of his +life, was <i>The Examiner</i>. He was guided and moderated by it in his general +attitude. In the specific instances already cited, the stimulus for poems +or the information for prose tracts and articles can be directly traced to +Hunt.</p> + +<p>In regard to literary art Hunt did not affect Shelley beyond pointing the +way to a freer use of the heroic couplet, and in a limited degree, in four +or five of his minor poems, influencing him in the use of a familiar +diction. Only in his letters does Shelley show any inclination to +emphasize “social enjoyments” or suburban delights. That the literary +influence was so slight is not surprising when Shelley’s powers of +speculation and accurate scholarship are compared with Hunt’s want of +concentration and shallow attainments. Notwithstanding this intellectual +gulf, strong convictions, with a moral courage sufficient to support them, +and a congeniality of tastes and temperament, made possible an ideal +comradeship.</p> + +<p>Byron, like Shelley, was attracted by Hunt’s charm of personality. An +imprisoned martyr and a persecuted editor appealed to Byron’s love of the +spectacular. Political sympathy furthered the friendship. In a literary +way, Byron influenced Hunt more than Hunt influenced him.</p> + +<p>Their intercourse is the story of a pleasant acquaintance with a +disagreeable sequel and much error on both sides. With two men of such +varying caliber and tastes, the “wren and eagle” as Shelley called them, +thrown together under such trying circumstances, it could hardly have been +otherwise. Their love of liberty and courage of opposition were the only +things in common. Byron recognized to the last Hunt’s good<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span> qualities and +Hunt, except for the bitter years in Italy and immediately after his +return, proclaimed Byron’s genius; but, for all that, they were +temperamentally opposed. Byron detested Hunt’s small vulgarities as much +as Hunt loathed Byron’s assumed superiority.</p> + +<p>The relation with Keats was the reverse of that in the other two cases. It +was an intellectual affinity throughout. At no time were Keats and Hunt +very close to each other. Nor, indeed, does Keats seem to have had the +capacity for intimate friendship, except with his brothers and, possibly, +Brown and Severn.</p> + +<p>The intercourse of the two men had its disadvantages for Keats in an +injurious influence on his early work and in the public association of his +name with that of Hunt’s; but the latter’s literary patronage and loving +interpretation when Keats was wholly unknown, the friendships made +possible for him with others, the open home and tender care whenever +needed, the unfailing sympathy, encouragement and admiration so freely +given, the new fields of art, music and books opened up, and the +pleasantness of the connection at the first, should more than compensate +for the attacks which Keats suffered as a member of the Cockney School. +From this view it seems very ungrateful of George Keats to have said that +he was sorry that his brother’s name should go down to posterity +associated with Hunt’s. Keats received far more than he gave in return.</p> + +<p>Briefly stated, Keats’s early work shows the marked influence of Hunt in +the selection of subjects, in a love of Italian and older English +literature, in the “domestic” touch, in the colloquial and feeble diction, +and in the lapses of taste. It is only fair to Hunt to emphasize that this +was not wholly a question of influence. It was due, as Keats himself +confessed, to a natural affinity of gifts and tastes, though the one was +so much more highly gifted than the other. Keats soon saw his mistake. +<i>Endymion</i> showed a great improvement and the 1820 volume an almost +complete absence of his own <i>bourgeois</i> tendencies and of the effect of +Hunt’s specious theories. Yet it was undoubtedly through Hunt that Keats +in his later poems began to imitate Dryden.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span>In connection with the work of all three poets, Hunt’s criticism is a more +important fact of literary history than his services of friendship. He +had, as Bulwer-Lytton has remarked, the first requisite of a good critic, +a good heart. He had also wonderful sympathy with aspiring authorship. His +insight was most remarkable of all in the appreciation of his +contemporaries. With powers of critical perception that might be called an +instinct for genius, he discovered Shelley and Keats and heralded them to +the public. The same ability helped him to appreciate Byron, Hazlitt and +Lamb. Browning, Tennyson and Rossetti were other young poets whom he +encouraged and supported. He defended the Lake School in 1814 when it +still had many deriders. He anticipated Arnold’s judgment when he wrote +that “Wordsworth was a fine lettuce, with too many outside leaves.” As +early as 1832 he wrote of the “wonderful works of Sir Walter Scott, the +remarkable criticism of Hazlitt, the magnetism of Keats, the tragedy and +winged philosophy of Shelley, the passion of Byron, the art and festivity +of Moore.” To value correctly such criticism it is necessary to remember +that the Romantic movement was still in its first youth at the time. His +criticism of the three men in question, like his criticisms in general, is +distinguished by great fairness and absence of all personal jealousy, by a +delicacy of feeling that will not be fully felt until scattered notes and +buried prefaces are gathered together. He was animated chiefly by an +inborn love of poetry and enjoyment of all beautiful things. If he +sometimes fell short in understanding Homer, Dante and Shakespeare, he was +perfectly sincere and independent, and pretended nothing that he did not +feel. His range of information was truly remarkable, though not deep and +accurate. His style was slipshod. With the exception of the essay <i>What is +Poetry</i>, he fails in concentration and generalization. He never clinched +his results, but was forever flitting from one sweet to another. His +method was impressionistic in its appreciation of physical beauty. There +is no comprehension whatsoever of mystical beauty. It is the curious +instance of a man of almost ascetic habits who revelled and luxuriated in +the sensuous beauties of literature. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span> reader of such books as +<i>Imagination and Fancy</i> and the half dozen others of the same kind will +see his wonderful power of selection. His attempt to interpret and +“popularize literature”—a cause in which he laboured long and +steadfastly—was one of the greatest services he rendered his age, even if +his habit of italicization and running comment for the purpose of calling +attention to perfectly patent beauties irritated some of his readers. His +critical taste, when exercised on the work of others, was almost +faultless. The occasional vulgarities of which he was guilty in his +original work do not intrude here; they were superficial and were not a +part of the man. Through his criticism he discovered and championed +illustrious contemporaries; he instituted the Italian revival in creative +literature in the early part of the century; he assisted in resuscitating +the interest in sixteenth and seventeenth century literature.</p> + +<p>Hunt’s services of friendship to Byron, Shelley and Keats, his able +criticism and just defense of them, have found their reward in the +inseparable association of his name with their immortal ones. They easily +surpassed him in every department of writing in which they contested, yet +the <i>man</i> was strong and alluring enough in his relations with them to +prove a determining and, on the whole, beneficent influence in their +lives.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span></p> +<h2>BIBLIOGRAPHY</h2> + +<p>The following list includes only the most important contributions to the +present study. Where the indebtedness consists merely of one or two +references, such indebtedness is acknowledged in a footnote.</p> + +<p><b>Alden, Raymond Macdonald.</b> English Verse. New York, 1903.</p> + +<p><b>Andrews, A.</b> The History of British Journalism. London, 1859.</p> + +<p><b>Arnold, Matthew.</b> Essays in Criticism. London and New York, 1903.</p> + +<p><b>Beers, H. A.</b> History of English Romanticism in the Nineteenth Century. New +York, 1901.</p> + +<p><b>Blessington, Countess of.</b> Conversations of Lord Byron with the Countess of +Blessington. London, 1834.</p> + +<p><b>Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine.</b></p> + +<p><b>Byron, George Gordon Noel.</b> The Works of Lord Byron. A New, Revised and +Enlarged Edition, with Illustrations. Poetry. Ed. by Ernest Hartley +Coleridge. 7 vols.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Letters and Journals. Ed. by Rowland E. Prothero. 6 vols. London and +New York, 1898.</p> + +<p>Letters and Journals of Lord Byron: with Notices of His Life, by +Thomas Moore. 2 vols. London, 1830.</p></div> + +<p><b>Brandes, George.</b> Main Currents in Nineteenth Century Literature. 6 vols. +New York, 1906.</p> + +<p><b>Caine, T. Hall.</b> Cobwebs of Criticism. “The Cockney School,” pp. 123-266. +London, 1883.</p> + +<p><b>Carlyle, Thomas.</b> Early Letters of Thomas Carlyle. Ed. by Charles Eliot +Norton. 2 vols. London and New York, 1886.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Letters of Thomas Carlyle. Ed. by Charles Eliot Norton. 2 vols. +London and New York, 1886.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span>New Letters of Thomas Carlyle. Ed. by Alexander Carlyle. 2 vols. +London and New York, 1904.</p></div> + +<p><b>Clarke, Charles and Mary Cowden.</b> Recollections of Writers. London, 1878.</p> + +<p><b>Collins, J. Churton.</b> Byron. In the Quarterly Review, CII, p. 429 ff.</p> + +<p><b>Colvin, Sidney.</b> Keats. (English Men of Letters.) London and New York, +1902.</p> + +<p><b>Dowden, Edward.</b> Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley. 2 vols. London, 1886.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>The French Revolution and English Literature. New York, 1897.</p> + +<p>Transcripts and Studies. London, 1888.</p></div> + +<p><b>The Edinburgh Review.</b></p> + +<p><b>Elze, Karl.</b> Lord Byron. A Biography with a Critical Essay on His Place in +Literature. London, 1872.</p> + +<p><b>Fields, J. T.</b> Old Acquaintance. Barry Cornwall and Some of His Friends. +Boston, 1876.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Yesterdays with Authors. Boston, 1885.</p></div> + +<p><b>Fields, Mrs. J. T.</b> A Shelf of Old Books. In Scribner’s Magazine, Vol. III, +pp. 285-305.</p> + +<p><b>Fox Bourne, H. R.</b> English Newspapers. 2 vols. London, 1887.</p> + +<p><b>Galt, John.</b> The Life of Lord Byron. London, 1830.</p> + +<p><b>Gosse, Edmund.</b> From Shakespeare to Pope. Cambridge, 1885.</p> + +<p><b>Hancock, Albert Elmer.</b> The French Revolution and English Poets. New York, +1899.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>John Keats. Boston and New York, 1908.</p></div> + +<p><b>Haydon, Benjamin Robert.</b> Correspondence and Table Talk. Edited with a +Memoir, by His Son, Frederic Wordsworth Haydon. 2 vols. London, 1876.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Life, Letters and Table Talk. (Sans Souci Series.) Ed. by Richard +Henry Stoddard. New York, 1876.</p> + +<p>Life of Benjamin Robert Haydon. Ed. by Tom Taylor. 3 vols. London, +1853.</p></div> + +<p><b>Hazlitt, William.</b> The Spirit of the Age, or Contemporary Portraits. Ed. by +His Son. London, 1858.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>The Plain Speaker. 2 vols. London, 1826.</p></div> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span><b>Herford, C. H.</b> The Age of Wordsworth. London, 1901.</p> + +<p><b>Hogg, Thomas Jefferson.</b> Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley. 2 vols. London, +1858.</p> + +<p><b>Horne, R. H.</b> A New Spirit of the Age. New York, 1844.</p> + +<p><b>Hunt, James Henry Leigh.</b> Autobiography. Ed. by Roger Ingpen. 2 vols. New +York, 1903.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Correspondence. Ed. by His Eldest Son. 2 vols. London, 1862.</p> + +<p>The Descent of Liberty, a Mask. London, 1815.</p> + +<p>Essays and Poems. (Temple Library.) Ed. by Reginald Brimley Johnson. +London, 1891.</p> + +<p>The Examiner, A Sunday Paper, On Politics, Domestic Economy, and +Theatricals. London. Editor 1808-1821. Contributor 1821-1825.</p> + +<p>The Feast of the Poets; with Notes and Other Pieces in Verse, by the +Editor of the Examiner. London, 1814.</p> + +<p>Foliage; or Poems Original and Translated. London, 1818.</p> + +<p>Imagination and Fancy; or Selections from the English Poets ... and +an Essay in Answer to the Question “What is Poetry?” New York, 1845.</p> + +<p>The Indicator and The Companion. 2 vols. London, 1834.</p> + +<p>Juvenilia, or a Collection of Poems. Fourth Edition. London, 1803.</p> + +<p>The Liberal. 2 vols. London, 1822-1823.</p> + +<p>The Literary Examiner. London, 1823.</p> + +<p>Leigh Hunt’s London Journal. 2 vols. London, 1834-1835.</p> + +<p>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, with Recollections of the +Author’s Life, and of his Visit to Italy. 2 vols. London, 1828.</p> + +<p>Men, Women and Books. London, 1847.</p> + +<p>Poetical Works. London, 1832.</p> + +<p>Poetical Works. Ed. by S. Adams Lee. 2 vols. Boston, 1857.</p> + + +<p>Leigh Hunt as Poet and Essayist. (Chandos Classics.) Ed. by W. C. M. +Kent, London, 1891.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span>The Reflector, a Quarterly Magazine, on Subjects of Philosophy, +Politics, and the Liberal Arts. 2 vols. London, 1810-1811.</p> + +<p>The Story of Rimini. London, 1810.</p></div> + +<p><b>Ireland, Alexander.</b> List of the Writings of Leigh Hunt and William +Hazlitt, Chronologically Arranged. London, 1868.</p> + +<p><b>Johnson, R. B.</b> Leigh Hunt. London, 1896.</p> + +<p><b>Jeaffreson, Cordy.</b> The Real Lord Byron. 2 vols. London, 1883.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>The Real Shelley. 2 vols. London, 1885.</p></div> + +<p><b>Keats, John.</b> Poetical Works. Ed. by William T. Arnold. London, 1884.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Poems. (Muses Library.) Ed. by G. Thorn Drury with an Introduction by +Robert Bridges. 2 vols. London and New York, 1896.</p> + +<p>The Poetical Works and Other Writings. Edited by Harry Buxton Forman. +4 vols. London, 1883.</p> + +<p>Poetical Works. (Golden Treasury Series.) Edited by Francis T. +Palgrave. London and New York, 1898.</p> + +<p>Poems of John Keats. Ed. by E. De Sélincourt. New York, 1905.</p></div> + +<p><b>Mac-Carthy, Denis Florence.</b> Shelley’s Early Life. London, n. d.</p> + +<p><b>Martineau, Harriet.</b> Autobiography. Ed. by Maria Weston Chapman. 2 vols. +Boston, 1877.</p> + +<p><b>Masson, David.</b> Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, and Other Essays. London, 1875.</p> + +<p><b>Meade, W. E.</b> The Versification of Pope in its Relation to the Seventeenth +Century. Leipsic, 1889.</p> + +<p><b>Medwin, Thomas.</b> The Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley. London, 1847.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Journal of the Conversations of Lord Byron. New York and +Philadelphia, 1824.</p></div> + +<p><b>Milnes, Richard Moncton.</b> (Lord Houghton.) Life, Letters and Literary +Remains of John Keats. 2 vols. London, 1848.</p> + +<p><b>Mitford, Mary Russell.</b> Recollections of a Literary Life. 3 vols. London, 1852.</p> + +<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span><b>Monkhouse, Cosmo.</b> Life of Leigh Hunt. (“Great Writers.”) London, 1893.</p> + +<p><b>Moore, Thomas.</b> Memoirs, Journal, and Correspondence. Ed. by the Right +Honorable Lord John Russell, M. P. 8 vols. London, 1853.</p> + +<p><b>Morley, John.</b> Critical Miscellanies. London and New York, 1898.</p> + +<p><b>Nichol, John.</b> Byron. (English Men of Letters.) London and New York, 1902.</p> + +<p><b>Nicoll, W. Robertson, and Wise, Thomas J.</b> Literary Anecdotes of the +Nineteenth Century. 2 vols. London.</p> + +<p><b>Noble, J. Ashcroft.</b> The Sonnet in England and Other Essays. London and +Chicago, 1896.</p> + +<p><b>Oliphant, Mrs. Margaret.</b> The Literary History of England in the End of the +Eighteenth and Beginning of the Nineteenth Century. 3 vols. London, 1822.</p> + +<p><b>Patmore, Coventry.</b> Memoirs and Correspondence. Ed. by Basil Champneys. 2 +vols. London, 1900.</p> + +<p><b>Patmore, P. G.</b> My Friends and Acquaintance. 3 vols. London, 1854.</p> + +<p><b>Procter, Bryan Waller.</b> (Barry Cornwall.) An Autobiographical Fragment and +Biographical Notes. London, 1877.</p> + +<p><b>The Quarterly Review.</b></p> + +<p><b>Rossetti, William Michael.</b> Life of John Keats. (“Great Writers.”) London, +1887.</p> + +<p><b>Saintsbury, George.</b> Essays in English Literature. (1780-1860.) London, +1891.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>A History of Nineteenth Century Literature. (1780-1895.) London and +New York, 1899.</p></div> + +<p><b>Schipper, Jakob M.</b> Englische Metrik. Bonn, 1881.</p> + +<p><b>Severn, Joseph.</b> Life and Letters. By William Sharp. New York, 1892.</p> + +<p><b>Sharp, William.</b> Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley. (Great Writers.) London, +1887.</p> + +<p><b>Shelley, Percy Bysshe.</b> Works. Ed. by Harry Buxton Forman. 8 vols. London, 1880.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span>The Complete +Poetical Works. (Centenary Edition.) Ed. by George Edward Woodberry. New York, 1892.</p> + +<p>Poetical Works. Ed. by Mrs. Shelley. 4 vols. London, 1839.</p></div> + +<p><b>Smith, George Barnett.</b> Shelley, A Critical Biography. Edinburgh, 1877.</p> + +<p><b>Trelawney, E. J.</b> Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron. +Boston, 1858.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Records of Shelley, Byron, and the Author. London, 1878.</p></div> + +<p><b>Woodberry, George Edward.</b> Makers of Literature. New York, 1900.</p> + +<div class="blockquot"><p>Studies in Letters and Life. Boston and New York, 1891.</p></div> + +<p><b>Symonds, John Addington.</b> Shelley. (English Men of Letters.) London and New +York, 1902.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<div class="verts"> +<h2>THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS</h2> + +<p> </p> +<p class="center">STUDIES IN ENGLISH</p> + +<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="5" summary="table"> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">Joseph Glanvill<br /><i>A Study in English Thought and Letters of the Seventeenth Century</i></td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Ferris Greenslet</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Cloth, 12mo</td><td><span class="spacer2"> </span></td> + <td align="center">pp. xi + 235</td><td><span class="spacer2"> </span></td> + <td align="center">$1.50 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">The Elizabethan Lyric</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">John Erskine</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Cloth, 12mo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. xvi + 344</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.50 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">Classical Echoes in Tennyson</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Wilfred P. Mustard</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Cloth, 12mo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. xvi + 164</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.25 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">Byron and Byronism in America</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">William Ellery Leonard</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Paper, 8vo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. vi + 126</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.00 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Margaret Ball</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Paper, 8vo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. x + 188</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.00 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">The Early American Novel</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Lillie Deming Loshe</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Paper, 8vo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. vii + 131</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.00 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">Studies in New England Transcendentalism</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Harold C. Goddard</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Paper, 8vo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. x + 217</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.00 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">A Study of Shelley’s Drama “The Cenci”</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Ernest Sutherland Bates</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Paper, 8vo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. ix + 103</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.00 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">Verse Satire in England before the Renaissance</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Samuel Marion Tucker</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Paper, 8vo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. xi + 245</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.00 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in English</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Jacob Zeitlin</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Paper, 8vo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. viii + 177</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.00 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Drama</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Virginia Crocheron Gildersleeve</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Cloth, 8vo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. vii + 259</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.25 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">The Stage History of Shakespeare’s King Richard the Third</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Alice I. Perry Wood</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Cloth, 8vo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. xi + 186</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.25 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">The Shaksperian Stage</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Victor E. Albright</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Cloth, 8vo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. xii + 194</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.50 <i>net</i></td></tr> +<tr><td> </td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">Thomas Carlyle as a Critic of Literature</td></tr> +<tr><td colspan="5" align="center">By <span class="smcap">Frederick W. Roe</span>, Ph.D.,</td></tr> +<tr><td align="center">Cloth, 8vo</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">pp. xi + 152</td><td> </td> + <td align="center">$1.25 <i>net</i></td></tr></table> + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<p class="center"><span class="big">THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS</span></p> + +<p class="center">Columbia University in the City of New York</p> + +<p>The Press was incorporated June 8, 1893, to promote the publication of the +results of original research. It is a private corporation, related +directly to Columbia University by the provisions that its Trustees shall +be officers of the University and that the President of Columbia +University shall be President of the Press.</p> + +<p>The publications of the Columbia University Press include works on +Biography, History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, Linguistics, and +Literature, and the following series:</p> + +<p class="blockquot">Columbia University Biological Series.<br /> +Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology.<br /> +Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature.<br /> +Columbia University Studies in English.<br /> +Columbia University Geological Series.<br /> +Columbia University Germanic Studies.<br /> +Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series.<br /> +Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History and Philology.<br /> +Columbia University Oriental Studies.<br /> +Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and Literature.<br /> +Blumenthal Lectures.<br /> +Carpentier Lectures.<br /> +Hewitt Lectures.<br />Jesup Lectures.</p> + +<p class="center"><br />Catalogues will be sent free on application.</p> + +<p class="center"><span class="smcap">The Macmillan Company</span>, Agents<br /> +64-66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK</p></div> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><strong>Footnotes:</strong></p> + +<p><a name="f1_1" id="f1_1"></a><a href="#fna1_1">[1]</a> <i>Autobiography of Leigh Hunt</i>, I, p. 34.</p> + +<p><a name="f2_2" id="f2_2"></a><a href="#fna2_2">[2]</a> <i>Correspondence of Leigh Hunt</i>, I, p. 332.</p> + +<p><a name="f3_3" id="f3_3"></a><a href="#fna3_3">[3]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, I, p. 93. Compare the above quotation with +Shelley’s description of his first friendship. (Hogg, <i>Life of Percy +Bysshe Shelley</i>, pp. 23-24.)</p> + +<p><a name="f4_4" id="f4_4"></a><a href="#fna4_4">[4]</a> This early passion for friendship, which developed into a +power of attracting men vastly more gifted than himself, brought about him +besides Byron, Shelley and Keats, such men as Charles Lamb, Robert +Browning, Carlyle, Dickens, Horace and James Smith, Charles Cowden Clarke, +Vincent Novello, William Godwin, Macaulay, Thackeray, Lord Brougham, +Bentham, Haydon, Hazlitt, R. H. Horne, Sir John Swinburne, Lord John +Russell, Bulwer Lytton, Thomas Moore, Barry Cornwall, Theodore Hook, J. +Egerton Webbe, Thomas Campbell, the Olliers, Joseph Severn, Miss +Edgeworth, Mrs. Gaskell, Mrs. Browning and Macvey Napier. Hawthorne, +Emerson, James Russel Lowell and William Story sought him out when they +were in London.</p> + +<p><a name="f5_5" id="f5_5"></a><a href="#fna5_5">[5]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 49.</p> + +<p><a name="f6_6" id="f6_6"></a><a href="#fna6_6">[6]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I, p. 44.</p> + +<p><a name="f7_7" id="f7_7"></a><a href="#fna7_7">[7]</a> <i>Memoirs and Correspondence of Coventry Patmore</i>, ed. Basil +Champney, I, p. 32.</p> + +<p><a name="f8_8" id="f8_8"></a><a href="#fna8_8">[8]</a> <i>Life, Letters and Table Talk of Benjamin Robert Haydon</i>, ed. +by Stoddard, p. 232.</p> + +<p><a name="f9_9" id="f9_9"></a><a href="#fna9_9">[9]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 272.</p> + +<p><a name="f10_10" id="f10_10"></a><a href="#fna10_10">[10]</a> On once being accused of speculation Hunt replied that he +had never been “in a market of any kind but to buy an apple or a flower.” +(<i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, LIV, p. 470.) Nor did Hunt admire money-getting +propensities in others. He said of Americans: “they know nothing so +beautiful as the ledger, no picture so lively as the national coin, no +music so animating as the chink of a purse.” (<i>The Examiner</i>, 1808, p. +721.)</p> + +<p><a name="f11_11" id="f11_11"></a><a href="#fna11_11">[11]</a> Dickens did Hunt an irreparable injury in caricaturing him +as Harold Skimpole. The character bore such an unmistakable likeness to +Hunt that it was recognized by every one who knew him, yet the weaknesses +and vices were greatly multiplied and exaggerated. Before the appearance +of <i>Bleak House</i>, Dickens wrote Hunt in a letter which accompanied the +presentation copies of <i>Oliver Twist</i> and the New American edition of the +<i>Pickwick Papers</i>: “You are an old stager in works, but a young one in +faith—faith in all beautiful and excellent things. If you can only find +in that green heart of yours to tell me one of these days, that you have +met, in wading through the accompanying trifles, with anything that felt +like a vibration of the old chord you have touched so often and sounded so +well, you will confer the truest gratification on your old friend, Charles +Dickens.” (<i>Littell’s Living Age</i>, CXCIV, p. 134.)</p> + +<p>His apology after Hunt’s death was complete, but it could not destroy the +lasting memory of an immortal portrait. He wrote: “a man who had the +courage to take his stand against power on behalf of right—who in the +midst of the sorest temptations, maintained his honesty unblemished by a +single stain—who, in all public and private transactions, was the very +soul of truth and honour—who never bartered his opinion or betrayed his +friend—could not have been a weak man; for weakness is always treacherous +and false, because it has not the power to resist.” (<i>All The Year Round</i>, +April 12, 1862.)</p> + +<p><a name="f12_12" id="f12_12"></a><a href="#fna12_12">[12]</a> Godwin, <i>Enquiry Concerning Political Justice</i>, Book VIII, +Chap. I.</p> + +<p><a name="f13_13" id="f13_13"></a><a href="#fna13_13">[13]</a> Prof. Saintsbury has very plausibly suggested that a similar +attitude in Godwin, Coleridge and Southey in respect to financial +assistance was a legacy from patronage days. (<i>A History of Nineteenth +Century Literature</i>, p. 33.) The same might be said of Hunt.</p> + +<p><a name="f14_14" id="f14_14"></a><a href="#fna14_14">[14]</a> S. C. Hall, <i>A Book of Memories of Great Men and Women of +the Age, from Personal Acquaintance</i>, p. 247.</p> + +<p><a name="f15_15" id="f15_15"></a><a href="#fna15_15">[15]</a> His feeling on the subject is set forth clearly in a letter +where he is writing of the generosity of Dr. Brocklesby to Johnson and +Burke: “The extension of obligations of this latter kind is, for many +obvious reasons, not to be desired. The necessity on the one side must be +of as peculiar, and, so to speak, of as noble a kind as the generosity on +the other; and special care would be taken by a necessity of that kind, +that the generosity should be equalled by the means. But where the +circumstances have occurred, it is delightful to record them.” (Hunt, +<i>Men, Women and Books</i>, p. 217.)</p> + +<p><a name="f16_16" id="f16_16"></a><a href="#fna16_16">[16]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, II, p. 11.</p> + +<p><a name="f17_17" id="f17_17"></a><a href="#fna17_17">[17]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, II, p. 271.</p> + +<p><a name="f18_18" id="f18_18"></a><a href="#fna18_18">[18]</a> Hunt’s work as a political journalist had begun in 1806 with +<i>The Statesman</i>, a joint enterprise with his brother. It was very +short-lived and is now very scarce. Perhaps it is due to this rarity that +it is not usually mentioned in bibliographies of Hunt.</p> + +<p><a name="f19_19" id="f19_19"></a><a href="#fna19_19">[19]</a> H. R. Fox-Bourne, <i>English Newspapers</i>, I, p. 376.</p> + +<p><a name="f20_20" id="f20_20"></a><a href="#fna20_20">[20]</a> <i>Harper’s New Monthly Magazine</i>, XL, p. 256.</p> + +<p><a name="f21_21" id="f21_21"></a><a href="#fna21_21">[21]</a> Redding, <i>Personal Reminiscences of Eminent Men</i>, p. 184, +ff.</p> + +<p><a name="f22_22" id="f22_22"></a><a href="#fna22_22">[22]</a> Contemporary dailies were the <i>Morning Chronicle</i>, <i>Morning +Post</i>, <i>Morning Herald</i>, <i>Morning Advertiser</i>, and the <i>Times</i>. In 1813 +there were sixteen Sunday weeklies. Among the weeklies published on other +days, the <i>Observer</i> and the <i>News</i> were conspicuous. In all, there were +in the year 1813, fifty-six newspapers circulating in London. (Andrews, +<i>History of British Journalism</i>, Vol. II, p. 76.)</p> + +<p><a name="f23_23" id="f23_23"></a><a href="#fna23_23">[23]</a> <i>The Examiner</i>, January 3, 1808.</p> + +<p><a name="f24_24" id="f24_24"></a><a href="#fna24_24">[24]</a> On the subject of military depravity <i>The Examiner</i> +contained the following: “The presiding genius of army government has +become a perfect Falstaff, a carcass of corruption, full of sottishness +and selfishness, preying upon the hard labour of honest men, and never to +be moved but by its lust for money; and the time has come when either the +vices of one man must be sacrificed to the military honour of the country, +or the military honour of the country must be sacrificed to the vices of +one man.” (<i>The Examiner</i>, October 23, 1808.)</p> + +<p><a name="f25_25" id="f25_25"></a><a href="#fna25_25">[25]</a> <i>The Examiner</i>, April 10, 1808.</p> + +<p><a name="f26_26" id="f26_26"></a><a href="#fna26_26">[26]</a> Maj. Hogan, an Irishman in the English Army, unable to gain +promotion by the customary method of purchase, after a personal appeal to +the Duke of York, commander-in-chief of the army, gave an account of his +grievences in a pamphlet entitled, <i>Appeal to the Public and a Farewell +Address to the Army</i>. Before it appeared Mrs. Clarke, the mistress of the +Duke of York, sent Maj. Hogan £500 to suppress it. He returned the money +and made public the offer. The subsequent investigation showed that Mrs. +Clarke was in the habit of securing through her influence with the +commander-in-chief promotion for those who would pay her for it. After +these disclosures, the Duke resigned. <i>The Examiner</i> sturdily supported +Maj. Hogan as one who refused to owe promotion “to low intrigue or +petticoat influence.” It likened Mrs. Clarke to Mme. Du Barry and called +the Duke her tool.</p> + +<p><a name="f27_27" id="f27_27"></a><a href="#fna27_27">[27]</a> <i>The Examiner</i>, October 8, 1809.</p> + +<p><a name="f28_28" id="f28_28"></a><a href="#fna28_28">[28]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, March 31, 1811.</p> + +<p><a name="f29_29" id="f29_29"></a><a href="#fna29_29">[29]</a> “Surely it is too gross to suppose that the Prince of Wales, +the friend of Fox, can have been affecting habits of thinking, and +indulging habits of intimacy, which he is to give up at a moment’s notice +for nobody knows what:—surely it cannot be, that the Prince Regent, the +Whig Prince, the friend of Ireland—the friend of Fox,—the liberal, the +tolerant, experienced, large-minded Heir Apparent, can retain in power the +very men, against whose opinions he has repeatedly declared himself, and +whose retention in power hitherto he has explicitly stated to be owing +solely to a feeling of delicacy with respect to his father.” (<i>The +Examiner</i>, February 28, 1812.)</p> + +<p><a name="f30_30" id="f30_30"></a><a href="#fna30_30">[30]</a> <i>The Examiner</i>, March 12, 1812. The contention <ins class="correction" title="original: beween">between</ins> Canon +Ainger and Mr. Gosse in respect to Charles Lamb’s supposed part in this +libel is set forth in <i>The Athenaeum</i> of March 23, 1889. Mr. Gosse’s +evidence came through Robert Browning from John Forster, who first told +Browning as early as 1837 that Lamb was concerned in it.</p> + +<p><a name="f31_31" id="f31_31"></a><a href="#fna31_31">[31]</a> Mr. Monkhouse says that it was then politically +unjustifiable. (<i>Life of Leigh Hunt</i>, p. 88.)</p> + +<p><a name="f32_32" id="f32_32"></a><a href="#fna32_32">[32]</a> Brougham wrote of his intended defense, “it will be a +thousand times more unpleasant than the libel.” For a narration of his +friendship for Hunt, see <i>Temple Bar</i>, June, 1876.</p> + +<p><a name="f33_33" id="f33_33"></a><a href="#fna33_33">[33]</a> <i>The Examiner</i>, February 7, 1813.</p> + +<p><a name="f34_34" id="f34_34"></a><a href="#fna34_34">[34]</a> <i>The Examiner</i>, December 10, 1809.</p> + +<p><a name="f35_35" id="f35_35"></a><a href="#fna35_35">[35]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 179.</p> + +<p><a name="f36_36" id="f36_36"></a><a href="#fna36_36">[36]</a> <i>The Reflector</i>, I, p. 5.</p> + +<p><a name="f37_37" id="f37_37"></a><a href="#fna37_37">[37]</a> Monkhouse, <i>Life of Leigh Hunt</i>, p. 79.</p> + +<p><a name="f38_38" id="f38_38"></a><a href="#fna38_38">[38]</a> Patmore, <i>My Friends and Acquaintance</i>, III, p. 101.</p> + +<p><a name="f39_39" id="f39_39"></a><a href="#fna39_39">[39]</a> The <i>Edinburgh Review</i> of May, 1823, in an article entitled +<i>The Periodical Press</i> ranked Hunt next to Cobbett in talent and <i>The +Examiner</i> as the ablest and most respectable of weekly publications, when +allowance had been made for the occasional twaddle and flippancy, the +mawkishness about firesides and Bonaparte, and the sickly sonnet-writing.</p> + +<p><a name="f40_40" id="f40_40"></a><a href="#fna40_40">[40]</a> Mazzini wrote Hunt: “Your name is known to many of my +Countrymen; it would no doubt impart an additional value to the thoughts +embodied in the League. [International League.] It is the name not only of +a patriot, but of a high literary man and a poet. It would show at once +that <i>natural</i> questions are questions not of merely <i>political</i> +tendencies, but of feeling, eternal trust, and Godlike poetry. It would +show that poets understand their active mission down here, and that they +are also prophets and apostles of things to come. I was told only to-day +that you had been asked to be a member of the League’s Council, and feel a +want to express the joy I too would feel at your assent.” (<i>Cornhill +Magazine</i>, LXV, p. 480 ff.)</p> + +<p><a name="f41_41" id="f41_41"></a><a href="#fna41_41">[41]</a> <i>The Reflector</i>, I, p. 5.</p> + +<p><a name="f42_42" id="f42_42"></a><a href="#fna42_42">[42]</a> Hunt accepted the <i>Monthly Repository</i> in 1837 as a gift +from W. J. Fox in order to free it from Unitarian influence. Carlyle, +Landor, Browning and Miss Martineau were contributors.</p> + +<p><a name="f43_43" id="f43_43"></a><a href="#fna43_43">[43]</a> (1) “Besides, it is my firm belief—as firm as the absence +of positive, tangible proof can let it be (and if we had that, we should +all kill ourselves, like Plato’s scholars, and go and enjoy heaven at +once), that whatsoever of just and affectionate the mind of man is made by +nature to desire, is made by her to be realized, and that this is the +special good, beauty and glory of that illimitable thing called space—in +her there is room for everything.” <i>Correspondence</i>, II, p. 57. +</p><p> +(2) And Faith, some day, will all in love be shown. (“Abraham and the +Fire-Worshipper,” <i>Poetical Works of Leigh Hunt</i>, 1857, p. 135.)</p> + +<p><a name="f44_44" id="f44_44"></a><a href="#fna44_44">[44]</a> <i>A New Spirit of the Age</i>, II, p. 183.</p> + +<p><a name="f45_45" id="f45_45"></a><a href="#fna45_45">[45]</a> Hunt wrote two religious books, <i>Christianism</i> and <i>Religion +of the Heart</i>. The second, which is an expansion of the first, contains a +ritual of daily and weekly service. For the most part it contains +reflections on duty and service.</p> + +<p><a name="f46_46" id="f46_46"></a><a href="#fna46_46">[46]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 130.</p> + +<p><a name="f47_47" id="f47_47"></a><a href="#fna47_47">[47]</a> Bryan Waller Proctor (Barry Cornwall), <i>An Autobiographical +Fragment and Biographical Notes</i>, p. 197.</p> + +<p><a name="f48_48" id="f48_48"></a><a href="#fna48_48">[48]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, I, p. 119-120.</p> + +<p><a name="f49_49" id="f49_49"></a><a href="#fna49_49">[49]</a> <i>A Morning Walk and View</i>; <i>Sonnet on the Sickness of +Eliza</i>.</p> + +<p><a name="f50_50" id="f50_50"></a><a href="#fna50_50">[50]</a> It had appeared previously in <i>The Reflector</i>, No. 4, +article 10. In the separate edition it was expanded and 126 pages of notes were added.</p> + +<p><a name="f51_51" id="f51_51"></a><a href="#fna51_51">[51]</a> <i>Poetical Works</i>, 1832, preface, p. 48.</p> + +<p><a name="f52_52" id="f52_52"></a><a href="#fna52_52">[52]</a> Byron, <i>Letters and Journals</i>, III, p. 28, February 9, +1814.</p> + +<p><a name="f53_53" id="f53_53"></a><a href="#fna53_53">[53]</a> The same volume contained a preface on the origin and +history of masques and an <i>Ode for the Spring of 1814</i>. Byron said of the +latter that the “expressions were <i>buckram</i> except here and there.” The +masque, he thought, contained “not only poetry and thought in the body, +but much research and good old reading in your prefatory matter.” Byron, +<i>Letters and Journals</i>, III, p. 200, June 1, 1815.</p> + +<p><a name="f54_54" id="f54_54"></a><a href="#fna54_54">[54]</a> See chapter V, p. 19.</p> + +<p><a name="f55_55" id="f55_55"></a><a href="#fna55_55">[55]</a> Nicoll and Wise, <i>Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth +Century</i>, p. 330.</p> + +<p><a name="f56_56" id="f56_56"></a><a href="#fna56_56">[56]</a></p> + +<p class="poem">Who loves to peer up at the morning sun,<br /> +With half-shut eyes and comfortable cheek,<br /> +Let him, with this sweet tale, full often seek<br /> +For meadows where the little rivers run;<br /> +Who loves to linger with the brightest one<br /> +Of Heaven (Hesperus) let him lowly speak<br /> +These numbers to the night, and starlight meek,<br /> +Or moon, if that her hunting be begun.<br /> +He who knows these delights, and too is prone<br /> +To moralize upon a smile or tear,<br /> +Will find at once religion of his own,<br /> +A bower for his spirit, and will steer<br /> +To alleys where the fir-tree drops its cone,<br /> +Where robins hop, and fallen leaves are seer.<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">(<i>Complete Works of John Keats</i>, ed by Forman, II, p. 183.)</span></p> + +<p><a name="f57_57" id="f57_57"></a><a href="#fna57_57">[57]</a> Lowell said of Hunt: “No man has ever understood the +delicacies and luxuries of the language better than he.”</p> + +<p><a name="f58_58" id="f58_58"></a><a href="#fna58_58">[58]</a> Byron, <i>Letters and Journals</i>, III, p. 226, October 22, +1815.</p> + +<p><a name="f59_59" id="f59_59"></a><a href="#fna59_59">[59]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, III, p. 418.</p> + +<p><a name="f60_60" id="f60_60"></a><a href="#fna60_60">[60]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, III, p. 242, October 30, 1815.</p> + +<p><a name="f61_61" id="f61_61"></a><a href="#fna61_61">[61]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, III, p. 267, February 29, 1816.</p> + +<p><a name="f62_62" id="f62_62"></a><a href="#fna62_62">[62]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, p. 237, June 1, 1818.</p> + +<p><a name="f63_63" id="f63_63"></a><a href="#fna63_63">[63]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, pp. 486-487.</p> + +<p><a name="f64_64" id="f64_64"></a><a href="#fna64_64">[64]</a> Medwin, <i>Journal of the Conversations of Lord Byron</i>, p. +187.</p> + +<p><a name="f65_65" id="f65_65"></a><a href="#fna65_65">[65]</a> In the preface to the <i>Story of Rimini</i> (London, 1819, p. +16), Hunt says that a poet should use an actual existing language, and +quotes as authorities, Chaucer, Ariosto, Pulci, even Homer and +Shakespeare. He thought simplicity of language of greater importance even +than free versification in order to avoid the cant of art: “The proper +language of poetry is in fact nothing different from that of real life, +and depends for its dignity upon the strength and sentiment of what it +speaks, omitting mere vulgarisms and fugitive phrases which are cant of +ordinary discourse.”</p> + +<p><a name="f66_66" id="f66_66"></a><a href="#fna66_66">[66]</a> Byron, <i>Letters and Journals</i>, III, p. 418.</p> + +<p><a name="f67_67" id="f67_67"></a><a href="#fna67_67">[67]</a> Mr. A. T. Kent in the <i>Fortnightly Review</i> (vol. 36, p. +227), points out that Leigh Hunt in the preface to the <i>Story of Rimini</i>, +avoided the mistake of Wordsworth in “looking to an unlettered peasantry +for poetical language,” and quotes him as saying that one should “add a +musical modulation to what a fine understanding might naturally utter in +the midst of its griefs and enjoyments.” Kent says we have here “two vital +points on which Wordsworth, in his capacity of critic, had failed to +insist.”</p> + +<p><a name="f68_68" id="f68_68"></a><a href="#fna68_68">[68]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 24.</p> + +<p><a name="f69_69" id="f69_69"></a><a href="#fna69_69">[69]</a> To be found chiefly in the <i>Feast of the Poets</i>.</p> + +<p><a name="f70_70" id="f70_70"></a><a href="#fna70_70">[70]</a> In 1855, in <i>Stories in Verse</i>, Hunt changed his +acknowledged allegiance from Dryden to Chaucer.</p> + +<p><a name="f71_71" id="f71_71"></a><a href="#fna71_71">[71]</a> Canto, II, ll. 433-440.</p> + +<p><a name="f72_72" id="f72_72"></a><a href="#fna72_72">[72]</a> E. De Selincourt gives these three last as examples of +Hunt’s derivation of the abstract noun from the present participle (<i>Poems of John Keats</i>, p. 577).</p> + +<p><a name="f73_73" id="f73_73"></a><a href="#fna73_73">[73]</a> De Selincourt notes that these adverbs are usually formed +from present participles. (<i>Poems of John Keats</i>, p. 577.)</p> + +<p><a name="f74_74" id="f74_74"></a><a href="#fna74_74">[74]</a> Byron, <i>Letters and Journals</i>, III, p. 418.</p> + +<p><a name="f75_75" id="f75_75"></a><a href="#fna75_75">[75]</a></p> + +<p class="poem">“For ever since Pope spoiled the ears of the town<br /> +With his cuckoo-song verses, half up and half down,<br /> +There has been such a doling and sameness,—by Jove,<br /> +I’d as soon have gone down to see Kemble in love.”<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;">(<i>Feast of the Poets.</i>)</span></p> + +<p>Hunt calls Pope’s translation of the moonlight picture from <i>Homer</i> “a +gorgeous misrepresentation” (<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 35) and the whole translation +“that elegant mistake of his in two volumes octavo.” (<i>Foliage</i>, p. 32.)</p> + +<p><a name="f76_76" id="f76_76"></a><a href="#fna76_76">[76]</a> <i>Feast of the Poets</i>, p. 38. The same opinions are expressed +in <i>The Examiner</i> of June 1, 1817; in the preface to <i>Foliage</i>, 1818.</p> + +<p><a name="f77_77" id="f77_77"></a><a href="#fna77_77">[77]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 56.</p> + +<p><a name="f78_78" id="f78_78"></a><a href="#fna78_78">[78]</a> P. 23.</p> + +<p><a name="f79_79" id="f79_79"></a><a href="#fna79_79">[79]</a> Saintsbury, <i>Essays in English Literature, 1780-1860</i>, p. +220.</p> + +<p><a name="f80_80" id="f80_80"></a><a href="#fna80_80">[80]</a> Hunt, <i>Story of Rimini</i>, London, 1818, p. 11, 200 lines +beginning with top of page. In the 1742 lines of the poem, there are 47 +run-on couplets and 260 run-on lines. There are 7 Alexandrines and 21 +triplets. In the edition of 1832 the number of triplets has been increased +to 26. There are 46 double rhymes. In a study of the cæsura based on the +first 200 lines there are 70 medial, 17 double cæsuras. The remaining 113 +lines have irregular or double cæsura.</p> + +<p><a name="f81_81" id="f81_81"></a><a href="#fna81_81">[81]</a> Keats, <i>Lamia</i>, Bk. I, ll. 1-200. In the 708 lines of +<i>Lamia</i>, there are 98 run-on couplets, 144 run-on lines, 39 Alexandrines +and 11 triplets. The cæsura is handled with greater freedom than in the +<i>Story of Rimini</i>.</p> + +<p><a name="f82_82" id="f82_82"></a><a href="#fna82_82">[82]</a> C. H. Herford, <i>Age of Wordsworth</i>, p. 83.</p> + +<p><a name="f83_83" id="f83_83"></a><a href="#fna83_83">[83]</a> R. B. Johnson, <i>Leigh Hunt</i>, p. 94.</p> + +<p><a name="f84_84" id="f84_84"></a><a href="#fna84_84">[84]</a> <i>Leigh Hunt as a Poet, Fortnightly Review</i>, XXXVI: 226.</p> + +<p><a name="f85_85" id="f85_85"></a><a href="#fna85_85">[85]</a> Sidney Colvin, <i>Keats</i>, p. 30.</p> + +<p><a name="f86_86" id="f86_86"></a><a href="#fna86_86">[86]</a> Garnett, <i>Age of Dryden</i>, p. 32.</p> + +<p><a name="f87_87" id="f87_87"></a><a href="#fna87_87">[87]</a> From Homer, Theocritus, Bion, Moschus, Anacreon, and +Catullus.</p> + +<p><a name="f88_88" id="f88_88"></a><a href="#fna88_88">[88]</a> p. 13.</p> + +<p><a name="f89_89" id="f89_89"></a><a href="#fna89_89">[89]</a> Hunt, <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 115.</p> + +<p><a name="f90_90" id="f90_90"></a><a href="#fna90_90">[90]</a> Byron, <i>Letters and Journals</i>, IV, p. 238.</p> + +<p><a name="f91_91" id="f91_91"></a><a href="#fna91_91">[91]</a> Charles and Mary Cowden Clarke, <i>Recollections of Writers</i>, +p. 132.</p> + +<p><a name="f92_92" id="f92_92"></a><a href="#fna92_92">[92]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 133.</p> + +<p><a name="f93_93" id="f93_93"></a><a href="#fna93_93">[93]</a> Hunt, <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries; with +Recollections of the Author’s Life and of his Visit to Italy</i>, p. 247.</p> + +<p><a name="f94_94" id="f94_94"></a><a href="#fna94_94">[94]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 251.</p> + +<p><a name="f95_95" id="f95_95"></a><a href="#fna95_95">[95]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 246-272.</p> + +<p><a name="f96_96" id="f96_96"></a><a href="#fna96_96">[96]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, pp. 27, 59.</p> + +<p><a name="f97_97" id="f97_97"></a><a href="#fna97_97">[97]</a> Colvin, <i>Keats</i>, p. 222.</p> + +<p><a name="f98_98" id="f98_98"></a><a href="#fna98_98">[98]</a> This refers to Keats’s first published poem, the sonnet <i>O +Solitude, if I must with thee dwell</i>, published (without comment) in <i>The Examiner</i> of May 5, 1816.</p> + +<p><a name="f99_99" id="f99_99"></a><a href="#fna99_99">[99]</a> Colvin, <i>Keats</i>, p. 34.</p> + +<p><a name="f100_100" id="f100_100"></a><a href="#fna100_100">[100]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 257.</p> + +<p><a name="f101_101" id="f101_101"></a><a href="#fna101_101">[101]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 257-258.</p> + +<p><a name="f102_102" id="f102_102"></a><a href="#fna102_102">[102]</a> Sharp, <i>Life and Letters of Joseph Severn</i>, p. 163.</p> + +<p><a name="f103_103" id="f103_103"></a><a href="#fna103_103">[103]</a> <i>Works</i>, I, p. 30.</p> + +<p><a name="f104_104" id="f104_104"></a><a href="#fna104_104">[104]</a> Mr. Forman, after a systematic search has been able to find +no proof in either direction. (<i>Works</i>, III, p. 8.)</p> + +<p><a name="f105_105" id="f105_105"></a><a href="#fna105_105">[105]</a> <i>Works</i>, I, p. 5.</p> + +<p><a name="f106_106" id="f106_106"></a><a href="#fna106_106">[106]</a> <i>Foliage</i>, p. 125.</p> + +<p><a name="f107_107" id="f107_107"></a><a href="#fna107_107">[107]</a> Colvin, <i>Keats</i>, p. 66.</p> + +<p><a name="f108_108" id="f108_108"></a><a href="#fna108_108">[108]</a> A further account of the disastrous effects of his +partisanship will be found in the discussion of the Cockney School, Ch. +V.</p> + +<p><a name="f109_109" id="f109_109"></a><a href="#fna109_109">[109]</a> The <i>Century Magazine</i>, XXIII, p. 706.</p> + +<p><a name="f110_110" id="f110_110"></a><a href="#fna110_110">[110]</a> Palgrave, <i>Poetical Works of John Keats</i>, p. 269.</p> + +<p><a name="f111_111" id="f111_111"></a><a href="#fna111_111">[111]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 266.</p> + +<p><a name="f112_112" id="f112_112"></a><a href="#fna112_112">[112]</a> <i>Works</i>, IV, p. 16.</p> + +<p><a name="f113_113" id="f113_113"></a><a href="#fna113_113">[113]</a> Haydon and Hunt had originally been very intimate, as is +shown by the letters written by the former from Paris during 1814, and by +his attentions to Hunt in Surrey Gaol. A letter to Wilkie, dated October +27, 1816, gives an attractive portrait of Hunt, and from this evidence it +is inferred that the change in Haydon’s attitude came about in the early +part of 1817, and that a small unpleasantness was allowed by him to +outweigh a friendship of long standing. After two weeks spent with Hunt he +had written of him as “one of the most delightful companions. Full of +poetry and art, and amiable humour, we argue always with full hearts on +everything but religion and Bonaparte.... Though Leigh Hunt is not deep in +knowledge, moral metaphysical or classical, yet he is intense in feeling +and has an intellect forever on the alert. He is like one of those +instruments on three legs, which, throw it how you will, always pitches on +two, and has a spike sticking for ever up and ever ready for you. He +“sets” at a subject with a scent like a pointer. He is a remarkable man, +and created a sensation by his independence, his disinterestedness in +public matters; and by the truth, acuteness and taste of his dramatic +criticisms, he raised the rank of newspapers, and gave by his example a +literary feeling to the weekly ones more especially. As a poet, I think +him full of the genuine feeling. His third canto in <i>Rimini</i> is equal to +anything in any language of that sweet sort. Perhaps in his wishing to +avoid the monotony of the Pope school, he may have shot into the other +extreme; and his invention of obscene [sic] words to express obscene +feelings borders sometimes on affectation. But these are trifles compared +with the beauty of the poem, the intense painting of the scenery, and the +deep burning in of the passion which trembles in every line. Thus far as a +critic, an editor and a poet. As a man I know none with such an +affectionate heart, if never opposed in his opinions. He has defects of +course: one of his great defects is getting inferior people about him to +listen, too fond of shining at any expense in society, and love of +approbation from the darling sex bordering on weakness; though to women he +is delightfully pleasant, yet they seem more to handle him as a delicate +plant. I don’t know if they do not put a confidence in him which to me +would be mortifying. He is a man of sensibility tinged with morbidity and +of such sensitive organization of body that the plant is not more alive to +touch than he.... He is a composition, as we all are, of defects and +delightful qualities, indolently averse to worldly exertion, because it +harasses the musings of his fancy, existing only by the common duties of +life, yet ignorant of them, and often suffering from their neglect.” +(Haydon, <i>Life, Letters and Table Talk</i>, ed. R. H. Stoddard, pp. 155-156.)</p> + +<p>Haydon said that the rupture came about because Hunt insisted upon +speaking of our Lord and his Apostles in a condescending manner, and that +he rebelled against Hunt’s “audacious romancing over the Biblical +conceptions of the Almighty.” (Haydon, <i>Life, Letters and Table Talk</i>, p. +65.) This view, in the light of Haydon’s general unreliability, may be +mere romancing; for Keats, writing on January 13, 1818, gave the following +explanation of the quarrel: “Mrs. H. (Hunt) was in the habit of borrowing +silver from Haydon—the last time she did so, Haydon asked her to return +it at a certain time—she did not—Haydon sent for it—Hunt went to +expostulate on the indelicacy, etc.—they got to words and parted for +ever.” (Keats, <i>Works</i>, IV, p. 58).</p> + +<p><a name="f114_114" id="f114_114"></a><a href="#fna114_114">[114]</a> <i>Works</i>, IV, p. 20.</p> + +<p><a name="f115_115" id="f115_115"></a><a href="#fna115_115">[115]</a> Milnes, <i>Life, Letters and Literary Remains of John Keats</i>, +II, p. 44.</p> + +<p><a name="f116_116" id="f116_116"></a><a href="#fna116_116">[116]</a> <i>Works</i>, IV, p. 114.</p> + +<p><a name="f117_117" id="f117_117"></a><a href="#fna117_117">[117]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V, p. 142.</p> + +<p><a name="f118_118" id="f118_118"></a><a href="#fna118_118">[118]</a> <i>Life, Letters and Table Talk</i>, p. 208.</p> + +<p><a name="f119_119" id="f119_119"></a><a href="#fna119_119">[119]</a> <i>Works</i>, IV, p. 31.</p> + +<p><a name="f120_120" id="f120_120"></a><a href="#fna120_120">[120]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, p. 60.</p> + +<p><a name="f121_121" id="f121_121"></a><a href="#fna121_121">[121]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, pp. 37-38.</p> + +<p><a name="f122_122" id="f122_122"></a><a href="#fna122_122">[122]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, p. 38, Keats gives his argument in favor of a +long poem.</p> + +<p><a name="f123_123" id="f123_123"></a><a href="#fna123_123">[123]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, p. 38.</p> + +<p><a name="f124_124" id="f124_124"></a><a href="#fna124_124">[124]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, p. 49.</p> + +<p><a name="f125_125" id="f125_125"></a><a href="#fna125_125">[125]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, p. 193.</p> + +<p><a name="f126_126" id="f126_126"></a><a href="#fna126_126">[126]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, pp. 195-196.</p> + +<p><a name="f127_127" id="f127_127"></a><a href="#fna127_127">[127]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, p. 12.</p> + +<p><a name="f128_128" id="f128_128"></a><a href="#fna128_128">[128]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, IV, p. 90.</p> + +<p><a name="f129_129" id="f129_129"></a><a href="#fna129_129">[129]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I, p. 34.</p> + +<p><a name="f130_130" id="f130_130"></a><a href="#fna130_130">[130]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V, p. 198.</p> + +<p><a name="f131_131" id="f131_131"></a><a href="#fna131_131">[131]</a> Haydon attempted also to make trouble between Wordsworth +and Hunt, by telling the former that Hunt’s admiration for him was only a +“weather cock estimation” and by insinuations concerning his sincerity in +friendships. (Haydon, <i>Life, Letters and Table Talk</i>, p. 197.)</p> + +<p><a name="f132_132" id="f132_132"></a><a href="#fna132_132">[132]</a> J. Ashcroft Noble, <i>The Sonnet in England, and Other +Essays</i>, p. 108.</p> + +<p><a name="f133_133" id="f133_133"></a><a href="#fna133_133">[133]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 42.</p> + +<p><a name="f134_134" id="f134_134"></a><a href="#fna134_134">[134]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 44.</p> + +<p><a name="f135_135" id="f135_135"></a><a href="#fna135_135">[135]</a> <i>Works</i>, V, p. 203.</p> + +<p><a name="f136_136" id="f136_136"></a><a href="#fna136_136">[136]</a> Keats wrote Haydon, “There are three things to rejoice at +in this age The Excursion, Your Pictures, and Hazlitt’s depth of taste.” (<i>Works</i>, IV, p. 56.)</p> + +<p><a name="f137_137" id="f137_137"></a><a href="#fna137_137">[137]</a> <i>Works</i>, II, p. 187.</p> + +<p><a name="f138_138" id="f138_138"></a><a href="#fna138_138">[138]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V, p. 116.</p> + +<p><a name="f139_139" id="f139_139"></a><a href="#fna139_139">[139]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V, p. 180.</p> + +<p><a name="f140_140" id="f140_140"></a><a href="#fna140_140">[140]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V, p. 175.</p> + +<p><a name="f141_141" id="f141_141"></a><a href="#fna141_141">[141]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V, p. 174.</p> + +<p><a name="f142_142" id="f142_142"></a><a href="#fna142_142">[142]</a> That he needed better attention than he could receive in +lodgings is seen from an account of Keats’s condition given in <i>Maria +Gisborne’s Journal</i> (<i>Ibid.</i>, V, p. 182), which says that when she drank +tea there in July, Keats was under sentence of death from Dr. Lamb: “he +never spoke and looks emaciated.”</p> + +<p><a name="f143_143" id="f143_143"></a><a href="#fna143_143">[143]</a> <i>Works</i>, V, p. 183-184. The quotation follows Keats’s +punctuation.</p> + +<p><a name="f144_144" id="f144_144"></a><a href="#fna144_144">[144]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V, p. 185.</p> + +<p><a name="f145_145" id="f145_145"></a><a href="#fna145_145">[145]</a> <i>Cornhill Magazine</i>, 1892.</p> + +<p><a name="f146_146" id="f146_146"></a><a href="#fna146_146">[146]</a> <i>Works</i>, V, p. 194.</p> + +<p><a name="f147_147" id="f147_147"></a><a href="#fna147_147">[147]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V, p. 193.</p> + +<p><a name="f148_148" id="f148_148"></a><a href="#fna148_148">[148]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 107.</p> + +<p><a name="f149_149" id="f149_149"></a><a href="#fna149_149">[149]</a> P. 248.</p> + +<p><a name="f150_150" id="f150_150"></a><a href="#fna150_150">[150]</a> <i>The Examiner</i>, June 1st, July 6th, and 13th, 1817.</p> + +<p><a name="f151_151" id="f151_151"></a><a href="#fna151_151">[151]</a> Lines 181-206.</p> + +<p><a name="f152_152" id="f152_152"></a><a href="#fna152_152">[152]</a> <i>Works</i>, IV, p. 64.</p> + +<p><a name="f153_153" id="f153_153"></a><a href="#fna153_153">[153]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries</i>, p. 257.</p> + +<p><a name="f154_154" id="f154_154"></a><a href="#fna154_154">[154]</a> May 10, 1820.</p> + +<p><a name="f155_155" id="f155_155"></a><a href="#fna155_155">[155]</a> Cf. with Poe’s sonnet, <i>Science, true daughter of Old Time +thou art</i>.</p> + +<p><a name="f156_156" id="f156_156"></a><a href="#fna156_156">[156]</a> Haydon, <i>Life, Letters and Table Talk</i>, p. 201.</p> + +<p><a name="f157_157" id="f157_157"></a><a href="#fna157_157">[157]</a> In connection with <i>Hyperion</i>, it is interesting to note +that the manuscript in Keats’s handwriting recently discovered, survived +through the agency of Leigh Hunt. From him it passed into the ownership of +his son Thornton, and later to the sister of Dr. George Bird. It has been +purchased from her by the British Museum. (<i>Athenæum</i>, March 11, 1905.)</p> + +<p><a name="f158_158" id="f158_158"></a><a href="#fna158_158">[158]</a> This is, of course, a mistake.</p> + +<p><a name="f159_159" id="f159_159"></a><a href="#fna159_159">[159]</a> For other criticism of the 1820 poems by Hunt, see <i>Lord +Byron and Some of his Contemporaries</i>, pp. 258-268.</p> + +<p><a name="f160_160" id="f160_160"></a><a href="#fna160_160">[160]</a> <i>I stood tiptoe</i>, l. 16.</p> + +<p><a name="f161_161" id="f161_161"></a><a href="#fna161_161">[161]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, l. 20.</p> + +<p><a name="f162_162" id="f162_162"></a><a href="#fna162_162">[162]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, l. 81.</p> + +<p><a name="f163_163" id="f163_163"></a><a href="#fna163_163">[163]</a> <i>To some Ladies</i>, l. 15.</p> + +<p><a name="f164_164" id="f164_164"></a><a href="#fna164_164">[164]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, l. 117.</p> + +<p><a name="f165_165" id="f165_165"></a><a href="#fna165_165">[165]</a> <i>I stood tiptoe</i>, l. 215.</p> + +<p><a name="f166_166" id="f166_166"></a><a href="#fna166_166">[166]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, l. 61.</p> + +<p><a name="f167_167" id="f167_167"></a><a href="#fna167_167">[167]</a> <i>Calidore</i>, l. 132. Also pointed out by Mr. Colvin, +<i>Keats</i>, p. 53.</p> + +<p><a name="f168_168" id="f168_168"></a><a href="#fna168_168">[168]</a> <i>To my brother George</i>, l. 7.</p> + +<p><a name="f169_169" id="f169_169"></a><a href="#fna169_169">[169]</a> <i>I stood tiptoe</i>, l. 144.</p> + +<p><a name="f170_170" id="f170_170"></a><a href="#fna170_170">[170]</a> Hunt quotes this with approbation, as showing a “human +touch.” (<i>Specimen of an Induction to a Poem</i>, ll. 13-14.)</p> + +<p><a name="f171_171" id="f171_171"></a><a href="#fna171_171">[171]</a> <i>Specimen of an Induction to a Poem</i>, l. 48.</p> + +<p><a name="f172_172" id="f172_172"></a><a href="#fna172_172">[172]</a> <i>Calidore</i>, l. 66.</p> + +<p><a name="f173_173" id="f173_173"></a><a href="#fna173_173">[173]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, l. 80 ff.</p> + +<p><a name="f174_174" id="f174_174"></a><a href="#fna174_174">[174]</a> <i>To ...</i>, l. 23 ff.</p> + +<p><a name="f175_175" id="f175_175"></a><a href="#fna175_175">[175]</a> Mr. De Selincourt in <i>Notes and Queries</i>, Feb. 4, 1905, +dates the <i>Imitation of Spenser</i> “1813.” He does not produce documentary +evidence, however. The discovery of the hitherto unpublished poem, <i>Fill +for me a brimming bowl</i>, in imitation of Milton’s early poems, dated in +the Woodhouse transcript Aug. 1814, is of considerable interest in +determining the date of Keats’s earliest composition of verse. A sonnet +<i>On Peace</i> found in the same MS. is a second discovery of an unpublished +poem of the same period.</p> + +<p><a name="f176_176" id="f176_176"></a><a href="#fna176_176">[176]</a> <i>Works</i>, I, p. 26.</p> + +<p><a name="f177_177" id="f177_177"></a><a href="#fna177_177">[177]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I. p. 16. Mr. W. T. Arnold, <i>Poetical Works of +John Keats</i>, London, 1884, has remarked upon the similar use of <i>so</i> by +Hunt and Keats. He compares the “so elegantly” of this passage with the +line from <i>Rimini</i> “leaves so finely suit.”</p> + +<p><a name="f178_178" id="f178_178"></a><a href="#fna178_178">[178]</a> <i>To Charles Cowden Clarke</i>, l. 88.</p> + +<p><a name="f179_179" id="f179_179"></a><a href="#fna179_179">[179]</a> <i>Calidore</i>, ll. 34-35.</p> + +<p><a name="f180_180" id="f180_180"></a><a href="#fna180_180">[180]</a> <i>Story of Rimini</i>, p. 35.</p> + +<p><a name="f181_181" id="f181_181"></a><a href="#fna181_181">[181]</a> Colvin, <i>Keats</i>, p. 31.</p> + +<p><a name="f182_182" id="f182_182"></a><a href="#fna182_182">[182]</a> References to Hunt in the sonnets and other poems of 1817 +are the following:</p> + +<p>1. “He of the rose, the violet, the spring<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">The social smile, the chain for Freedom’s sake:”</span></p> + +<p>(<i>Addressed to the Same</i> [Haydon].) This sonnet did not appear in 1817, +although it belongs to this period.</p> + +<p>2. “... thy tender care<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">Thus startled unaware</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">Be jealous that the foot of other wight</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">Should madly follow that bright path of light</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">Trac’d by thy lov’d Libertas; he will speak,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">And tell thee that my prayer is very meek</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 2em;"><span class="spacer">·</span><span class="spacer">·</span><span class="spacer">·</span><span class="spacer">·</span><span class="spacer">·</span><span class="spacer">·</span></span> +<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">Him thou wilt hear.”</span></p> + +<p>(<i>Specimen of an Introduction</i>, l. 57 ff.) Mrs. Clarke is the authority that “Libertas” was Hunt.</p> + +<p>3. “With him who elegantly chats, and talks—<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">The wrong’d Libertas.”</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 4em;">(<i>Epistle to Charles Cowden Clarke</i>, l. 43-44.)</span></p> + +<p>4. “I turn full-hearted to the friendly aids<br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">That smooth the path of honour; brotherhood,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">And friendliness the nurse of mutual good.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;"><i>The hearty grasp that sends a pleasant sonnet</i></span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;"><i>Into the brain ere one can think upon it</i>;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">The silence when some rhymes are coming out;</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">And when they’re come, the very pleasant rout:</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">The message certain to be done tomorrow.</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">’Tis perhaps as well that it should be to borrow</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">Some precious book from out its snug retreat,</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 1.5em;">To cluster round it when we next shall meet.”</span><br /> +<span style="margin-left: 4em;">(<i>Sleep and Poetry.</i>)</span></p> + +<p>Lines 353-404 of the same, nearly one fifth of the entire poem, are a +description of Hunt’s library. Mr. De Selincourt calls it “a glowing +tribute to the sympathetic friendship which Keats had enjoyed at the +Hampstead Cottage and an attempt to express in the style of the <i>Story of +Rimini</i> something of the spirit which had informed the <i>Lines Written +Above Tintern Abbey</i>.” (<i>Poems of John Keats.</i> Introduction p. 34.)</p> + +<p>(<i>a</i>) Of this room Hunt wrote: “Keats’s <i>Sleep and Poetry</i> is a +description of a parlour that was mine, no bigger than an old mansion’s +closet.” <i>Correspondence</i> I, p. 289. See also <i>Lord Byron and Some of his +Contemporaries</i>, p. 249.</p> + +<p>(<i>b</i>) Further description of the same room is to be found in <i>Shelley’s +Letter to Maria Gisborne</i>, ll. 212-217.</p> + +<p>(<i>c</i>) Clarke refers to it in the <i>Gentleman’s Magazine</i>, February, 1874, +and in <i>Recollections of Writers</i>, p. 134. In the letter he says that a +bed was made up in the library for Keats and that he was installed as a +member of the household. Here he composed the framework of the poem. Lines +325-404 are “an inventory of the art garniture of the room.”</p> + +<p>(<i>d</i>) The most intresting record in regard to the room is that given by +Mrs. J. T. Fields in a <i>Shelf of old Books</i>, who says that her husband saw +the library treasures which had inspired Keats—Greek casts of Sappho, +casts of Kosciusko and Alfred, with engravings, sketches and well-worn +books. Among the books collected by Mr. Fields was a copy of Shelley, +Coleridge and Keats bound together, with an autograph of all three men, +formerly owned by Hunt. The fly leaf “at the back contained the sonnet +written by Keats on the <i>Story of Rimini</i>.”</p> + +<p><a name="f183_183" id="f183_183"></a><a href="#fna183_183">[183]</a> The two sonnets were published in <i>The Examiner</i> of +September 21, 1817; Keats’s had been included previously in the <i>Poems of +1817</i>; Hunt’s appeared later in <i>Foliage</i>, 1818.</p> + +<p><a name="f184_184" id="f184_184"></a><a href="#fna184_184">[184]</a> This did not appear in 1817, but belongs to this period. +See <i>Works</i>, II, p. 257. For a comparison of these two sonnets with +Shelley’s on the same Subject, see Rossetti’s <i>Life of Keats</i>, p. 110.</p> + +<p><a name="f185_185" id="f185_185"></a><a href="#fna185_185">[185]</a> <i>Works</i>, II, p. 166.</p> + +<p><a name="f186_186" id="f186_186"></a><a href="#fna186_186">[186]</a> Compare with <i>A Dream, after Reading Dante’s Episode of +Paolo and Francesca</i>, 1819. (<i>Works</i>, III, p. 16.)</p> + +<p><a name="f187_187" id="f187_187"></a><a href="#fna187_187">[187]</a> A pocket-book given Keats by Hunt and containing many of +the first drafts of the sonnets belonged to Charles Wentworth Dilke. It is +still in the possession of the Dilke family.</p> + +<p><a name="f188_188" id="f188_188"></a><a href="#fna188_188">[188]</a> For instances of Keats’s interest in politics, see <i>To +Kosciusko</i>, <i>To Hope</i>, ll. 33-36, and scattered references to Wallace, +William Tell and similar characters. Most of these references have already +been called attention to by others.</p> + +<p><a name="f189_189" id="f189_189"></a><a href="#fna189_189">[189]</a> <i>Works</i>, IV, pp. 60-61. The poem follows.</p> + +<p><a name="f190_190" id="f190_190"></a><a href="#fna190_190">[190]</a> Colvin, <i>Keats</i>, p. 107.</p> + +<p><a name="f191_191" id="f191_191"></a><a href="#fna191_191">[191]</a> <i>Endymion</i>, Bk. II, ll. 129-130.</p> + +<p><a name="f192_192" id="f192_192"></a><a href="#fna192_192">[192]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, Bk. IV, l. 863 ff.</p> + +<p><a name="f193_193" id="f193_193"></a><a href="#fna193_193">[193]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, Bk. II, l. 756 ff.</p> + +<p><a name="f194_194" id="f194_194"></a><a href="#fna194_194">[194]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, Bk. II, l. 938 ff.</p> + +<p><a name="f195_195" id="f195_195"></a><a href="#fna195_195">[195]</a> <i>Keats</i>, p. 169.</p> + +<p><a name="f196_196" id="f196_196"></a><a href="#fna196_196">[196]</a> Stanza 23, l. 7.</p> + +<p><a name="f197_197" id="f197_197"></a><a href="#fna197_197">[197]</a> <i>Hero and Leander</i> and <i>Bacchus and Ariadne</i>, 1819, p. 45.</p> + +<p><a name="f198_198" id="f198_198"></a><a href="#fna198_198">[198]</a> Mr. W. T. Arnold makes the mistake of thinking that Keats +imitated Hunt’s <i>Gentle Armour</i>. Mr. Colvin corrects this statement. +(Keats, <i>Poetical Works</i>, p. 59.)</p> + +<p><a name="f199_199" id="f199_199"></a><a href="#fna199_199">[199]</a> (<i>a</i>) W. T. Arnold, Keats, <i>Poetical Works</i>, p. 128. (<i>b</i>) +J. Hoops, <i>Keats’s Jungend und Jugendgedichte</i>, Englische Studien, XXI, +239. (<i>c</i>) W. A. Read, <i>Keats and Spenser</i>.</p> + +<p><a name="f200_200" id="f200_200"></a><a href="#fna200_200">[200]</a> <i>Works</i>, V, p. 121.</p> + +<p><a name="f201_201" id="f201_201"></a><a href="#fna201_201">[201]</a> This same expression occurs in <i>Hero and Leander</i>, 1819, in +the phrase, “Half set in trees and leafy luxury.” Keats’s dedication +sonnet in which it occurs was written in 1817. Therefore Mr. W. T. Arnold +makes a mistake when he says (in his edition of Keats, p. 129) it was +taken direct from Hunt’s poem, although the two separate words are among +his favorites and Keats probably took them from him and combined them.</p> + +<p><a name="f202_202" id="f202_202"></a><a href="#fna202_202">[202]</a> Mr. Arnold says “delicious” is used sixteen times by Keats. +(Keats, <i>Poetical Works</i>, p. 129). He quotes a passage from one of Hunt’s +prefaces in which the latter comments on Chaucer’s use of the word: “The +word <i>deliciously</i> is a venture of animal spirits which in a modern writer +some critics would pronounce to be too affected or too familiar; but the +enjoyment, and even incidental appropriateness and relish of it, will be +obvious to finer senses.” In <i>Rimini</i> this line occurs: “Distils the next +note more deliciously.”</p> + +<p><a name="f203_203" id="f203_203"></a><a href="#fna203_203">[203]</a> Palgrave, <i>Poetical Works of John Keats</i>, p. 261, notices +Leigh Hunt’s misuse of this word in his review of <i>I stood tiptoe</i>, quoted +on p. 107. See his use of the same on p. 76. In <i>Bacchus and Ariadne</i> it +occurs in this passage “all luxuries that come from odorous gardens.”</p> + +<p><a name="f204_204" id="f204_204"></a><a href="#fna204_204">[204]</a> This is used in <i>Hyperion</i>, II, l. 45. The expression +“plashy pools” occurs in the <i>Story of Rimini</i>.</p> + +<p><a name="f205_205" id="f205_205"></a><a href="#fna205_205">[205]</a> November 11, 1820.</p> + +<p><a name="f206_206" id="f206_206"></a><a href="#fna206_206">[206]</a> <i>Life of Percy Bysshe Shelly</i>, II, p. 36.</p> + +<p><a name="f207_207" id="f207_207"></a><a href="#fna207_207">[207]</a> <i>Imagination and Fancy</i>, p. 231.</p> + +<p><a name="f208_208" id="f208_208"></a><a href="#fna208_208">[208]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, pp. 252-3.</p> + +<p><a name="f209_209" id="f209_209"></a><a href="#fna209_209">[209]</a> Palgrave, <i>Poetical Works of John Keats</i>, p. 274.</p> + +<p><a name="f210_210" id="f210_210"></a><a href="#fna210_210">[210]</a> <i>Poetical Works</i>, 1832, p. 36.</p> + +<p><a name="f211_211" id="f211_211"></a><a href="#fna211_211">[211]</a> The poem is reported to have brought £100, more than any +poem sold during his lifetime. It is now lost.</p> + +<p><a name="f212_212" id="f212_212"></a><a href="#fna212_212">[212]</a> Mac-Carthay, who has fully treated this incident, thinks +that the account Hunt gave of the matter many years later is so incoherent +as to indicate that he did not receive the letter until after he met +Shelley, or perhaps not at all. He also points out that two passages in +the letter to Hunt of March 2, 1811, important in their bearing upon +Shelley’s political theories at this time, are identical with passages in +a letter of February 22 of the same year, addressed to the editor of <i>The +Statesman</i>, presumably Finnerty. (<i>Shelley’s Early Life</i>, pp. 1-106.)</p> + +<p><a name="f213_213" id="f213_213"></a><a href="#fna213_213">[213]</a> Hancock, <i>The French Revolution and English Poets</i>, pp. +50-77.</p> + +<p><a name="f214_214" id="f214_214"></a><a href="#fna214_214">[214]</a> Letter to Miss Hitchener, June 25, 1811.</p> + +<p><a name="f215_215" id="f215_215"></a><a href="#fna215_215">[215]</a> G. B. Smith, <i>Shelley, A Critical Biography</i>, p. 88.</p> + +<p><a name="f216_216" id="f216_216"></a><a href="#fna216_216">[216]</a> See the <i>Letter to Lord Ellenborough</i>.</p> + +<p><a name="f217_217" id="f217_217"></a><a href="#fna217_217">[217]</a> Smith, <i>Shelley, A Critical Biography</i>, p. 110.</p> + +<p><a name="f218_218" id="f218_218"></a><a href="#fna218_218">[218]</a> For Shelley’s opinion on the coincidence of their political +views, see the last paragraph of the dedication of <i>The Cenci</i>.</p> + +<p><a name="f219_219" id="f219_219"></a><a href="#fna219_219">[219]</a> Hunt, <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 103.</p> + +<p><a name="f220_220" id="f220_220"></a><a href="#fna220_220">[220]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 176.</p> + +<p><a name="f221_221" id="f221_221"></a><a href="#fna221_221">[221]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 36.</p> + +<p><a name="f222_222" id="f222_222"></a><a href="#fna222_222">[222]</a> Pp. 122, 123.</p> + +<p><a name="f223_223" id="f223_223"></a><a href="#fna223_223">[223]</a> December 27, 1812.</p> + +<p><a name="f224_224" id="f224_224"></a><a href="#fna224_224">[224]</a> II, p. 13.</p> + +<p><a name="f225_225" id="f225_225"></a><a href="#fna225_225">[225]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 27.</p> + +<p><a name="f226_226" id="f226_226"></a><a href="#fna226_226">[226]</a> <i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, February, 1863.</p> + +<p><a name="f227_227" id="f227_227"></a><a href="#fna227_227">[227]</a> December 8, 1816, Shelley wrote to Hunt: “I have not in all +my intercourse with mankind experienced sympathy and kindness with which I +have been so affected, or which my whole being has so sprung forward to +meet and to return.... With you, and perhaps some others (though in a less +degree, I fear) my gentleness and sincerity find favour, because they are +themselves gentle and sincere: they believe in self-devotion and +generosity because they are themselves generous and self-devoted.” (Nicoll +and Wise, <i>Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth Century</i>, p. 328.)</p> + +<p><a name="f228_228" id="f228_228"></a><a href="#fna228_228">[228]</a> December 15, 1816, Shelley wrote Mary Godwin: Hunt’s +“delicate and tender attentions to me, his kind speeches of you, have +sustained me against the weight of the horror of this event.” (Dowden, +<i>Life of Shelley</i>, II, p. 68.)</p> + +<p><a name="f229_229" id="f229_229"></a><a href="#fna229_229">[229]</a> (<i>a</i>) <i>The Examiner</i>, January 26, 1817. (<i>b</i>) <i>Ibid.</i>, +February 12, 1817. (<i>c</i>) <i>Ibid.</i>, August 31, 1817. (<i>d</i>) Hunt, +<i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 114; August 27, 1817.</p> + +<p><a name="f230_230" id="f230_230"></a><a href="#fna230_230">[230]</a> Shelley said of Horace Smith: “but is it not odd that the +only truly generous person I ever knew, who had money to be generous with, +should be a stockbroker.” (Hunt, <i>Autobiography</i>, I, p. 211.) See also +<i>Letter to Maria Gisborne</i>, ll. 247-253; Forman, <i>Works of Shelley</i>, III, p. 225 ff.</p> + +<p><a name="f231_231" id="f231_231"></a><a href="#fna231_231">[231]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 3; March 22, 1818.</p> + +<p><a name="f232_232" id="f232_232"></a><a href="#fna232_232">[232]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 141; November 13, 1819.</p> + +<p><a name="f233_233" id="f233_233"></a><a href="#fna233_233">[233]</a> Professor Masson says that one of Shelley’s first acts was +to offer Hunt £100. It is probable he refers to the occasion already +discussed. (<i>Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats and Other Essays</i>, p. 112.)</p> + +<p><a name="f234_234" id="f234_234"></a><a href="#fna234_234">[234]</a> Dowden, <i>Life of Shelley</i>, II, p. 61.</p> + +<p><a name="f235_235" id="f235_235"></a><a href="#fna235_235">[235]</a> Nicoll and Wise, <i>Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth +Century</i>, p. 331; December 8, 1816.</p> + +<p><a name="f236_236" id="f236_236"></a><a href="#fna236_236">[236]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 336; August 16, 1817.</p> + +<p><a name="f237_237" id="f237_237"></a><a href="#fna237_237">[237]</a> Rogers, <i>Table Talk</i>, p. 236.</p> + +<p><a name="f238_238" id="f238_238"></a><a href="#fna238_238">[238]</a> Hunt, <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 146; September 12, 1819.</p> + +<p><a name="f239_239" id="f239_239"></a><a href="#fna239_239">[239]</a> Hunt, <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 36; <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. +126.</p> + +<p><a name="f240_240" id="f240_240"></a><a href="#fna240_240">[240]</a> Medwin, <i>Life of Shelley</i>, II, p. 137.</p> + +<p><a name="f241_241" id="f241_241"></a><a href="#fna241_241">[241]</a> Mitford, <i>Life</i>, I, p. 280. Jeaffreson, <i>The Real Shelley</i>, +II, p. 357.</p> + +<p><a name="f242_242" id="f242_242"></a><a href="#fna242_242">[242]</a> Nicoll and Wise, <i>Literary Anecdotes</i>, p. 348; April 5, +1820. He assumed the debt for Hunt’s piano as naturally as he did for his +own. Prof. Dowden says that John Hunt expected Shelley to become +responsible for all of his brother’s debts. (<i>Life of Shelley</i>, II, p. 458.)</p> + +<p><a name="f243_243" id="f243_243"></a><a href="#fna243_243">[243]</a> Hunt, <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 158; November 11, 1820.</p> + +<p><a name="f244_244" id="f244_244"></a><a href="#fna244_244">[244]</a> Nicoll and Wise, <i>Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth +Century</i>, p. 342.</p> + +<p><a name="f245_245" id="f245_245"></a><a href="#fna245_245">[245]</a> See Chapter IV, p. 89.</p> + +<p><a name="f246_246" id="f246_246"></a><a href="#fna246_246">[246]</a> Dowden, <i>Life of Shelley</i>, II, p. 456; also <i>Works of +Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 252.</p> + +<p><a name="f247_247" id="f247_247"></a><a href="#fna247_247">[247]</a> (<i>a</i>) Nicoll and Wise, <i>Literary Anecdotes</i>, pp. 352, 356. +(<i>b</i>) Byron, <i>Letters and Journals</i>, VI, p. 11.</p> + +<p><a name="f248_248" id="f248_248"></a><a href="#fna248_248">[248]</a> Dowden, <i>Life of Shelley</i>, II, p. 489.</p> + +<p><a name="f249_249" id="f249_249"></a><a href="#fna249_249">[249]</a> Hunt, <i>Autobiography</i>, II, pp. 36-37. In August, 1819, Hunt +importunes Shelley to give no thought to his affairs (<i>Correspondence</i>, I, +p. 136). Hunt wrote Mary Shelley on September 7, 1821: “Pray thank Shelley +or rather do not, for that kind part of his offer relating to the +expenses. I find I have omitted it; but the instinct that led me to do so +is more honorable to him than thanks.” (<i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 171.)</p> + +<p><a name="f250_250" id="f250_250"></a><a href="#fna250_250">[250]</a> Jeaffreson, <i>The Real Shelley</i>, II, p. 355.</p> + +<p><a name="f251_251" id="f251_251"></a><a href="#fna251_251">[251]</a> W. M. Rossetti, <i>Complete Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe +Shelley</i>, I, p. 75.</p> + +<p><a name="f252_252" id="f252_252"></a><a href="#fna252_252">[252]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, VI, p. 96.</p> + +<p><a name="f253_253" id="f253_253"></a><a href="#fna253_253">[253]</a> Kent, <i>Leigh Hunt as Poet and Essayist</i>, p. 28.</p> + +<p><a name="f254_254" id="f254_254"></a><a href="#fna254_254">[254]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 60.</p> + +<p><a name="f255_255" id="f255_255"></a><a href="#fna255_255">[255]</a> <i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, February, 1863.</p> + +<p><a name="f256_256" id="f256_256"></a><a href="#fna256_256">[256]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 283. June 19, 1822.</p> + +<p><a name="f257_257" id="f257_257"></a><a href="#fna257_257">[257]</a> Built by Michaelangelo and situated on the Arno.</p> + +<p><a name="f258_258" id="f258_258"></a><a href="#fna258_258">[258]</a> <i>The Liberal</i>, I, p. 103.</p> + +<p><a name="f259_259" id="f259_259"></a><a href="#fna259_259">[259]</a> Brandes attributes the inscription to Mary Shelley. (<i>Main +Currents in <ins class="correction" title="original: Nineteen">Nineteenth</ins> Century Literature</i>, IV, p. 208.)</p> + +<p><a name="f260_260" id="f260_260"></a><a href="#fna260_260">[260]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 269.</p> + +<p><a name="f261_261" id="f261_261"></a><a href="#fna261_261">[261]</a> After Shelley’s death, Mary Shelley decided to remain in +Italy in order to assist with <i>The Liberal</i>. She considered Hunt +“expatriated at the request and desire of others,” and, in helping him, +she thought to fulfil any obligation that Shelley might have assumed in +the scheme. For her services she received thirty-three pounds. She lived +for some time in the same house with the Hunts after they separated from +Lord Byron, but the arrangement was an unhappy one. Disagreements, +beginning with a misunderstanding concerning the possession of Shelley’s +heart, dragged through the winter. Fortunately everything was adjusted +before they separated. July, 1823, she wrote of Hunt: “he is all kindness, +consideration and friendship—all feeling of alienation towards me has +disappeared to its last dregs.” (Marshall, <i>The Life and Letters of Mary +Wollstonecraft Godwin</i>, London, 1889, II, p. 81.) And again: “But thank +heaven we are now the best friends in the world.... It is a delightful +thing, my dear Jane, to be able to express one’s affection upon an old and +tried friend like Hunt, and one so passionately attached to my Shelley as +he was, and is.... He was displeased with me for many just reasons, but he +found me willing to expiate, as far as I could, the evil I had done; his +heart again warmed, and if when I return you find me more amiable, and +more willing to suffer with patience than I was, it is to him that I owe +this benefit.” (<i>Ibid.</i>, II, p. 85.)</p> + +<p><a name="f262_262" id="f262_262"></a><a href="#fna262_262">[262]</a> Jeaffreson assigns the cause of Hunt’s neglect to his +ignorance of the fact that he could suck money out of Shelley. <i>The Real Shelley</i>, II, p. 352.</p> + +<p><a name="f263_263" id="f263_263"></a><a href="#fna263_263">[263]</a> Mac-Carthay in <i>Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth +Century</i>, p. 302.</p> + +<p><a name="f264_264" id="f264_264"></a><a href="#fna264_264">[264]</a> Shelley was deeply wounded by the attack. He wrote Hunt: +“As to what relates to yourself and me, it makes me melancholy to consider +the dreadful wickedness of the heart which would have prompted such +expressions as those with which the anonymous writer gloats over my +domestic calamities and the perversion of understanding with which he +paints your character.” (Nicoll and Wise, <i>Literary Anecdotes</i>, p. 340; December 22, 1818.)</p> + +<p><a name="f265_265" id="f265_265"></a><a href="#fna265_265">[265]</a> Shelley at first attributed the article in the <i>Quarterly</i> +to Southey on the grounds of his enmity to <i>The Examiner</i> which, Shelley +declared, had been the “crown of thorns worn by this unredeemed Redeemer +for many years.” Southey denied the authorship. (Nicoll and Wise, +<i>Literary Anecdotes</i>, p. 341; December 22, 1818.)</p> + +<p><a name="f266_266" id="f266_266"></a><a href="#fna266_266">[266]</a> <i>The Examiner</i>, September 26, October 3 and 10, 1819. See +also <i>Correspondence</i>, I, pp. 125-126.</p> + +<p><a name="f267_267" id="f267_267"></a><a href="#fna267_267">[267]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 169.</p> + +<p><a name="f268_268" id="f268_268"></a><a href="#fna268_268">[268]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I, p. 166.</p> + +<p><a name="f269_269" id="f269_269"></a><a href="#fna269_269">[269]</a> See Hunt, <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 130.</p> + +<p><a name="f270_270" id="f270_270"></a><a href="#fna270_270">[270]</a> For Shelley’s desire for Hunt’s good opinion, see <i>Works of +Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 167. Hunt’s collection of poems, published during 1818, +under the title of <i>Foliage</i> was dedicated to Shelley: “Had I known a +person more highly endowed than yourself with all the qualities that it +becomes a man to possess, I had selected for this work the ornament of his +name. One more gentle, honorable, innocent and brave; one of more exalted +toleration of all who do and think evil; one who knows better how to +receive, and how to confer a benefit though he must ever confer far more +than he can receive; one of simpler, and in the highest sense of the word, +of purer life and manners I never knew: and I had already been fortunate +in friendships when your name was added to the list.”</p> + +<p><a name="f271_271" id="f271_271"></a><a href="#fna271_271">[271]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 153.</p> + +<p><a name="f272_272" id="f272_272"></a><a href="#fna272_272">[272]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I, p. 154.</p> + +<p><a name="f273_273" id="f273_273"></a><a href="#fna273_273">[273]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I, p. 179; March 26, 1822.</p> + +<p><a name="f274_274" id="f274_274"></a><a href="#fna274_274">[274]</a> In an article on the <i>Suburbs of Genoa and the Country +about London</i>, pp. 118-119.</p> + +<p><a name="f275_275" id="f275_275"></a><a href="#fna275_275">[275]</a> Dated August 4, 1823.</p> + +<p><a name="f276_276" id="f276_276"></a><a href="#fna276_276">[276]</a> The second part of the sketch was in answer to the +<i>Quarterly Review’s</i> attack on the <i>Posthumous Poems</i>, which Mrs. Shelley, +aided by Hunt, had published in 1824. This account was reworked in 1850 +for the <i>Autobiography</i> and was taken in part for the preface to an +edition of Shelley’s works in 1871. Hunt wrote another biographical sketch +of Shelley for S. C. Hall’s <i>Book of Gems</i> (p. 40). He gave a fine +description of his physical appearance not often quoted.</p> + +<p><a name="f277_277" id="f277_277"></a><a href="#fna277_277">[277]</a> It was considered by the <i>Athaneum</i> to be the best part of +the book, and to be the “powerful portrait of a benevolent man.” (VI, p. 70.)</p> + +<p><a name="f278_278" id="f278_278"></a><a href="#fna278_278">[278]</a> Letter to Ollier, February, 1858.</p> + +<p><a name="f279_279" id="f279_279"></a><a href="#fna279_279">[279]</a> <i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, February, 1863.</p> + +<p><a name="f280_280" id="f280_280"></a><a href="#fna280_280">[280]</a> Forman, <i>Shelley Library</i>, p. 113, says that the motto from +<i>Laon and <ins class="correction" title="original: Cynthia">Cythna</ins></i> was added by Hunt.</p> + +<p><a name="f281_281" id="f281_281"></a><a href="#fna281_281">[281]</a> Pt. 2, p. 37.</p> + +<p><a name="f282_282" id="f282_282"></a><a href="#fna282_282">[282]</a> P. 217.</p> + +<p><a name="f283_283" id="f283_283"></a><a href="#fna283_283">[283]</a> <i>A Shelf of Old Books</i>, p. 291.</p> + +<p><a name="f284_284" id="f284_284"></a><a href="#fna284_284">[284]</a> Hunt’s <i>Book of the Sonnet</i>, which appeared posthumously, +contained a criticism of Shelley’s sonnet on <i>Ozymandyas</i> (I, p. 87).</p> + +<p><a name="f285_285" id="f285_285"></a><a href="#fna285_285">[285]</a> August 13 and 20, 1859.</p> + +<p><a name="f286_286" id="f286_286"></a><a href="#fna286_286">[286]</a> <i>The Examiner</i>, December 28, 1817.</p> + +<p><a name="f287_287" id="f287_287"></a><a href="#fna287_287">[287]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, July 15, 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f288_288" id="f288_288"></a><a href="#fna288_288">[288]</a> <i>Literary Pocket Book</i>, London, 1819. Shelley’s signature +was [Greek: D] and [Greek: S]. See Hunt, <i>Correspondence</i>, I, 125.</p> + +<p><a name="f289_289" id="f289_289"></a><a href="#fna289_289">[289]</a> <i>Literary Pocket Book</i>, 1821. (<i>Works of Shelley</i>, III, p. +150.)</p> + +<p><a name="f290_290" id="f290_290"></a><a href="#fna290_290">[290]</a> <i>Literary Pocket Book</i>, 1821. (<i>Works of Shelley</i>, III, p. +380.)</p> + +<p><a name="f291_291" id="f291_291"></a><a href="#fna291_291">[291]</a> <i>Literary Pocket Book</i>, 1822. (<i>Works of Shelley</i>, IV, p. +32.)</p> + +<p><a name="f292_292" id="f292_292"></a><a href="#fna292_292">[292]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1822. (<i>Works of Shelley</i>, IV, p. 49.)</p> + +<p><a name="f293_293" id="f293_293"></a><a href="#fna293_293">[293]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1823. (<i>Works of Shelley</i>, IV, p. 63.)</p> + +<p><a name="f294_294" id="f294_294"></a><a href="#fna294_294">[294]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1823. (<i>Works of Shelley</i>, IV, p. 41.)</p> + +<p><a name="f295_295" id="f295_295"></a><a href="#fna295_295">[295]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 1823. Mr. Forman thinks that the poem refers to +Harriet Shelley’s death and that the date is a disguise. (<i>Works of Shelley</i>, III, p. 146.)</p> + +<p><a name="f296_296" id="f296_296"></a><a href="#fna296_296">[296]</a> <i>The Indicator</i>, December 22, 1819.</p> + +<p><a name="f297_297" id="f297_297"></a><a href="#fna297_297">[297]</a> Chapter IV.</p> + +<p><a name="f298_298" id="f298_298"></a><a href="#fna298_298">[298]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 291; November 3, 1819.</p> + +<p><a name="f299_299" id="f299_299"></a><a href="#fna299_299">[299]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, IV, p. 359.</p> + +<p><a name="f300_300" id="f300_300"></a><a href="#fna300_300">[300]</a> Six months later, December 6, 1812, Hunt addressed a letter +to Lord Ellenborough on the same subject in regard to his own sentence.</p> + +<p><a name="f301_301" id="f301_301"></a><a href="#fna301_301">[301]</a> June 11, 18, 25, July 2, 9, August 27, September 3, 10, +October 1, 8, 15, 22, December 3, 10, 17; in 1821, February 4, August 12, +19, and September 9. The last three articles were written after the Queen’s death.</p> + +<p><a name="f302_302" id="f302_302"></a><a href="#fna302_302">[302]</a> Keats’s <i>The Cap and Bells</i> deals with the same.</p> + +<p><a name="f303_303" id="f303_303"></a><a href="#fna303_303">[303]</a> Shelley gave directions that the poem should be printed +like Hunt’s <i>Hero and Leander</i>. <i>Works of Shelley</i>, III, p. 101.</p> + +<p><a name="f304_304" id="f304_304"></a><a href="#fna304_304">[304]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 116; August 15, 1819. The +letter instructs Hunt to throw the poem into the fire or not as he sees +fit and requests him, in preference to Peacock, to correct the proofs. +“Can you take it as a compliment that I prefer to trouble you?”</p> + +<p><a name="f305_305" id="f305_305"></a><a href="#fna305_305">[305]</a> Forman wrongly attributes the review of Reynolds’ <i>Peter +Bell</i> in <i>The Examiner</i> of April 25, 1819, to Hunt and says that this +“flippant notice” by Hunt inspired Shelley’s poem. <i>Ibid.</i>, II, p. 288. +Reynolds asked Keats to request Hunt to review his poem. Keats did it +himself. (Keats, <i>Works</i>, III, pp. 246-249.)</p> + +<p><a name="f306_306" id="f306_306"></a><a href="#fna306_306">[306]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, III, p. 235.</p> + +<p><a name="f307_307" id="f307_307"></a><a href="#fna307_307">[307]</a> Hunt, <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 116, 141; April 24, 1818, and +September 6, 1819. Cf. with <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 121; September 3, +1819. (Editor says dated wrongly.)</p> + +<p><a name="f308_308" id="f308_308"></a><a href="#fna308_308">[308]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 127; September 27, 1819.</p> + +<p><a name="f309_309" id="f309_309"></a><a href="#fna309_309">[309]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 123; August 4, 1818.</p> + +<p><a name="f310_310" id="f310_310"></a><a href="#fna310_310">[310]</a></p> + +<p class="poem">“You will see Hunt—one of those happy souls<br /> +Which are the salt of the earth, and without whom<br /> +This world would smell like what it is—a tomb;<br /> +Who is what others seem; his room no doubt<br /> +Is still adorned by many a cast from Shout,<br /> +With graceful flowers tastefully placed about,<br /> +And coronals of bay from ribbons hung,<br /> +And brighter wreaths in neat disorder flung,—<br /> +The gifts of the most learned among some dozens<br /> +Of female friends, sisters-in-law and cousins.<br /> +And there he is with his eternal puns,<br /> +Which beat the dullest brain for smiles, like duns<br /> +Thundering for money at a poet’s door;<br /> +Alas! it is no use to say ‘I’m poor!’”</p> + +<p><a name="f311_311" id="f311_311"></a><a href="#fna311_311">[311]</a> Mr. Forman thinks that it may be part of the original draft +of <i>Rosalind and Helen</i>; if so, it is still a very close approximation of +Shelley’s opinion of Hunt (<i>Works of Shelley</i>, III, p. 403). William +Rossetti and Felix Rabbe think that it was addressed to Hunt.</p> + +<p><a name="f312_312" id="f312_312"></a><a href="#fna312_312">[312]</a> Wise’s edition of <i>Adonais</i>, p. 2. London, 1887.</p> + +<p><a name="f313_313" id="f313_313"></a><a href="#fna313_313">[313]</a> To his wife. <i><ins class="correction" title="original: Work">Works</ins> of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 288; July 4, +1822.</p> + +<p><a name="f314_314" id="f314_314"></a><a href="#fna314_314">[314]</a> Nicoll and Wise, <i>Literary Anecdotes</i>, p. 350; April 5, +1820.</p> + +<p><a name="f315_315" id="f315_315"></a><a href="#fna315_315">[315]</a> Hunt, <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 136. Professor George Edward +Woodberry says that Shelley had the “kindest feeling of gratitude and +respect ... but nothing more” towards Hunt. (<i>Studies in Letters and Life</i>, p. 153.)</p> + +<p><a name="f316_316" id="f316_316"></a><a href="#fna316_316">[316]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I, p. 158. November 11, 1820. <i>Works of Shelley</i>, +VIII, p. 150; November 23, 1819.</p> + +<p><a name="f317_317" id="f317_317"></a><a href="#fna317_317">[317]</a> Sir Walter Scott has given a good estimate of them: “Our +sentiments agreed a good deal, except on the subject of religion and +politics, upon neither of which I was inclined to believe that Lord Byron +entertained very fixed principles.... On Politics he used sometimes to +express a high strain of what is now called Liberalism; but it appeared to +me that the pleasure that it afforded him as a vehicle of displaying his +wit and satire against individuals in office was at the bottom of his +habit of thinking. At heart I would have termed Byron a patrician on +principle.” (Moore, <i>Letters and Journals of Lord Byron</i>, I, p. 616.)</p> + +<p><a name="f318_318" id="f318_318"></a><a href="#fna318_318">[318]</a> Hancock, <i>The French Revolution and English Poets</i>, p. 84.</p> + +<p><a name="f319_319" id="f319_319"></a><a href="#fna319_319">[319]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 128.</p> + +<p><a name="f320_320" id="f320_320"></a><a href="#fna320_320">[320]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 1; <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 85.</p> + +<p><a name="f321_321" id="f321_321"></a><a href="#fna321_321">[321]</a> <i>The Real Lord Byron</i>, I, p. 277.</p> + +<p><a name="f322_322" id="f322_322"></a><a href="#fna322_322">[322]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, III, pp. 29-31. The article was not +published.</p> + +<p><a name="f323_323" id="f323_323"></a><a href="#fna323_323">[323]</a> Nichol, <i>Life of Bryon</i>, p. 84, incorrectly gives 1812 as +the date.</p> + +<p><a name="f324_324" id="f324_324"></a><a href="#fna324_324">[324]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 88, May 25, 1813.</p> + +<p><a name="f325_325" id="f325_325"></a><a href="#fna325_325">[325]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 85.</p> + +<p><a name="f326_326" id="f326_326"></a><a href="#fna326_326">[326]</a> <i>The Champion</i>, April 7, 14, 21, 1816.</p> + +<p><a name="f327_327" id="f327_327"></a><a href="#fna327_327">[327]</a> <i>Letters and Journals of Lord Byron</i>, p. 402.</p> + +<p><a name="f328_328" id="f328_328"></a><a href="#fna328_328">[328]</a> Byron, <i>Letters and Journals</i>, II, p. 157, December 1, +1813.</p> + +<p><a name="f329_329" id="f329_329"></a><a href="#fna329_329">[329]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, II, pp. 296-297.</p> + +<p><a name="f330_330" id="f330_330"></a><a href="#fna330_330">[330]</a> Page 36.</p> + +<p><a name="f331_331" id="f331_331"></a><a href="#fna331_331">[331]</a> <i>The Examiner</i>, April 21, 1816.</p> + +<p><a name="f332_332" id="f332_332"></a><a href="#fna332_332">[332]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, VI, pp. 2-3.</p> + +<p><a name="f333_333" id="f333_333"></a><a href="#fna333_333">[333]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 6.</p> + +<p><a name="f334_334" id="f334_334"></a><a href="#fna334_334">[334]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, III, p. 265.</p> + +<p><a name="f335_335" id="f335_335"></a><a href="#fna335_335">[335]</a> In 1820 Byron translated the Rimini episode of the <i>Divine +Comedy</i>.</p> + +<p><a name="f336_336" id="f336_336"></a><a href="#fna336_336">[336]</a> Trelawney, <i>Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and +Byron</i>, p. 109.</p> + +<p><a name="f337_337" id="f337_337"></a><a href="#fna337_337">[337]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, V, pp. 590-591.</p> + +<p><a name="f338_338" id="f338_338"></a><a href="#fna338_338">[338]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, V, p. 217. This passage is omitted +from the letter in which it occurs in Moore’s <i>Letters and Journals of Lord Byron</i>, II, p. 437.</p> + +<p><a name="f339_339" id="f339_339"></a><a href="#fna339_339">[339]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 8.</p> + +<p><a name="f340_340" id="f340_340"></a><a href="#fna340_340">[340]</a> Hunt wrongly gives Byron’s date of birth as 1791. The +article is accompanied with a woodcut.</p> + +<p><a name="f341_341" id="f341_341"></a><a href="#fna341_341">[341]</a> See <i>Blackwood’s</i>, X, pp. 286, 730.</p> + +<p><a name="f342_342" id="f342_342"></a><a href="#fna342_342">[342]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, V, pp. 143-144.</p> + +<p><a name="f343_343" id="f343_343"></a><a href="#fna343_343">[343]</a> Medwin, <i>Journal of the Conversations of Lord Byron</i>, p. +186.</p> + +<p><a name="f344_344" id="f344_344"></a><a href="#fna344_344">[344]</a> Jeaffreson, <i>The Real Lord Byron</i>, II, p. 186, says that +Byron through Shelley’s mediation could secure Hunt as editor.</p> + +<p><a name="f345_345" id="f345_345"></a><a href="#fna345_345">[345]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, <i>Letters and Journals of Lord Byron</i>, II, p. 626.</p> + +<p><a name="f346_346" id="f346_346"></a><a href="#fna346_346">[346]</a> <i>Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron</i>, p. +157.</p> + +<p><a name="f347_347" id="f347_347"></a><a href="#fna347_347">[347]</a> See p. 103.</p> + +<p><a name="f348_348" id="f348_348"></a><a href="#fna348_348">[348]</a> <i>The Real Lord Byron</i>, II, p. 186.</p> + +<p><a name="f349_349" id="f349_349"></a><a href="#fna349_349">[349]</a> <i>Dictionary of National Biography.</i></p> + +<p><a name="f350_350" id="f350_350"></a><a href="#fna350_350">[350]</a> <i>Leigh Hunt as Poet and Essayist</i>, p. 30.</p> + +<p><a name="f351_351" id="f351_351"></a><a href="#fna351_351">[351]</a> <i>Life of Byron</i>, pp. 266-267.</p> + +<p><a name="f352_352" id="f352_352"></a><a href="#fna352_352">[352]</a> <i>Leigh Hunt</i>, p. 37, note.</p> + +<p><a name="f353_353" id="f353_353"></a><a href="#fna353_353">[353]</a> <i>Life of Leigh Hunt</i>, p. 154.</p> + +<p><a name="f354_354" id="f354_354"></a><a href="#fna354_354">[354]</a> <i>The Sonnet in England</i>, pp. 118-119.</p> + +<p><a name="f355_355" id="f355_355"></a><a href="#fna355_355">[355]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 255.</p> + +<p><a name="f356_356" id="f356_356"></a><a href="#fna356_356">[356]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 161.</p> + +<p><a name="f357_357" id="f357_357"></a><a href="#fna357_357">[357]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 59.</p> + +<p><a name="f358_358" id="f358_358"></a><a href="#fna358_358">[358]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 59.</p> + +<p><a name="f359_359" id="f359_359"></a><a href="#fna359_359">[359]</a> After Shelley’s meeting with Byron in Switzerland in 1816, +before they met again in Venice, there had been a lapse of two years +bridged only by a not always pleasant correspondence relating to Allegra, +Byron’s natural daughter. Shelley occupied the unenviable position of +mediator between him and Jane Clairmont, the child’s mother. Yet when the +two men met again in August, 1818, it was at first on the terms recorded +in <i>Julian and Maddalo</i>. Byron’s influence served as a stimulus to this +and to other poems of the same period. By December of that year Shelley’s +opinion of Byron had changed; on the 22d, he wrote to Peacock of <i>Childe +Harold</i> in terms that show how quickly his views could alter: “The spirit +in which it is written, is, if insane, the most wicked and mischievous +insanity that was ever given forth. It is a kind of obstinate and +self-willed folly, in which he hardens himself. I remonstrated with him in +vain on the tone of mind from which such a view of things alone arises.... +He (Byron) associates with wretches who seem to have lost the gait and +physiognomy of man, and who do not scruple to avow practices, which are +not only not named, but I believe seldom even conceived in England. He +says he disapproves, but he endures. He is heartily and deeply +discontented with himself; and contemplating in the distorted mirror of +his own thoughts the nature and destiny of man, what can he behold but +objects of contempt and despair? But that he is a great poet, I think the +address to Ocean proves. And he has a certain degree of candour while you +talk to him, but unfortunately it does not outlast your departure. No, I +do not doubt, and for his own sake, I ought to hope, that his present +career must soon end in some violent circumstance.” (<i>Works of Shelley</i>, +VIII, pp. 80-81.)</p> + +<p>From the close of 1818 until 1821, they were again separated. Their +correspondence, as previously, related chiefly to Allegra and was of a +still less agreeable nature. Byron had refused to deal directly with Jane +Clairmont and all communications had to pass through Shelley’s hands. In +the interval, as though in retaliation, Byron had believed the Shiloh +story, a fabrication by a nurse of the Shelleys that Jane Clairmont was +Shelley’s mistress, but he does not seem to have condemned such a state of +affairs. (<i>Letters and Journals</i>, V, p. 86, October, 1820.) Yet he +testified in his letters his great admiration of Shelley’s poetry +(<i>Ibid.</i>, VI, p. 387), and after his death he called him “The best and +least selfish man I ever knew.” (<i>Ibid.</i>, VI, p. 98; August 3, 1822.) But +before 1821, a reversal of the opinion formed in Shelley’s mind at the +time of Byron’s Venetian excesses, came about. November 11, 1820, he wrote +to Mrs. Hunt: “His indecencies, too, both against sexual nature, and +against human nature in general, sit very awkwardly upon him. He only +affects the libertine; he is, really, a very amiable, friendly and +agreeable man, I hear.” (Hunt, <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 139.) This +corroborates Thornton Hunt’s statement that Byron had risen in Shelley’s +estimation before 1821 and that otherwise <i>The Liberal</i> would never have +been started. (<i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, February, 1863.)</p> + +<p>At Byron’s invitation they met again in Ravenna. Shelley’s letters dated +from there show unstinted admiration of Byron’s genius and of the man +himself. He wrote in August, 1821, that he was living a “life totally the +reverse of that which he led at Venice.... (<i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. +211, August 7, 1821.) L. B. is greatly improved in every respect. In +genius, in temper, in moral views, in health, in happiness.... He has had +mischievous passions, but these he seems to have subdued, and he is +becoming what he should be, a virtuous man.... (<i>Ibid.</i>, VIII, p. 217, +August 10, 1821.) Lord Byron and I are excellent friends, and were I +reduced to poverty, or were I a writer who had no claims to a higher +station than I possess—or did I possess a higher than I deserve, we +should appear in all things as such, and I would freely ask him any +favour. Such is not now the case. The daemon of mistrust and pride lurks +between two persons in our station, poisoning the freedom of our +intercourse. This is a tax and a heavy one, which we must pay for being +human.” Of <i>Don Juan</i> he wrote: “It sets him not only above, but far +above, all the poets of the day—every word is stamped with immortality. I +despair of rivalling Lord Byron, as well I may, and there is no other with +whom it is worth contending. (<i>Ibid.</i>, VIII, p. 219, August 10, 1821.) +During the visit Shelley served as ambassador to the Countess Guiccioli in +persuading her not to go to Switzerland, and in the same capacity to Byron +in the arrangement of Allegra’s affairs. It was then settled that Byron +should reside for the winter at Pisa. Shelley had misgivings about such an +arrangement on his own and on Miss Clairmont’s account, for he had +previously intended to settle in the same vicinity. He finally decided not +to let it make any difference in his plans. In January, 1822, Shelley +wrote from Pisa to Peacock: “Lord Byron is established here, and we are +his constant companions. No small relief this, after the dreary solitude +of the understanding and the imagination in which we passed the first +years of our expatriation, yoked to all sorts of miseries and +discomforts.... if you before thought him a great poet, what is your +opinion now that you have read <i>Cain</i>?” (<i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 249; +January 11, 1822.) During the same month he wrote to John Gisborne: “What +think you of Lord Byron now? Space wondered less at the swift and fair +creations of God, when he grew weary of vacancy, than I at this spirit of +an angel in the mortal paradise of a decaying body.” (<i>Ibid.</i>, VIII, p. +251, January, 1822.)</p> + +<p>A letter to Leigh Hunt gives the first intimation of the return of the +ill-feeling toward Byron: “Past circumstances between Lord B. and me +render it <i>impossible</i> that I should accept any supply from him for my own +use, or that I should ask for yours if the contribution could be supposed +in any manner to relieve me, or to do what I could otherwise have done.” +(<i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 253, January 25, 1822.) This referred to +more entanglements with Byron about Allegra. Shelley wrote to Jane +Clairmont: “It is of vital importance, both to me and yourself, to Allegra +even, that I should put a period to my intimacy with Lord Byron, and that +without éclat. No sentiments of honour and of justice restrain him (as I +strongly suspect) from the basest suspicion, and the only mode in which I +could effectually silence him I am reluctant (even if I had proof) to +employ during my father’s life. But for your immediate feelings, I would +suddenly and irrevocably leave the country which he inhabits, nor even +enter it but as an enemy to determine our differences without words.” +(<i>The Nation</i>, XLVIII, p. 116.)</p> + +<p><a name="f360_360" id="f360_360"></a><a href="#fna360_360">[360]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 258.</p> + +<p><a name="f361_361" id="f361_361"></a><a href="#fna361_361">[361]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VIII, p. 235, August 26, 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f362_362" id="f362_362"></a><a href="#fna362_362">[362]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 172, September 21, 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f363_363" id="f363_363"></a><a href="#fna363_363">[363]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, I, p. 174, November 16, 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f364_364" id="f364_364"></a><a href="#fna364_364">[364]</a> Byron, <i>Letters and Journals</i>, IV, p. 129, June 4, 1817.</p> + +<p><a name="f365_365" id="f365_365"></a><a href="#fna365_365">[365]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VI, pp. 117, 122, 127, 129, 134, 138, 158.</p> + +<p><a name="f366_366" id="f366_366"></a><a href="#fna366_366">[366]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VI, p. 156.</p> + +<p><a name="f367_367" id="f367_367"></a><a href="#fna367_367">[367]</a> In 1814 Moore showed considerable pride in being included +as one of the four poets to sup with Apollo in the <i>Feast of the Poets</i> +and said that he was “particularly flattered by praise from Hunt, because +he is one of the most honest and candid men” that he knew. (<i>Memoirs, +Journal and Correspondence</i>, II, p. 159.) In 1819 Hunt had urged upon +Perry, the editor of the <i>Morning Chronicle</i>, the necessity of a public +subscription for Moore. (<i>Ibid.</i>, II, p. 340). An unfavorable review of +Moore’s political principles in <i>The Examiner</i> during the same year may +have done something to bring about the change in Moore’s feelings, though +he was eulogized in a later issue of January 21, 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f368_368" id="f368_368"></a><a href="#fna368_368">[368]</a> B. W. Procter, <i>An Autobiographical Fragment</i>, p. 153.</p> + +<p><a name="f369_369" id="f369_369"></a><a href="#fna369_369">[369]</a> <i>Letters and Journals of Lord Byron</i>, II, p. 583.</p> + +<p><a name="f370_370" id="f370_370"></a><a href="#fna370_370">[370]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, II, p. 582.</p> + +<p><a name="f371_371" id="f371_371"></a><a href="#fna371_371">[371]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, II, p. 584.</p> + +<p><a name="f372_372" id="f372_372"></a><a href="#fna372_372">[372]</a> Jeaffreson, <i>The Real Lord Byron</i>, II, p. 188.</p> + +<p><a name="f373_373" id="f373_373"></a><a href="#fna373_373">[373]</a> <i>Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron</i>, p. +111.</p> + +<p><a name="f374_374" id="f374_374"></a><a href="#fna374_374">[374]</a> Nicoll, <i>Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth Century</i>, p. +353, March, 1822.</p> + +<p><a name="f375_375" id="f375_375"></a><a href="#fna375_375">[375]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 356.</p> + +<p><a name="f376_376" id="f376_376"></a><a href="#fna376_376">[376]</a> <i>Fortnightly</i>, XXIX, p. 850.</p> + +<p><a name="f377_377" id="f377_377"></a><a href="#fna377_377">[377]</a> <i>Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron</i>, p. +112.</p> + +<p><a name="f378_378" id="f378_378"></a><a href="#fna378_378">[378]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 288-289.</p> + +<p><a name="f379_379" id="f379_379"></a><a href="#fna379_379">[379]</a> <i>Life of Shelley</i>, II, p. 459.</p> + +<p><a name="f380_380" id="f380_380"></a><a href="#fna380_380">[380]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 94.</p> + +<p><a name="f381_381" id="f381_381"></a><a href="#fna381_381">[381]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 86.</p> + +<p><a name="f382_382" id="f382_382"></a><a href="#fna382_382">[382]</a> Monkhouse, <i>Life of Leigh Hunt</i>, p. 156.</p> + +<p><a name="f383_383" id="f383_383"></a><a href="#fna383_383">[383]</a> Hunt refuted the statement that Byron had walled off part +of his dwelling and furnished it handsomely. (<i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 14 ff.)</p> + +<p><a name="f384_384" id="f384_384"></a><a href="#fna384_384">[384]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, pp. 242, 253.</p> + +<p><a name="f385_385" id="f385_385"></a><a href="#fna385_385">[385]</a> Nicoll and Wise, <i>Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth +Century</i>, p. 342, December 22, 1818.</p> + +<p><a name="f386_386" id="f386_386"></a><a href="#fna386_386">[386]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 286.</p> + +<p><a name="f387_387" id="f387_387"></a><a href="#fna387_387">[387]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 190.</p> + +<p><a name="f388_388" id="f388_388"></a><a href="#fna388_388">[388]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 18.</p> + +<p><a name="f389_389" id="f389_389"></a><a href="#fna389_389">[389]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 18.</p> + +<p><a name="f390_390" id="f390_390"></a><a href="#fna390_390">[390]</a> “I could always procure what I wanted from Lord Byron, and +living here is divinely cheap.” (<i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 198, November 7, 1822.)</p> + +<p><a name="f391_391" id="f391_391"></a><a href="#fna391_391">[391]</a> <i>Life of Byron</i>, p. 242.</p> + +<p><a name="f392_392" id="f392_392"></a><a href="#fna392_392">[392]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 6.</p> + +<p><a name="f393_393" id="f393_393"></a><a href="#fna393_393">[393]</a> <i>Works of Shelley</i>, VIII, p. 257.</p> + +<p><a name="f394_394" id="f394_394"></a><a href="#fna394_394">[394]</a> She used no tact in her dealings with Lord Byron. She let +him see that she had no respect for rank or titles. She even went beyond +the limits of courtesy in her remarks to him. On Byron’s saying, “What do +you think, Mrs. Hunt? Trelawny had been speaking of my morals! What do you +think of that?” “It is the first time,” said Mrs. Hunt, “I ever heard of +them.” (<i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 27). Of his +portrait by Harlowe she said “that it resembled a great schoolboy, who had +had a plain bun given him, instead of a plum one,” a facetious speech +indiscreetly repeated by Hunt to Byron.</p> + +<p><a name="f395_395" id="f395_395"></a><a href="#fna395_395">[395]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, VI, p. 124.</p> + +<p><a name="f396_396" id="f396_396"></a><a href="#fna396_396">[396]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VI, pp. 119-120. Hunt’s view was quite different. +Byron was, he thought, intimidated “out of his reasoning” by his children +and their principles. (<i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 28.)</p> + +<p><a name="f397_397" id="f397_397"></a><a href="#fna397_397">[397]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 32.</p> + +<p><a name="f398_398" id="f398_398"></a><a href="#fna398_398">[398]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 30.</p> + +<p><a name="f399_399" id="f399_399"></a><a href="#fna399_399">[399]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, VI, pp. 157, 167.</p> + +<p><a name="f400_400" id="f400_400"></a><a href="#fna400_400">[400]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 64.</p> + +<p><a name="f401_401" id="f401_401"></a><a href="#fna401_401">[401]</a> Medwin, <i>Conversations of Lord Byron</i>, p. 58.</p> + +<p><a name="f402_402" id="f402_402"></a><a href="#fna402_402">[402]</a> Monkhouse, <i>Life of Leigh Hunt</i>, pp. 64-65.</p> + +<p><a name="f403_403" id="f403_403"></a><a href="#fna403_403">[403]</a> II, pp. 145-146.</p> + +<p><a name="f404_404" id="f404_404"></a><a href="#fna404_404">[404]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 24.</p> + +<p><a name="f405_405" id="f405_405"></a><a href="#fna405_405">[405]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 188, July 8, 1822. Letter to his +sister-in-law.</p> + +<p><a name="f406_406" id="f406_406"></a><a href="#fna406_406">[406]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, VI, p. 97, July 12, 1822.</p> + +<p><a name="f407_407" id="f407_407"></a><a href="#fna407_407">[407]</a> <i>Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron</i>, I, +p. 174.</p> + +<p><a name="f408_408" id="f408_408"></a><a href="#fna408_408">[408]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 192. October (?), 1822.</p> + +<p><a name="f409_409" id="f409_409"></a><a href="#fna409_409">[409]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, VI, p. 160. January 8, 1823.</p> + +<p><a name="f410_410" id="f410_410"></a><a href="#fna410_410">[410]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VI, pp. 171-173.</p> + +<p><a name="f411_411" id="f411_411"></a><a href="#fna411_411">[411]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, pp. 50, 63.</p> + +<p><a name="f412_412" id="f412_412"></a><a href="#fna412_412">[412]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 48.</p> + +<p><a name="f413_413" id="f413_413"></a><a href="#fna413_413">[413]</a> “<i>Blackwood’s Magazine</i> overflowed, as might be expected, +with ten-fold gall and bitterness; the <i>John Bull</i> was outrageous; and Mr. +Jerdan black in the face at this unheard-of and disgraceful union. But who +would have supposed that Mr. Thomas Moore and Mr. Hobhouse, those staunch +friends and partisans of the people, should also be thrown into almost +hysterical agonies of well-bred horror at the coalition between their +noble and ignoble acquaintance, between the Patrician and the +‘Newspaper-Man’? Mr. Moore darted backwards and forwards from +Cold-Bath-Fields’ Prison to the Examiner-Office, from Mr. Longman’s to Mr. +Murray’s shop, in a state of ridiculous trepidation, to see what was to be +done to prevent this degradation of the aristocracy of letters, this +indecent encroachment of plebeian pretensions, this undue extension of +patronage and compromise of privilege. The Tories were shocked that Lord +Byron should grace the popular side by his direct countenance and +assistance—the Whigs were shocked that he should share his confidence and +councils with any one who did not unite the double recommendations of +birth and genius—but themselves!” (Hazlitt, <i>The Plain Speaker</i>, II, p. 437 ff.)</p> + +<p><a name="f414_414" id="f414_414"></a><a href="#fna414_414">[414]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 52.</p> + +<p><a name="f415_415" id="f415_415"></a><a href="#fna415_415">[415]</a> Galt in his <i>Life of Byron</i> says: “Whether Mr. Hunt was or +was not a fit co-partner for one of his Lordship’s rank and celebrity, I +do not undertake to judge; but every individual was good enough for that +vile prostitution of his genius, to which in an unguarded hour, he +submitted for money.” (P. 244.)</p> + +<p><a name="f416_416" id="f416_416"></a><a href="#fna416_416">[416]</a> <i>The Literary Gazette</i> of October 19, 1822, was one of the +notable opponents.</p> + +<p><a name="f417_417" id="f417_417"></a><a href="#fna417_417">[417]</a> <i>Life of Byron</i>, p. 239.</p> + +<p><a name="f418_418" id="f418_418"></a><a href="#fna418_418">[418]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 52.</p> + +<p><a name="f419_419" id="f419_419"></a><a href="#fna419_419">[419]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, p. 53.</p> + +<p><a name="f420_420" id="f420_420"></a><a href="#fna420_420">[420]</a> Byron, <i>Letters and Journals</i>, VI, p. 183.</p> + +<p><a name="f421_421" id="f421_421"></a><a href="#fna421_421">[421]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VI, p. 124.</p> + +<p><a name="f422_422" id="f422_422"></a><a href="#fna422_422">[422]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VI, p. 174, p. 182. (Letters to Mrs. Shelley.)</p> + +<p><a name="f423_423" id="f423_423"></a><a href="#fna423_423">[423]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VI, p. 124.</p> + +<p><a name="f424_424" id="f424_424"></a><a href="#fna424_424">[424]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V, p. 157, December 25, 1822.</p> + +<p><a name="f425_425" id="f425_425"></a><a href="#fna425_425">[425]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, VI, pp. 167-168.</p> + +<p><a name="f426_426" id="f426_426"></a><a href="#fna426_426">[426]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V, p. 588.</p> + +<p><a name="f427_427" id="f427_427"></a><a href="#fna427_427">[427]</a> Lady Blessington, <i>Conversations of Lord Byron</i>, p. 77.</p> + +<p><a name="f428_428" id="f428_428"></a><a href="#fna428_428">[428]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, VI, pp. 182-183, April 2, 1823.</p> + +<p><a name="f429_429" id="f429_429"></a><a href="#fna429_429">[429]</a> Hunt’s only means of support were the income from his +contributions to <i>Colburn’s New Monthly Magazine</i>, from the <i>Wishing Cap +Papers</i> in <i>The Examiner</i>, and an annuity of £100. (<i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 227.)</p> + +<p><a name="f430_430" id="f430_430"></a><a href="#fna430_430">[430]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 233-234.</p> + +<p><a name="f431_431" id="f431_431"></a><a href="#fna431_431">[431]</a> <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 228. See Hazlitt’s account of Hunt +in Italy given in a letter from Haydon to Miss Mitford. (Haydon, <i>Life, +Letters and Table Talk</i>, pp. 223-225.)</p> + +<p><a name="f432_432" id="f432_432"></a><a href="#fna432_432">[432]</a> Moore, <i>Memoirs</i>, IV, p. 220; V, p. 182.</p> + +<p><a name="f433_433" id="f433_433"></a><a href="#fna433_433">[433]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, VI, p. 174, 1823.</p> + +<p><a name="f434_434" id="f434_434"></a><a href="#fna434_434">[434]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, preface, p. +3.</p> + +<p><a name="f435_435" id="f435_435"></a><a href="#fna435_435">[435]</a> Clarke, <i>Recollection of Writers</i>, p. 230.</p> + +<p><a name="f436_436" id="f436_436"></a><a href="#fna436_436">[436]</a> But compare Hunt’s own remarks on p. 40.</p> + +<p><a name="f437_437" id="f437_437"></a><a href="#fna437_437">[437]</a> The biographers of the two men have taken various attitudes +toward the value of <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>. Galt says +that the pains Hunt took to elaborate faults of Byron make one think Hunt +was treated according to his deserts, and that the troubles he labored +under may have caused him to misapprehend Byron’s jocularity for sarcasm, +and caprice for insolence. (<i>Life of Byron</i>, p. 260.) Garnett considers +the book a “corrective of merely idealized estimates of Lord Byron,” and +its “reception more unfavorable than its deserts.” (<i>Encyclopædia +Britannica</i>, “Byron,” Ninth Edition.) Nichol thinks that while the book +was prompted by uncharitableness and egotism, Byron’s faults were only +slightly magnified: that the poetic insight, the cosmopolitan sympathy and +courage of Hunt have given a view that nothing <ins class="correction" title="original: elese">else</ins> could have done. +(<i>Life of Byron</i>, p. 165.) R. B. Johnson thinks that it was a correct +estimate written in self-justification. Undoubtedly it should not have +come from Hunt, yet if it had not been written Hunt would not have been +defended nor Byron so well known. He says there is “no reason to regret +any part of the affair but the heated and persistent abuse with which one +of the most sensitive and humane of men has been loaded on account of it.” +(<i>Leigh Hunt</i>, p. 50.) Noble says that “Byron’s friends met unpleasant +truths by still more unpleasant falsehoods.” (<i>The Sonnet in England</i>, p. +115.) Alexander Ireland, says the book was the great blunder of Hunt’s +life, “ought not to have been written, far less published.” (<i>Dictionary +of National Biography.</i>)</p> + +<p><a name="f438_438" id="f438_438"></a><a href="#fna438_438">[438]</a> <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, p. 89.</p> + +<p><a name="f439_439" id="f439_439"></a><a href="#fna439_439">[439]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 20-21.</p> + +<p><a name="f440_440" id="f440_440"></a><a href="#fna440_440">[440]</a> Byron, <i>Letters and Journals</i>, II, p. 208.</p> + +<p><a name="f441_441" id="f441_441"></a><a href="#fna441_441">[441]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, II, p. 461.</p> + +<p><a name="f442_442" id="f442_442"></a><a href="#fna442_442">[442]</a> Thornton Hunt, in his edition of his father’s +<i>Correspondence</i>, 1862, in this connection defended Byron, and credited +him with “a strong sympathy with all that was beautiful and generous, with a desire to do right,</p> + +<p><a name="f443_443" id="f443_443"></a><a href="#fna443_443">[443]</a> P. 14. For an apology made six years earlier see a letter +from Hunt to Thomas Moore. (<i>Correspondence</i>, II, p. 38.)</p> + +<p><a name="f444_444" id="f444_444"></a><a href="#fna444_444">[444]</a> Hunt, <i>A Jar of Honey from Mt. Hybia</i>, p. 155.</p> + +<p><a name="f445_445" id="f445_445"></a><a href="#fna445_445">[445]</a> II, pp. 90-93.</p> + +<p><a name="f446_446" id="f446_446"></a><a href="#fna446_446">[446]</a> <i>Charles Lamb and Some of His Companions</i> in the <i>Quarterly +Review</i> of January, 1867.</p> + +<p><a name="f447_447" id="f447_447"></a><a href="#fna447_447">[447]</a> <i>A New Spirit of the Age</i>, p. 182.</p> + +<p><a name="f448_448" id="f448_448"></a><a href="#fna448_448">[448]</a> Near the close of his life Hunt wrote: “The jests about +London and the Cockneys did not affect me in the least, as far as my faith +was concerned. They might as well have said that Hampstead was not +beautiful, or Richmond lovely; or that Chaucer and Milton were Cockneys +when they went out of London to lie on the grass and look at the daisies. +The Cockney School is the most illustrious in England; for, to say nothing +of Pope and Gray, who were both veritable Cockneys, ‘born within the sound +of Bow Bell,’ Milton was so too; and Chaucer and Spenser were both natives +of the city. Of the four greatest English poets, Shakespeare only was not +a Londoner.” (<i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 197.)</p> + +<p><a name="f449_449" id="f449_449"></a><a href="#fna449_449">[449]</a> <i>Recollections of Writers</i>, p. 19. Other accounts of these +suppers are to be found in Hazlitt’s <i>On the Conversations of Authors</i>; in +the works dealing with Charles Lamb; and in the <i>Cornhill Magazine</i>, +November, 1900.</p> + +<p><a name="f450_450" id="f450_450"></a><a href="#fna450_450">[450]</a> <i>The Life of Mary Russell Mitford</i>. Edited by A. J. K. +L’Estrange, New York, 1870, I, p. 370, November 12, 1819.</p> + +<p><a name="f451_451" id="f451_451"></a><a href="#fna451_451">[451]</a> Sharp, <i>The Life and Letters of Joseph Severn</i>, p. 33.</p> + +<p><a name="f452_452" id="f452_452"></a><a href="#fna452_452">[452]</a> Notes, pp. 57-61.</p> + +<p><a name="f453_453" id="f453_453"></a><a href="#fna453_453">[453]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 62-68.</p> + +<p><a name="f454_454" id="f454_454"></a><a href="#fna454_454">[454]</a> Other controversies, such as the one with Antoine Dubost, +show Hunt’s aggressiveness. Dubost had sold a painting of Damocles to his +patron, a Mr. Hope. The latter became convinced that the author was an +imposter and tore the signature from the picture. In retaliation Dubost +painted and exhibited <i>Beauty and the Beast</i>, a caricature of the whole +incident. <i>The Examiner</i> accused him of forgery and rank ingratitude. Hunt +does not seem to have had any particular proof or knowledge on the +subject, yet he employed scathing denunciation in writing of it. Dubost +replied and asserted that Hunt was Hope’s hireling, and that he had +“ransacked the whole calendar of scurrility, and hunted for nick-names +through all the common places of blackguardism.” (Dubost, <i>An Appeal to +the Public against the Calumnies of the Examiner</i>, London, n. d., p. 9.)</p> + +<p><a name="f455_455" id="f455_455"></a><a href="#fna455_455">[455]</a> He undertook a vindication of the Cockney School in a +series of four articles, in which he pointed out the “mean insincerity,” +the “vulgar slander,” the “mouthing cant,” the “shabby spite,” the +falsehoods and the recantations of Blackwood’s. The description of the +conditions, under which Scott pictured the articles of his enemies to have +been written, smacks of the mocking humor of <i>Blackwood’s</i> itself: “a +redolency of Leith-ale, and tobacco smoke, which floats about all the +pleasantry in question,—giving one the idea of its facetious articles +having been written on the slopped table of a tavern parlour in the +back-wynd, after the <i>convives</i> had retired, and left the author to +solitude, pipe-ashes, and the dregs of black-strap.”</p> + +<p><a name="f456_456" id="f456_456"></a><a href="#fna456_456">[456]</a> Published in Edinburgh in 1820 and signed by “An American +Scotchman.”</p> + +<p><a name="f457_457" id="f457_457"></a><a href="#fna457_457">[457]</a> Published in Newcastle in 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f458_458" id="f458_458"></a><a href="#fna458_458">[458]</a> The School was thus described in Blackwood’s: “The chief +constellations, in this poetical firmament, consist of led captains, and +clerical hangers-on, whose pleasure, and whose business, it is, to +celebrate in tuneful verse, the virtues of some angelic patron, who keeps +a good table, and has interest with the archbishop, or the India House. +Verily they have their reward.” In other words this group was composed of +diners-out or parasites, and sycophants for livings and military appointments.</p> + +<p><a name="f459_459" id="f459_459"></a><a href="#fna459_459">[459]</a> Published in London, 1824.</p> + +<p><a name="f460_460" id="f460_460"></a><a href="#fna460_460">[460]</a> Published in London also in 1824.</p> + +<p><a name="f461_461" id="f461_461"></a><a href="#fna461_461">[461]</a> Keats, <i>Works</i>, IV, p. 66.</p> + +<p><a name="f462_462" id="f462_462"></a><a href="#fna462_462">[462]</a> C. C. Clarke, <i>Recollections of Writers</i>, p. 147.</p> + +<p><a name="f463_463" id="f463_463"></a><a href="#fna463_463">[463]</a> Keats, <i>Works</i>, IV, p. 66.</p> + +<p><a name="f464_464" id="f464_464"></a><a href="#fna464_464">[464]</a> <i>Life of Benjamin Robert Haydon</i>, p. 349.</p> + +<p><a name="f465_465" id="f465_465"></a><a href="#fna465_465">[465]</a> Dowden, <i>Life of Shelley</i>, II, p. 302.</p> + +<p><a name="f466_466" id="f466_466"></a><a href="#fna466_466">[466]</a> I, p. 133.</p> + +<p><a name="f467_467" id="f467_467"></a><a href="#fna467_467">[467]</a> <i>Keats</i>, p. 120.</p> + +<p><a name="f468_468" id="f468_468"></a><a href="#fna468_468">[468]</a> <i>Life in Poetry: Law in Taste</i>, pp. 21-23.</p> + +<p><a name="f469_469" id="f469_469"></a><a href="#fna469_469">[469]</a> <i>Age of Wordsworth</i>, p. 58.</p> + +<p><a name="f470_470" id="f470_470"></a><a href="#fna470_470">[470]</a> <i>Blackwood’s</i>, November, 1820.</p> + +<p><a name="f471_471" id="f471_471"></a><a href="#fna471_471">[471]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, May, 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f472_472" id="f472_472"></a><a href="#fna472_472">[472]</a> <i>Quarterly</i>, April, 1822.</p> + +<p><a name="f473_473" id="f473_473"></a><a href="#fna473_473">[473]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, January, 1823.</p> + +<p><a name="f474_474" id="f474_474"></a><a href="#fna474_474">[474]</a> <i>Blackwood’s</i>, April, 1819.</p> + +<p><a name="f475_475" id="f475_475"></a><a href="#fna475_475">[475]</a> <i>Life, Letters and Table Talk of Benjamin Robert Haydon</i>, +p. 69.</p> + +<p><a name="f476_476" id="f476_476"></a><a href="#fna476_476">[476]</a> <i>Blackwood’s</i>, May, 1823, pp. 558-566.</p> + +<p><a name="f477_477" id="f477_477"></a><a href="#fna477_477">[477]</a> <i>Memoirs and Correspondence of Coventry Patmore</i>, I, p. +23.</p> + +<p><a name="f478_478" id="f478_478"></a><a href="#fna478_478">[478]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, V, p. 588.</p> + +<p><a name="f479_479" id="f479_479"></a><a href="#fna479_479">[479]</a> <i>St. James Magazine</i>, XXXV, p. 387 ff.</p> + +<p><a name="f480_480" id="f480_480"></a><a href="#fna480_480">[480]</a> <i>Blackwood’s</i>, December, 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f481_481" id="f481_481"></a><a href="#fna481_481">[481]</a> <i>Letters and Journals</i>, V, pp. 587-590. March 25, 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f482_482" id="f482_482"></a><a href="#fna482_482">[482]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, V, pp. 362-363. September 12, 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f483_483" id="f483_483"></a><a href="#fna483_483">[483]</a> <i>Letters of Timothy Tickler, Esq.</i>, July, 1823.</p> + +<p><a name="f484_484" id="f484_484"></a><a href="#fna484_484">[484]</a> September, 1824.</p> + +<p><a name="f485_485" id="f485_485"></a><a href="#fna485_485">[485]</a> Hunt, <i>Correspondence</i>, I, p. 136.</p> + +<p><a name="f486_486" id="f486_486"></a><a href="#fna486_486">[486]</a> Daniel Maclise, <i>A Gallery of Illustrious Literary +Characters</i> (1830-1838). London, n. d., p. 132.</p> + +<p><a name="f487_487" id="f487_487"></a><a href="#fna487_487">[487]</a> William Dorling, <i>Memoirs of Dora Greenwell</i>, London, 1885, +p. 75.</p> + +<p><a name="f488_488" id="f488_488"></a><a href="#fna488_488">[488]</a> <i>Epistle to Barnes.</i></p> + +<p><a name="f489_489" id="f489_489"></a><a href="#fna489_489">[489]</a> This accusation has been made still more recently by Mr. +Palgrave, who speaks of the “slipshod morality of <i>Rimini</i> and <i>Hero</i>.” +<i>Poetical Works of John Keats</i>, p. 263.</p> + +<p><a name="f490_490" id="f490_490"></a><a href="#fna490_490">[490]</a> In 1844, however, he refashioned the whole poem, now +representing Giovanni as deformed and as the murderer of his wife and +brother, whereas in the version of 1816 Paolo had been slain in a duel and +Francesca had died of grief. In 1855, he made a second change and went +back to the 1816 version. The duel he preserved in the fragment, <i>Corso +and Emilia</i>. Hunt’s translation of Dante’s episode appeared in <i>Stories of +Verse</i>, 1855. In 1857 he made a third change and restored the version of +1844.</p> + +<p><a name="f491_491" id="f491_491"></a><a href="#fna491_491">[491]</a> The editor of <i>Blackwood’s</i> in a letter dated April 20, +1818, offered space to P. G. Patmore for a favourable critique of Hunt’s +poetry, reserving to himself the privilege of answering such an article. +He stated further that if Hunt had employed less violent language towards +the reviewer of <i>Rimini</i> he might have been given a friendly explanation. +<i>Memoirs and Correspondence of Coventry Patmore</i>, II, p. 438.</p> + +<p><a name="f492_492" id="f492_492"></a><a href="#fna492_492">[492]</a> This charge was renewed in a review of Hunt’s +<i>Autobiography</i> in 1850 in the <i>Eclectic Review</i>, XCII, p. 416.</p> + +<p><a name="f493_493" id="f493_493"></a><a href="#fna493_493">[493]</a> Byron greatly resented Southey’s article: “I am glad Mr. +Southey owns that article on <i>Foliage</i> which excited my choler so much. +But who else could have been the author? Who but Southey would have had +the baseness, under the pretext of reviewing the work of one man, +insidiously to make it nest work for hatching malicious calumnies against +others?... I say nothing of the critique itself on <i>Foliage</i>; with the +exception of a few sonnets, it was unworthy of Hunt. But what was the +object of that article? I repeat, to villify and scatter his dark and +devilish insinuation against me and others.” (Medwin, <i>Conversations of +Lord Byron</i>, p. 102.) Again Byron wrote of Southey in 1820: “Hence his +quarterly overflowings, political and literary, in what he has termed +himself ‘the ungentle craft,’ and his special wrath against Mr. Leigh +Hunt, not withstanding that Hunt has done more for Wordsworth’s reputation +as a poet (such as it is), than all the Lakers could in their interchange +of praises for the last twenty-five years.” (<i>Letters and Journals</i>, V, p. 84.)</p> + +<p><a name="f494_494" id="f494_494"></a><a href="#fna494_494">[494]</a> <i>London Magazine</i>, October, 1823.</p> + +<p><a name="f495_495" id="f495_495"></a><a href="#fna495_495">[495]</a> September, 1823.</p> + +<p><a name="f496_496" id="f496_496"></a><a href="#fna496_496">[496]</a> Reprinted in the <i>Museum of Foreign Literature</i>, XII, p. +568.</p> + +<p><a name="f497_497" id="f497_497"></a><a href="#fna497_497">[497]</a> August, 1834, XXVI, p. 273.</p> + +<p><a name="f498_498" id="f498_498"></a><a href="#fna498_498">[498]</a> C. C. Clarke, <i>Recollections of Writers</i>, p. 244. The year +in which the letter was written is not given, but it must fall within the +years 1833-1840, the period of Hunt’s residence at Chelsea.</p> + +<p><a name="f499_499" id="f499_499"></a><a href="#fna499_499">[499]</a> <i>The Victorian Age</i>, I, pp. 94-101.</p> + +<p><a name="f500_500" id="f500_500"></a><a href="#fna500_500">[500]</a> Hunt, <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 267.</p> + +<p><a name="f501_501" id="f501_501"></a><a href="#fna501_501">[501]</a> <i>Critical, Historical and Miscellaneous Essays</i>, New York +and Boston, 1860, IV, p. 350.</p> + +<p><a name="f502_502" id="f502_502"></a><a href="#fna502_502">[502]</a> The first preface to <i>Endymion</i> was rejected by Keats on +the advice of his friends who thought that it was in the vain yet +deprecating tone of Hunt’s prefaces. To this charge Keats replied: “I am +not aware that there is anything like Hunt in it (and if there is, it is +my natural way, and I have something in common with Hunt).” The second +preface justifies the charge.</p> + +<p><a name="f503_503" id="f503_503"></a><a href="#fna503_503">[503]</a> <i>London Journal</i>, January 21, 1835.</p> + +<p><a name="f504_504" id="f504_504"></a><a href="#fna504_504">[504]</a> Of Southey’s attack on Hunt and others in May, 1818, Keats +wrote: “I have more than a laurel from the Quarterly Reviewers, for they +have smothered me in ‘Foliage.’” (<i>Works</i>, IV, p. 115.)</p> + +<p><a name="f505_505" id="f505_505"></a><a href="#fna505_505">[505]</a> Shelley wrote also a letter to the <i>Quarterly Review</i> +remonstrating against its treatment of Keats but the letter was never +sent. (Milnes, <i>Life, Letters and Literary Remains of John Keats</i>, I, p. 208 ff.)</p> + +<p><a name="f506_506" id="f506_506"></a><a href="#fna506_506">[506]</a> In <i>Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries</i>, Hunt states +that he informed Byron of his mistake and received a promise that it would +be altered, but that the rhyme about <i>article</i> and <i>particle</i> was too good to throw away (p. 266).</p> + +<p><a name="f507_507" id="f507_507"></a><a href="#fna507_507">[507]</a> Just before leaving England, Keats with Hunt visited the +house where Tom had died. He told Hunt in <i>this</i> connection that he was +“dying of a broken heart.” (<i>Literary Examiner</i>, 1823, p. 117.)</p> + +<p><a name="f508_508" id="f508_508"></a><a href="#fna508_508">[508]</a> <i>Works</i>, IV, pp. 42-43, 169-171, 174, 177, 194; V, pp. 27, +29.</p> + +<p><a name="f509_509" id="f509_509"></a><a href="#fna509_509">[509]</a> <i>Atlantic Monthly</i>, XI, p. 406.</p> + +<p><a name="f510_510" id="f510_510"></a><a href="#fna510_510">[510]</a> October 11, 1818. It included two reprints from other +papers. The first was a letter taken from the <i>Morning Chronicle</i> signed +J. S. It predicted that if Keats would “apostatise his friendship, his +principles, and his politics (if he have any) he may even command the +approbation of the <i>Quarterly Review</i>.” This was followed by extracts from +an article by John Hamilton Reynolds in the <i>Alfred Exeter Paper</i> praising +Keats for his power of vitalizing heathen mythology and for his +resemblance to Chapman and calling Gifford “a Lottery Commissioner and +Government Pensioner” who persecuted Keats by “intrigue of literature and +contrivance of political parties.”</p> + +<p><a name="f511_511" id="f511_511"></a><a href="#fna511_511">[511]</a> Dante Gabriel Rossetti suggests this possibility in a +letter to Mr. Hall Caine. (Caine, <i>Recollections of Dante Gabriel Rossetti</i>, p. 179.)</p> + +<p><a name="f512_512" id="f512_512"></a><a href="#fna512_512">[512]</a> <i>Cobwebs of Criticism</i>, p. 137.</p> + +<p><a name="f513_513" id="f513_513"></a><a href="#fna513_513">[513]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, II, p. 43.</p> + +<p><a name="f514_514" id="f514_514"></a><a href="#fna514_514">[514]</a> See p. 50 ff.</p> + +<p><a name="f515_515" id="f515_515"></a><a href="#fna515_515">[515]</a> <i>Imagination and Fancy</i>, p. 230.</p> + +<p><a name="f516_516" id="f516_516"></a><a href="#fna516_516">[516]</a> Dowden, <i>Life of Shelley</i>, II, p. 274.</p> + +<p><a name="f517_517" id="f517_517"></a><a href="#fna517_517">[517]</a> Other hostile reviews of <i>The Cenci</i> appeared in the +<i>Literary Gazette</i> of April 1, 1820; the <i>Monthly Magazine</i> of the same +month; and the <i>London Magazine</i> of May of the same year.</p> + +<p><a name="f518_518" id="f518_518"></a><a href="#fna518_518">[518]</a> <i>Blackwood’s</i>, January, 1822.</p> + +<p><a name="f519_519" id="f519_519"></a><a href="#fna519_519">[519]</a> Alexander Ireland has pointed out curious correspondences +in the lives and intrests of Hazlitt and Hunt. (<i>Memoir of Hazlitt</i>, pp. 474-476.)</p> + +<p><a name="f520_520" id="f520_520"></a><a href="#fna520_520">[520]</a> <i>Quarterly</i>, May, 1818.</p> + +<p><a name="f521_521" id="f521_521"></a><a href="#fna521_521">[521]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, December, 1818.</p> + +<p><a name="f522_522" id="f522_522"></a><a href="#fna522_522">[522]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, July, 1819.</p> + +<p><a name="f523_523" id="f523_523"></a><a href="#fna523_523">[523]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, October, 1821.</p> + +<p><a name="f524_524" id="f524_524"></a><a href="#fna524_524">[524]</a> Birrell, <i>William Hazlitt</i>, New York, 1902, p. 147.</p> + +<p><a name="f525_525" id="f525_525"></a><a href="#fna525_525">[525]</a> <i>The Examiner</i> of March 7 and 14, 1819, contained extracts +from the <i>Letter</i> and comments by Hunt upon this “quint-essential salt of +an epistle,” as he called it. Lamb’s <i>Letter to Southey</i>, already referred +to, contained a defense of Hazlitt as well as of Hunt.</p> + +<p><a name="f526_526" id="f526_526"></a><a href="#fna526_526">[526]</a> February, 1818-April, 1819.</p> + +<p><a name="f527_527" id="f527_527"></a><a href="#fna527_527">[527]</a> August, 1822.</p> + +<p><a name="f528_528" id="f528_528"></a><a href="#fna528_528">[528]</a> August, 1823; October, 1823.</p> + + +<p> </p><p> </p> +<hr style="width: 50%;" /> +<p><strong>Transcriber’s Notes:</strong></p> + +<p>Pages 118, 119, and 120 are numbered consecutively in the text, but there +appears to be a page or more missing from the original.</p> + +<p>Footnote 442 (on page 118) ends with a comma in the original.</p> + +<p>Some quotes are opened with marks but are not closed. Obvious errors +have been silently closed while those requiring interpretation have been left open.</p> + +<p>Punctuation has been corrected without note.</p> + +<p>Other than the corrections noted by hover information, inconsistencies in +spelling and hyphenation have been retained from the original.</p> + + + + + + + + +<pre> + + + + + +End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Leigh Hunt's Relations with Byron, +Shelley and Keats, by Barnette Miller + +*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK LEIGH HUNT'S RELATIONS *** + +***** This file should be named 35733-h.htm or 35733-h.zip ***** +This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: + http://www.gutenberg.org/3/5/7/3/35733/ + +Produced by The Online Distributed Proofreading Team at +http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images +generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian +Libraries.) + + +Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions +will be renamed. + +Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no +one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation +(and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without +permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, +set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to +copying and distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works to +protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm concept and trademark. Project +Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you +charge for the eBooks, unless you receive specific permission. If you +do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the +rules is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose +such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and +research. They may be modified and printed and given away--you may do +practically ANYTHING with public domain eBooks. Redistribution is +subject to the trademark license, especially commercial +redistribution. + + + +*** START: FULL LICENSE *** + +THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE +PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK + +To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free +distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work +(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project +Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project +Gutenberg-tm License (available with this file or online at +http://gutenberg.org/license). + + +Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic works + +1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to +and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property +(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all +the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy +all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your possession. +If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the +terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or +entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. + +1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be +used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who +agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few +things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works +even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See +paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement +and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. See paragraph 1.E below. + +1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the Foundation" +or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the +collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an +individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are +located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from +copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative +works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg +are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project +Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting free access to electronic works by +freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm works in compliance with the terms of +this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with +the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by +keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project +Gutenberg-tm License when you share it without charge with others. + +1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern +what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in +a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check +the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement +before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or +creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project +Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning +the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United +States. + +1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: + +1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate +access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear prominently +whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work on which the +phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the phrase "Project +Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, +copied or distributed: + +This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with +almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or +re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included +with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org + +1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is derived +from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating that it is +posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied +and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees +or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work +with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the +work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 +through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the +Project Gutenberg-tm trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or +1.E.9. + +1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted +with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution +must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional +terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked +to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works posted with the +permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work. + +1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this +work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. + +1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this +electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without +prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with +active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project +Gutenberg-tm License. + +1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, +compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any +word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or +distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format other than +"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version +posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site (www.gutenberg.org), +you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a +copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon +request, of the work in its original "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other +form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg-tm +License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. + +1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, +performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works +unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. + +1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing +access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works provided +that + +- You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from + the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method + you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is + owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he + has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the + Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments + must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you + prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax + returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and + sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the + address specified in Section 4, "Information about donations to + the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation." + +- You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies + you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he + does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm + License. You must require such a user to return or + destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium + and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of + Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +- You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any + money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the + electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days + of receipt of the work. + +- You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free + distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. + +1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg-tm +electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set +forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from +both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael +Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the +Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. + +1.F. + +1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable +effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread +public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg-tm +collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain +"Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or +corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual +property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a +computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by +your equipment. + +1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right +of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project +Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project +Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all +liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal +fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT +LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE +PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE +TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE +LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR +INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH +DAMAGE. + +1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a +defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can +receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a +written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you +received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with +your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with +the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a +refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity +providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to +receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy +is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further +opportunities to fix the problem. + +1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth +in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS' WITH NO OTHER +WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO +WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. + +1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied +warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. +If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the +law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be +interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by +the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any +provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. + +1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the +trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone +providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in accordance +with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, +promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works, +harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, +that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do +or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg-tm +work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any +Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any Defect you cause. + + +Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm + +Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of +electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers +including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists +because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from +people in all walks of life. + +Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the +assistance they need, are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's +goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will +remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project +Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure +and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future generations. +To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation +and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 +and the Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org. + + +Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive +Foundation + +The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit +501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the +state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal +Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification +number is 64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at +http://pglaf.org/fundraising. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent +permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. + +The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. S. +Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered +throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at +809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email +business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact +information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official +page at http://pglaf.org + +For additional contact information: + Dr. Gregory B. Newby + Chief Executive and Director + gbnewby@pglaf.org + + +Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg +Literary Archive Foundation + +Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide +spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of +increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be +freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest +array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations +($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt +status with the IRS. + +The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating +charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United +States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a +considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up +with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations +where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To +SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any +particular state visit http://pglaf.org + +While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we +have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition +against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who +approach us with offers to donate. + +International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make +any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from +outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. + +Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation +methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other +ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. +To donate, please visit: http://pglaf.org/donate + + +Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic +works. + +Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg-tm +concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared +with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project +Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. + + +Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed +editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. +unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily +keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition. + + +Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: + + http://www.gutenberg.org + +This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, +including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary +Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to +subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. + + +</pre> + +</body> +</html> |