This is a modern-English version of The Collected Writing of Thomas De Quincey, Vol. II, originally written by De Quincey, Thomas.
It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling,
and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If
you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.
Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.
DE QUINCEY'S COLLECTED WRITINGS
VOL. II
AUTOBIOGRAPHY AND LITERARY REMINISCENCES
DE QUINCEY'S COLLECTED WRITINGS
VOL. II
AUTOBIOGRAPHY AND LITERARY REMINISCENCES
THE
COLLECTED WRITINGS
OF
THOMAS
De Quincey
BY
DAVID MASSON
EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
BY
DAVID MASSON
EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF ENGLISH LITERATURE
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
Vol. II
Vol. 2
LONDON
A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE
1896
LONDON
A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE
1896

Samuel Taylor Coleridge.
From a picture by Peter Vandyke in the National Portrait Gallery
Samuel Taylor Coleridge.
From a photo by Peter Vandyke in the National Portrait Gallery
CONTENTS OF VOL. II
PAGE | ||
Editor's Introduction | 1 | |
Autobiography Continued from 1803 to 1808— | ||
---|---|---|
Chapter. | ||
I. | Oxford | 9 |
II. | German Studies and Kant in particular | 81 |
Literary and Lake Reminiscences— | ||
CHAP. | ||
I. | A Manchester Swedenborgian and a Liverpool Literary Coterie | 113 |
II. | Samuel Taylor Coleridge | 138 |
III. | The Lake Poets: William Wordsworth | 229 |
IV. | The Lake Poets: William Wordsworth and Robert Southey | 303 |
V. | The Lake Poets: Southey, Wordsworth, and Coleridge | 138 |
VI. | The Saracen's Head | 348 |
VII. | Westmoreland and the Dalesmen: Society of the Lakes | 360 |
VIII. | Society of the Lakes: Charles Lloyd | 381 |
IX. | Society of the Lakes: Miss Elizabeth Smith, the Sympsons, and the K—— Family | 403 |
X. | Society of the Lakes: Professor Wilson: Death of Little Kate Wordsworth | 432 |
XI. | Rambles from the Lakes: Mrs. Siddons and Hannah More | 446 |
William Wordsworth.
William Wordsworth.
From a drawing by Robert Hancock in the National Portrait Gallery.
From a drawing by Robert Hancock at the National Portrait Gallery.
EDITOR'S PREFACE
The matter of this volume breaks itself into two main divisions, as follows:—
The content of this volume is divided into two main sections, as follows:—
I.—Autobiography continued from 1803 to 1808
Although De Quincey's Autobiography, so far as it was revised by himself in 1853 for the Edinburgh Collective Edition of his writings, stopped at 1803, when he went to Oxford, he left a continuation of that Autobiography, accessible to those that might be curious about it, in two old papers of his in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine. One of these, bearing the continued general title "Sketches of Life and Manners from the Autobiography of an English Opium-Eater," but with the sub-title "Oxford," had appeared, in three successive[Pg 2] parts, in the numbers of the magazine for February, June, and August 1835; the other, forming but a single article, had appeared in the number for June 1836, with the simple title, "Autobiography of an English Opium-Eater continued," but without any sub-title, or any indication of its nature except what might be conveyed by the head-lines,—"The German Language," "The German Philosophic Literature," and "The Philosophy of Kant,"—at the tops of the right-hand pages. As the two papers together carry on the Autobiography from 1803 to 1808, they are reproduced in this volume from the columns of the magazine as two chapters of De Quincey's Autobiography additional to the Revised Autobiography contained in the preceding volume. The first, and much the larger, is sufficiently described by the title "Oxford," used as a sub-title for it in Tait's Magazine. It is a careful and very readable account of the system of Oxford life and education during the five years of De Quincey's connexion with the University, with glimpses of himself, though not so numerous or continuous as might be wished, as he moved obscurely through the academic medium. The other chapter will take most readers aback. Beginning in a popular vein, and even humorously, it turns itself, through two-thirds of its extent, into a dissertation on Kant's philosophy which is one of the toughest things that De Quincey ever wrote. It is probably on this account that the American Collective Edition of De Quincey, while gladly reprinting his Oxford paper, omits this one altogether. That, however, is scarcely allowable. Nor is it allowable to yield to the natural temptation which would suggest the omission of the paper in the place where De Quincey put it, and the reservation of it for some other place in the collection of his writings where it might be in the company of other demons as abstruse as itself. It belongs vitally to the autobiographic series, and to that part of the autobiographic series which deals with De Quincey's Oxford life from 1803 to 1808. It is as if De Quincey had said to his readers—as, in fact, he does virtually say in the paper—"It was during those five years that I betook myself to German studies, and especially to studies in German Philosophy; they had an immense effect upon me at the time, and a permanent influence afterwards;[Pg 3] and, if you would understand my subsequent life and mind, you must, at the risk of a headache yourselves, listen at this point to a description of the exact nature and symptoms of the headache they caused me." To indicate as precisely as possible this autobiographic purport of the paper, I have ventured, in the absence of any title to it by De Quincey himself, to entitle it "German Studies and Kant in particular." It will be of much interest to some readers; and others can skip it if they choose.
Although De Quincey's Autobiography, as he revised it in 1853 for the Edinburgh Collective Edition of his works, ends in 1803 when he arrived at Oxford, he provided a continuation of his Autobiography, available for those interested, in two old articles in Tait's Edinburgh Magazine. One article, under the general title "Sketches of Life and Manners from the Autobiography of an English Opium-Eater," but subtitled "Oxford," was published in three consecutive [Pg 2] parts in the magazine's issues for February, June, and August 1835; the other was a single article that appeared in June 1836, titled "Autobiography of an English Opium-Eater continued," without a subtitle or any indication of its content other than the headlines—"The German Language," "The German Philosophic Literature," and "The Philosophy of Kant"—at the tops of the right-hand pages. Together, these two articles extend the Autobiography from 1803 to 1808 and are included in this volume as two additional chapters of De Quincey's Autobiography, complementing the Revised Autobiography in the previous volume. The first, and much longer, is aptly described by the subtitle "Oxford" used in Tait's Magazine. It provides a thorough and engaging account of life and education at Oxford during De Quincey's five years at the University, offering glimpses of himself, though not as many or as continuous as one might hope, as he navigated the academic environment. The other chapter may surprise many readers. Starting with a more casual and even humorous tone, it shifts into a two-thirds-long exploration of Kant's philosophy, which is one of the most challenging pieces De Quincey ever wrote. This might explain why the American Collective Edition of De Quincey, while happily reprinting his Oxford article, completely omits this one. However, that decision is hard to justify. It's also not reasonable to give in to the urge to suggest that this paper be left out of its original context and saved for another section in his body of work among similarly complex pieces. It is crucial to the autobiographical series, particularly the part that covers De Quincey's Oxford experience from 1803 to 1808. It's as if De Quincey is telling his readers—as he practically does in the article—"During those five years, I delved into German studies, especially German Philosophy; these had a significant impact on me at the time and continue to influence me; [Pg 3] and if you want to understand my later life and thoughts, you must, at the risk of getting a headache yourselves, listen here to a description of the exact nature and symptoms of the headache they caused me." To clarify this autobiographical purpose of the paper as best as I can, in the absence of any title given by De Quincey himself, I've chosen to title it "German Studies and Kant in Particular." Some readers will find it very interesting; others can skip it if they prefer.
II.—Literary and Lake Memories.
Concurrently with the series of the expressly autobiographic papers in Tait's Magazine, there had appeared in the same magazine another series of papers by De Quincey, also autobiographic in a general sense, but in a more indirect fashion.
Concurrently with the series of clearly autobiographical articles in Tait's Magazine, another series of pieces by De Quincey, which were also autobiographical in a broader sense but in a more indirect way, had appeared in the same magazine.
Having known a number of remarkable persons in the course of his life, some of them of great literary celebrity, it had occurred to him that a series of sketches of these, from his own recollections and impressions of them, partly in their relations to himself, but not exclusively so, would be welcome, and might at all events be made instructively De Quincey-like. He had begun with Coleridge, and had contributed four papers of Reminiscences of Coleridge to the numbers of Tait's Magazine for September, October, and November 1834, and January 1835. These, though necessarily autobiographic to a pretty large extent, had been interjected into the series of his expressly autobiographic articles in the magazine. Then, that expressly autobiographic series having been finished in 1836 in the above-mentioned papers on his Oxford life and his first German studies, he had ranged back, in an article in the magazine for February 1837, for a recollection of certain literary notabilities of Manchester and Liverpool whom he had known or seen in his schoolboy days. After that, zig-zagging in his memory for suitable additions, he had brought in,—sometimes under cover of the standing general magazine title of "Sketches of Life and Manners from the Autobiography of an English Opium-Eater," but sometimes under independent titles,—accounts of other acquaintances of his, either famous to all the world already,[Pg 4] or about whom the world might be inquisitive. Of these our concern in the present volume, for chronological reasons, is with Wordsworth and his fellow-celebrities of the Lake district, whether those that were resident there when De Quincey first visited it in Coleridge's company in 1807, or those that were resident there from 1809 onwards, when De Quincey had become a Lakist too, and was domiciled permanently, as it seemed, close to Wordsworth at Grasmere. To Wordsworth himself,—always De Quincey's man of men, or at least poet of poets, of his generation,—there were devoted three articles in Tait's Magazine for January, February, and April 1839, entitled "Lake Reminiscences: No. I. William Wordsworth, No. II. William Wordsworth, No. III. William Wordsworth." These were followed in July of the same year by a No. IV, entitled "William Wordsworth and Robert Southey," and in August by a No. V, in which Coleridge came back for some notice, and which was therefore entitled "Southey, Wordsworth, and Coleridge." For the minor celebrities of the Lakes, after these three dii majorum gentium, and for sketches of Lake scenery and society generally, there was a relapse into the older magazine title "Sketches of Life and Manners" etc.; and the seven additional articles required for these straggled through the numbers of Tait's Magazine from September 1839 to August 1840.
Having met several remarkable individuals during his life, some of whom were well-known literary figures, he thought a series of sketches about them, based on his own memories and impressions—partly related to him but not exclusively—would be appreciated and might even have a De Quincey-like quality. He started with Coleridge, contributing four articles titled "Reminiscences of Coleridge" to Tait's Magazine in September, October, and November 1834, and January 1835. Although they inevitably included a lot of autobiographical content, they were woven into his specifically autobiographical series in the magazine. After finishing that autobiographical series in 1836, which included articles about his time at Oxford and his initial German studies, he looked back in a February 1837 article for memories of certain literary figures from Manchester and Liverpool whom he knew or encountered during his schoolboy years. Following that, he rummaged through his memory for suitable additions, sometimes using the magazine's general title "Sketches of Life and Manners from the Autobiography of an English Opium-Eater," and other times opting for independent titles, to share stories of other acquaintances, whether they were already famous or somewhat lesser-known figures. For chronological reasons, the focus of our current volume is on Wordsworth and his fellow notables from the Lake District, including those who lived there when De Quincey first visited with Coleridge in 1807, and those who were there from 1809 onward when De Quincey had also settled there, seemingly for good, near Wordsworth in Grasmere. To Wordsworth himself—always De Quincey's exemplary figure, or at least the poet of his generation—he dedicated three articles in Tait's Magazine in January, February, and April 1839 titled "Lake Reminiscences: No. I. William Wordsworth, No. II. William Wordsworth, No. III. William Wordsworth." This was followed in July of the same year by a No. IV, titled "William Wordsworth and Robert Southey," and in August by a No. V, which revisited Coleridge and was therefore named "Southey, Wordsworth, and Coleridge." For the lesser-known figures of the Lakes, after these three prominent individuals, and for sketches of Lake scenery and society in general, there was a return to the older magazine title "Sketches of Life and Manners," etc., with the seven additional articles needed for this appearing in issues of Tait's Magazine from September 1839 to August 1840.
Save that one of the articles so inventoried goes back beyond the Lake period of De Quincey's life altogether, and that the main set of the Coleridge articles treats Coleridge generally and apart from his Lakist connexion, one might designate them collectively by that title of Lake Reminiscences which De Quincey did use for some of them. As it is, however, the title Literary and Lake Reminiscences seems, on the whole, the fittest.
Save for one of the articles in the inventory which dates back before De Quincey's Lake period entirely, and since the main collection of Coleridge articles discusses Coleridge generally and separately from his Lakist connections, one could refer to them collectively by the title of Lake Memories that De Quincey used for some of them. As it stands, however, the title Literary and Lake Memories seems to be the most fitting overall.
One question remains. Whence are we to take the text of these Literary and Lake Reminiscences left by De Quincey? For the largest number of the included articles there is no option. They were not reprinted by De Quincey in the Collective Edition of 1853-60, though he must have contemplated reprinting them some time; and the text of them must therefore be taken from the pages of Tait's Magazine,[Pg 5] in which they originally appeared. But for a portion of the Reminiscences, and a very important portion, there is an option. De Quincey did reprint in his Collective Edition the whole of his special set of Coleridge Recollections, with the exception of the last article of the four, throwing all the reprinted articles into one block, after somewhat careful revision; and he reprinted also in the same way the whole set of the special articles on Wordsworth, without any omission. These main Coleridge and Wordsworth papers are therefore reproduced in our present volume from De Quincey's own revised text of them,—with the restoration, however, in the case of the Coleridge chapter, of that fourth of the magazine articles on Coleridge which De Quincey omitted. The omission was unnecessary; and, as the American Collective Edition contains the omitted article, the present edition is entitled to the same benefit. What, however, about the two minor papers of the Lake Reminiscences which appeared as Nos. IV and V in Tait's Magazine for July and August 1839, under the titles of "William Wordsworth and Robert Southey," and "Southey, Wordsworth, and Coleridge," respectively? These also De Quincey reprinted in his Collective Edition, after a fashion; but it was after a fashion which greatly impaired their interest. He threw them, or rather parts of them, into one, under the single title "Robert Southey," omitting a great deal of what was liveliest and best in the original articles. This may have been caused merely by his hurry at the time, in consequence of the pressure of the printers for copy in any form; but possibly it had another cause. De Quincey's Reminiscences of Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Southey, on their first appearance in Tait's Magazine between 1834 and 1840, had provoked a good deal of resentment among those concerned. Coleridge was then dead; but Wordsworth and Dorothy Wordsworth were still living; as was also Southey. Little wonder that the surviving relatives of Coleridge felt aggrieved by the extreme frankness of some of De Quincey's personal recollections of the dead sage, or that the Wordsworth and Southey families were annoyed and offended on similar grounds. Wordsworth, with his massive serenity, seems, indeed, to have tossed the matter aside easily enough;[Pg 6] but not so Southey. Carlyle tells us that, when he first met Southey in London, Southey was full of the subject of De Quincey's delinquencies in publishing so many anecdotes of a confidential kind respecting Wordsworth, Coleridge, and himself, and spoke on the subject in terms which Carlyle, who had read the articles, thought needlessly angry and vehement. Something of all this may have been in De Quincey's mind when, in reproducing his Lake Reminiscences in 1853 for his Collective Edition, he came to the two Tait articles in which Southey had principally figured. Hence, perhaps, though Southey had died in 1843, De Quincey's large excisions from those articles, and his consolidation of them into one paper, pleasant enough in the main, but comparatively insipid. It was an editorial mistake on De Quincey's part, and must not bind us now. The articles in their original livelier and more extensive magazine form being irrevocable at any rate, and forming part and parcel of the American Collective Edition, we have acted accordingly. We revert in the present edition to the text of Tait's Magazine for the particular articles in question, and print them as they stood there, with their separate titles.
One question remains. Where are we to find the text of these Literary and Lake Memories left by De Quincey? For the majority of the included articles, there’s no choice. They were not reprinted by De Quincey in the Collective Edition of 1853-60, although he must have considered reprinting them at some point; thus, the text must be taken from the pages of Tait's Magazine,[Pg 5] where they first appeared. But for a part of the Reminiscences, specifically a significant part, there is a choice. De Quincey did reprint in his Collective Edition all of his special set of Coleridge Recollections, except for the last of the four articles, combining all the reprinted articles into one block after some careful revision; he also reprinted the entire set of special articles on Wordsworth in the same manner, without any omissions. These main Coleridge and Wordsworth papers are therefore included in our current volume from De Quincey’s own revised text of them, though in the case of the Coleridge chapter, we restored that fourth magazine article on Coleridge which De Quincey left out. The omission was unnecessary; and since the American Collective Edition contains the omitted article, our present edition is entitled to the same inclusion. However, what about the two minor papers from the Lake Reminiscences that appeared as Nos. IV and V in Tait's Magazine for July and August 1839, titled "William Wordsworth and Robert Southey," and "Southey, Wordsworth, and Coleridge," respectively? De Quincey did reprint these in his Collective Edition, but in a way that greatly diminished their interest. He combined them, or rather parts of them, into one under the single title "Robert Southey," omitting a significant portion of what was most engaging and best in the original articles. This may have been simply due to his hurried schedule, pressured by the printers for any form of copy; but it could also have had another cause. De Quincey’s Reminiscences of Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Southey, when they first appeared in Tait's Magazine between 1834 and 1840, provoked considerable resentment among those involved. Coleridge was already dead; however, Wordsworth and Dorothy Wordsworth were still alive, as was Southey. It’s no surprise that Coleridge’s surviving relatives felt offended by the unreserved nature of some of De Quincey's personal memories of the late sage, or that the Wordsworth and Southey families were similarly upset. Wordsworth, with his calm demeanor, seemed to have brushed it off easily enough;[Pg 6] but not Southey. Carlyle recalls that when he first met Southey in London, Southey was very much preoccupied with De Quincey’s failings in publishing so many anecdotal details about Wordsworth, Coleridge, and himself, discussing it in terms that Carlyle, who had read the articles, considered unnecessarily angry and intense. Some of this may have been on De Quincey’s mind when he reproduced his Lake Reminiscences in 1853 for his Collective Edition, particularly the two Tait articles where Southey was mainly featured. Thus, even though Southey had passed in 1843, De Quincey made significant cuts to those articles and merged them into one piece, which, while generally pleasant, was comparatively bland. This was an editorial mistake on De Quincey’s part, and it shouldn’t limit us now. The articles in their original, more vibrant, and extensive magazine form are irrevocable at any rate and are part of the American Collective Edition, so we have acted accordingly. In this edition, we return to the text of Tait's Magazine for the specific articles in question and print them as they originally appeared, with their individual titles.
Respecting the present volume as a whole, it will now be understood that, while a portion of its contents consists of matter derived from De Quincey's revised edition of 1853-60, considerably the larger proportion consists of recovered magazine articles that have been practically inaccessible hitherto to British readers. So composed, the volume is certainly one of the richest specimens that could be offered of De Quincey's general characteristics. There are ups and downs in it, portions inferior to others in literary merit, and occasional lapses into what may seem spiteful or in bad taste. All in all, however, it illustrates most variously and most amusingly the shrewdness of De Quincey's observations of men and things, the range and readiness of his erudition, the subtlety and originality of his speculative intellect, his faculty of poetic imagination, his power of mournful pathos on the one hand and the most whimsical humour on the other, and the marvellous versatility and flexibility of his style. D. M.
Respecting the present volume as a whole, it will now be understood that while some of its content comes from De Quincey's revised edition of 1853-60, a much larger portion includes magazine articles that have been almost completely unavailable to British readers until now. With this compilation, the volume is undoubtedly one of the richest examples of De Quincey's general characteristics. It has its ups and downs, with some sections being less impressive in literary quality and occasional moments that may seem spiteful or in poor taste. Overall, however, it vividly and humorously showcases De Quincey's keen observations of people and things, the breadth and accessibility of his knowledge, the nuance and originality of his speculative thinking, his poetic imagination, his ability to convey both sorrowful pathos and whimsical humor, and the incredible versatility and adaptability of his writing style. D. M.
AUTOBIOGRAPHY
(continued)
FROM 1803 TO 1808
CHAPTER I
OXFORD
I[1]
It was in winter, and in the wintry weather of the year 1803, that I first entered Oxford with a view to its vast means of education, or rather with a view to its vast advantages for study. A ludicrous story is told of a young candidate for clerical orders—that, being asked by the bishop's chaplain if he had ever "been to Oxford," as a colloquial expression for having had an academic education, he replied, "No: but he had twice been to Abingdon": Abingdon being only seven miles distant. In the same sense I might say that once before I had been at Oxford: but that was as a transient visitor with Lord W——,[2] when we were both children. Now, on the contrary, I approached these venerable towers in the character of a student, and with the purpose of a long connexion; personally interested in the constitution of the University, and obscurely anticipating that in this city, or at least during the period of my nominal attachment to this academic body, the remoter parts of my future life would unfold before me. All hearts were at this time occupied with the public interests of the country. The "sorrow of the time" was ripening to a second harvest. Napoleon had commenced his Vandal, or rather Hunnish war with Britain, in the spring of this year, about eight[Pg 10] months before; and profound public interest it was, into which the very coldest hearts entered, that a little divided with me the else monopolizing awe attached to the solemn act of launching myself upon the world. That expression may seem too strong as applied to one who had already been for many months a houseless wanderer in Wales, and a solitary roamer in the streets of London. But in those situations, it must be remembered, I was an unknown, unacknowledged vagrant; and without money I could hardly run much risk, except of breaking my neck. The perils, the pains, the pleasures, or the obligations, of the world, scarcely exist in a proper sense for him who has no funds. Perfect weakness is often secure: it is by imperfect power, turned against its master, that men are snared and decoyed. Here in Oxford I should be called upon to commence a sort of establishment upon the splendid English scale; here I should share in many duties and responsibilities, and should become henceforth an object of notice to a large society. Now first becoming separately and individually answerable for my conduct, and no longer absorbed into the general unit of a family, I felt myself, for the first time, burthened with the anxieties of a man, and a member of the world.
It was winter, and during the chilly weather of 1803, that I first arrived in Oxford, eager to take advantage of its extensive educational resources—or more accurately, its many study benefits. There's a funny story about a young man hoping to become a clergyman: when the bishop's chaplain asked him if he had ever "been to Oxford," meaning if he had a university education, he replied, "No, but I've been to Abingdon twice," which is only seven miles away. In the same way, I might say I had been to Oxford once before, but that was just as a temporary visitor with Lord W——, when we were both kids. Now, on the other hand, I was approaching those historic towers as a student, with plans for a long-term commitment; I was personally interested in the University’s structure, and even vaguely anticipating that during my time here, the distant parts of my future life would begin to unfold. At that time, everyone's minds were occupied with the country's public issues. The "sorrow of the time" was coming to a second peak. Napoleon had started his destructive, or rather barbaric, war against Britain in the spring of that year, about eight months earlier, and this deep public concern was something that even the coldest hearts engaged in, slightly interrupting the overwhelming awe I felt as I was about to launch myself into the world. That may sound like an exaggerated expression for someone who had already spent many months as a homeless wanderer in Wales and a lone traveler through London’s streets. But in those situations, I was an unknown, unrecognized vagabond; without money, I could hardly face much danger, except the risk of getting hurt. The dangers, pains, pleasures, or responsibilities of the world hardly exist for someone without funds. Total weakness is often safe: it’s the imperfect strength that turns against its owner that tends to ensnare and trick people. Here in Oxford, I would be expected to start establishing myself in a grand English manner; I would take on many duties and responsibilities and would become a point of interest for a large community. For the first time, I was becoming individually responsible for my behavior, no longer absorbed into the collective identity of a family, and I felt the weight of adult anxieties for the first time, now as a member of the world.
Oxford, ancient Mother! hoary with ancestral honours, time-honoured, and, haply, it may be, time-shattered power—I owe thee nothing! Of thy vast riches I took not a shilling, though living amongst multitudes who owed to thee their daily bread. Not the less I owe thee justice; for that is a universal debt. And at this moment, when I see thee called to thy audit by unjust and malicious accusers—men with the hearts of inquisitors and the purposes of robbers—I feel towards thee something of filial reverence and duty. However, I mean not to speak as an advocate, but as a conscientious witness in the simplicity of truth; feeling neither hope nor fear of a personal nature, without fee, and without favour.
Oxford, ancient Mother! Grayed with ancestral honors, long-standing, and perhaps, beaten down by time—I owe you nothing! I haven't taken a single penny from your vast wealth, even while living among many who depended on you for their daily bread. Nevertheless, I owe you fairness; that is a debt we all share. And right now, as I see you facing judgment from unfair and spiteful accusers—men with the hearts of interrogators and the intentions of thieves—I feel a sense of respect and duty towards you. However, I don't intend to speak as a lawyer, but as a sincere witness, plainly and truthfully; I have neither personal hopes nor fears, without any payment or favor.
I have been assured from many quarters that the great body of the public are quite in the dark about the whole manner of living in our English Universities; and that a considerable portion of that public, misled by the totally different constitution of Universities in Scotland, Ireland,[Pg 11] and generally on the Continent, as well as by the different arrangements of collegiate life in those institutions, are in a state worse than ignorant (that is, more unfavourable to the truth)—starting, in fact, from prejudices, and absolute errors of fact, which operate most uncharitably upon their construction of those insulated statements, which are continually put forward by designing men. Hence, I can well believe that it will be an acceptable service, at this particular moment [1835], when the very constitution of the two English Universities is under the unfriendly revision of Parliament, when some roving commission may be annually looked for, under a contingency which I will not utter in words (for I reverence the doctrine of ευφημισμος (euphêmismos)), far worse than Cromwellian, that is, merely personal, and to winnow the existing corporation from disaffection to the state—a Henry the Eighth commission of sequestration, and levelled at the very integrity of the institution—under such prospects, I can well believe that a true account of Oxford as it is (which will be valid also for Cambridge) must be welcome both to friend and foe. And instead of giving this account didactically, or according to a logical classification of the various items in the survey, I will give it historically, or according to the order in which the most important facts of the case opened themselves before myself, under the accidents of my own personal inquiry. No situation could be better adapted than my own for eliciting information; for, whereas most young men come to the University under circumstances of absolute determination as to the choice of their particular college, and have, therefore, no cause for search or inquiry, I, on the contrary, came thither in solitary self-dependence, and in the loosest state of indetermination.
I’ve been told by many people that most of the public have no idea what life is really like at our English universities. A significant portion of this public, misled by the completely different structure of universities in Scotland, Ireland, [Pg 11] and generally on the continent, as well as by different college life arrangements in those institutions, are in a state that is worse than ignorance (that is, more unfavorable to the truth)—starting off with prejudices and outright misconceptions that negatively impact their understanding of the isolated statements promoted by manipulative individuals. Therefore, I truly believe it would be a valuable service at this moment [1835], when the very structure of the two English universities is under an unfriendly review by Parliament and when we might expect an annual roving commission due to a situation I won’t mention (out of respect for the principle of ευφημισμος (euphêmismos)), much worse than Cromwellian—merely personal, aimed at sifting the current institution for any disloyalty to the state—a Henry the Eighth-style commission targeting the very integrity of the institution—under such circumstances, I genuinely believe that an accurate account of Oxford as it is (which will also apply to Cambridge) will be welcome to both supporters and critics. Instead of presenting this account in a didactic manner or through a logical classification of various aspects, I will present it historically, following the order in which the most important facts became clear to me through my own personal exploration. No situation could be better suited than mine for gathering information; whereas most young men arrive at the university with a firm decision about their specific college and thus have no reason to search for information, I, on the other hand, came there on my own, completely independent and in a state of total uncertainty.
Every single point of my future position and connection, to what college I would attach myself, and in which of the two orders open to my admission I would enrol myself, was left absolutely to my own election. My coming at all, in this year, arose out of an accident of conversation. In the latter half of 1803, I was living with my mother at the Priory of St. J——, a beautiful place which she had in part planned, and built, but chiefly repaired out of a very ancient Gothic monastery; when my uncle, a military man, on a[Pg 12] visit to England, after twenty-five years' absence in India, suddenly remarked, that in my case he should feel it shameful to be "tied to my mother's apron-string," for was I not eighteen years old? I answered that certainly I was: but what could I do? My guardians had the power to control my expenditure until I should be twenty-one; and they, it was certain, would never aid my purpose of going to Oxford, having quarrelled with me on that very point. My uncle, a man of restless activity, spoke to my mother immediately, I presume, for within one hour I was summoned to her presence. Among other questions, she put this to me, which is importantly connected with my future experience at Oxford, and my coming account of it:—"Your guardians," she prefaced, "still continue to me your school allowance of £100. To this, for the present, when your sisters cost me such heavy deductions from my own income, I cannot undertake to make any addition—that is, you are not to count upon any. But, of course, you will be free to spend your entire Oxford vacations, and as much time besides as the rules of your college will dispense with your attendance, at my house, wherever that may be. On this understanding, are you willing to undertake an Oxford life, upon so small an allowance as £100 per annum?" My answer was by a cheerful and prompt assent. For I felt satisfied, and said as much to my mother, that, although this might sound, and might really prove, on a common system of expenditure, ludicrously below the demands of the place, yet in Oxford, no less than in other cities, it must be possible for a young man of firm mind to live on a hundred pounds annually, if he pleased to do so, and to live respectably. I guessed even then how the matter stood; and so in my own experience I found it. If a young man were known to be of trivial pursuits, with slight habits of study, and "strong book-mindedness," naturally enough his college peers who should happen to be idlers would question his right to court solitude. They would demand a sight of his warrant of exemption from ordinary usages; and, finding none, they would see a plain argument of his poverty. And, doubtless, when this happens to be the sole characteristic point about a man, and is balanced by no form of personal respectability, it does so[Pg 13] far lead to contempt as to make a man's situation mortifying and painful; but not more so, I affirm, in Oxford than anywhere else. Mere defect of power, as such, and where circumstances force it into violent relief, cannot well be other than a degrading feature in any man's position. Now, in other cities, the man of £100 a-year never can be forced into such an invidious insulation—he finds many to keep him in countenance; but in Oxford he is a sort of monster—he stands alone in the only class with which he can be compared. So that the pressure upon Oxford predispositions to contempt is far stronger than elsewhere; and, consequently, there would be more allowance due, if the actual contempt were also stronger—which I deny. But, no doubt, in every climate, and under all meridians, it must be humiliating to be distinguished by pure defect. Now and for ever, to be weak is in some sense to be miserable; and simple poverty, without other qualification or adjunct, is merely defect of power. But, on the other hand, in Oxford, at least, as much as in any other place I ever knew, talents and severe habits of study are their own justification. And upon the strongest possible warrant, viz., my own experience in a college then recently emerging from habits of riotous dissipation, I can affirm that a man who pleads known habits of study as his reason for secluding himself, and for declining the ordinary amusements and wine parties, will meet with neither molestation nor contempt.[3]
Every aspect of my future — from which college I would choose to attend to which of the two programs open to me I would enroll in — was completely up to me. My decision to come here this year happened by chance during a conversation. In the latter half of 1803, I was living with my mother at the Priory of St. J——, a beautiful place she had designed and built, primarily renovating a very old Gothic monastery. During a visit to England after being away in India for twenty-five years, my uncle, a military man, suddenly said it would be shameful for me to be "tied to my mother's apron-string," considering I was already eighteen. I replied that I certainly was eighteen, but I wondered what I could do. My guardians had control over my finances until I turned twenty-one, and they obviously wouldn’t support my goal of going to Oxford, especially since we had argued about it. My uncle, who was always active, immediately spoke to my mother, because within an hour, I was called to see her. Among other questions, she asked me one that would significantly affect my future experiences at Oxford: "Your guardians," she started, "continue to provide you your school allowance of £100. But with your sisters costing me heavy amounts from my income, I can’t afford to add anything to that; you shouldn't expect any more from me. However, you’ll be free to spend all your Oxford vacations and any other time off allowed by your college at my house, wherever that may be. With that understanding, are you willing to live at Oxford on an allowance of just £100 a year?" I quickly and cheerfully agreed. I felt confident, as I told my mother, that even though this amount might sound absurdly low based on a common spending pattern, it should still be possible for a determined young man to live on a hundred pounds a year in Oxford and maintain a respectable lifestyle. I suspected even then how things really were, and my experience proved me right. If a young man is seen as having trivial pursuits, with minimal study habits and a "strong book-mindedness," it’s natural for his college peers, who may be idle themselves, to challenge his right to seek solitude. They’d want to see proof that he was exempt from the usual expectations and, finding none, would simply view him as poor. Indeed, if that's the only thing that defines a person, combined with a lack of personal respectability, it can lead to contempt, making the situation painfully uncomfortable — but I believe this is true in Oxford as much as anywhere else. Having little means, when circumstances overly highlight it, tends to degrade anyone's position. In other cities, a man with £100 a year rarely faces such isolation; he can find support among others. But at Oxford, he’s viewed almost as a monster, standing alone in the only peer group to which he can be compared. Because of this, the pressure to look down on those at Oxford is much harsher than in other places, and although the actual disdain may not be stronger, there’s still no denying it’s humiliating to be marked by sheer lack. Now and always, being weak carries a certain misery; simple poverty, on its own, just signifies lack of power. But, on the flip side, in Oxford as much as in any place I’ve known, talent and serious study habits can justify a person’s path. I can firmly assert, based on my own experience in a college transitioning from a history of unruly behavior, that a man who states his commitment to study as a reason for isolating himself and skipping regular social events and drinking parties will face no harassment or disdain.[3]
For my part, though neither giving nor accepting invitations for the first two years of my residence, never but once had I reason to complain of a sneer, or indeed any allusion whatever to habits which might be understood to express poverty. Perhaps even then I had no reason to complain, for my own conduct in that instance was unwise; and the allusion, though a personality, and so far ill-bred, might be meant in[Pg 14] real kindness. The case was this: I neglected my dress in one point habitually; that is, I wore clothes until they were threadbare—partly in the belief that my gown would conceal their main defects, but much more from carelessness and indisposition to spend upon a tailor what I had destined for a bookseller. At length, an official person, of some weight in the college, sent me a message on the subject through a friend. It was couched in these terms: That, let a man possess what talents or accomplishments he might, it was not possible for him to maintain his proper station in the public respect, amongst so many servants and people servile to external impressions, without some regard to the elegance of his dress. A reproof so courteously prefaced I could not take offence at; and at that time I resolved to spend some cost upon decorating my person. But always it happened that some book, or set of books,—that passion being absolutely endless, and inexorable as the grave,—stepped between me and my intentions; until one day, upon arranging my toilet hastily before dinner, I suddenly made the discovery that I had no waistcoat (or vest, as it is now called, through conceit or provincialism) which was not torn or otherwise dilapidated; whereupon, buttoning up my coat to the throat, and drawing my gown as close about me as possible, I went into the public "hall" (so is called in Oxford the public eating-room) with no misgiving. However, I was detected; for a grave man, with a superlatively grave countenance, who happened on that day to sit next me, but whom I did not personally know, addressing his friend sitting opposite, begged to know if he had seen the last Gazette, because he understood that it contained an Order in Council laying an interdict upon the future use of waistcoats. His friend replied, with the same perfect gravity, that it was a great satisfaction to his mind that his Majesty's Government should have issued so sensible an order; which he trusted would be soon followed up by an interdict on breeches, they being still more disagreeable to pay for. This said, without the movement on either side of a single muscle, the two gentlemen passed to other subjects; and I inferred, upon the whole, that, having detected my manœuvre, they wished to put me on my guard in the only way open to them. At any rate, this was the sole personality,[Pg 15] or equivocal allusion of any sort, which ever met my ear during the years that I asserted my right to be as poor as chose. And, certainly, my censors were right, whatever were the temper in which they spoke, kind or unkind; for a little extra care in the use of clothes will always, under almost any extremity of poverty, pay for so much extra cost as is essential to neatness and decorum, if not even to elegance. They were right, and I was wrong, in a point which cannot be neglected with impunity.
For my part, even though I didn’t send or accept any invitations for the first two years of my stay, I only once had a reason to complain about a sneer, or really any mention at all of habits that might suggest I was poor. Maybe even then I had no reason to complain, because my behavior in that situation was unwise; and the comment, although personal and somewhat rude, might have been made out of genuine kindness. Here’s the situation: I regularly neglected my clothing in one particular way; specifically, I wore clothes until they were threadbare—partly believing that my gown would hide their main flaws, but more so from carelessness and a reluctance to spend money on a tailor that I had planned to use for buying books. Eventually, an important college official sent me a message about this through a friend. It was phrased like this: No matter what talents or skills a person might have, it was impossible for them to maintain their proper place in public respect, among so many servants and those obsessed with appearances, without paying attention to the quality of their dress. A rebuke so politely stated couldn’t offend me; and at that time I decided to invest some money in improving my appearance. But as usual, some book, or set of books—my passion for them being virtually insatiable—got in the way of my plans, until one day, while I was hastily getting ready before dinner, I realized that I had no waistcoat (or vest, as it’s now called, either out of pride or regional slang) that wasn’t torn or otherwise worn out. So, I buttoned my coat up to the neck and pulled my gown as tightly around me as possible, and I went into the public “hall” (which is what Oxford calls the public dining room) without a second thought. However, I was caught; a serious-looking man, whose expression was incredibly grave, happened to sit next to me that day, and although I didn’t know him, he turned to his friend across from him and asked if he had seen the latest Gazette, because he understood it contained an Order in Council banning the future use of waistcoats. His friend responded, equally serious, that he was very pleased that the Government had made such a sensible decision and hoped it would soon be followed by a ban on breeches, which were even more unpleasant to pay for. After that, without moving even a single muscle, the two men shifted to other topics; and I gathered that, having caught on to what I was doing, they wanted to give me a warning in the only way they could. In any case, this was the only personal comment or ambiguous reference of any kind that I ever heard during the years I insisted on being as poor as I wanted. And surely, my critics were right, regardless of whether their tone was kind or harsh; because a little extra care in how you dress will always, under almost any level of poverty, justify the extra cost required for neatness and decorum, if not even for elegance. They were right, and I was wrong, about something that cannot be ignored without consequence.
But, to enter upon my own history, and my sketch of Oxford life.—Late on a winter's night, in the latter half of December, 1803, when a snow-storm, and a heavy one, was already gathering in the air, a lazy Birmingham coach, moving at four and a half miles an hour, brought me through the long northern suburb of Oxford, to a shabby coach-inn, situated in the Corn Market. Business was out of the question at that hour. But the next day I assembled all the acquaintances I had in the University, or had to my own knowledge; and to them, in council assembled, propounded my first question: What college would they, in their superior state of information, recommend to my choice? This question leads to the first great characteristic of Oxford, as distinguished from most other Universities. Before me at this moment lie several newspapers, reporting, at length, the installation in office (as Chancellor) of the Duke of Wellington. The original Oxford report, having occasion to mention the particular college from which the official procession moved, had said, no doubt, that the gates of University, the halls of University, &c., were at such a point of time thrown open. But most of the provincial editors, not at all comprehending that the reference was to an individual college, known by the name of University College, one of twenty-five such establishments in Oxford, had regularly corrected it into "gates of the University," &c. Here is the first misconception of all strangers. And this feature of Oxford it is which has drawn such exclamations of astonishment from foreigners. Lipsius, for example, protested with fervour, on first seeing this vast establishment of Oxford, that one college of this University was greater in its power and splendour, that it glorified and illustrated the honours of literature more conspicuously[Pg 16] by the pomps with which it invested the ministers and machinery of education, than any entire University of the Continent.
But, to get into my own story and my take on Oxford life.—Late one winter night, in the second half of December 1803, as a heavy snowstorm started to build up, a slow Birmingham coach, going at about four and a half miles an hour, brought me through the long northern suburb of Oxford to a rundown coach inn located in the Corn Market. It was too late for any business at that hour. However, the next day, I gathered all the acquaintances I had at the University, or at least those I knew of, and I posed my first question to them in our meeting: Which college would they recommend I choose, given their superior knowledge? This question reveals the first major characteristic of Oxford, which sets it apart from most other universities. Right now, I have several newspapers in front of me, reporting on the installation of the Duke of Wellington as Chancellor. The original Oxford report, when mentioning the specific college from which the official procession set out, likely stated that the gates of University, the halls of University, etc., were opened at that time. However, most provincial editors, not understanding that this referred to a specific college named University College, one of twenty-five such institutions in Oxford, incorrectly referred to it as "gates of the University," etc. This is the first misunderstanding for outsiders. This aspect of Oxford has often caused astonishment among foreigners. For instance, Lipsius passionately exclaimed upon first seeing the vast establishment of Oxford that one college in this University was more powerful and splendid, and that it highlighted and honored literature more conspicuously[Pg 16] through the grand ceremonies surrounding its educational ministers and structures than any entire university on the Continent.
What is a University almost everywhere else? It announces little more, as respects the academic buildings, than that here is to be found the place of rendezvous—the exchange, as it were, or, under a different figure, the palæstra of the various parties connected with the prosecution of liberal studies. This is their "House of Call," their general place of muster and parade. Here it is that the professors and the students converge, with the certainty of meeting each other. Here, in short, are the lecture-rooms in all the faculties. Well: thus far we see an arrangement of convenience—that is, of convenience for one of the parties, namely, the professors. To them it spares the disagreeable circumstances connected with a private reception of their students at their own rooms. But to the students it is a pure matter of indifference. In all this there is certainly no service done to the cause of good learning which merits a state sanction, or the aid of national funds. Next, however, comes an academic library, sometimes a good one; and here commences a real use in giving a national station to such institutions, because their durable and monumental existence, liable to no flux or decay from individual caprice, or accidents of life, and their authentic station, as expressions of the national grandeur, point them out to the bequests of patriotic citizens. They fall also under the benefit of another principle—the conservative feeling of amateurship. Several great collections have been bequeathed to the British Museum, for instance—not chiefly as a national institution, and under feelings of nationality, but because, being such, it was also permanent; and thus the painful labours of collecting were guaranteed from perishing. Independently of all this, I, for my part, willingly behold the surplus of national funds dedicated to the consecration, as it were, of learning, by raising temples to its honour, even where they answer no purpose of direct use. Next after the service of religion, I would have the service of learning externally embellished, recommended to the affections of men, and hallowed by the votive sculptures, as I may say, of that affection, gathering[Pg 17] in amount from age to age. Magnificabo apostolatum meum is a language almost as becoming to the missionaries and ministers of knowledge, as to the ambassadors of religion. It is fit that by pompous architectural monuments a voice may for ever be sounding audibly in human ears of homage to these powers, and that even alien feelings may be compelled into secret submission to their influence. Therefore, amongst the number of those who value such things upon the scale of direct proximate utility rank not me: that arithmetica officina is in my ears abominable. But still I affirm that, in our analysis of an ordinary university, or "college," as it is provincially called, we have not yet arrived at any element of service rendered to knowledge or education, large enough to call for very extensive national aid. Honour has thus far been rendered to the good cause by a public attestation, and that is well: but no direct promotion has been given to that cause, no impulse communicated to its progress, such that it can be held out as a result commensurate to the name and pretensions of a University. As yet there is nothing accomplished which is beyond the strength of any little commercial town. And, as to the library in particular, besides that in all essential departments it might be bought, to order, by one day's common subscription of Liverpool or Glasgow merchants, students very rarely indeed have admission to its free use.
What is a university like almost everywhere else? It mainly signals that this is a meeting place—the hub, or in other words, the place where various groups involved in liberal studies gather. This is their "House of Call," their main spot for assembly and display. Here, professors and students come together, knowing they'll see each other. In short, this is where all the lecture halls are located. So far, we see a setup that serves one group well—the professors. It saves them the hassle of having to meet students privately in their own offices. But for students, it's just a neutral space. There’s definitely no support for quality education that merits government approval or national funding. Next, there’s an academic library, sometimes a decent one, and this is where the real value begins to appear for giving these institutions a national significance. Their lasting and monumental presence, not influenced by personal whims or life events, and their authentic role as symbols of national greatness make them candidates for donations from patriotic citizens. They also benefit from another idea—the conservative spirit of amateurism. Many significant collections have been donated to the British Museum, for example—not mainly as a national entity, motivated by patriotism, but because it is permanent; thus, the difficult work of collecting is protected from fading away. Aside from all this, I personally welcome any extra national funds used to honor learning by building temples for it, even if they don’t serve a direct purpose. After supporting religion, I’d want the service of learning to be visibly honored, appealing to people's emotions, and sacred through dedicated sculptures that accumulate over generations. The phrase Magnificabo apostolatum meum is fitting for both the ambassadors of knowledge and those of religion. It’s appropriate for grand architectural monuments to forever proclaim their respect for these forces, compelling even foreign sentiments to quietly yield to their influence. So, among those who prioritize things based on immediate practical utility, don’t count me in: that arithmetica officina sounds terrible to me. Yet, I still maintain that in our assessment of a typical university, or "college," as it’s often referred to regionally, we haven't yet identified any contribution to knowledge or education substantial enough to warrant significant national support. So far, honor has been given to the noble cause through public acknowledgment, which is good, but no direct advancement has been made for that cause, nor has it received encouragement that would match the name and aspirations of a university. Nothing yet is achieved that surpasses what any small commercial town could accomplish. As for the library specifically, aside from being something that could be purchased with one day’s worth of contributions from merchants in Liverpool or Glasgow, students very rarely get free access to it.
What other functions remain to a University? For those which I have mentioned of furnishing a point of rendezvous to the great body of professors and students, and a point of concentration to the different establishments of implements and machinery for elaborate researches (as, for instance, of books and MSS., in the first place; secondly, of maps, charts, and globes; and, thirdly, perhaps of the costly apparatus required for such studies as sideral astronomy, galvanic chemistry or physiology, &c.); all these are uses which cannot be regarded in a higher light than as conveniences merely incidental and collateral to the main views of the founders. There are, then, two much loftier and more commanding ends met by the idea and constitution of such institutions, and which first rise to a rank of dignity sufficient to occupy the views of a legislator, or to warrant a national interest. These ends are[Pg 18] involved: 1st, in the practice of conferring degrees, that is, formal attestations and guarantees of competence to give advice, instruction, or aid, in the three great branches of liberal knowledge applicable to human life; 2d, in that appropriation of fixed funds to fixed professorships, by means of which the uninterrupted succession of public and authorised teachers is sustained in all the higher branches of knowledge, from generation to generation, and from century to century. By the latter result it is secured that the great well-heads of liberal knowledge and of severe science shall never grow dry. By the former it is secured that this unfailing fountain shall be continually applied to the production and to the tasting of fresh labours in endless succession for the public service, and thus, in effect, that the great national fountain shall not be a stagnant reservoir, but, by an endless derivation (to speak in a Roman metaphor), applied to a system of national irrigation. These are the two great functions and qualifications of a collegiate incorporation: one providing to each separate generation its own separate rights of heirship to all the knowledge accumulated by its predecessors, and converting a mere casual life-annuity into an estate of inheritance—a mere fleeting αγωνισμα (agônisma) into a κτημα ες αει (ktêma es aei); the other securing for this eternal dowry as wide a distribution as possible: the one function regarding the dimension of length in the endless series of ages through which it propagates its gifts; the other regarding the dimension of breadth in the large application throughout any one generation of these gifts to the public service. Here are grand functions, high purposes; but neither one nor the other demands any edifices of stone and marble; neither one nor the other presupposes any edifice at all built with human hands. A collegiate incorporation, the church militant of knowledge, in its everlasting struggle with darkness and error, is, in this respect, like the Church of Christ—that is, it is always and essentially invisible to the fleshly eye. The pillars of this church are human champions; its weapons are great truths so shaped as to meet the shifting forms of error; its armouries are piled and marshalled in human memories; its cohesion lies in human zeal, in discipline, in childlike docility; and all its triumphs, its pomps, and[Pg 19] glories, must for ever depend upon talent, upon the energies of the will, and upon the harmonious co-operation of its several divisions. Thus far, I say, there is no call made out for any intervention of the architect.
What other roles does a university serve? Aside from providing a meeting place for professors and students, and a hub for various tools and equipment for detailed research (like books and manuscripts, maps, charts, and globes, as well as expensive instruments needed for studies such as astronomy, chemistry, or physiology, etc.); all these functions can only be seen as minor conveniences related to the main goals of its founders. There are, however, two much more significant and noble purposes fulfilled by the concept and structure of such institutions that rise to a level of importance worthy of a legislator’s attention or national significance. These purposes are[Pg 18] involved in: 1st, the practice of granting degrees, which are formal acknowledgments of competence to provide advice, instruction, or support in the three major fields of knowledge relevant to human life; 2nd, the allocation of fixed funds to established professorships, through which the continuous presence of public and approved educators in all higher branches of knowledge is maintained across generations and centuries. With this, it is ensured that the primary sources of liberal knowledge and rigorous science will never run dry. Additionally, it ensures that this steady source will always contribute to the generation and application of new efforts for public benefit, preventing the national fountain from becoming a stagnant pool but rather serving as a continuous flow (to borrow a Roman metaphor), applied to a system of national nourishment. These are the two main roles and attributes of a collegiate institution: one provides each generation its own inheritance of the knowledge amassed by those before it, transforming a simple life annuity into an estate of inheritance—a fleeting effort into a lasting legacy; the other ensures that this eternal gift is distributed as broadly as possible: the first function focuses on the length aspect through which it spreads its contributions across ages; the second focuses on the breadth of its application to the public service within any given generation. Here are grand functions with high goals; however, neither requires buildings of stone and marble; neither presupposes any physical structure created by human hands. A collegiate institution, the active defender of knowledge in its ongoing battle against darkness and ignorance, is, in this way, like the Church of Christ—it is essentially and always invisible to the naked eye. The pillars of this institution are human advocates; its weapons are profound truths shaped to confront the changing beliefs of error; its armories exist within human memories; its unity comes from human enthusiasm, discipline, and childlike openness; and all its victories, displays, and [Pg 19] honors depend entirely on talent, willpower, and the cooperative efforts of its various parts. Thus far, I assert, there is no need for any intervention from an architect.
Let me apply all this to Oxford. Among the four functions commonly recognised by the founders of Universities are—1st, to find a set of halls or places of meeting; 2d, to find the implements and accessaries of study; 3d, to secure the succession of teachers and learners; 4th, to secure the profitable application of their attainments to the public service. Of these four, the two highest need no buildings; and the other two, which are mere collateral functions of convenience, need only a small one. Wherefore, then, and to what end, are the vast systems of building, the palaces and towers of Oxford? These are either altogether superfluous, mere badges of ostentation and luxurious wealth, or they point to some fifth function not so much as contemplated by other Universities, and, at present, absolutely and chimerically beyond their means of attainment. Formerly we used to hear attacks upon the Oxford discipline as fitted to the true intellectual purposes of a modern education. Those attacks, weak and most uninstructed in facts, false as to all that they challenged, and puerile as to what implicitly they propounded for homage, are silent. But, of late, the battery has been pointed against the Oxford discipline in its moral aspects, as fitted for the government and restraint of young men, or even as at all contemplating any such control. The Beverleys would have us suppose, not only that the great body of the students are a licentious crew, acknowledging no discipline or restraints, but that the grave elders of the University, and those who wield the nominal authority of the place, passively resign the very shows of power, and connive at general excesses, even when they do not absolutely authorize them in their personal examples. Now, when such representations are made, to what standard of a just discipline is it that these writers would be understood as appealing? Is it to some ideal, or to some existing and known reality? Would they have England suppose that they are here comparing the actual Oxford with some possible hypothetic or imaginable Oxford,—with some ideal[Pg 20] case, that is to say, about which great discussions would arise as to its feasibility,—or that they are comparing it with some known standard of discipline actually realized and sustained for generations, in Leipsic, suppose, or Edinburgh, or Leyden, or Salamanca? This is the question of questions, to which we may demand an answer; and, according to that answer, observe the dilemma into which these furciferous knaves must drop. If they are comparing Oxford simply with some ideal and better Oxford, in some ideal and better world, in that case all they have said—waiving its falsehoods of fact—is no more than a flourish of rhetoric, and the whole discussion may be referred to the shadowy combats of scholastic declamation-mongers—those mock gladiators, and umbratiles doctores. But if, on the other hand, they pretend to take their station upon the known basis of some existing institution,—if they will pretend that, in this impeachment of Oxford, they are proceeding upon a silent comparison with Edinburgh, Glasgow, Jena, Leipsic, Padua, &c.,—then are they self-exposed, as men not only without truth, but without shame. For now comes in, as a sudden revelation, and as a sort of deus ex machina, for the vindication of the truth, the simple answer to that question proposed above, Wherefore, and to what end, are the vast edifices of Oxford? A University, as Universities are in general, needs not, I have shown, to be a visible body—a building raised with hands. Wherefore, then, is the visible Oxford? To what fifth end, refining upon the ordinary ends of such institutions, is the far-stretching system of Oxford hospitia, or monastic hotels, directed by their founders, or applied by their present possessors? Hearken, reader, to the answer:—
Let me apply all this to Oxford. Among the four functions typically recognized by the founders of universities are: 1st, to find a set of halls or meeting places; 2nd, to provide the tools and resources for study; 3rd, to ensure a succession of teachers and learners; 4th, to guarantee that their knowledge is effectively used for public service. Of these four, the two most important don't require buildings; and the other two, which are just additional conveniences, only need a small space. So why are there vast buildings, the palaces and towers of Oxford? These structures either serve no real purpose, being mere symbols of showiness and wealth, or they suggest some fifth function that other universities don’t even consider, and which is currently completely and unrealistically beyond their reach. In the past, we often heard criticisms of the Oxford approach as not suited for the true intellectual purposes of modern education. Those criticisms, weak and uninformed, were false regarding everything they challenged and childish in what they proposed for acceptance, are now silent. Recently, however, criticism has shifted to the moral aspects of the Oxford approach, questioning its ability to govern and control young men, or even suggesting that it considers any form of such control. The Beverleys would have us believe that, not only are the majority of students a rowdy bunch with no discipline or restrictions, but that the serious elders of the University, and those who nominally hold authority, resign their power and turn a blind eye to general excesses, even when they don’t actually endorse them through their own actions. Now, when such claims are made, what standard of proper discipline do these writers refer to? Are they appealing to some ideal or some existing reality? Do they want England to think they are comparing real Oxford with some possible, hypothetical Oxford—an ideal case, about which there would be significant debates regarding its feasibility—or with some known standard of discipline that has been realized and maintained for generations at institutions like Leipsic, Edinburgh, Leyden, or Salamanca? This is the crucial question that demands an answer, and based on that answer, we can see the dilemma these tricky critics face. If they are simply comparing Oxford with an ideal, better version of itself in a better world, then everything they have said—aside from its factual inaccuracies—is merely rhetorical flourish, and the whole discussion can be dismissed as shadowy debates among academic declaimers—those mock gladiators, and umbratiles doctores. But if, alternatively, they claim to base their arguments on the established standards of some existing institution—if they imply that in criticizing Oxford, they are silently comparing it to Edinburgh, Glasgow, Jena, Leipsic, Padua, etc.—then they expose themselves as people lacking both truth and shame. For now, as a sudden revelation, comes the straightforward answer to the question posed earlier: Why and for what purpose are the vast buildings of Oxford? A university, as universities generally are, doesn't need to be a visible body—a building made by human hands. So then, what is the visible Oxford for? To what fifth purpose, refining the ordinary aims of such institutions, is the extensive system of Oxford hospitia, or monastic hotels, organized by their founders, or utilized by their current owners? Listen, reader, to the answer:—
These vast piles are applied to an end absolutely indispensable to any even tolerable system of discipline, and yet absolutely unattainable upon any commensurate scale in any other University of Europe. They are applied to the personal settlement and domestication of the students within the gates and walls of that college to whose discipline they are amenable. Everywhere else the young men live where they please and as they please; necessarily distributed amongst the towns-people; in any case, therefore, liable to no control or supervision whatever; and, in those cases where the[Pg 21] University forms but a small part of a vast capital city, as it does in Paris, Edinburgh, Madrid, Vienna, Berlin, and Petersburg, liable to every mode of positive temptation and distraction which besiege human life in high-viced and luxurious communities. Here, therefore, it is a mockery to talk of discipline; of a nonentity there can be no qualities; and we need not ask for the description of the discipline in situations where discipline there can be none. One slight anomaly I have heard of as varying pro tanto the uniform features of this picture. In Glasgow I have heard of an arrangement by which young academicians are placed in the family of a professor. Here, as members of a private household, and that household under the presiding eye of a conscientious, paternal, and judicious scholar, doubtless they would enjoy as absolute a shelter from peril and worldly contagion as parents could wish; but not more absolute, I affirm, than belongs, unavoidably, to the monastic seclusion of an Oxford college—the gates of which open to no egress after nine o'clock at night, nor after eleven to any ingress which is not regularly reported to a proper officer of the establishment. The two forms of restraint are, as respects the effectual amount of control, equal; and were they equally diffused, Glasgow and Oxford would, in this point, stand upon the same level of discipline. But it happens that the Glasgow case was a personal accident; personal, both as regarded him who volunteered the exercise of this control, and those who volunteered to appropriate its benefits; whereas the Oxford case belongs to the very system, is coextensive with the body of undergraduates, and, from the very arrangement of Oxford life, is liable to no decay or intermission.
These large groups are used for a purpose that's absolutely essential for any decent system of discipline, yet wholly unachievable on a comparable scale at any other university in Europe. They are aimed at the personal settlement and integration of students within the gates and walls of the college to which they are subject. Everywhere else, young men live wherever they want and however they want; constantly mixed in with the townspeople, thus, they are not subject to any control or supervision. In places where the university constitutes only a small part of a large city, like Paris, Edinburgh, Madrid, Vienna, Berlin, and Petersburg, they face every kind of temptation and distraction found in cities rife with vice and luxury. Here, it's pointless to talk about discipline; a non-entity can't have characteristics; and there’s no need to describe the discipline in situations where there is no discipline at all. I have heard of one small exception that slightly alters this general view. In Glasgow, there is an arrangement where academic students live with a professor's family. Here, as part of a private household, under the watchful eye of a caring, knowledgeable, and ethical scholar, they likely enjoy a level of protection from danger and worldly influences that parents would desire; but not more than what is naturally afforded by the monastic seclusion of an Oxford college—the doors of which close after nine o'clock at night, and no one can enter after eleven unless properly reported to the authorities. The two forms of control, in terms of overall effectiveness, are equal; and if they were equally applied, Glasgow and Oxford would have the same level of discipline. However, the Glasgow situation was a unique occurrence; personal for both the person who chose to enforce this control and those who chose to benefit from it; while the Oxford situation is part of the very system, encompassing all undergraduates, and because of the structure of Oxford life, it's immune to interruption or decay.
Here, then, the reader apprehends the first great characteristic distinction of Oxford—that distinction which extorted the rapturous admiration of Lipsius as an exponent of enormous wealth, but which I now mention as applying, with ruinous effect, to the late calumnies upon Oxford, as an inseparable exponent of her meritorious discipline. She, most truly and severely an "Alma Mater," gathers all the juvenile part of her flock within her own fold, and beneath her own vigilant supervision. In Cambridge there is, so far, a laxer administration of this rule, that, when any college overflows[Pg 22] undergraduates are allowed to lodge at large in the town. But in Oxford this increase of peril and discretionary power is thrown by preference upon the senior graduates, who are seldom below the age of twenty-two or twenty-three; and the college accommodations are reserved, in almost their whole extent, for the most youthful part of the society. This extent is prodigious. Even in my time, upwards of two thousand persons were lodged within the colleges; none having fewer than two rooms, very many having three, and men of rank, or luxurious habits, having often large suites of rooms. But that was a time of war, which Oxford experience has shown to have operated most disproportionably as a drain upon the numbers disposable for liberal studies; and the total capacity of the University was far from being exhausted. There are now, I believe, between five and six thousand names upon the Oxford books; and more than four thousand, I understand, of constant residents. So that Oxford is well able to lodge, and on a very sumptuous scale, a small army of men; which expression of her great splendour I now mention (as I repeat) purely as applying to the question of her machinery for enforcing discipline. This part of her machinery, it will be seen, is unique, and absolutely peculiar to herself. Other Universities, boasting no such enormous wealth, cannot be expected to act upon her system of seclusion. Certainly, I make it no reproach to other Universities, that, not possessing the means of sequestering their young men from worldly communion, they must abide by the evils of a laxer discipline. It is their misfortune, and not their criminal neglect, which consents to so dismal a relaxation of academic habits. But let them not urge this misfortune in excuse at one time, and at another virtually disavow it. Never let them take up a stone to throw at Oxford, upon this element of a wise education; since in them, through that original vice in their constitution, the defect of all means for secluding and insulating their society, discipline is abolished by anticipation—being, in fact, an impossible thing; for the walls of the college are subservient to no purpose of life, but only to a purpose of convenience; they converge the students for the hour or two of what is called lecture; which over, each undergraduate again becomes sui juris, is again absorbed into the crowds of[Pg 23] the world, resorts to whatsoever haunts he chooses, and finally closes his day at—— if, in any sense, at home—at a home which is not merely removed from the supervision and control, but altogether from the bare knowledge, of his academic superiors. How far this discipline is well administered in other points at Oxford, will appear from the rest of my account. But, thus far, at least, it must be conceded, that Oxford, by and through this one unexampled distinction—her vast disposable fund of accommodations for junior members within her own private cloisters—possesses an advantage which she could not forfeit, if she would, towards an effectual knowledge of each man's daily habits, and a control over him which is all but absolute.
Here, the reader can see the first major characteristic that sets Oxford apart—this very distinction that earned the enthusiastic admiration of Lipsius as a symbol of immense wealth. However, I now mention it because it has contributed to the damaging rumors about Oxford, as it is fundamentally connected to her esteemed discipline. Oxford is truly and earnestly an “Alma Mater,” bringing together all the young members of her community under her watchful care. In contrast, Cambridge has a more relaxed approach to this principle; when any college becomes overcrowded, undergraduates are allowed to live freely in the town. But at Oxford, the responsibility and discretion for managing this situation fall primarily on senior graduates, who are generally at least twenty-two or twenty-three years old, while college accommodations are mostly reserved for the younger students. The scale of these accommodations is impressive. Even during my time, over two thousand individuals lived within the colleges, with none having fewer than two rooms; many had three, and those of higher status or luxurious inclinations often had large suites. However, that was a time of war, which Oxford has shown disproportionately limited the numbers available for liberal studies, meaning the total capacity of the University was far from full. Currently, I believe there are between five and six thousand names in the Oxford records, and over four thousand of them are regular residents. Therefore, Oxford can comfortably house, and do so quite lavishly, a small army of students. I mention this impressive aspect purely to highlight her system of enforcing discipline. This part of her system is unique to Oxford. Other universities, lacking such vast resources, cannot be expected to adopt her method of isolation. I do not blame other universities for their inability to seclude their young men from the outside world; they must deal with the consequences of a more lenient discipline. This is their unfortunate situation, not a willful neglect that leads to a troubling relaxation of academic norms. However, they should not use this misfortune as an excuse at one moment and then deny it at another. They should never cast stones at Oxford regarding this aspect of proper education, since for them, due to that inherent flaw in their structure—the lack of means to isolate their community—discipline is essentially preemptively rendered nonexistent. The walls of their colleges serve no greater purpose other than convenience; they gather students for the hour or two of what's called a lecture, after which each undergraduate once again becomes free to engage with the world, visiting whatever places they wish, and eventually ending their day—if home is the right word—in a location that is not only far removed from the oversight of their academic leaders but completely outside their awareness. How well discipline is upheld in other contexts at Oxford will be addressed later in my account. However, it must be acknowledged that Oxford, through this singular and unmatched distinction—her vast available accommodations for junior members within her private sanctuaries—has an advantage she could not give up even if she wanted to, in terms of knowing each man's daily activities and maintaining control that is nearly absolute.
This knowledge and this control is much assisted and concentrated by the division of the University into separate colleges. Here comes another feature of the Oxford system. Elsewhere the University is a single college; and this college is the University. But in Oxford the University expresses, as it were, the army, and the colleges express the several brigades, or regiments.
This knowledge and control is greatly supported and focused by dividing the University into separate colleges. Here’s another aspect of the Oxford system. In other places, the University is just one college, and that college is the University. But in Oxford, the University represents, so to speak, the entire army, while the colleges represent the different brigades or regiments.
To resume, therefore, my own thread of personal narration. On the next morning after my arrival in Oxford, I assembled a small council of friends to assist me in determining at which of the various separate societies I should enter, and whether as a "commoner," or as a "gentleman commoner." Under the first question was couched the following latitude of choice: I give the names of the colleges, and the numerical account of their numbers, as it stood in January 1832; for this will express, as well as the list of that day (which I do not accurately know), the proportions of importance amongst them.
To sum up my personal story, the next morning after I got to Oxford, I gathered a small group of friends to help me decide which of the different societies I should join and whether I should join as a "commoner" or a "gentleman commoner." The first question opened up several options: I’ll list the colleges along with their numbers as they were in January 1832, since that will reflect, as well as I can remember, the proportions of importance among them.
Mem. | |||
1. | University | College | 207 |
2. | Balliol | " | 257 |
3. | Merton | " | 124 |
4. | Exeter | " | 299 |
5. | Oriel | " | 293 |
6. | Queen's | " | 351 |
7. | New | " | 157 |
8. | Lincoln | " | 141 |
9. | All Souls' | " | 98 |
10. | Magdalene | " | 165 [Pg 24] |
11. | Brasenose | " | 418 |
12. | Corpus Christi | " | 127 |
13. | Christ Church | " | 949 |
14. | Trinity | " | 259 |
15. | St. John's | " | 218 |
16. | Jesus | " | 167 |
17. | Wadham | " | 217 |
18. | Pembroke | " | 189 |
19. | Worcester | " | 231 |
Then, besides these colleges, five Halls, as they are technically called (the term Hall implying chiefly that they are societies not endowed, or not endowed with fellowships as the colleges are), namely:
Then, in addition to these colleges, there are five Halls, as they are officially referred to (the term Hall mostly indicating that they are societies that aren’t funded or don’t have fellowships like the colleges do), namely:
Mem. | |||
1. | St. Mary | Hall | 83 |
2. | Magdalen | " | 178 |
3. | New Inn | " | 10 |
4. | St. Alban | " | 41 |
5. | St. Edmund | " | 96 |
Such being the names, and general proportions on the scale of local importance, attached to the different communities, next comes the very natural question, What are the chief determining motives for guiding the selection amongst them? These I shall state. First of all, a man not otherwise interested in the several advantages of the colleges has, however, in all probability, some choice between a small society and a large one; and thus far a mere ocular inspection of the list will serve to fix his preference. For my part, supposing other things equal, I greatly preferred the most populous college, as being that in which any single member, who might have reasons for standing aloof from the general habits of expense, of intervisiting, &c., would have the best chance of escaping a jealous notice. However, amongst those "other things" which I presumed equal, one held a high place in my estimation, which a little inquiry showed to be very far from equal. All the colleges have chapels, but all have not organs; nor, amongst those which have, is the same large use made of the organ. Some preserve the full cathedral service; others do not. Christ Church, meantime, fulfilled all conditions: for the chapel here happens to be the cathedral of the diocese; the service, therefore, is full and ceremonial; the college, also, is far the most splendid, both in numbers, rank,[Pg 25] wealth, and influence. Hither I resolved to go; and immediately I prepared to call on the head.
Given the names and general significance of the different communities, the next natural question is: What are the main reasons for choosing among them? I’ll outline those. First, a person who isn’t particularly invested in the various benefits of the colleges likely has a preference for either a small or large society; in this case, a quick glance at the list can help them decide. Personally, assuming everything else is equal, I favored the largest college because it offers any individual, who might want to separate themselves from the common habits of spending or socializing, a better chance to avoid drawing attention. However, among those "other things" I considered equal, one stood out that turned out not to be equal upon further inquiry. All colleges have chapels, but not all have organs; and among those that do, some utilize the organ more extensively than others. Some maintain the full cathedral service, while others do not. Christ Church, on the other hand, met all conditions: its chapel happens to be the cathedral of the diocese, so the service is complete and formal; plus, the college is by far the most impressive in terms of numbers, status,[Pg 25] wealth, and influence. I decided to go there and immediately prepared to meet the head.
The "head," as he is called generically, of an Oxford college (his specific appellation varies almost with every college—principal, provost, master, rector, warden, etc.), is a greater man than the uninitiated suppose. His situation is generally felt as conferring a degree of rank not much less than episcopal; and, in fact, the head of Brasenose at that time, who happened to be the Bishop of Bangor, was not held to rank much above his brothers in office. Such being the rank of heads generally, à fortiori, that of Christ Church was to be had in reverence; and this I knew. He is always, ex officio, dean of the diocese; and, in his quality of college head, he only, of all deans that ever were heard of, is uniformly considered a greater man than his own diocesan. But it happened that the present dean had even higher titles to consideration. Dr. Cyril Jackson had been tutor to the Prince of Wales (George IV); he had repeatedly refused a bishopric; and that, perhaps, is entitled to place a man one degree above him who has accepted one. He was also supposed to have made a bishop, and afterwards, at least, it is certain that he made his own brother a bishop. All things weighed, Dr. Cyril Jackson seemed so very great a personage that I now felt the value of my long intercourse with great dons in giving me confidence to face a lion of this magnitude.
The "head," as he’s commonly referred to, of an Oxford college (his specific title changes almost with each college—principal, provost, master, rector, warden, etc.), is a more significant figure than outsiders realize. His position is generally regarded as one of rank not much less than episcopal; in fact, the head of Brasenose at that time, who was also the Bishop of Bangor, was considered to rank only slightly above his peers in office. Given this overall status of heads, à fortiori, the head of Christ Church commands great respect; and I was aware of this. He is always, ex officio, the dean of the diocese; and as the college head, he is universally considered a more distinguished figure than his own diocesan. However, the current dean had even more impressive credentials. Dr. Cyril Jackson had been a tutor to the Prince of Wales (George IV); he had repeatedly turned down a bishopric; and that, perhaps, places him a notch above someone who has accepted one. He was also believed to have elevated a bishop, and later, it is clear he made his own brother a bishop. Taking everything into account, Dr. Cyril Jackson seemed such an important person that I now appreciated how my extensive interactions with prominent dons had given me the confidence to confront a lion of this stature.
Those who know Oxford are aware of the peculiar feelings which have gathered about the name and pretensions of Christ Church; feelings of superiority and leadership in the members of that college, and often enough of defiance and jealousy on the part of other colleges. Hence it happens that you rarely find yourself in a shop, or other place of public resort, with a Christ-Church man, but he takes occasion, if young and frivolous, to talk loudly of the Dean, as an indirect expression of his own connection with this splendid college; the title of Dean being exclusively attached to the headship of Christ Church. The Dean, as maybe supposed, partakes in this superior dignity of his "House"; he is officially brought into connection with all orders of the British aristocracy—often with royal personages; and with the younger branches of the aristocracy his office places him[Pg 26] in a relation of authority and guardianship—exercised, however, through inferior ministry, and seldom by direct personal interference. The reader must understand that, with rare exceptions, all the princes and nobles of Great Britain who choose to benefit by an academic education resort either to Christ Church College in Oxford, or to Trinity College in Cambridge: these are the alternatives. Naturally enough, my young friends were somewhat startled at my determination to call upon so great a man; a letter, they fancied, would be a better mode of application. I, however, who did not adopt the doctrine that no man is a hero to his valet, was of opinion that very few men indeed are heroes to themselves. The cloud of external pomp, which invests them to the eyes of the attoniti, cannot exist to their own; they do not, like Kehama entering the eight gates of Padalon at once, meet and contemplate their own grandeurs; but, more or less, are conscious of acting a part. I did not, therefore, feel the tremor which was expected of a novice, on being ushered into so solemn a presence.
Those who know Oxford understand the unique feelings surrounding Christ Church's name and status—feelings of superiority and leadership among its members, and often defiance and jealousy from other colleges. Because of this, you rarely find yourself in a shop or public place with someone from Christ Church without them, if they're young and playful, mentioning the Dean to indirectly highlight their connection to this prestigious college; the title of Dean is specifically linked to the leadership of Christ Church. The Dean, as one might guess, shares in the esteemed status of his "House"; he is officially connected to all levels of the British aristocracy—often even with royal figures. His role places him in a position of authority and guardianship over the younger members of the aristocracy, though this is usually carried out through other people rather than direct intervention. It’s important to note that, with few exceptions, all the princes and nobles of Great Britain who seek an academic education either attend Christ Church in Oxford or Trinity College in Cambridge: those are the choices available. Naturally, my young friends were a bit taken aback by my decision to visit such a significant individual; they thought a letter would be a better approach. However, I, who didn’t believe that no man is a hero to his servant, thought that very few people truly see themselves as heroes. The external grandeur that impresses others doesn’t apply to them; they don’t, like Kehama entering the eight gates of Padalon at once, meet and reflect on their own greatness, but rather are somewhat aware that they’re playing a role. Therefore, I didn’t feel the nervousness expected of a newcomer when entering such a serious presence.
II[4]
The Dean was sitting in a spacious library or study, elegantly, if not luxuriously, furnished. Footmen, stationed as repeaters, as if at some fashionable rout, gave a momentary importance to my unimportant self, by the thundering tone of their annunciations. All the machinery of aristocratic life seemed indeed to intrench this great Don's approaches; and I was really surprised that so very great a man should condescend to rise on my entrance. But I soon found that, if the Dean's station and relation to the higher orders had made him lofty, those same relations had given a peculiar suavity to his manners. Here, indeed, as on other occasions, I noticed the essential misconception, as to the demeanour of men of rank, which prevails amongst those who have no personal access to their presence. In the fabulous pictures of novels (such novels as once abounded), and in newspaper reports of conversations, real or pretended, between the King and inferior persons, we often find the[Pg 27] writer expressing his sense of aristocratic assumption, by making the King address people without their titles. The Duke of Wellington, for instance, or Lord Liverpool, figures usually, in such scenes, as "Wellington," or "Arthur," and as "Liverpool." Now, as to the private talk of George IV in such cases, I do not pretend to depose; but, speaking generally, I may say that the practice of the highest classes takes the very opposite course. Nowhere is a man so sure of his titles or official distinctions as amongst them; for it is upon giving to every man the very extreme punctilio of his known or supposed claims that they rely for the due observance of their own. Neglecting no form of courtesy suited to the case, they seek, in this way, to remind men unceasingly of what they expect; and the result is what I represent—that people in the highest stations, and such as bring them continually into contact with inferiors, are, of all people, the least addicted to insolence or defect of courtesy. Uniform suavity of manner is indeed rarely found except in men of high rank. Doubtless this may arise upon a motive of self-interest, jealous of giving the least opening or invitation to the retorts of ill-temper or low breeding. But, whatever be its origin, such I believe to be the fact. In a very long conversation of a general nature upon the course of my studies, and the present direction of my reading, Dr. Cyril Jackson treated me just as he would have done his equal in station and in age. Coming, at length, to the particular purpose of my visit at this time to himself, he assumed a little more of his official stateliness. He condescended to say that it would have given him pleasure to reckon me amongst his flock; "But, sir," he said, in a tone of some sharpness, "your guardians have acted improperly. It was their duty to have given me at least one year's notice of their intention to place you at Christ Church. At present I have not a dog-kennel in my college untenanted." Upon this, I observed that nothing remained for me to do but to apologize for having occupied so much of his time; that, for myself, I now first heard of this preliminary application; and that, as to my guardians, I was bound to acquit them of all oversight in this instance, they being no parties to my present scheme. The Dean expressed his astonishment[Pg 28] at this statement. I, on my part, was just then making my parting bows, and had reached the door, when a gesture of the Dean's, courteously waving me back to the sofa I had quitted, invited me to resume my explanations; and I had a conviction at the moment that the interview would have terminated in the Dean's suspending his standing rule in my favour. But, just at that moment, the thundering heralds of the Dean's hall announced some man of high rank: the sovereign of Christ Church seemed distressed for a moment; but then, recollecting himself, bowed in a way to indicate that I was dismissed. And thus it happened that I did not become a member of Christ Church.[5]
The Dean was sitting in a spacious library or study, elegantly, if not luxuriously, furnished. Footmen stood by as if at a fashion show, giving a momentary significance to my unimportant self with their booming announcements. It seemed like all the trappings of aristocratic life surrounded this great scholar, and I was genuinely surprised that such an esteemed man would bother to stand when I entered. But I quickly realized that while the Dean's position and connections to the upper class could make him seem aloof, those same connections had also given him a certain charm. Here, as on other occasions, I noticed a common misconception about how people of rank behave, which often exists among those who never personally interact with them. In exaggerated depictions found in novels (the kinds that used to be so common) and in newspaper accounts of supposed conversations between the King and common folks, writers often show the King addressing people without their titles. The Duke of Wellington or Lord Liverpool typically show up simply as “Wellington” or “Arthur,” or just “Liverpool.” Now, regarding George IV's private conversations in such cases, I can't make any claims, but generally, I'd say that the conduct of the upper classes is quite the opposite. There's no group more confident in their titles or official roles than they are; they depend on giving everyone extreme respect according to their recognized or assumed status to ensure their own status is respected in return. They make sure to follow every form of courtesy appropriate to the situation, constantly reminding others of what they expect; and the result is as I describe—that people in the highest positions, especially those who frequently interact with lower ranks, are, in fact, the least prone to rudeness or lack of courtesy. You rarely find consistent politeness in anyone other than the elite. This may stem from self-interest, wanting to avoid any chance of provoking bad responses or impolite behavior. Regardless of its origin, this is what I believe to be true. In a lengthy conversation about my studies and current reading, Dr. Cyril Jackson treated me just like he would treat anyone equal to him in status and age. After discussing my studies, he took on a bit more of his official demeanor. He kindly mentioned that it would have made him happy to count me among his students; “But, sir,” he said sharply, “your guardians have acted inappropriately. They should have given me at least a year's notice about placing you at Christ Church. Right now, I don't have a single empty space in my college.” I then noted that all I could do was apologize for taking up so much of his time; for myself, this was the first I had heard of this initial application, and as for my guardians, I had to exonerate them from any oversight in this matter, as they were not involved in my current plans. The Dean looked astonished at this revelation. I was just then making my polite goodbyes and had reached the door when the Dean gestured for me to return to the sofa I had just left, inviting me to continue my explanations. At that moment, I was convinced that the meeting might result in the Dean bending his usual rules for me. But just then, the loud heralds of the Dean's hall announced the arrival of someone of high status: the leader of Christ Church seemed briefly troubled, but then, recollecting himself, he bowed in a way that indicated I was dismissed. And so it turned out that I did not become a member of Christ Church.[5]
A few days passed in thoughtless indecision. At the end of that time, a trivial difficulty arose to settle my determination. I had brought about fifty guineas to Oxford; but the expenses of an Oxford inn, with almost daily entertainments to young friends, had made such inroads upon this sum, that, after allowing for the contingencies incident to a college initiation, enough would not remain to meet the usual demand for what is called "caution money." This is a small sum, properly enough demanded of every student, when matriculated, as a pledge for meeting any loss from unsettled arrears, such as his sudden death or his unannounced departure might else continually be inflicting upon his college. By releasing the college, therefore, from all necessity for degrading vigilance or persecution, this demand does, in effect, operate beneficially to the feelings of all parties. In most colleges it amounts to twenty-five pounds: in one only it was considerably less. And this trifling consideration it was, concurring with a reputation at that time for relaxed[Pg 29] discipline, which finally determined me in preferring W—— College[6] to all others. This college had the capital disadvantage, in my eyes, that its chapel possessed no organ, and no musical service. But any other choice would have driven me to an instant call for more money—a measure which, as too flagrantly in contradiction to the whole terms on which I had volunteered to undertake an Oxford life, I could not find nerves to face.
A few days went by in careless uncertainty. By the end of that time, a minor issue forced me to make a decision. I had brought about fifty guineas to Oxford, but the costs of staying at an Oxford inn, along with nearly daily outings with friends, had eaten into that amount so much that, after accounting for the unexpected expenses that come with adjusting to college life, I wouldn’t have enough left to cover what’s known as “caution money.” This is a small fee that’s fairly required from every student upon enrollment, as a guarantee to cover any losses from unpaid debts in case of sudden death or unexpected departure that could otherwise create ongoing issues for the college. By relieving the college of the need for constant monitoring or enforcement, this fee ultimately serves to benefit everyone involved. In most colleges, it’s around twenty-five pounds; in one, it was significantly less. And this minor detail, along with a reputation at that time for looser discipline, ultimately led me to choose W—— College over all others. This college did have the significant drawback, in my opinion, of lacking an organ and musical services in its chapel. However, any other choice would have forced me to immediately ask for more money—a step I couldn’t bring myself to take, as it felt too contrary to the very terms I had agreed to when deciding to pursue life at Oxford.
At Worcester College, therefore, I entered: and here arises the proper occasion for stating the true costs of an Oxford education. First comes the question of lodging. This item varies, as may be supposed; but my own case will place on record the two extremes of cost in one particular college, nowadays differing, I believe, from the general standard. The first rooms assigned me, being small and ill-lighted, as part of an old Gothic building, were charged at four guineas a year. These I soon exchanged for others a little better, and for them I paid six guineas. Finally, by privilege of seniority, I obtained a handsome set of well-proportioned rooms, in a modern section of the college, charged at ten guineas a year. This set was composed of three rooms; namely, an airy bed-room, a study, and a spacious room for receiving visitors. This range of accommodation is pretty general in Oxford, and, upon the whole, may be taken perhaps as representing the average amount of luxury in this respect, and at the average amount of cost. The furniture and the fittings up of these rooms cost me about twenty-five guineas; for the Oxford rule is, that if you take the rooms (which is at your own option), in that case, you third the furniture and the embellishments—that is, you succeed to the total cost diminished by one third. You pay, therefore, two guineas out of each three to your immediate predecessor. But, as he also may have succeeded to the furniture upon the same terms, whenever there happens to have been a rapid succession of occupants, the original cost to a remote predecessor is sometimes brought down, by this process of diminution, to a mere fraction of the true value; and yet no individual occupant can complain of any[Pg 30] heavy loss. Whilst upon this subject, I may observe that, in the seventeenth century, in Milton's time, for example (about 1624), and for more than sixty years after that era, the practice of chumship prevailed: every set of chambers was possessed by two co-occupants; they had generally the same bed-room, and a common study; and they were called chums. This practice, once all but universal, is now entirely extinct; and the extinction serves to mark the advance of the country, not so much in luxury as in refinement.
At Worcester College, I began my journey, and this is the right moment to talk about the actual costs of an Oxford education. First up is the issue of lodging. This cost can vary, as you might expect, but my experience highlights the two extremes of pricing in one particular college, which I believe differs from the overall trend today. The first rooms I was assigned were small, poorly lit, and part of an old Gothic building, costing four guineas a year. I soon swapped them for slightly better rooms for six guineas. Eventually, due to seniority, I secured a nice set of well-proportioned rooms in a modern section of the college for ten guineas a year. This set consisted of three rooms: a bright bedroom, a study, and a spacious area for entertaining guests. This type of accommodation is pretty standard in Oxford and can be seen as a fair representation of average luxury and cost in this regard. The furniture and decor for these rooms cost me around twenty-five guineas; the Oxford rule states that if you take the rooms (which is your choice), you pay third for the furniture and decorations—that is, you take over the total cost minus one third. So, you pay two guineas out of every three to your immediate predecessor. However, since they might have taken the furniture under the same terms, if there are quick successions of occupants, the original cost to a distant predecessor can sometimes drop to a tiny fraction of its true value, and yet no individual occupant can really complain about a major loss. While we’re on this topic, I should mention that in the seventeenth century, during Milton's time (around 1624), and for over sixty years after, the practice of chumship was common: each set of chambers was shared by two people; they usually had the same bedroom and a shared study, and they were called chums. This practice, once almost universal, has now completely disappeared, highlighting the progress of the country, not just in luxury but also in sophistication.
The next item which I shall notice is that which in college bills is expressed by the word Tutorage. This is the same in all colleges, I believe: viz., ten guineas per annum. And this head suggests an explanation which is most important to the reputation of Oxford, and fitted to clear up a very extensive delusion. Some years ago, a most elaborate statement was circulated of the number and costly endowment of the Oxford Professorships. Some thirty or more there were, it was alleged, and five or six only which were not held as absolute sinecures. Now, this is a charge which I am not here meaning to discuss. Whether defensible or not, I do not now inquire. It is the practical interpretation and construction of this charge which I here wish to rectify. In most Universities, except those of England, the Professors are the body on whom devolves the whole duty and burthen of teaching; they compose the sole fountains of instruction; and if these fountains fail, the fair inference is, that the one great purpose of the institution is defeated. But this inference, valid for all other places, is not so for Oxford and Cambridge. And here, again, the difference arises out of the peculiar distribution of these bodies into separate and independent colleges. Each college takes upon itself the regular instruction of its separate inmates—of these and of no others; and for this office it appoints, after careful selection, trial, and probation, the best qualified amongst those of its senior members who choose to undertake a trust of such heavy responsibility. These officers are called Tutors; and they are connected by duties and by accountability, not with the University at all, but with their own private colleges. The Professors, on the other hand, are public functionaries, not connected (as respects[Pg 31] the exercise of their duties) with any college whatsoever—not even with their own—but altogether and exclusively with the whole University. Besides the public tutors appointed in each college, on the scale of one to each dozen or score of students, there are also tutors strictly private, who attend any students in search of special and extraordinary aid, on terms settled privately by themselves. Of these persons, or their existence, the college takes no cognisance; but between the two classes of tutors, the most studious young men—those who would be most likely to avail themselves of the lectures read by the professors—have their whole time pretty severely occupied: and the inference from all this is, not only that the course of Oxford education would suffer little if no Professors at all existed, but also that, if the existing Professors were ex abundanti to volunteer the most exemplary spirit of exertion, however much this spectacle of conscientious dealing might edify the University, it would contribute but little to the promotion of academic purposes. The establishment of Professors is, in fact, a thing of ornament and pomp. Elsewhere, they are the working servants; but, in Oxford, the ministers corresponding to them bear another name,—they are called Tutors. These are the working agents in the Oxford system; and the Professors, with salaries in many cases merely nominal, are persons sequestered, and properly sequestered, to the solitary cultivation and advancement of knowledge which a different order of men is appointed to communicate.
The next thing I want to mention is what college bills refer to as Tutorage. This is the same across all colleges, I believe: ten guineas per year. This point leads to an explanation that is crucial for the reputation of Oxford and helps clear up a widespread misconception. A few years ago, a detailed report circulated about the number and generous funding of the Oxford Professorships. It was claimed there were thirty or more of these positions, with only five or six that weren't complete sinecures. Now, I'm not here to debate whether that claim is valid or not. What I want to address is the practical interpretation of this claim. In most universities, except for those in England, the Professors are responsible for all teaching duties; they are the sole sources of instruction, and if they fail, it implies that the main purpose of the institution is compromised. However, this inference, which holds true in other places, does not apply to Oxford and Cambridge. Again, the difference stems from the unique structure of these institutions into separate, independent colleges. Each college is responsible for the regular teaching of its own students—only those students—and for this role, it selects, after careful consideration and testing, the most qualified among its senior members who are willing to take on this significant responsibility. These individuals are known as Tutors, and they are accountable not to the University but to their own colleges. In contrast, the Professors are public officials, not connected (regarding their duties) to any specific college—not even to their own—but solely to the entire University. In addition to the public tutors assigned in each college, typically one for every dozen or so students, there are also private tutors who provide special assistance to students at rates agreed upon privately. The college does not recognize these private tutors, but among the two types, the most dedicated students—those likely to attend professors' lectures—are kept quite busy. The conclusion from all this is that the Oxford education system would hardly be affected if there were no Professors at all. Furthermore, even if the current Professors were to extraordinarily demonstrate a strong work ethic, while this display of dedication might impress the University, it would do little to advance academic goals. The position of Professors is, in reality, somewhat decorative. In other places, they are the active contributors; but at Oxford, the individuals performing that role are called Tutors. These Tutors are the key players in the Oxford system, while the Professors, who often earn only nominal salaries, are largely isolated and focused on personal research and knowledge advancement, which is a role assigned to a different group of people to teach.
Here let us pause for one moment, to notice another peculiarity in the Oxford system, upon the tendency of which I shall confidently make my appeal to the good sense of all unprejudiced readers. I have said that the Tutors of Oxford correspond to the Professors of other Universities. But this correspondence, which is absolute and unquestionable as regards the point then at issue,—viz., where we are to look for that limb of the establishment on which rests the main teaching agency,—is liable to considerable qualification, when we examine the mode of their teaching. In both cases, this is conveyed by what is termed "lecturing";—but what is the meaning of a lecture in Oxford and elsewhere? Elsewhere, it means a solemn dissertation, read, or[Pg 32] sometimes histrionically declaimed, by the Professor. In Oxford, it means an exercise performed orally by the students, occasionally assisted by the tutor, and subject, in its whole course, to his corrections, and what may be called his scholia, or collateral suggestions and improvements. Now, differ as men may as to other features of the Oxford, compared with the hostile system, here I conceive that there is no room for doubt or demur. An Oxford lecture imposes a real bona fide task upon the student; it will not suffer him to fall asleep, either literally or in the energies of his understanding; it is a real drill, under the excitement, perhaps, of personal competition, and under the review of a superior scholar. But, in Germany, under the declamations of the Professor, the young men are often literally sleeping; nor is it easy to see how the attention can be kept from wandering, on this plan, which subjects the auditor to no risk of sudden question or personal appeal. As to the prizes given for essays, etc., by the Professors, these have the effect of drawing forth latent talent, but they can yield no criterion of the attention paid to the Professor; not to say that the competition for these prizes is a matter of choice. Sometimes it is true that examinations take place; but the Oxford lecture is a daily examination; and, waiving that, what chance is there (I would ask) for searching examinations, for examinations conducted with the requisite auctoritas (or weight of influence derived from personal qualities), if—which may Heaven prevent!—the German tenure of Professorships were substituted for our British one: that is, if for independent and liberal teachers were substituted poor mercenary haberdashers of knowledge—cap in hand to opulent students—servile to their caprices—and, at one blow, degrading the science they profess, the teacher, and the pupil? Yet I hear that such advice was given to a Royal Commission, sent to investigate one or more of the Scottish Universities. In the German Universities, every Professor holds his situation, not on his good behaviour, but on the capricious pleasure of the young men who resort to his market. He opens a shop, in fact: others, without limit, generally men of no credit or known respectability, are allowed to open rival shops; and the result is, sometimes, that the whole kennel of scoundrel[Pg 33] Professors ruin one another; each standing with his mouth open, to leap at any bone thrown amongst them from the table of the "Burschen"; all hating, fighting, calumniating each other, until the land is sick of its base knowledge-mongers, and would vomit the loathsome crew, were any natural channel open to their instincts of abhorrence. The most important of the Scottish Professorships—those which are fundamentally morticed to the moral institutions of the land—are upon the footing of Oxford tutorships, as regards emoluments; that is, they are not suffered to keep up a precarious mendicant existence, upon the alms of the students, or upon their fickle admirations. It is made imperative upon a candidate for admission into the ministry of the Scottish Kirk, that he shall show a certificate of attendance through a given number of seasons at given lectures.
Here let us pause for a moment to notice another unique aspect of the Oxford system, on which I confidently appeal to the common sense of all fair-minded readers. I have said that the Tutors of Oxford correspond to the Professors of other universities. But this correspondence, which is absolute and undeniable regarding the main teaching role, is subject to significant qualification when we look at their teaching style. In both cases, this is delivered through what is called "lecturing";—but what does a lecture mean in Oxford and elsewhere? In other places, it refers to a solemn presentation, read or sometimes dramatically delivered by the Professor. In Oxford, it refers to an oral exercise performed by the students, sometimes with the tutor's assistance, and throughout, it is open to the tutor's corrections and what can be called his scholia, or additional suggestions and improvements. Now, regardless of how people differ on other aspects of the Oxford system in comparison to the alternative one, I believe there is no room for doubt or objection here. An Oxford lecture places a genuine bona fide task on the student; it won’t let him fall asleep, either literally or mentally; it is a true drill, perhaps fueled by personal competition and under the supervision of a superior scholar. But in Germany, under the Professor's speeches, students can often literally fall asleep; it’s hard to see how attention would stay focused with a format that subjects listeners to no risk of sudden questioning or personal engagement. As for the prizes awarded for essays and similar work by the Professors, they do draw out hidden talent, but they provide no measure of the attention given to the Professor; not to mention that competing for these prizes is optional. Sometimes examinations do happen; but the Oxford lecture acts as a daily exam; and, putting that aside, what chance is there (I’d ask) for thorough exams, conducted with the necessary auctoritas (or influence derived from personal qualities), if—which I hope never happens!—the German style of professorship were to replace our British system: that is, if poor, money-driven instructors were to replace independent and liberal teachers—groveling to wealthy students—subservient to their whims—and, in one fell swoop, degrading the field they teach, themselves, and their students? Yet I hear such advice was given to a Royal Commission sent to look into one or more of the Scottish Universities. In German universities, every Professor holds his position, not through good behavior, but at the whims of the students who attend his lectures. He essentially opens a shop: others, without restriction, generally unqualified individuals, are allowed to open competing shops; and the result can sometimes be that the whole bunch of unscrupulous Professors ruin each other; each one eager to grab any scraps tossed their way by the "Burschen"; all resenting, fighting, and slandering one another, until the community grows weary of its disreputable knowledge-peddlers and would expel the disgusting lot, given any opportunity to act on their instinctive aversion. The most important Scottish Professorships—those deeply connected to the moral institutions of the country—are established on the same wage basis as Oxford tutorships; that is, they aren’t allowed to depend on the inconsistent kindness of students or their fleeting admiration. It is mandatory for someone wishing to join the ministry of the Scottish Kirk to provide proof of attendance at a specified number of lectures over a set period.
The next item in the quarterly (or, technically, the term) bills of Oxford is for servants. This, in my college, and, I believe, in all others, amounted, nominally, to two guineas a year. That sum, however, was paid to a principal servant, whom, perhaps, you seldom or never saw; the actual attendance upon yourself being performed by one of his deputies; and to this deputy—who is, in effect, a factotum, combining in his single person all the functions of chamber-maid, valet, waiter at meals, and porter or errand-boy—by the custom of the place and your own sense of propriety, you cannot but give something or other in the shape of perquisites. I was told, on entering, that half a guinea a quarter was the customary allowance,—the same sum, in fact, as was levied by the college for his principal; but I gave mine a guinea a quarter, thinking that little enough for the many services he performed; and others, who were richer than myself, I dare say, often gave much more. Yet, sometimes, it struck me, from the gratitude which his looks testified, on my punctual payment of this guinea,—for it was the only bill with regard to which I troubled myself to practise any severe punctuality,—that perhaps some thoughtless young man might give him less, or might even forget to give anything; and, at all events, I have reason to believe that half that sum would have contented him. These minutiæ I record purposely; my immediate object being to[Pg 34] give a rigorous statement of the real expenses incident to an English university education, partly as a guide to the calculations of parents, and partly as an answer to the somewhat libellous exaggerations which are current on this subject, in times like these, when even the truth itself, and received in a spirit of candour the most indulgent, may be all too little to defend these venerable seats of learning from the ruin which seems brooding over them. Yet, no! Abominable is the language of despair even in a desperate situation. And, therefore, Oxford, ancient mother! and thou, Cambridge, twin-light of England! be vigilant and erect, for the enemy stands at all your gates! Two centuries almost have passed since the boar was within your vineyards, laying waste and desolating your heritage. Yet that storm was not final, nor that eclipse total. May this also prove but a trial and a shadow of affliction! which affliction, may it prove to you, mighty incorporations, what, sometimes, it is to us, poor, frail homunculi—a process of purification, a solemn and oracular warning! And, when that cloud is overpast, then, rise, ancient powers, wiser and better—ready, like the λαμπαδηφοροι (lampadêphoroi) of old, to enter upon a second stadium, and to transmit the sacred torch through a second period of twice[7] five hundred years. So prays a loyal alumnus, whose presumption, if any be, in taking upon himself a monitory tone, is privileged by zeal and filial anxiety.
The next item on the quarterly (or, technically, the term) bills at Oxford is for servants. At my college, and I believe at all others, this was officially two guineas a year. However, that amount went to a principal servant, who you might rarely see; your actual assistance was provided by one of his assistants. This assistant—a kind of factotum, taking on the roles of chamber-maid, valet, waiter at meals, and porter or errand-boy—was typically given some sort of tip or bonus, as per local tradition and your own sense of fairness. When I first arrived, I was told that half a guinea per quarter was the usual amount, the same amount that the college charged for the principal servant; but I gave mine a guinea per quarter, thinking that was a fair price for the many tasks he handled. Others, who were wealthier than me, probably tipped much more. Yet, I sometimes wondered, based on the gratitude evident in his expression when I promptly paid this guinea—which was the only bill I made a point to always pay on time—if some careless young man might give him less or might even forget to tip at all; and I believe half that amount would have satisfied him. I record these details intentionally; my key aim is to provide an accurate account of the real costs associated with an English university education, partly to guide parents’ calculations and partly as a response to the exaggerated claims that circulate about this topic in times like these, when even the truth, received with the kindest spirit, may still be inadequate to defend these ancient institutions from the looming threat of decline. Yet, no! The language of despair is unacceptable, even in dire circumstances. So, Oxford, ancient mother! and you, Cambridge, shining twin of England! stay alert and stand tall, for the enemy is at your gates! Nearly two centuries have passed since the boar invaded your lands, destroying your heritage. Yet that storm was not the end, nor was that darkness complete. May this too be just a trial and a fleeting hardship! May this hardship, for you, great institutions, serve as it sometimes does for us, fragile homunculi—a means of purification, a grave and prophetic warning! And when that cloud has passed, then rise, ancient powers, wiser and better—ready, like the λαμπαδηφοροι (lampadêphoroi) of old, to step into a second stadium, and to pass on the sacred torch through another period of twice [7] five hundred years. This is the prayer of a loyal alumnus, whose right to speak in a cautionary tone comes from his passion and concern.
To return, however, into the track from which I have digressed. The reader will understand that any student is at liberty to have private servants of his own, as many and of what denomination he pleases. This point, as many others of a merely personal bearing, when they happen to stand in no relation to public discipline, neither the University nor the particular college of the student feels summoned or even authorized to deal with. Neither, in fact, does any other University in Europe; and why, then, notice the case? Simply thus: if the Oxford discipline, in this particular chapter, has nothing special or peculiar about it, yet the case to which it applies has, and is almost exclusively found in[Pg 35] our Universities. On the Continent it happens most rarely that a student has any funds disposable for luxuries so eminently such as grooms or footmen; but at Oxford and Cambridge the case occurs often enough to attract notice from the least vigilant eye. And thus we find set down to the credit account of other Universities the non-existence of luxury in this or other modes, whilst, meantime, it is well known to the fair inquirer that each or all are indulgences not at all or so much as in idea proscribed by the sumptuary edicts of those Universities, but, simply, by the lower scale of their general revenues. And this lower scale, it will be said—how do you account for that? I answer, not so much by the general inferiority of Continental Europe to Great Britain in diffusive wealth (though that argument goes for something, it being notorious that, whilst immoderate wealth, concentrated in a small number of hands, exists in various continental states upon a larger scale than with us, moderately large estates, on the other hand, are, with them, as one to two hundred, or even two hundred and fifty, in comparison with ours), but chiefly upon this fact, which is too much overlooked, that the foreign Universities are not peopled from the wealthiest classes, which are the classes either already noble, or wishing to become such. And why is that? Purely from the vicious constitution of society on the Continent, where all the fountains of honour lie in the military profession or in the diplomatic. We English, haters and revilers of ourselves beyond all precedent, disparagers of our own eminent advantages beyond all sufferance of honour or good sense, and daily playing into the hands of foreign enemies, who hate us out of mere envy or shame, have amongst us some hundreds of writers who will die or suffer martyrdom upon this proposition—that aristocracy, and the spirit and prejudices of aristocracy, are more operative (more effectually and more extensively operative) amongst ourselves than in any other known society of men. Now, I, who believe all errors to arise in some narrow, partial, or angular view of truth, am seldom disposed to meet any sincere affirmation by a blank, unmodified denial. Knowing, therefore, that some acute observers do really believe this doctrine as to the aristocratic forces, and the way in which they[Pg 36] mould English society, I cannot but suppose that some symptoms do really exist of such a phenomenon; and the only remark I shall here make on the case is this, that, very often, where any force or influence reposes upon deep realities, and upon undisturbed foundations, there will be the least heard of loquacious and noisy expressions of its power; which expressions arise most, not where the current is most violent, but where (being possibly the weakest) it is most fretted with resistance.
To get back on track from where I’ve strayed, the reader should know that any student is free to have their own personal servants, as many and of whatever kind they choose. This matter, like many others that are purely personal and don’t relate to public conduct, isn’t something the University or the specific college feels the need or has the authority to address. In fact, no other University in Europe does either; so why mention it? Simply put, while Oxford’s rules on this specific issue are not unique, the situation they apply to is, and is largely found in our Universities. On the Continent, it’s quite rare for a student to have extra funds available for luxuries like grooms or footmen; but at Oxford and Cambridge, such occurrences are common enough to catch the attention of even the least observant. Thus, other Universities get credit for not having luxury in this or similar forms, while it is well known to those who inquire that these indulgences are not prohibited by the spending regulations of those Universities, but rather due to their generally lower income. And when it comes to this lower income, how do you explain it? I would say it’s not just because Continental Europe has less overall wealth compared to Great Britain (though that’s part of it, as it’s well-known that while excessive wealth is concentrated in a few hands in various continental countries, moderately large estates are much more common here), but mainly because foreign Universities aren’t populated by the wealthiest classes, who are either already noble or aspire to be. Why is that? It’s solely due to the flawed structure of society on the Continent, where all sources of honor lie in the military or diplomatic professions. We English are our own harshest critics, denigrating our own significant advantages beyond what’s reasonable or sensible, and we often play into the hands of foreign adversaries who envy or are embarrassed by us. Yet, among us are hundreds of writers ready to die or be martyred for the belief that aristocracy and its associated spirit and biases are more influential in our society than in any other human society known. I, however, who think that all errors come from a narrow or skewed understanding of the truth, am rarely inclined to respond to any sincere assertion with a simple, unqualified denial. Acknowledging that some keen observers really believe in this idea about the influence of aristocracy and how it shapes English society, I can’t help but think that there are indeed signs of such phenomena. The only comment I’ll make about this is that often, where real power or influence is based on solid truths and stable foundations, you will hear the least about the loud and boastful displays of its strength; these displays are typically most common where the current is weakest and feels the most resistance.
In England, the very reason why the aristocratic feeling makes itself so sensibly felt and so distinctly an object of notice to the censorious observer is, because it maintains a troubled existence amongst counter and adverse influences, so many and so potent. This might be illustrated abundantly. But, as respects the particular question before me, it will be sufficient to say this: With us the profession and exercise of knowledge, as a means of livelihood, is honourable; on the Continent it is not so. The knowledge, for instance, which is embodied in the three learned professions, does, with us, lead to distinction and civil importance; no man can pretend to deny this; nor, by consequence, that the Professors personally take rank with the highest order of gentlemen. Are they not, I demand, everywhere with us on the same footing, in point of rank and consideration, as those who bear the king's commission in the army and navy? Can this be affirmed of the Continent, either generally, or, indeed, partially? I say, no. Let us take Germany as an illustration. Many towns (for anything I know, all) present us with a regular bisection of the resident notables, or wealthier class, into two distinct (often hostile) coteries: one being composed of those who are "noble"; the other, of families equally well educated and accomplished, but not, in the continental sense, "noble." The meaning and value of the word is so entirely misapprehended by the best English writers,—being, in fact, derived from our own way of applying it,—that it becomes important to ascertain its true value. A "nobility" which is numerous enough to fill a separate ball-room in every sixth-rate town, it needs no argument to show, cannot be a nobility in any English sense. In fact, an edelmann or nobleman, in the German sense, is strictly what we mean by[Pg 37] a born gentleman; with this one only difference, that, whereas, with us, the rank which denominates a man such passes off by shades so insensible, and almost infinite, into the ranks below, that it becomes impossible to assign it any strict demarkation or lines of separation, on the contrary, the Continental noble points to certain fixed barriers, in the shape of privileges, which divide him, per saltum, from those who are below his own order. But, were it not for this one legal benefit of accurate circumscription and slight favour, the Continental noble, whether Baron of Germany, Count of France, or Prince of Sicily and of Russia, is simply on a level with the common landed esquire of Britain, and not on a level in very numerous cases. Such being the case, how paramount must be the spirit of aristocracy in Continental society! Our haute noblesse—our genuine nobility, who are such in the general feeling of their compatriots—will do that which the phantom of nobility of the Continent will not: the spurious nobles of Germany will not mix, on equal terms, with their untitled fellow-citizens living in the same city and in the same style as themselves; they will not meet them in the same ball or concert-room. Our great territorial nobility, though sometimes forming exclusive circles (but not, however, upon any principle of high birth), do so daily. They mix as equal partakers in the same amusements of races, balls, musical assemblies, with the baronets (or élite of the gentry); with the landed esquires (or middle gentry); with the superior order of tradesmen (who, in Germany, are absolute ciphers, for political weight, or social consideration, but, with us, constitute the lower and broader stratum of the nobilitas,[8] or gentry). The obscure baronage of Germany, it is undeniable,[Pg 38] insist upon having "an atmosphere of their own"; whilst the Howards, the Stanleys, the Talbots, of England, the Hamiltons, the Douglases, the Gordons, of Scotland, are content to acknowledge a sympathy with the liberal part of their untitled countrymen, in that point which most searchingly tries the principle of aristocratic pride, viz., in their pleasures. To have the same pursuits of business with another may be a result of accident or position; to have the same pleasures, being a matter of choice, argues a community of nature in the moral sensibilities, in that part of our constitution which differences one man from another in the capacities of greatness and elevation.
In England, the reason the aristocratic feeling is so noticeable to critical observers is that it exists amid many conflicting influences that are both numerous and powerful. This could be illustrated in many ways. However, concerning the specific issue at hand, I can say this: In our country, having and using knowledge as a way to earn a living is considered respectable; but that's not the case on the Continent. The knowledge found in the three learned professions leads to recognition and social importance here; no one can deny that. Consequently, professors rank alongside the highest class of gentlemen. Aren't they, I ask, regarded here at the same level, in terms of status and respect, as those with military commissions in the army and navy? Is that true on the Continent, either generally or at all? I say, no. Let's take Germany as an example. Many towns (if not all) show a clear divide in their resident notables, or wealthier class, into two distinct (often rival) groups: one consists of those who are "noble"; the other includes equally educated and skilled families, but not, in the continental sense, "noble." The meaning and value of the word are so completely misunderstood by even the best English writers—derived from our own usage—that it's essential to clarify its real meaning. A "nobility" that is numerous enough to fill a separate ballroom in every lesser town surely cannot be considered a nobility in any English sense. In fact, an edelmann or nobleman, in the German sense, strictly corresponds to what we understand by a born gentleman; with the only difference being that, while in our country, the rank that defines a man fades into almost infinite shades below, thus making it impossible to establish strict boundaries or lines of separation, the Continental noble has clear privileges that create a stark divide between him and those below his rank. But, aside from this one legal advantage of precise definition and slight privilege, the Continental noble—whether a Baron of Germany, Count of France, or Prince of Sicily and Russia—is simply on par with the common landed esquire of Britain, and not often at a superior level. Given that, one can see how strong the spirit of aristocracy must be in Continental society! Our haute noblesse—our true nobility, regarded as such by their fellow countrymen—will do things that the phantom nobility of the Continent will not: the false nobles of Germany refuse to associate at equal terms with their untitled neighbors living in the same city and style; they won't meet them at the same balls or concerts. Our great territorial nobility, though they sometimes form exclusive circles (but not based on any principle of noble birth), engage with everyday people. They participate equally in the same activities of races, balls, and musical gatherings with baronets (or the élite of the gentry); with landed esquires (or the middle gentry); and with the upper tier of tradespeople (who, in Germany, have no political or social weight, but here form the lower and broader stratum of the nobilitas,[8] or gentry). It's undeniable that the obscure baronage of Germany insists on having "their own atmosphere," whereas the Howards, Stanleys, Talbots of England, and Hamiltons, Douglases, Gordons of Scotland are willing to share a bond with the more liberal cousin classes of their untitled fellow citizens, especially in the area that tests the core of aristocratic pride: their pleasures. Sharing the same business interests with another can be a matter of chance or circumstance; having the same pleasures, being a matter of personal choice, indicates a shared nature in the moral sensitivities that distinguish one person from another in their capacity for greatness and elevation.
As with their amusements, so with their graver employments; the same mutual repulsion continues to divide the two orders through life. The nobles either live in gloomy seclusion upon their private funds, wherever the privilege of primogeniture has enabled them to do so; or, having no funds at all (the case of ninety-nine in one hundred), they go into the army; that profession, the profession of arms, being regarded as the only one compatible with an edelmann's pretensions. Such was once the feeling in England; such is still the feeling on the Continent. It is a prejudice naturally clinging to a semi-barbarous (because growing out of a barbarous) state, and, in its degree, clinging to every stage of imperfect civilization; and, were there no other argument, this would be a sufficient one, that England, under free institutions, has outrun the Continent, in real civilization, by a century; a fact which is concealed by the forms of luxurious refinement in a few exclusive classes, too often usurping the name and honours of radical civilization.
Just like with their entertainments, the same mutual dislike continues to keep the two classes apart throughout life. The nobles either live in dark isolation off their private wealth, wherever the right of primogeniture allows them to do so; or, if they have no money at all (which is the case for ninety-nine out of a hundred), they join the military. That profession, the military, is seen as the only one that fits an edelmann's status. This was once the mindset in England; it’s still the mindset on the Continent. It’s a belief that naturally clings to a semi-barbaric (because it comes from a barbaric) state, and it clings, to some extent, to every level of incomplete civilization. Even if there were no other argument, this one would be enough: England, under democratic institutions, has advanced past the Continent in true civilization by a century; a fact that is hidden by the appearances of luxury and refinement in a few exclusive classes, who too often claim the name and honors of true civilization.
From the super-appreciation of the military profession arises a corresponding contempt of all other professions whatsoever paid by fellow-citizens, and not by the King or the State. The clerical profession is in the most abject degradation throughout Southern Germany; and the reason why this forces itself less imperiously upon the public notice is, that, in rural situations, from the absence of a resident gentry (speaking generally), the pastor is brought into rare collision with those who style themselves noble; whilst, in towns, the clergy find people enough to countenance those who, being in the same[Pg 39] circumstances as to comfort and liberal education, are also under the same ban of rejection from the "nobility," or born gentry. The legal profession is equally degraded; even a barrister or advocate holds a place in the public esteem little differing from that of an Old Bailey attorney of the worst class. And this result is the less liable to modification from personal qualities, inasmuch as there is no great theatre (as with us) for individual display. Forensic eloquence is unknown in Germany, as it is too generally on the Continent, from the defect of all popular or open judicatures. A similar defect of deliberative assemblies—such, at least, as represent any popular influences and debate with open doors—intercepts the very possibility of senatorial eloquence.[9] That of the pulpit only remains. But even of this—whether it be from want of the excitement and contagious emulation from the other fields of oratory, or from the peculiar genius of Lutheranism—no models have yet arisen that could, for one moment, sustain a comparison with those of England or France. The highest names in this department would not, to a foreign ear, carry with them any of that significance or promise which surrounds the names of Jeremy Taylor or Barrow, Bossuet or Bourdaloue, to those even who have no personal acquaintance with their works. This absence of all fields for gathering public distinctions co-operates, in a very powerful way, with the contempt of the born gentry, to degrade these professions; and this double agency is, a third time, reinforced by those political arrangements which deny every form of state honour or conspicuous promotion to the very highest description of excellence, whether of the bar, the pulpit, or the civic council. Not "the fluent Murray," or the accomplished Erskine, from the English bar—not Pericles or Demosthenes, from the fierce democracies of Greece—not Paul preaching at Athens—could snatch a wreath from public[Pg 40] homage, nor a distinction from the state, nor found an influence, nor leave behind them an operative model, in Germany, as now constituted. Other walks of emolument are still more despised. Alfieri, a Continental "noble," that is, a born gentleman, speaks of bankers as we in England should of a Jewish usurer, or tricking money-changer. The liberal trades, such as those which minister to literature or the fine arts, which, with us, confer the station of gentleman upon those who exercise them, are, in the estimate of a Continental "noble," fitted to assign a certain rank or place in the train and equipage of a gentleman, but not to entitle their most eminent professors to sit down, except by sufferance, in his presence. And, upon this point, let not the reader derive his notions from the German books: the vast majority of German authors are not "noble"; and, of those who are, nine tenths are liberal in this respect, and speak the language of liberality, not by sympathy with their own order, or as representing their feelings, but in virtue of democratic or revolutionary politics.
From the extreme admiration of military careers comes a corresponding disdain for all other professions that are paid by fellow citizens, rather than by the King or the State. The clerical profession is in a very poor state throughout Southern Germany; and the reason this doesn't catch more public attention is that, in rural areas, due to the absence of a local aristocracy (generally speaking), the pastor rarely interacts with those who consider themselves noble; meanwhile, in cities, the clergy encounter enough people who, sharing similar circumstances regarding comfort and education, are also excluded from the "nobility" or born gentry. The legal profession is similarly looked down upon; even a barrister or advocate holds a public reputation not much different from that of a disreputable Old Bailey attorney. This situation is even less likely to change due to personal qualities, as there isn't a significant arena (as there is for us) for individual recognition. Forensic eloquence is virtually nonexistent in Germany, as it is across much of the Continent, due to the lack of popular or open courts. A similar lack of deliberative assemblies—at least ones that represent any popular influence and hold debates openly— hinders the possibility of prominent senatorial speech. Only the pulpit remains. However, even regarding this—whether due to the absence of excitement and contagious competition from other areas of oratory, or from the distinct character of Lutheranism—there haven't been any role models that could even remotely compare to those in England or France. The most notable figures in this field wouldn't carry the same significance or promise to a foreign listener that names like Jeremy Taylor, Barrow, Bossuet, or Bourdaloue do, even for those who are unfamiliar with their works. This lack of avenues for public recognition strongly contributes, alongside the disdain of the born gentry, to the degradation of these professions; and this combined effect is further reinforced by political arrangements that deny any form of state honor or significant advancement to the highest level of excellence in the courts, the pulpit, or civic councils. Neither "the fluent Murray," nor the skilled Erskine from the English bar—nor Pericles or Demosthenes from the fierce democracies of Greece—nor Paul preaching in Athens—could gain any public acclaim, nor receive a distinction from the state, nor create an influence, nor leave behind a lasting example in Germany as it currently stands. Other fields of income are even more scorned. Alfieri, a Continental "noble," meaning a born gentleman, speaks of bankers in a way that we in England would refer to a Jewish usurer or unscrupulous money-changer. The liberal trades, like those that support literature or the fine arts, which grant the status of gentleman to those who engage in them in our society, are, in the view of a Continental "noble," only suitable to provide a certain rank or place in the entourage and equipment of a gentleman, but do not allow their most distinguished practitioners to sit down, except by permission, in his presence. And regarding this issue, readers should not form their ideas from German literature: the vast majority of German authors are not "noble"; and among those who are, nine out of ten are liberal in this regard and speak a language of inclusivity, not out of sympathy for their own class or as representatives of their feelings, but because of democratic or revolutionary politics.
Such as the rank is, and the public estimation of the leading professions, such is the natural condition of the Universities which rear them. The "nobles" going generally into the army, or leading lives of indolence, the majority by far of those who resort to Universities do so as a means of future livelihood. Few seek an academic life in Germany who have either money to throw away on superfluities and external show, or who have such a rank to support as might stimulate their pride to expenses beyond their means. Parsimony is, therefore, in these places, the governing law; and pleasure, not less fervently wooed than at Oxford or at Cambridge, putting off her robes of elegance and ceremony, descends to grossness, and not seldom to abject brutality.
The status and public perception of leading professions reflect the overall state of the universities that produce them. Nobles typically join the army or live leisurely lives, while most students attending universities do so primarily to secure a future income. In Germany, very few pursue an academic life if they have money to spare on luxuries or if their social status compels them to spend beyond their means. Therefore, frugality is the prevailing rule in these institutions; and while pleasure is sought just as eagerly as at Oxford or Cambridge, it sheds its elegance and formalities, often descending into crudeness and sometimes even to sheer brutality.
The sum of my argument is—that, because, in comparison of the army, no other civil profession is, in itself, held of sufficient dignity, and not less, perhaps, because, under governments essentially unpopular, none of these professions has been so dignified artificially by the state, or so attached to any ulterior promotion, either through the state or in the state, as to meet the demands of aristocratic pride, none of them is cultivated as a means of distinction, but originally as[Pg 41] a means of livelihood; that the Universities, as the nurseries of these unhonoured professions, share naturally in their degradation, and that, from this double depreciation of the place and its final objects, few or none resort thither who can be supposed to bring any extra funds for supporting a system of luxury; that the general temperance, or sobriety of demeanour, is far enough, however, from keeping pace with the absence of costly show; and that, for this absence even, we are to thank their poverty rather than their will. It is to the great honour, in my opinion, of our own country, that those often resort to her fountains who have no motive but that of disinterested reverence for knowledge; seeking, as all men perceive, neither emolument directly from University funds, nor knowledge as the means of emolument. Doubtless, it is neither dishonourable, nor, on a large scale, possible to be otherwise, that students should pursue their academic career chiefly as ministerial to their capital object of a future livelihood. But still I contend that it is for the interest of science and good letters that a considerable body of volunteers should gather about their banners without pay or hopes of preferment. This takes place on a larger scale at Oxford and Cambridge than elsewhere; and it is but a trivial concession in return, on the part of the University, that she should allow, even if she had the right to withhold, the privilege of living within her walls as they would have lived at their fathers' seats; with one only reserve, applied to all modes of expense that are, in themselves, immoral excesses, or occasions of scandal, or of a nature to interfere too much with the natural hours of study, or specially fitted to tempt others of narrower means to ruinous emulation.
The gist of my argument is that, compared to the military, no other civil profession is regarded as having enough dignity. Additionally, under governments that are generally unpopular, none of these professions has been artificially elevated by the state or connected to any further opportunities for advancement, either through the government or within it, to satisfy the demands of social status. As a result, they are not pursued for distinction but primarily as a way to make a living. The Universities, which are the breeding grounds for these undervalued professions, naturally share in their decline. Because of this dual depreciation of both the institution and its ultimate goals, few, if any, go there expecting to contribute extra resources to support a luxurious system. The general demeanor tends to be rather moderate, yet it does not align with the lack of extravagant display, and we can credit their poverty for this absence rather than their choice. I believe it is a great honor for our country that many are drawn to its sources of knowledge without any ulterior motive other than a genuine respect for learning, seeking neither financial gain from University funds nor knowledge as a means to make money. Of course, it is neither shameful nor realistically possible, on a large scale, for students to pursue their academic paths solely to achieve a future livelihood. Still, I argue that it is in the interest of science and good scholarship for a significant number of volunteers to rally around their cause without monetary compensation or aspirations for advancement. This phenomenon occurs on a larger scale at Oxford and Cambridge than anywhere else, and it is a minor concession from the University, even if she had the right to refuse, to allow them to live within her confines as they would at their families' homes—with only one exception applied to all excessive expenses that are morally questionable, cause scandal, interfere too much with study hours, or are particularly likely to tempt others with fewer resources into ruinous competition.
Upon these principles, as it seems to me, the discipline of the University is founded. The keeping of hunters, for example, is unstatutable. Yet, on the other hand, it is felt to be inevitable that young men of high spirit, familiar with this amusement, will find means to pursue it in defiance of all the powers, however exerted, that can properly be lodged in the hands of academic officers. The range of the proctor's jurisdiction is limited by positive law; and what should hinder a young man, bent upon his pleasure, from fixing the station of his hunter a few miles out of Oxford, and riding to[Pg 42] cover on a hack, unamenable to any censure? For, surely, in this age, no man could propose so absurd a thing as a general interdiction of riding. How, in fact, does the University proceed? She discountenances the practice; and, if forced upon her notice, she visits it with censure, and that sort of punishment which lies within her means. But she takes no pains to search out a trespass, which, by the mere act of seeking to evade public display in the streets of the University, already tends to limit itself; and which, besides, from its costliness, can never become a prominent nuisance. This I mention as illustrating the spirit of her legislation; and, even in this case, the reader must carry along with him the peculiar distinction which I have pressed with regard to English Universities, in the existence of a large volunteer order of students seeking only the liberalization, and not the profits, of academic life. In arguing upon their case, it is not the fair logic to say, These pursuits taint the decorum of the studious character; it is not fair to calculate how much is lost to the man of letters by such addiction to fox-hunting, but, on the contrary, what is gained to the fox-hunter, who would, at any rate, be such, by so considerable a homage paid to letters, and so inevitable a commerce with men of learning. Anything whatsoever attained in this direction is probably so much more than would have been attained under a system of less toleration. Lucro ponamus, we say, of the very least success in such a case. But, in speaking of toleration as applied to acts or habits positively against the statutes, I limit my meaning to those which, in their own nature, are morally indifferent, and are discountenanced simply as indirectly injurious, or as peculiarly open to excess. Because, on graver offences (as gambling, &c.), the malicious impeachers of Oxford must well have known that no toleration whatsoever is practised or thought of. Once brought under the eye of the University in a clear case and on clear evidence, it would be punished in the most exemplary way open to a limited authority; by rustication, at least—that is, banishment for a certain number of terms, and consequent loss of these terms—supposing the utmost palliation of circumstances; and, in an aggravated case, or on a second offence, most certainly by final expulsion. But it is no part[Pg 43] of duty to serve the cause even of good morals by impure means; and it is as difficult beforehand to prevent the existence of vicious practices so long as men have, and ought to have, the means of seclusion liable to no violation, as it is afterwards difficult, without breach of honour, to obtain proof of their existence. Gambling has been known to exist in some dissenting institutions; and, in my opinion, with no blame to the presiding authorities. As to Oxford in particular, no such habit was generally prevalent in my time; it is not an English vice; nor did I ever hear of any great losses sustained in this way. But, were it otherwise, I must hold, that, considering the numbers, rank, and great opulence, of the students, such a habit would impeach the spirit and temper of the age rather than the vigilance or magisterial fidelity of the Oxford authorities. They are limited, like other magistrates, by honour and circumstances, in a thousand ways; and if a knot of students will choose to meet for purposes of gaming, they must always have it in their power to baffle every honourable or becoming attempt at detecting them. But upon this subject I shall make two statements, which may have some effect in moderating the uncharitable judgments upon Oxford discipline. The first respects the age of those who are the objects of this discipline; on which point a very grave error prevails. In the last Parliament, not once, but many times over, Lord Brougham and others assumed that the students of Oxford were chiefly boys; and this, not idly or casually, but pointedly, and with a view to an ulterior argument; for instance, by way of proving how little they were entitled to judge of those thirty-nine articles to which their assent was demanded. Now, this argued a very extraordinary ignorance; and the origin of the error showed the levity in which their legislation was conducted. These noble lords had drawn their ideas of a University exclusively from Glasgow. Here, it is well known, and I mention it neither for praise nor blame, that students are in the habit of coming at the early age of fourteen. These may allowably be styled boys. But, with regard to Oxford, eighteen is about the earliest age at which young men begin their residence: twenty and upwards is, therefore, the age of the majority; that is, twenty is the minimum of age for the[Pg 44] vast majority, as there must always be more men of three years' standing than of two or of one. Apply this fact to the question of discipline: young men beyond twenty, generally,—that is to say, of the age which qualifies men for seats in the national council,—can hardly, with decency, either be called or treated as boys; and many things become impossible as applied to them, which might be of easy imposition upon an assemblage really childish. In mere justice, therefore, when speculating upon this whole subject of Oxford discipline, the reader must carry along with him, at every step, the recollection of that signal difference as to age which I have now stated between Oxonians and those students whom the hostile party contemplate in their arguments.[Pg 45][10] Meantime, to show that, even under every obstacle presented by this difference of age, the Oxford authorities do, nevertheless, administer their discipline with fidelity, with intrepidity, and with indifference as respects the high and the low, I shall select from a crowd of similar recollections two anecdotes, which are but trifles in themselves, and yet are not such to him who recognizes them as expressions of a uniform system of dealing.
Based on these principles, it seems to me that the discipline at the University is built. For instance, keeping hunters is technically against the rules. However, it's clear that spirited young men who engage in this activity will find ways to continue it regardless of the authority that the academic officers hold. The proctor's power is limited by the law; so, what's to stop a young man intent on riding from placing his hunter a few miles outside Oxford and then riding to the hunt on a different horse, which wouldn’t be subject to any reprimand? Surely, in this day and age, no one would suggest a blanket ban on riding. How does the University actually handle this? It disapproves of the practice and will reprimand it if it comes to their attention, inflicting whatever punishment it can. But they don’t go out of their way to hunt down infractions, which tend to limit themselves by simply trying to avoid public attention, and besides, it’s an expensive hobby that rarely becomes a significant issue. I mention this to illustrate the spirit behind their regulations; and in this instance, the reader should keep in mind the unique distinction regarding English Universities, where there exists a large volunteer group of students seeking knowledge, not profits, from academic life. When discussing their situation, it’s not fair to argue that these activities tarnish the reputation of studiousness; it's unfair to measure how much the literary individual loses by indulging in fox-hunting, instead we should consider what the fox-hunter gains, who will, in any case, still pay homage to learning and engage with educated individuals. Any achievements in this area are likely greater than what would be accomplished under a less tolerant system. Lucro ponamus, we say, about even the smallest success in this context. However, when I refer to tolerance regarding actions or habits that directly violate the rules, I limit my comment to those that are morally neutral and are disapproved of mainly because they're seen as potentially harmful or particularly prone to excess. Because for serious offenses (like gambling, etc.), those who criticize Oxford must know that no tolerance is practiced or even considered. If a clear case comes to the University's attention with solid evidence, it would be dealt with in the most serious manner possible within a restricted authority—likely rustication, meaning temporary expulsion for a set number of terms and the corresponding loss of those terms—assuming circumstances are as favorable as possible; and in a more serious case, or upon a repeat offense, it would probably lead to permanent expulsion. But it's not the role of the University to advocate morality by corrupt means; and it's just as challenging beforehand to prevent the rise of bad practices while people have the right to privacy that shouldn’t be infringed, as it is afterward to gather proof of their existence without dishonor. Gambling has been known to happen in some dissenting institutions, and in my view, without blame to the governing bodies. Regarding Oxford specifically, I didn’t see this behavior as widespread during my time; it’s not a common issue in England, and I never heard of any significant losses incurred this way. However, if it were otherwise, I would argue that considering the number, status, and wealth of the students, such behavior would reflect more on the spirit and nature of the times than on the attentiveness or integrity of Oxford's authorities. They are limited, like other officials, by honor and situations in many ways; and if a group of students decides to meet for gambling, they'll always have the ability to outsmart any honorable attempt to catch them. But on this topic, I want to make two points which might help soften the harsh judgments about Oxford’s discipline. The first relates to the age of the students subject to this discipline, where a serious misconception exists. In the last Parliament, not once but repeatedly, Lord Brougham and others claimed that Oxford students were primarily boys; and this wasn’t said casually, but deliberately to support other arguments, like suggesting they were unqualified to judge the thirty-nine articles they were required to agree to. This reflected a significant misunderstanding; and the root of the error indicated the carelessness with which their argument was made. These noble lords based their ideas of a University entirely on Glasgow. It is widely known, and I mention it neutrally, that students there often start attending at the early age of fourteen. Those can rightly be called boys. But at Oxford, eighteen is roughly the earliest age when young men begin their studies; thus, the typical age is twenty or older, meaning twenty is the minimum age for the majority, as there will always be more students with three years of experience than with two or one. Relate this fact to the issue of discipline: young men beyond twenty—meaning those old enough to participate in national governance—can hardly be reasonably considered or treated as boys; and many things that could easily be imposed on a truly childlike group become impossible for them. Therefore, in fairness, when contemplating this whole topic of Oxford discipline, the reader should consistently remember the important age difference between Oxonians and those students the opposition refers to in their arguments.[Pg 45][10] Meanwhile, to show that even with every challenge posed by this age difference, the Oxford authorities still administer their discipline with fidelity, bravery, and impartiality regarding rank, I will choose two anecdotes from many similar ones, which are trivial in themselves, but are significant to anyone who sees them as reflections of a consistent system of management.
A great Whig Lord (Earl C——) happened (it may be ten years ago) to present himself one day at Trinity (the leading college of Cambridge), for the purpose of introducing Lord F—— ch, his son, as a future member of that splendid society. Possibly it mortified his aristocratic feelings to hear the head of the college, even whilst welcoming the young nobleman in courteous terms, yet suggesting, with some solemnity, that, before taking any final resolution in the matter, his lordship would do well to consider whether he were fully prepared to submit himself to college discipline; for that, otherwise, it became his own duty frankly to declare that the college would not look upon his accession to their society as any advantage. This language arose out of some recent experience of refractory and turbulent conduct upon the part of various young men of rank; but it is very possible that the noble Earl, in his surprise at a salutation so uncourtly, might regard it, in a Tory mouth, as having some lurking reference to his own Whig politics. If so, he must have been still more surprised to hear of another case, which would meet him before he left Cambridge, and which involved some frank dealing as well as frank speaking, when a privilege of exception might have been presumed, if Tory politics, or services the most memorable, could ever create such a privilege. The Duke of W—— had two sons at Oxford. The affair is now long past; and it cannot injure either of them to say, that one of the brothers trespassed against the college discipline, in some way which compelled (or was thought to compel) the presiding authorities into a solemn notice of his conduct. Expulsion appeared to be the appropriate penalty of his offences: but, at this point, a just hesitation arose. Not in any servile spirit, but under a proper feeling of consideration for so eminent a public benefactor as this young nobleman's father.[Pg 46] the rulers paused—and at length signified to him that he was at liberty to withdraw himself privately from the college, but also, and at the same time, from the University. He did so, and his brother, conceiving him to have been harshly treated, withdrew also; and both transferred themselves to Cambridge. That could not be prevented: but there they were received with marked reserve. One was not received, I believe, in a technical sense; and the other was received conditionally; and such restrictions were imposed upon his future conduct as served most amply, and in a case of great notoriety, to vindicate the claims of discipline, and, in an extreme case, a case so eminently an extreme one that none like it is ever likely to recur, to proclaim the footing upon which the very highest rank is received at the English Universities. Is that footing peculiar to them? I willingly believe that it is not; and, with respect to Edinburgh and Glasgow, I am persuaded that their weight of dignity is quite sufficient, and would be exerted to secure the same subordination from men of rank, if circumstances should ever bring as large a number of that class within their gates, and if their discipline were equally applicable to the habits of students not domiciled within their walls. But, as to the smaller institutions for education within the pale of dissent, I feel warranted in asserting, from the spirit of the anecdotes which have reached me, that they have not the auctoritas requisite for adequately maintaining their dignity.
A prominent Whig Lord (Earl C——) showed up one day at Trinity (the top college at Cambridge), possibly ten years ago, to introduce Lord F—— ch, his son, as a potential new member of that prestigious institution. It might have been embarrassing for him to hear the college head, while warmly welcoming the young nobleman, suggest somewhat seriously that before making any final decision, his lordship should carefully consider whether he was truly ready to follow college rules. If not, he would have to frankly state that they wouldn't see the addition of him to their community as beneficial. This was in response to some recent issues with unruly behavior from various young men of high status, but it’s quite possible that the noble Earl, taken aback by such an unrefined greeting, thought it contained some subtle jab at his Whig politics, especially coming from a Tory. If that was the case, he probably would have been even more surprised to hear about another situation he would encounter before leaving Cambridge, which required both honest interactions and discussions, where one could assume an exemption might have been deserved due to Tory politics or renowned services. The Duke of W—— had two sons at Oxford. That situation has long since passed; it’s safe to say that one of the brothers broke college rules in a way that led the authorities to issue a formal notice about his behavior. Expulsion seemed like the fitting punishment for his actions, but a justified pause occurred. Not out of any servility, but out of respect for such a valuable public benefactor as this young nobleman’s father, the college authorities hesitated—and ultimately communicated to him that he was free to discreetly leave both the college and the University. He took that option, and his brother, thinking he was treated unfairly, withdrew as well; both of them then transferred to Cambridge. That couldn’t be stopped; however, they were met there with noticeable caution. One brother was not formally accepted, I believe, while the other was granted conditional admission, with several restrictions on his future conduct imposed, which effectively upheld the need for discipline and, in an extraordinary case, one so unique that something similar is unlikely to happen again, demonstrated how even the highest ranks are treated at the English Universities. Is that treatment unique to them? I like to think it’s not; and regarding Edinburgh and Glasgow, I believe their level of prestige is more than enough to ensure the same level of discipline from men of rank if circumstances ever allowed a significant number of them within their walls, and if their rules applied just as well to students who didn't live on campus. But as for the smaller educational institutions within dissenting communities, I feel justified in claiming, based on the essence of the stories I’ve heard, that they lack the authority necessary to maintain their respect adequately.
So much for the aristocracy of our English Universities: their glory is, and the happiest application of their vast influence, that they have the power to be republican, as respects their internal condition. Literature, by substituting a different standard of rank, tends to republican equality; and, as one instance of this, properly belonging to the chapter of servants, which originally led to this discussion, it ought to be known that the class of "servitors," once a large body in Oxford, have gradually become practically extinct under the growing liberality of the age. They carried in their academic dress a mark of their inferiority; they waited at dinner on those of higher rank, and performed other menial services, humiliating to themselves, and latterly felt as no less humiliating to the general name and interests of learning. The better[Pg 47] taste, or rather the relaxing pressure of aristocratic prejudice, arising from the vast diffusion of trade and the higher branches of mechanic art, have gradually caused these functions of the order (even where the law would not permit the extinction of the order) to become obsolete. In my time, I was acquainted with two servitors: but one of them was rapidly pushed forward into a higher station; and the other complained of no degradation, beyond the grievous one of exposing himself to the notice of young women in the streets with an untasselled cap; but this he contrived to evade, by generally going abroad without his academic dress. The servitors of Oxford are the sizars of Cambridge; and I believe the same changes[11] have taken place in both.
So much for the elite of our English universities: their greatness lies in their ability to act in a more democratic way regarding their internal affairs. Literature introduces a different standard of hierarchy, promoting equality among people; and as an example related to the section on servants, which started this discussion, it should be noted that the group of "servitors," once a significant presence at Oxford, has nearly disappeared due to the increasing openness of the times. They wore academic attire that marked them as lower-ranking; they served dinner to those of higher status and performed other demeaning tasks, which they found humiliating, and which eventually came to be regarded as lessening the general reputation and principles of education. Improved taste, or rather the diminishing weight of aristocratic bias, fueled by the broad growth of trade and advanced crafts, has steadily rendered these roles obsolete (even where the law would not allow for the abolishment of the order). In my time, I knew two servitors: one was quickly advanced to a higher position; the other felt no shame beyond the significant one of being seen by young women in the street wearing an unadorned cap; but he managed to avoid this by usually going out without his academic dress. The servitors of Oxford are like the sizars of Cambridge; and I believe the same changes[11] have occurred in both.
One only account with the college remains to be noticed; but this is the main one. It is expressed in the bills by the word battels, derived from the old monkish word patella (or batella), a plate; and it comprehends whatsoever is furnished for dinner and for supper, including malt liquor, but not wine, as well as the materials for breakfast, or for any casual refreshment to country visitors, excepting only groceries. These, together with coals and faggots, candles, wine, fruit, and other more trifling extras, which are matters of personal choice, form so many private accounts against your name, and are usually furnished by tradesmen living near to the college, and sending their servants daily to receive orders. Supper, as a meal not universally taken, in many colleges is served privately in the student's own room; though some colleges still retain the ancient custom of a public supper. But dinner is, in all colleges, a public meal, taken in the refectory or "hall" of the society; which, with the chapel and library, compose the essential public suite belonging to every college alike. No absence is allowed, except to the sick, or to those who have formally applied for permission to give a dinner-party. A fine is imposed on all other cases of absence. Wine is not generally allowed in the public hall,[Pg 48] except to the "high table," that is, the table at which the fellows and some other privileged persons are entitled to dine. The head of the college rarely dines in public. The other tables, and, after dinner, the high table, usually adjourn to their wine, either upon invitations to private parties, or to what are called the "common rooms" of the several orders—graduates and undergraduates, &c. The dinners are always plain, and without pretensions—those, I mean, in the public hall; indeed, nothing can be plainer in most colleges—a simple choice between two or three sorts of animal food, and the common vegetables. No fish, even as a regular part of the fare; no soups, no game; nor, except on some very rare festivity, did I ever see a variation from this plain fare at Oxford. This, indeed, is proved sufficiently by the average amount of the battels. Many men "battel" at the rate of a guinea a week: I did so for years: that is, at the rate of three shillings a day for everything connected with meals, excepting only tea, sugar, milk, and wine. It is true that wealthier men, more expensive men, and more careless men, often "battelled" much higher; but, if they persisted in this excess, they incurred censures, more and more urgent, from the head of the college.
One account with the college still needs to be mentioned, and it’s the most important one. It’s referred to in the bills as battels, coming from the old monkish word patella (or batella), meaning a plate. This covers everything provided for dinner and supper, including malt liquor but not wine, as well as breakfast items or any snacks for country visitors, excluding groceries. These items, along with coal, firewood, candles, wine, fruit, and other miscellaneous extras that are more personal choices, create private charges under your name, typically provided by local tradespeople who send their servants daily to take orders. Supper, which is not a universal meal among students, is often served privately in individual rooms; however, some colleges maintain the tradition of a public supper. Dinner, on the other hand, is a public meal, taken in the refectory or "hall" of the college. The chapel and library along with the hall make up the essential public suite that every college has in common. Absence is not permitted except for illness or for those who have formally requested permission to host a dinner party. A fine is imposed for all other cases of absence. Wine is generally not permitted in the public hall,[Pg 48] except for the "high table," which is the table where fellows and some other privileged individuals are allowed to dine. The head of the college rarely dines in public. After dinner, the other tables and the high table usually move to enjoy wine, either at private gatherings or in the "common rooms" of various groups—graduates, undergraduates, etc. Dinners are always simple and unpretentious, at least in the public hall; in fact, the offerings in most colleges are extremely basic—a straightforward selection of two or three types of meat and common vegetables. There’s no fish, not even as a standard part of the meal; no soups, no game; and I have never seen any variation from this plain fare at Oxford, except on very rare festive occasions. This is clearly demonstrated by the average amount of battels. Many students "battel" at the rate of a guinea a week: I did so for years, that is, at the rate of three shillings a day for everything related to meals, excluding tea, sugar, milk, and wine. It’s true that wealthier, more extravagant, and more careless individuals often "battelled" much more; but if they continued this excessive spending, they faced increasing reprimands from the head of the college.
Now, let us sum up; promising that the extreme duration of residence in any college at Oxford amounts to something under thirty weeks. It is possible to keep "short terms," as the phrase is, by a residence of thirteen weeks, or ninety-one days; but, as this abridged residence is not allowed, except in here and there a college, I shall assume—as something beyond the strict maximum of residence—thirty weeks as my basis. The account will then stand thus:
Now, let’s recap: the longest time you can stay at any college in Oxford is just under thirty weeks. You can have "short terms," as they call it, with a stay of thirteen weeks, or ninety-one days; but since this shortened stay is only allowed at a few colleges, I’ll use thirty weeks as my basis, which is a bit more than the strict maximum of residence. The summary will then look like this:
1. | Rooms | £10 | 10 | 0 |
2. | Tutorage | 10 | 10 | 0 |
3. | Servants (subject to the explanations made above), say | 5 | 5 | 0 |
4. | Battels (allowing one shilling a day beyond what I and | |||
others spent in much dearer times; that is, allowing | ||||
twenty-eight shillings weekly), for thirty weeks | 40 | 4 | 0 | |
— | — | — | ||
£66 | 9 | 0 |
This will be a liberal calculation for the college bill.[Pg 49] What remains? 1. Candles, which the reader will best calculate upon the standard of his own general usage in this particular. 2. Coals, which are remarkably dear at Oxford—dearer, perhaps, than anywhere else in the island; say, three times as dear as at Edinburgh. 3. Groceries. 4. Wine. 5. Washing. This last article was, in my time, regulated by the college, as there were certain privileged washerwomen, between whom and the students it was but fair that some proper authority should interfere to prevent extortion, in return for the monopoly granted. Six guineas was the regulated sum; but this paid for everything,—table-linen, &c., as well as for wearing apparel; and it was understood to cover the whole twenty-eight or thirty weeks. However, it was open to every man to make his own arrangements, by insisting on a separate charge for each separate article. All other expenses of a merely personal nature, such as postage, public amusements, books, clothes, &c., as they have no special connection with Oxford, but would, probably, be balanced by corresponding, if not the very same, expenses in any other place or situation, I do not calculate. What I have specified are the expenses which would accrue to a student in consequence of leaving his father's house. The rest would, in these days, be the same, perhaps, everywhere. How much, then, shall we assume as the total charge on account of Oxford? Candles, considering the quantity of long days amongst the thirty weeks, may be had for one shilling and sixpence a week; for few students—unless they have lived in India, after which a physical change occurs in the sensibility of the nostrils—are finical enough to burn wax-lights. This will amount to two pounds five shillings. Coals, say sixpence a day; for three-pence a day will amply feed one grate in Edinburgh; and there are many weeks in the thirty which will demand no fire at all. Groceries and wine, which are all that remain, I cannot calculate. But suppose we allow for the first a shilling a day, which will be exactly ten guineas for thirty weeks; and for the second, nothing at all. Then the extras, in addition to the college bills, will stand thus:
This will be an estimate for the college expenses.[Pg 49] What else is left? 1. Candles, which the reader can estimate based on their own typical usage in this case. 2. Coal, which is quite expensive in Oxford—possibly more expensive than anywhere else in the country; about three times the cost in Edinburgh. 3. Groceries. 4. Wine. 5. Laundry. This last item was, during my time, controlled by the college, as there were certain approved laundresses, and it seemed fair that some authority should step in to prevent overcharging, in return for the monopoly granted to them. Six guineas was the set amount; this covered everything—including table linens, etc.—along with clothing; and it was understood that this would cover the full twenty-eight or thirty weeks. However, everyone had the option to make their own arrangements, insisting on separate charges for each individual item. All other personal expenses, such as postage, entertainment, books, clothing, etc., have no particular link to Oxford and would likely be comparable to similar expenses in any other location, so I won't calculate those. What I've detailed are the expenses a student would incur by leaving home. The rest would probably be similar everywhere nowadays. So, how much should we estimate as the total cost for attending Oxford? Candles, given the number of long days during the thirty weeks, could be about a shilling and sixpence a week; since few students—unless they’ve lived in India, which tends to change one's sensitivity to smells—are picky enough to use wax candles. This adds up to two pounds five shillings. Coal, let's say sixpence per day; as it only costs threepence a day to keep a fire in Edinburgh, and there are quite a few weeks in the thirty where a fire won’t be needed at all. For groceries and wine, which are the last items, I can’t provide an exact amount. But let's say we allow for groceries at a shilling a day, totaling ten guineas for thirty weeks; and nothing for wine. Therefore, the extra costs, in addition to the college bill, would be as follows:
Washing for thirty weeks, at the privileged rate | £6 | 6 | 0 |
Candles | 2 | 5 | 0 |
Fire | 5 | 5 | 0 |
Groceries | 10 | 10 | 0 |
— | — | — | |
£24 | 6 | 0 |
The college bills, therefore, will be £66: 9s.; the extras, not furnished by the college, will be about £24: 6s.,—making a total amount of £90: 15s. And for this sum, annually, a man may defray every expense incident to an Oxford life, through a period of weeks (viz., thirty) something more than he will be permitted to reside. It is true, that, for the first year, there will be, in addition to this, his outfit: and for every year there will be his journeys. There will also be twenty-two weeks uncovered by this estimate; but for these it is not my business to provide, who deal only with Oxford.
The college fees will be £66.45; the additional costs not covered by the college will be about £24.30, bringing the total to £90.75. For this amount each year, a person can cover all expenses related to life at Oxford for a period of about thirty weeks, which is a bit longer than they are allowed to stay. It's true that in the first year, they will also need to consider their setup costs, and there will be travel expenses every year as well. Additionally, there will be twenty-two weeks not accounted for in this estimate, but it's not my responsibility to cover those, since I only deal with Oxford.
That this estimate is true, I know too feelingly. Would that it were not! would that it were false! Were it so, I might the better justify to myself that commerce with fraudulent Jews which led me so early to commence the dilapidation of my small fortune. It is true; and true for a period (1804-8) far dearer than this. And to any man who questions its accuracy I address this particular request—that he will lay his hand upon the special item which he disputes. I anticipate that he will answer thus: "I dispute none: it is not by positive things that your estimate errs, but by negations. It is the absence of all allowance for indispensable items that vitiates the calculation." Very well: but to this, as to other things, we may apply the words of Dr. Johnson—"Sir, the reason I drink no wine, is because I can practise abstinence, but not temperance." Yes: in all things, abstinence is easier than temperance; for a little enjoyment has invariably the effect of awaking the sense of enjoyment, irritating it, and setting it on edge. I, therefore, recollecting my own case, have allowed for no wine-parties. Let our friend, the abstraction we are speaking of, give breakfast-parties, if he chooses to give any; and certainly to give none at all, unless he were dedicated to study, would seem very churlish. Nobody can be less a friend than myself to monkish and ascetic seclusion, unless it were for twenty-three hours out of the twenty-four.
I know this estimate is true all too well. I wish it weren’t! I wish it were false! If that were the case, I could better justify to myself the dealings with dishonest Jews that led me to start wasting my small fortune so early. It is true; and true for a period (1804-8) that’s far more valuable than this one. To anyone who doubts its accuracy, I make this specific request: please point out the exact item you disagree with. I anticipate that the response will be, “I don’t dispute any items: your estimate doesn’t err through positives, but through omissions. It’s the lack of consideration for essential items that ruins the calculation.” That’s fine, but to this—and many other things—we can apply the words of Dr. Johnson: “Sir, the reason I don’t drink wine is that I can practice abstinence, but not moderation.” Yes, in every aspect, abstinence is easier than moderation; a little enjoyment usually intensifies our desire for it, making us crave more. So, recalling my own situation, I’ve accounted for no wine parties. Let our friend, the concept we’re discussing, host breakfast gatherings if he wants to, and it would certainly be quite rude to host none at all, unless he’s devoted to studying. No one is less of a friend to the idea of monkish and ascetic isolation than I am, except for twenty-three hours a day.
But, however this be settled, let no mistake be made; nor let that be charged against the system which is due to the habits of individuals. Early in the last century, Dr. Newton, the head of a college in Oxford, wrote a large book against the Oxford system, as ruinously expensive. But then, as now, the real expense was due to no cause over which the colleges could exercise any effectual control. It is due exclusively to the habits of social intercourse amongst the young men; from which he may abstain who chooses. But, for any academic authorities to interfere by sumptuary laws with the private expenditure of grown men, many of them, in a legal sense, of age, and all near it, must appear romantic and extravagant, for this (or, indeed, any) stage of society. A tutor being required, about 1810, to fix the amount of allowance for a young man of small fortune, nearly related to myself, pronounced three hundred and twenty pounds little enough. He had this allowance, and was ruined in consequence of the credit which it procured for him, and the society it connected him with. The majority have two hundred pounds a year: but my estimate stands good, for all that.
But no matter how this is settled, let's be clear: don't blame the system for issues that come from individuals' habits. Early in the last century, Dr. Newton, the head of a college at Oxford, wrote a large book criticizing the Oxford system as being ruinously expensive. But just like back then, the real costs were due to factors beyond the colleges' control. They stem exclusively from the social habits of young men, which anyone can choose to avoid. However, for academic authorities to impose rules on the personal spending of grown men, many of whom are legally considered adults and all of whom are close to that age, seems unrealistic and excessive for this stage of society. About 1810, a tutor was asked to determine a reasonable allowance for a young man from a modest background who was related to me, and he deemed three hundred and twenty pounds to be minimal. That young man received that allowance and ended up in trouble because of the credit it gave him and the circle he got mixed up with. Most have two hundred pounds a year; still, my assessment holds true regardless.
Having stated, generally, the expenses of the Oxford system, I am bound, in candour, to mention one variety in the mode of carrying this system into effect, open to every man's adoption, which confers certain privileges, but, at the same time (by what exact mode, I know not), considerably increases the cost, and in that degree disturbs my calculation. The great body of undergraduates, or students, are divided into two classes—Commoners, and Gentlemen Commoners. Perhaps nineteen out of twenty belong to the former class; and it is for that class, as having been my own, that I have made my estimate. The other class of Gentlemen Commoners (who, at Cambridge, bear the name of Fellow Commoners) wear a peculiar dress, and have some privileges which naturally imply some corresponding increase of cost; but why this increase should go to the extent of doubling the total expense, as it is generally thought to do, or how it can go to that extent, I am unable to explain. The differences which attach to the rank of "Gentlemen Commoners" are these: At his entrance he pays double "caution money"; that is, whilst Commoners in[Pg 52] general pay about twenty-five guineas, he pays fifty; but this can occur only once; and, besides, in strict point of right, this sum is only a deposit, and is liable to be withdrawn on leaving the University, though it is commonly enough finally presented to the college in the shape of plate. The next difference is, that, by comparison with the Commoner, he wears a much more costly dress. The Commoner's gown is made of what is called prince's stuff, and, together with the cap, costs about five guineas. But the Gentleman Commoner has two gowns—an undress for the morning, and a full dress-gown for the evening; both are made of silk, and the latter is very elaborately ornamented. The cap also is more costly, being covered with velvet instead of cloth. At Cambridge, again, the tassel is made of gold fringe or bullion, which, in Oxford, is peculiar to the caps of noblemen; and there are many other varieties in that University, where the dress for "pensioners" (that is, the Oxford "Commoners") is specially varied in almost every college; the object being, perhaps, to give a ready means to the academic officers for ascertaining, at a glance, not merely the general fact that such or such a delinquent is a gownsman (which is all that can be ascertained at Oxford), but also the particular college to which he belongs. Allowance being made for these two items of "dress" and "caution-money," both of which apply only to the original outfit, I know of no others in which the expenditure of a Gentleman Commoner ought to exceed, or could with propriety exceed, that of a Commoner. He has, indeed, a privilege as regards the choice of rooms; he chooses first, and probably chooses those rooms which, being best, are dearest; that is, they are on a level with the best; but usually there are many sets almost equally good; and of these the majority will be occupied by Commoners. So far, there is little opening for a difference. More often, again, it will happen that a man of this aristocratic class keeps a private servant; yet this happens also to Commoners, and is, besides, no properly college expense. Tutorage is charged double to a Gentleman Commoner—namely, twenty guineas a year: this is done upon a fiction (as it sometimes turns out) of separate attention, or aid given in a private way to his scholastic pursuits. Finally, there arises naturally another[Pg 53] and peculiar source of expense to the "Gentleman Commoner," from a fact implied in his Cambridge designation of "Fellow Commoner," commensalis—viz., that he associates at meals with the "fellows" and other authorities of the college. Yet this again expresses rather the particular shape which his expenditure assumes than any absolute increase in its amount. He subscribes to a regular mess, and pays, therefore, whether present or not; but so, in a partial sense, does the Commoner, by his forfeits for "absent commons." He subscribes also to a regular fund for wine; and, therefore, he does not enjoy that immunity from wine-drinking which is open to the Commoner. Yet, again, as the Commoner does but rarely avail himself of this immunity, as he drinks no less wine than the Gentleman Commoner, and, generally speaking, wine not worse in quality, it is difficult to see any ground for a regular assumption of higher expenditure in the one class than the other. However, the universal impression favours that assumption. All people believe that the rank of Gentleman Commoner imposes an expensive burden, though few people ever ask why. As a matter of fact, I believe it to be true that Gentlemen Commoners spend more by a third, or a half, than any equal number of Commoners, taken without selection. And the reason is obvious: those who become Gentlemen Commoners are usually determined to that course by the accident of having very large funds; they are eldest sons, or only sons, or men already in possession of estates, or else (which is as common a case as all the rest put together) they are the heirs of newly-acquired wealth—sons of the nouveaux riches—a class which often requires a generation or two to rub off the insolence of a too conscious superiority. I have called them an "aristocratic" class; but, in strictness, they are not such; they form a privileged class, indeed, but their privileges are few and trifling, not to add that these very privileges are connected with one or two burdens, more than outweighing them in the estimate of many; and, upon the whole, the chief distinction they enjoy is that of advertising themselves to the public as men of great wealth, or great expectations, and, therefore, as subjects peculiarly adapted to fraudulent attempts. Accordingly, it is not found that the sons of the nobility are much inclined to enter this[Pg 54] order: these, if they happen to be the eldest sons of earls, or of any peers above the rank of viscount, so as to enjoy a title themselves by the courtesy of England, have special privileges in both Universities as to length of residence, degrees, &c.; and their rank is ascertained by a special dress. These privileges it is not usual to forgo; though sometimes that happens, as, in my time, in the instance of Lord George Grenville (now Lord Nugent); he neither entered at the aristocratic college (Christ Church), nor wore the dress of a nobleman. Generally, however, an elder son appears in his true character of nobleman; but the younger sons rarely enter the class of Gentlemen Commoners. They enter either as "Commoners," or under some of those various designations ("scholars," "demies," "students," "junior fellows") which imply that they stand upon the foundation of the college to which they belong, and are aspirants for academic emoluments.
Having generally outlined the costs of the Oxford system, I must, in fairness, mention one variation in how this system is applied, which anyone can adopt. This option grants certain privileges, but at the same time (I don’t know the exact reason), significantly raises the cost, thus affecting my calculations. The majority of undergraduates, or students, are split into two categories—Commoners and Gentlemen Commoners. About nineteen out of twenty are in the former category, and it is for that group—my own—that I based my estimate. The other category of Gentlemen Commoners (who are called Fellow Commoners at Cambridge) wear a unique dress and have certain privileges that naturally suggest some corresponding increase in cost. However, I can’t explain why this increase is thought to sometimes double the total expense, or how it can reach that level. The differences that relate to the status of "Gentlemen Commoners" are as follows: upon entering, they pay double the "caution money"; while Commoners generally pay around twenty-five guineas, they pay fifty. But this happens only once; and, in strict legal terms, this amount is just a deposit, which can be refunded upon leaving the University, although it often ends up being presented to the college as plate. The next difference is that, compared to Commoners, they wear a much more expensive dress. The Commoner’s gown is made from what is called prince's stuff and, along with the cap, costs about five guineas. On the other hand, the Gentleman Commoner has two gowns—one for morning and one elaborate evening gown, both made of silk. The cap is more expensive as well, covered in velvet instead of cloth. At Cambridge, the tassel is made from gold fringe or bullion, which at Oxford is reserved for noblemen’s caps; and there are various other styles at that University where the dress for "pensioners" (the Oxford "Commoners") is distinctly different in almost every college. This is likely intended to allow academic officials to easily see not only that a particular person is a gownsman (which is all that can be determined at Oxford) but also the specific college they belong to. Taking into account these two aspects of "dress" and "caution money," which only apply to the initial setup, I am not aware of any other expenses where a Gentleman Commoner’s costs should exceed or could suitably exceed those of a Commoner. Indeed, he has the privilege of choosing rooms before others, likely opting for the best, which are usually the most expensive; that is, they’re on par with the finest available. However, there are often many equally good options, and most of those will be taken by Commoners. So far, there is little room for a significant difference. More frequently, a member of this elite class may hire a private servant, but this also happens to Commoners, and isn’t inherently a college expense. Tutoring costs are twice as much for a Gentleman Commoner—twenty guineas a year: this is based on the idea (as sometimes turns out) of extra attention or assistance provided privately regarding their studies. Finally, one more inevitable expense for the "Gentleman Commoner" comes from a fact reflected in his title at Cambridge, "Fellow Commoner," commensalis—he dines with the "fellows" and other college officials. Yet again, this mostly denotes the specific form that his spending takes rather than an actual increase in its total amount. He subscribes to a regular meal plan, meaning he pays regardless of attendance; but so, to some extent, does the Commoner, through his forfeits for "absent commons." He also contributes to a shared fund for wine; thus, he doesn’t have the option to skip out on wine-drinking that’s available to Commoners. Yet, as Commoners rarely use this exemption and typically consume just as much wine, and generally speaking, wine of similar quality, it’s hard to find a valid reason to assume consistently higher expenses for one group over the other. Nevertheless, there is a widespread belief that being a Gentleman Commoner brings significant costs, though few question why. In fact, I believe it’s true that Gentlemen Commoners spend about a third to half more than an equivalent number of Commoners selected at random. The reasoning is clear: those who choose to become Gentlemen Commoners are usually motivated by having substantial funds; they may be eldest sons, only sons, or already own estates, or they might just as commonly be heirs of recently acquired wealth—children of the nouveaux riches—a class that often takes a generation or two to shed the arrogance of an overly aware superiority. I have labeled them an "aristocratic" class; however, strictly speaking, they aren’t that. They form a privileged class, indeed, but their privileges are few and minor, and these very privileges often come with one or two burdens that outweigh them in many people’s minds. Overall, their main distinction is in projecting themselves to the world as men of great wealth or expectations, and thus as targets particularly suited to fraudulent schemes. Consequently, sons of the nobility don’t typically aspire to enter this class: those who are eldest sons of earls or any peers ranking higher than viscounts, and who can thereby hold a title themselves by courtesy of England, enjoy special privileges in both Universities regarding residency length, degrees, etc.; and their rank is determined by a specific dress. These privileges are usually not relinquished, although it can happen, such as in my time with Lord George Grenville (now Lord Nugent); he neither enrolled in the elite college (Christ Church) nor wore nobleman’s attire. Generally, however, an eldest son appears in his true identity as a nobleman, while younger sons rarely join the Gentlemen Commoners. They typically enter as "Commoners," or under various titles ("scholars," "demies," "students," "junior fellows") that indicate they are grounded in the college’s foundation and are aiming for academic rewards.
Upon the whole, I am disposed to regard this order of Gentlemen Commoners as a standing temptation held out by authority to expensive habits, and a very unbecoming proclamation of honour paid to the aristocracy of wealth. And I know that many thoughtful men regard it in the same light with myself, and regret deeply that any such distribution of ranks should be authorized, as a stain upon the simplicity and general manliness of the English academic laws. It is an open profession of homage and indulgence to wealth, as wealth—to wealth disconnected from everything that might ally it to the ancestral honours and heraldries of the land. It is also an invitation, or rather a challenge, to profuse expenditure. Regularly, and by law, a Gentleman Commoner is liable to little heavier burdens than a Commoner; but, to meet the expectations of those around him, and to act up to the part he has assumed, he must spend more, and he must be more careless in controlling his expenditure, than a moderate and prudent Commoner. In every light, therefore, I condemn the institution, and give it up to the censures of the judicious. So much in candour I concede. But, to show equal candour on the other side, it must be remembered that this institution descends to us from ancient times, when wealth was not so often divided from territorial or civic honours, conferring a real precedency.
Overall, I tend to see this group of Gentlemen Commoners as a constant temptation encouraged by authority toward extravagant habits, and a rather unflattering declaration of respect given to the wealthy elite. I know that many thoughtful individuals share my perspective and deeply regret that such a hierarchical division is sanctioned, staining the straightforwardness and general integrity of English academic traditions. It openly shows respect and leniency towards wealth, as wealth—in a way that disconnects it from any associations with the ancestral honors and heraldry of the nation. It also serves as an invitation, or rather a challenge, to lavish spending. Officially, a Gentleman Commoner isn’t burdened by much more than a Commoner; however, to meet the expectations of those around him and to live up to the role he has taken on, he must spend more and be less careful with his finances than a sensible and moderate Commoner. Therefore, I condemn this institution in every way and leave it to the critiques of the wise. I admit that much. But, to balance that acknowledgment, it should be noted that this institution has origins in ancient times when wealth was more often linked with land or civic honors, which provided real status.
III[12]
There was one reason why I sought solitude at that early age, and sought it in a morbid excess, which must naturally have conferred upon my character some degree of that interest which belongs to all extremes. My eye had been couched into a secondary power of vision, by misery, by solitude, by sympathy with life in all its modes, by experience too early won, and by the sense of danger critically escaped. Suppose the case of a man suspended by some colossal arm over an unfathomed abyss,—suspended, but finally and slowly withdrawn,—it is probable that he would not smile for years. That was my case: for I have not mentioned in the "Opium Confessions" a thousandth part of the sufferings I underwent in London and in Wales; partly because the misery was too monotonous, and, in that respect, unfitted for description; but still more because there is a mysterious sensibility connected with real suffering, which recoils from circumstantial rehearsal or delineation, as from violation offered to something sacred, and which is, or should be, dedicated to privacy. Grief does not parade its pangs, nor the anguish of despairing hunger willingly count again its groans or its humiliations. Hence it was that Ledyard, the traveller, speaking of his Russian experiences, used to say that some of his miseries were such that he never would reveal them. Besides all which, I really was not at liberty to speak, without many reserves, on this chapter of my life, at a period (1821) not twenty years removed from the actual occurrences, unless I desired to court the risk of crossing at every step the existing law of libel, so full of snares and man-traps, to the careless equally with the conscientious writer. This is a consideration which some of my critics have lost sight of in a degree which surprises me. One, for example, puts it to his readers whether any house such as I describe as the abode of my money-lending friend could exist "in Oxford-street"; and, at the same time, he states, as circumstances drawn from my description, but, in fact, pure coinages of his own, certain romantic impossibilities, which, doubtless, could as[Pg 56] little attach to a house in Oxford-street as they could to a house in any other quarter of London. Meantime, I had sufficiently indicated that, whatsoever street was concerned in that affair, Oxford-street was not: and it is remarkable enough, as illustrating this amiable reviewer's veracity, that no one street in London was absolutely excluded but one, and that one, Oxford-street. For I happened to mention that, on such a day (my birth-day), I had turned aside from Oxford-street to look at the house in question. I will now add that this house was in Greek-street: so much it may be safe to say. But every candid reader will see that both prudential restraints, and also disinterested regard to the feelings of possibly amiable descendants from a vicious man, would operate with any thoughtful writer, in such a case, to impose reserve upon his pen. Had my guardians, had my money-lending friend of Jewry, and others concerned in my memoirs, been so many shadows, bodiless abstractions, and without earthly connections, I might readily have given my own names to my own creations, and have treated them as unceremoniously as I pleased. Not so under the real circumstances of the case. My chief guardian, for instance, though obstinate to a degree which risked the happiness and the life of his ward, was an upright man otherwise; and his children are entitled to value his memory. Again, my Greek-street τραπεζιτης (trapezitês), the "fœnerator Alpheus," who delighted to reap where he had not sown, and too often (I fear) allowed himself in practices which not impossibly have long since been found to qualify him for distant climates and "Botanic" regions,—even he, though I might truly describe him as a mere highwayman whenever he happened to be aware that I had received a friendly loan, yet, like other highwaymen of repute, and "gentle thieves," was not inexorable to the petitions of his victim: he would sometimes toss back what was required for some instant necessity of the road; and at his breakfast-table it was, after all, as elsewhere recorded, that I contrived to support life; barely, indeed, and most slenderly, but still with the final result of escaping absolute starvation. With that recollection before me, I could not allow myself to probe his frailties too severely, had it even been certainly safe to do so. But enough; the reader will understand[Pg 57] that a year spent either in the valleys of Wales, or upon the streets of London, by a wanderer too often houseless in both situations, might naturally have peopled the mind of one constitutionally disposed to solemn contemplations with memorials of human sorrow and strife too profound to pass away for years.
There was one reason I sought solitude at such an early age, and I pursued it excessively, which must have given my character a certain intrigue associated with all extremes. My perspective had been shaped into a different kind of vision by misery, solitude, empathy for life in all its forms, experiences gained too early, and the awareness of narrowly avoided danger. Picture a man dangling by a massive arm over an unfathomable abyss—suspended, but gradually and slowly pulled back. It’s likely he wouldn’t smile for years. That was my situation: I haven’t mentioned in the "Opium Confessions" even a fraction of the suffering I endured in London and Wales; partly because the misery was so monotonous, it felt unworthy of description, but even more so because there’s a certain sensitivity linked with real suffering that flinches at recounting or depicting it, as if violating something sacred, which should be kept private. Grief doesn’t flaunt its pain, nor does the anguish of desperate hunger willingly rehash its groans or humiliations. For this reason, Ledyard the traveler said that some of his miseries during his time in Russia were things he would never reveal. Additionally, I really wasn’t free to speak about this chapter of my life, during a time (1821) that was only twenty years after the actual events, unless I wanted to risk breaking the existing libel laws, which are fraught with snares for both careless and conscientious writers. This is a consideration that some of my critics seem to have overlooked, which surprises me. One, for example, questions whether any house like the one I describe as belonging to my money-lending friend could possibly exist "in" Oxford Street; yet he also concocts certain romantic impossibilities derived from my description that, in reality, have nothing to do with any house on Oxford Street or anywhere else in London. Meanwhile, I had clearly indicated that, regardless of which street was involved in that affair, it was NOT Oxford Street. Interestingly, the only street in London that was clearly ruled out was, in fact, Oxford Street. I just happened to mention that on my birthday, I had turned off Oxford Street to check out the house in question. I can now confirm that this house was on Greek Street; that much is safe to say. But any honest reader will realize that both caution and a genuine respect for the feelings of potentially decent descendants of a morally questionable man would realistically restrain any thoughtful writer from being too open about his experiences. Had my guardians, my money-lending friend from the Jewish community, and others involved in my story been mere shadows or abstract concepts without real connections, I could have easily used my own names for my creations and treated them however I wanted. That was not the case given the real circumstances. For example, my main guardian, despite being stubborn to the point where he risked my happiness and life, was a fundamentally upright man; his children have every right to cherish his memory. Likewise, my Greek Street moneylender, the "fœnerator Alpheus," who loved to profit where he hadn’t invested, often engaged in behaviors that likely would have disqualified him from decent society, yet, even though I could describe him as no better than a robber whenever I got a friendly loan, like other notorious robbers and "gentle thieves," he wasn’t completely heartless to the pleas of his victim: he would sometimes return what was needed for some immediate necessity. It was at his breakfast table, after all, that I managed to sustain myself—even if barely and in a limited way—enough to avoid starvation. With that memory in mind, I couldn’t allow myself to judge his weaknesses too harshly, even if it had been safe to do so. But enough; the reader will understand that spending a year either in the valleys of Wales or on the streets of London, as a wanderer often without a home in both places, would naturally fill the mind of someone inclined to serious reflection with memories of human sorrow and struggle too deep to fade for years.
Thus, then, it was. Past experience of a very peculiar kind, the agitations of many lives crowded into the compass of a year or two, in combination with a peculiar structure of mind, offered one explanation of the very remarkable and unsocial habits which I adopted at college; but there was another not less powerful, and not less unusual. In stating this, I shall seem, to some persons, covertly designing an affront to Oxford. But that is far from my intention. It is noways peculiar to Oxford, but will, doubtless, be found in every University throughout the world, that the younger part of the members—the undergraduates, I mean, generally, whose chief business must have lain amongst the great writers of Greece and Rome—cannot have found leisure to cultivate extensively their own domestic literature. Not so much that time will have been wanting; but that the whole energy of the mind, and the main course of the subsidiary studies and researches, will naturally have been directed to those difficult languages amongst which lie their daily tasks. I make it no subject of complaint or scorn, therefore, but simply state it as a fact, that few or none of the Oxford undergraduates, with whom parity of standing threw me into collision at my first outset, knew anything at all of English Literature. The Spectator seemed to me the only English book of a classical rank which they had read; and even this less for its inimitable delicacy, humour, and refined pleasantry in dealing with manners and characters, than for its insipid and meagre essays, ethical or critical. This was no fault of theirs: they had been sent to the book chiefly as a subject for Latin translations, or of other exercises; and, in such a view, the vague generalities of superficial morality were more useful and more manageable than sketches of manner or character, steeped in national peculiarities. To translate the terms of Whig politics into classical Latin would be as difficult as it might be for a Whig himself to give a consistent account of those[Pg 58] politics from the year 1688. Natural, however, and excusable, as this ignorance might be, to myself it was intolerable and incomprehensible. Already, at fifteen, I had made myself familiar with the great English poets. About sixteen, or not long after, my interest in the story of Chatterton had carried me over the whole ground of the Rowley controversy; and that controversy, by a necessary consequence, had so familiarised me with the "Black Letter" that I had begun to find an unaffected pleasure in the ancient English metrical romances; and in Chaucer, though acquainted as yet only with part of his works, I had perceived and had felt profoundly those divine qualities which, even at this day, are so languidly acknowledged by his unjust countrymen. With this knowledge, and this enthusiastic knowledge of the elder poets—of those most remote from easy access—I could not well be a stranger in other walks of our literature, more on a level with the general taste, and nearer to modern diction, and, therefore, more extensively multiplied by the press. Yet, after all—as one proof how much more commanding is that part of a literature which speaks to the elementary affections of men than that which is founded on the mutable aspects of manners—it is a fact that, even in our elaborate system of society, where an undue value is unavoidably given to the whole science of social intercourse, and a continual irritation applied to the sensibilities which point in that direction, still, under all these advantages, Pope himself is less read, less quoted, less thought of, than the elder and graver section of our literature. It is a great calamity for an author such as Pope, that, generally speaking, it requires so much experience of life to enjoy his peculiar felicities as must argue an age likely to have impaired the general capacity for enjoyment. For my part, I had myself a very slender acquaintance with this chapter of our literature; and what little I had was generally, at that period of my life, as with most men it continues to be to the end of life, a reflex knowledge, acquired through those pleasant miscellanies, half gossip, half criticism—such as Warton's Essay on Pope, Boswell's Johnson, Mathias's Pursuits of Literature, and many scores besides of the same indeterminate class: a class, however, which do a real service to literature, by diffusing an indirect knowledge[Pg 59] of fine writers in their most effective passages, where else, in a direct shape, it would often never extend.
Thus, it was. Past experiences of a very unusual kind, the struggles of many lives crammed into a year or two, along with a unique way of thinking, explain my very remarkable and unsocial habits during college. However, there is another explanation that is equally strong and unusual. When I mention this, some people might think I’m trying to insult Oxford. That is far from my goal. It’s not unique to Oxford; it can, without a doubt, be seen in every university around the world that the younger members—the undergraduates, in particular—whose main focus should be the great writers of Greece and Rome, likely haven’t taken the time to really dive into their own domestic literature. It’s not really a matter of lacking time; rather, all their mental energy and focus on subsidiary studies and research are naturally directed towards those challenging languages that contain their daily assignments. I’m not complaining or pointing fingers; I’m just stating a fact: few, if any, of the Oxford undergraduates I encountered when I first arrived knew anything about English Literature. The Spectator seemed to be the only English book of notable status they had read, and even then, it was less for its unmatched delicacy, humor, and refined wit in discussing manners and characters, and more for its bland and thin essays, whether ethical or critical. This wasn’t their fault; they were primarily assigned the book as a subject for Latin translations or other exercises, and for that purpose, the vague generalities of superficial morality were more useful and manageable than sketches of manner and character steeped in national quirks. Translating the terms of Whig politics into classical Latin would be just as challenging as it might be for a Whig himself to provide a consistent account of those politics from the year 1688. However natural and understandable this ignorance may have been, I found it unbearable and incomprehensible. By the age of fifteen, I had become familiar with the great English poets. Around the age of sixteen, or soon after, my interest in the story of Chatterton led me through the entire Rowley controversy, and that controversy naturally made me so acquainted with "Black Letter" that I began to genuinely enjoy the ancient English metrical romances. In Chaucer, even with only part of his work under my belt, I had recognized and deeply felt those divine qualities which, even today, are only lazily acknowledged by his unjust countrymen. With this knowledge and enthusiasm for the older poets—those most distant from easy access—I couldn’t be a stranger in other areas of our literature that are more aligned with general taste and closer to modern language, hence more widely published. Yet, as a testament to how much more influential that part of literature which appeals to the basic emotions of people is compared to that which is based on the changing aspects of manners, it’s a fact that, even in our complex society, where too much value is placed on social interactions and a constant pressure is applied to the sensitivities directed that way, Pope himself is read less, quoted less, and thought of less than the older and more serious section of our literature. It’s a great misfortune for an author like Pope that, in general, it takes so much life experience to appreciate his unique strengths, which implies an age that is likely to have diminished the overall capacity for enjoyment. Personally, I had only a very limited understanding of this part of our literature, and what little I did know was typically, during that time in my life and often for most men through the rest of their lives, a secondary knowledge acquired through those enjoyable collections, part gossip, part criticism—like Warton's Essay on Pope, Boswell's Johnson, Mathias's Pursuits of Literature, and many others from the same vague category: a category that, nonetheless, genuinely benefits literature by spreading an indirect knowledge of great writers in their most impactful passages, where it might not otherwise reach directly.
In some parts, then, having even a profound knowledge of our literature, in all parts having some, I felt it to be impossible that I should familiarly associate with those who had none at all; not so much as a mere historical knowledge of the literature in its capital names and their chronological succession. Do I mention this in disparagement of Oxford? By no means. Among the undergraduates of higher standing, and occasionally, perhaps, of my own, I have since learned that many might have been found eminently accomplished in this particular. But seniors do not seek after juniors; they must be sought; and, with my previous bias to solitude, a bias equally composed of impulses and motives, I had no disposition to take trouble in seeking any man for any purpose.
In some places, even having a deep understanding of our literature, while in all places having some knowledge, I found it impossible to connect with those who had none at all; not even a basic awareness of the key figures in literature and their chronological order. Am I saying this to criticize Oxford? Not at all. Among the upperclassmen, and sometimes, perhaps, among my peers, I have since discovered that many were exceptionally knowledgeable in this area. But seniors don't go looking for juniors; juniors need to be sought out. With my previous tendency toward solitude, which was driven by various feelings and reasons, I wasn't inclined to put in the effort to seek out anyone for any reason.
But, on this subject, a fact still remains to be told, of which I am justly proud; and it will serve, beyond anything else that I can say, to measure the degree of my intellectual development. On coming to Oxford, I had taken up one position in advance of my age by full thirty years: that appreciation of Wordsworth, which it has taken full thirty years to establish amongst the public, I had already made, and had made operative to my own intellectual culture, in the same year when I clandestinely quitted school. Already, in 1802, I had addressed a letter of fervent admiration to Mr. Wordsworth. I did not send it until the spring of 1803; and, from misdirection, it did not come into his hands for some months. But I had an answer from Mr. Wordsworth before I was eighteen; and that my letter was thought to express the homage of an enlightened admirer may be inferred from the fact that his answer was long and full. On this anecdote I do not mean to dwell; but I cannot allow the reader to overlook the circumstances of the case. At this day [1835] it is true, no journal can be taken up which does not habitually speak of Mr. Wordsworth as of a great, if not the great, poet of the age. Mr. Bulwer, living in the intensest pressure of the world, and though recoiling continually from the judgments of the world, yet never in any violent degree ascribes to Mr. Wordsworth (in his England and the English, p. 308) "an influence of a more noble and purely intellectual[Pg 60] character than any writer of our age or nation has exercised." Such is the opinion held of this great poet in 1835; but what were those of 1805-15,—nay, of 1825? For twenty years after the date of that letter to Mr. Wordsworth above referred to, language was exhausted, ingenuity was put on the rack, in the search after images and expressions vile enough, insolent enough, to convey the unutterable contempt avowed for all that he had written by the fashionable critics. One critic—who still, I believe, edits a rather popular journal, and who belongs to that class, feeble, fluttering, ingenious, who make it their highest ambition not to lead, but, with a slave's adulation, to obey and to follow all the caprices of the public mind—described Mr. Wordsworth as resembling, in the quality of his mind, an old nurse babbling in her paralytic dotage to sucking babies. If this insult was peculiarly felt by Mr. Wordsworth, it was on a consideration of the unusual imbecility of him who offered it, and not because in itself it was baser or more insolent than the language held by the majority of journalists who then echoed the public voice. Blackwood's Magazine (1817) first accustomed the public ear to the language of admiration coupled with the name of Wordsworth. This began with Professor Wilson; and well I remember—nay, the proofs are still easy to hunt up—that, for eight or ten years, this singularity of opinion, having no countenance from other journals, was treated as a whim, a paradox, a bold extravagance, of the Blackwood critics. Mr. Wordsworth's neighbours in Westmoreland, who had (generally speaking) a profound contempt for him, used to rebut the testimony of Blackwood by one constant reply—"Ay, Blackwood praises Wordsworth, but who else praises him?" In short, up to 1820, the name of Wordsworth was trampled under foot; from 1820 to 1830, it was militant; from 1830 to 1835, it has been triumphant. In 1803, when I entered at Oxford, that name was absolutely unknown; and the finger of scorn, pointed at it in 1802 by the first or second number of the Edinburgh Review, failed to reach its mark from absolute defect of knowledge in the public mind. Some fifty besides myself knew who was meant by "that poet who had cautioned his friend against growing double," etc.; to all others it was a profound secret.
But, on this topic, there's still an important fact to share that I’m justly proud of; it will, more than anything else I can say, show how much I've grown intellectually. When I arrived at Oxford, I held an appreciation for Wordsworth that was at least thirty years ahead of its time: the value of his work, which took thirty years to be recognized publicly, I had already embraced and applied to my own intellectual growth the very year I secretly left school. In 1802, I wrote a heartfelt letter of admiration to Mr. Wordsworth. I didn't send it until spring 1803, and due to a misaddressing, he didn't receive it for a few months. However, I got a reply from Mr. Wordsworth before I turned eighteen, and it’s clear that he viewed my letter as coming from an informed admirer, since his response was long and detailed. I don’t intend to dwell on this story, but I can’t let the reader miss the context. Today [1835], it’s true that no journal comes out that doesn’t regularly refer to Mr. Wordsworth as a great, if not *the* great poet of our time. Mr. Bulwer, living under immense pressure from the world and often recoiling from public opinions, nonetheless ascribes to Mr. Wordsworth (in his *England and the English*, p. 308) "an influence of a more noble and purely intellectual character than any writer of our age or nation has exercised." This is the perspective on this great poet in 1835, but what were the views held from 1805 to 1815, or even in 1825? For twenty years after the letter I mentioned, critics exhausted their resources trying to find words and images vile and arrogant enough to express the utter contempt fashionable critics had for everything he wrote. One critic—who I believe still edits a fairly popular magazine and belongs to that weak, flustered, clever class whose highest ambition seems to be not to lead but to obey and follow the whims of public opinion—described Mr. Wordsworth as being like an old nurse rambling in her senility to infants. If this insult stung Mr. Wordsworth particularly, it was more due to the extreme foolishness of the person who made it, rather than that it was uniquely base or insolent compared to the language used by most journalists echoing the public sentiment at that time. *Blackwood's Magazine* (1817) was the first to familiarise the public with the idea of admiration connected to Wordsworth’s name. This began with Professor Wilson; and I clearly remember—indeed, I can still find evidence easily—that for eight or ten years, this unusual opinion, lacking support from other journals, was dismissed as a whim, a paradox, a bold eccentricity of the *Blackwood* critics. Mr. Wordsworth's neighbors in Westmoreland, who generally held him in low regard, would dismiss *Blackwood's* praise with a common retort—"Yes, *Blackwood* praises Wordsworth, but who else does?" In short, until 1820, Wordsworth’s name was ridiculed; from 1820 to 1830, it fought for recognition; from 1830 to 1835, it achieved triumph. In 1803, when I enrolled at Oxford, his name was hardly known at all; and the scornful finger pointed at it in 1802 by the first or second issue of the *Edinburgh Review* missed its target due to a lack of public knowledge. Besides myself, maybe fifty people knew who was referred to by "that poet who had cautioned his friend against growing double," etc.; for everyone else, it was a complete mystery.
These things must be known and understood properly to value the prophetic eye and the intrepidity of two persons, like Professor Wilson and myself, who, in 1802-3, attached themselves to a banner not yet raised and planted; who outran, in fact, their contemporaries by one entire generation, and did that about 1802 which the rest of the world are doing in chorus about 1832.
These things need to be understood properly to appreciate the foresight and bravery of two individuals, like Professor Wilson and me, who, in 1802-3, committed to a banner that had not yet been raised and planted; who actually outpaced their peers by an entire generation, and did that around 1802 which the rest of the world is now doing together around 1832.
Professor Wilson's period at Oxford exactly coincided with my own; yet, in that large world, we never met. I know, therefore, but little of his policy in regard to such opinions or feelings as tended to dissociate him from the mass of his coëvals. This only I know, that he lived as it were in public, and must, therefore, I presume, have practised a studied reserve as to his deepest admirations; and, perhaps, at that day (1803-8) the occasions would be rare in which much dissimulation would be needed. Until Lord Byron had begun to pilfer from Wordsworth and to abuse him, allusions to Wordsworth were not frequent in conversations; and it was chiefly on occasions of some question arising about poetry in general, or about the poets of the day, that it became difficult to dissemble. For my part, hating the necessity for dissimulation as much as the dissimulation itself, I drew from this peculiarity also of my own mind a fresh reinforcement of my other motives for sequestering myself; and, for the first two years of my residence in Oxford, I compute that I did not utter one hundred words.
Professor Wilson’s time at Oxford coincided exactly with mine; however, in that vast environment, we never crossed paths. Therefore, I know very little about his views on the opinions or feelings that set him apart from his peers. All I know is that he seemed to live in public, and I assume he practiced a careful restraint regarding his deepest admirations; and maybe, at that time (1803-8), there were few occasions when much deception was necessary. Until Lord Byron started taking shots at Wordsworth and criticizing him, references to Wordsworth were not common in conversations; it was mostly when discussions about poetry in general or the poets of the era came up that it became hard to hide one's true feelings. Personally, disliking the need for deception as much as the act itself, I found this aspect of my personality a new reason to isolate myself; and for the first two years of my time in Oxford, I estimate that I spoke fewer than a hundred words.
I remember distinctly the first (which happened also to be the last) conversation that I ever held with my tutor. It consisted of three sentences, two of which fell to his share, one to mine. On a fine morning, he met me in the Quadrangle, and, having then no guess of the nature of my pretensions, he determined (I suppose) to probe them. Accordingly, he asked me, "What I had been lately reading?" Now, the fact was that I, at that time immersed in metaphysics, had really been reading and studying very closely the Parmenides, of which obscure work some Oxford man, early in the last century, published a separate edition. Yet, so profound was the benignity of my nature that, in those days, I could not bear to witness, far less to cause, the least pain or mortification to any human being. I recoiled, indeed,[Pg 62] from the society of most men, but not with any feelings of dislike. On the contrary, in order that I might like all men, I wished to associate with none. Now, then, to have mentioned the Parmenides to one who, fifty thousand to one, was a perfect stranger to its whole drift and purpose, looked too méchant, too like a trick of malice, in an age when such reading was so very unusual. I felt that it would be taken for an express stratagem for stopping my tutor's mouth. All this passing rapidly through my mind, I replied, without hesitation, that I had been reading Paley. My tutor's rejoinder I have never forgotten: "Ah! an excellent author; excellent for his matter; only you must be on your guard as to his style; he is very vicious there." Such was the colloquy; we bowed, parted, and never more (I apprehend) exchanged one word. Now, trivial and trite as this comment on Paley may appear to the reader, it struck me forcibly that more falsehood, or more absolute falsehood, or more direct inversion of the truth, could not, by any artifice or ingenuity, have been crowded into one short sentence. Paley, as a philosopher, is a jest, the disgrace of the age; and, as regards the two Universities, and the enormous responsibility they undertake for the books which they sanction by their official examinations for degrees, the name of Paley is their great opprobrium. But, on the other hand, for style, Paley is a master. Homely, racy, vernacular English, the rustic vigour of a style which intentionally forgoes the graces of polish on the one hand, and of scholastic precision on the other—that quality of merit has never been attained in a degree so eminent. This first interchange of thought upon a topic of literature did not tend to slacken my previous disposition to retreat into solitude; a solitude, however, which at no time was tainted with either the moroseness or the pride of a cynic.
I clearly remember the first (and also the last) conversation I had with my tutor. It was made up of three sentences, two from him and one from me. One fine morning, I ran into him in the Quadrangle, and since he had no idea about my intentions, he decided to check them out. He asked me, "What have you been reading lately?" At that moment, I was deep into metaphysics and had been closely studying the Parmenides, which some Oxford scholar published separately early in the last century. However, my kind nature meant that I couldn’t stand to see—or cause—even a bit of pain or embarrassment to anyone. I tended to pull away from most people, but not out of dislike. Instead, I wanted to like everyone, so I felt it was better to connect with no one. So, mentioning the Parmenides to someone who was unlikely to understand its entirety felt too mean-spirited, almost like a cruel joke, especially since such reading was quite uncommon at the time. I feared it would be seen as a direct attempt to silence my tutor. With all this running through my mind, I quickly replied that I had been reading Paley. I’ve never forgotten my tutor’s response: "Ah! An excellent author; great for his content; just be careful about his style; it's quite flawed there." That was our exchange; we bowed, parted ways, and I don’t think we ever spoke again. As trivial as this comment on Paley might seem, it struck me deeply that more lies, or outright falsehoods, could not be packed into such a short sentence. Paley, as a philosopher, is a joke, an embarrassment of the era. Regarding the two Universities and the huge responsibility they bear for the books they endorse through their official degree examinations, Paley’s name is a significant shame. But, on the flip side, Paley is a master of style. He uses straightforward, earthy English, with a rustic vigor intentionally avoiding the refinements of polish and the precision of academic jargon. No one has ever matched that level of merit. This first exchange about literature didn’t lessen my urge to retreat into solitude; a solitude, however, that was never marked by the bitterness or arrogance of a cynic.
Neither must the reader suppose that, even in that day, I belonged to the party who disparage the classical writers, or the classical training of the great English schools. The Greek drama I loved and revered. But, to deal frankly, because it is a subject which I shall hereafter bring before the public, I made great distinctions. I was not that indiscriminate admirer of Greek and Roman literature which those too generally are who admire it at all. This protesting[Pg 63] spirit against a false and blind idolatry was with me, at that time, a matter of enthusiasm—almost of bigotry. I was a bigot against bigots. Let us take the Greek oratory, for example:—What section of the Greek literature is more fanatically exalted, and studiously in depreciation of our own? Let us judge of the sincerity at the base of these hollow affectations, by the downright facts and the producible records. To admire, in any sense which can give weight and value to your admiration, pre-supposes, I presume, some acquaintance with its object. As the earliest title to an opinion, one way or other, of the Greek eloquence, we ought to have studied some of its most distinguished artists; or, say one, at least; and this one, we may be sure, will be, as it ought to be, Demosthenes. Now, it is a fact, that all the copies of Demosthenes sold within the last hundred years would not meet the demand of one considerable town, were that orator a subject of study amongst even classical scholars. I doubt whether, at this day, there exist twenty men in Europe who can be said to have even once read Demosthenes; and, therefore, it was that, when Mr. Mitford, in his "History of Greece," took a new view of this orator's political administration—a view which lowered his character for integrity—he found an unresisting acceder to his doctrines in a public having no previous opinion upon the subject, and, therefore, open to any casual impression of malice or rash judgment. Had there been any acquaintance with the large remains which we still possess of this famous orator, no such wrong could have been done. I, from my childhood, had been a reader, nay, a student, of Demosthenes; and simply for this reason, that, having meditated profoundly on the true laws and philosophy of diction, and of what is vaguely denominated style, and finding nothing of any value in modern writers upon this subject, and not much as regards the grounds and ultimate principles even in the ancient rhetoricians, I have been reduced to collect my opinions from the great artists and practitioners, rather than from the theorists; and, among those artists, in the most plastic of languages, I hold Demosthenes to have been the greatest.
The reader should not think that, even back then, I was part of the group that belittles classical writers or the classical education offered by great English schools. I loved and respected Greek drama. But to be honest, since this is a topic I will discuss publicly later, I made significant distinctions. I wasn’t an uncritical admirer of Greek and Roman literature like so many are who do admire it at all. My resistance to blind idolization was, at that time, almost a matter of zeal—almost like bigotry. I was prejudiced against bigots. Take Greek oratory, for example: What part of Greek literature is more fanatically praised while simultaneously degrading our own? Let’s assess the sincerity behind these shallow pretenses by looking at the clear facts and available records. To truly admire something in a way that adds weight and value to that admiration requires, I believe, some understanding of the subject. To form any kind of opinion about Greek eloquence, we should have studied some of its most notable practitioners; or at least one, and this one should definitely be Demosthenes. It’s a fact that all the copies of Demosthenes sold in the last hundred years wouldn’t satisfy the demand of a single large town if he were a common subject of study among even classical scholars. I doubt there are even twenty people in Europe today who can say they’ve read Demosthenes at least once; thus, when Mr. Mitford, in his "History of Greece," presented a new perspective on this orator’s political role—one that diminished his integrity—he found an unresisting audience willing to accept his views in a public that had no prior opinion on the matter and was therefore susceptible to any careless impressions of malice or rash judgment. If there had been any familiarity with the significant remnants we still have of this famous orator, such an injustice could not have occurred. From childhood, I had been a reader, even a student, of Demosthenes; and for this reason: after deeply contemplating the true principles of diction and what is often loosely called style, I found little of value in modern writings on the subject, and not much regarding fundamental principles even among ancient rhetoricians. I found myself compelled to gather my insights from the great artists and practitioners rather than from theorists, and among those artists, I consider Demosthenes to be the greatest in the most versatile of languages.
The Greek is, beyond comparison, the most plastic of[Pg 64] languages. It was a material which bent to the purposes of him who used it beyond the material of other languages; it was an instrument for a larger compass of modulations; and it happens that the peculiar theme of an orator imposes the very largest which is consistent with a prose diction. One step further in passion, and the orator would become a poet. An orator can exhaust the capacities of a language—an historian, never. Moreover, the age of Demosthenes was, in my judgment, the age of highest development for arts dependent upon social refinement. That generation had fixed and ascertained the use of words; whereas the previous generation of Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, &c., was a transitional period: the language was still moving, and tending to a meridian not yet attained; and the public eye had been directed consciously upon language, as in and for itself an organ of intellectual delight, for too short a time to have mastered the whole art of managing its resources. All these were reasons for studying Demosthenes, as the one great model and standard of Attic prose; and studied him I had, more than any other prose writer whatever. Pari passu, I had become sensible that others had not studied him. One monotonous song of applause I found raised on every side; something about being "like a torrent, that carries everything before it." This original image is all we get in the shape of criticism, and never any attempt even at illustrating what is greatest in him, or characterising what is most peculiar. The same persons who discovered that Lord Brougham was the modern Bacon have also complimented him with the title of the English Demosthenes. Upon this hint, Lord Brougham, in his address to the Glasgow students, has deluged the great Athenian with wordy admiration. There is an obvious prudence in lodging your praise upon an object from which you count upon a rebound to yourself. But here, as everywhere else, you look in vain for any marks or indications of a personal and direct acquaintance with the original orations. The praise is built rather upon the popular idea of Demosthenes than upon the real Demosthenes. And not only so, but even upon style itself, and upon the art of composition in abstracto, Lord Brougham does not seem to have[Pg 65] formed any clear conceptions,—principles he has none. Now, it is useless to judge of an artist until you have some principles on the art. The two capital secrets in the art of prose composition are these: 1st, The philosophy of transition and connection, or the art by which one step in an evolution of thought is made to arise out of another: all fluent and effective composition depends on the connections;—2dly, The way in which sentences are made to modify each other; for the most powerful effects in written eloquence arise out of this reverberation, as it were, from each other in a rapid succession of sentences; and, because some limitation is necessary to the length and complexity of sentences, in order to make this interdependency felt: hence it is that the Germans have no eloquence. The construction of German prose tends to such immoderate length of sentences that no effect of intermodification can ever be apparent. Each sentence, stuffed with innumerable clauses of restriction, and other parenthetical circumstances, becomes a separate section—an independent whole. But, without insisting on Lord Brougham's oversights, or errors of defect, I will digress a moment to one positive caution of his, which will measure the value of his philosophy on this subject. He lays it down for a rule of indefinite application that the Saxon part of our English idiom is to be favoured at the expense of that part which has so happily coalesced with the language from the Latin or Greek. This fancy, often patronized by other writers, and even acted upon, resembles that restraint which some metrical writers have imposed upon themselves—of writing a long copy of verses from which some particular letter, or from each line of which some different letter, should be carefully excluded. What followed? Was the reader sensible, in the practical effect upon his ear, of any beauty attained? By no means; all the difference, sensibly perceived, lay in the occasional constraints and affectations to which the writer had been driven by his self-imposed necessities. The same chimera exists in Germany; and so much further is it carried that one great puritan in this heresy (Wolf) has published a vast dictionary, the rival of Adelung's, for the purpose of expelling every word of foreign origin and composition[Pg 66] out of the language, by assigning some equivalent term spun out from pure native Teutonic materials. Bayonet, for example, is patriotically rejected, because a word may be readily compounded tantamount to musket-dirk; and this sort of composition thrives showily in the German, as a language running into composition with a fusibility only surpassed by the Greek. But what good purpose is attained by such caprices? In three sentences the sum of the philosophy may be stated. It has been computed (see Duclos) that the Italian opera has not above six hundred words in its whole vocabulary: so narrow is the range of its emotions, and so little are these emotions disposed to expand themselves into any variety of thinking. The same remark applies to that class of simple, household, homely passion, which belongs to the early ballad poetry. Their passion is of a quality more venerable, it is true, and deeper than that of the opera, because more permanent and coextensive with human life; but it is not much wider in its sphere, nor more apt to coalesce with contemplative or philosophic thinking. Pass from these narrow fields of the intellect, where the relations of the objects are so few and simple, and the whole prospect so bounded, to the immeasurable and sea-like arena upon which Shakspeare careers—co-infinite with life itself—yes, and with something more than life. Here is the other pole, the opposite extreme. And what is the choice of diction? What is the lexis? Is it Saxon exclusively, or is it Saxon by preference? So far from that, the Latinity is intense—not, indeed, in his construction, but in his choice of words; and so continually are these Latin words used with a critical respect to their earliest (and, where that happens to have existed, to their unfigurative) meaning, that, upon this one argument I would rely for upsetting the else impregnable thesis of Dr. Farmer as to Shakspeare's learning. Nay, I will affirm that, out of this regard to the Latin acceptation of Latin words, may be absolutely explained the Shakspearian meaning of certain words which has hitherto baffled all his critics. For instance, the word modern, of which Dr. Johnson professes himself unable to explain the rationale or principle regulating its Shakspearian use, though he felt its value, it is to be[Pg 67] deduced thus: First of all, change the pronunciation a little, by substituting for the short o, as we pronounce it in modern, the long o, as heard in modish, and you will then, perhaps, perceive the process of analogy by which it passed into the Shakspearian use. The matter or substance of a thing is, usually, so much more important than its fashion or manner, that we have hence adopted, as one way for expressing what is important as opposed to what is trivial, the word material. Now, by parity of reason, we are entitled to invert this order, and to express what is unimportant by some word indicating the mere fashion or external manner of an object as opposed to its substance. This is effected by the word modal or mōdern, as the adjective from modus, a fashion or manner; and in that sense Shakspeare employs the word. Thus, Cleopatra, undervaluing to Cæsar's agent the bijouterie which she has kept back from inventory, and which her treacherous steward had betrayed, describes them as mere trifles—
The Greek language is, without a doubt, the most adaptable of[Pg 64] languages. It was a medium that could be shaped to the user’s purposes more than any other language could; it served as a tool for a broader range of expression. The unique subjects of orators demand the widest range that can still fit with prose diction. If an orator were to push further in their passion, they would become a poet. An orator can fully utilize a language’s potential—an historian cannot. I believe the time of Demosthenes marked the peak of development for the arts reliant on social sophistication. That generation had solidified the use of words; while the earlier generation of Thucydides, Xenophon, Plato, etc., was transitional—language was still evolving and reaching an endpoint that had not yet been achieved. At that time, people were beginning to consciously appreciate language itself as a source of intellectual pleasure, but not enough to fully master the art of using its resources. These reasons compelled me to study Demosthenes as the ultimate model of Attic prose; and I certainly studied him more than any other prose writer. Gradually, I became aware that others did not study him as I had. I found a uniform chorus of praise, often comparing him to "a torrent that sweeps everything away." This original metaphor was all the criticism I encountered, with no real discussion of what makes him great or detailing his distinctive qualities. The same people who claimed that Lord Brougham was the modern Bacon also dubbed him the English Demosthenes. On this cue, Lord Brougham, in his lecture to the students in Glasgow, flooded out praise for the great Athenian. There’s a clear strategy in bestowing accolades on something that might reflect back on yourself. However, in this case, as in others, you’ll find no signs of genuine and direct familiarity with the original speeches. The commendation is based more on a popular notion of Demosthenes than on the real Demosthenes. Furthermore, even when it comes to style itself and the art of composition in abstracto, Lord Brougham doesn’t seem to have a clear understanding of the principles involved. Judging an artist requires some established principles of their art. The two main secrets of prose composition are these: 1st, Understanding the philosophy of transition and connection, which is the art that allows one idea to logically follow another—a fluid and effective composition relies on these connections; 2nd, The interplay between sentences, since the most powerful effects in written eloquence arise from the way sentences resonate with each other in rapid succession; and because some restriction on the length and complexity of sentences is necessary to make this interdependence felt: this is why the Germans lack eloquence. The structure of German prose often leads to such exaggerated sentence lengths that there’s no clear interrelation possible. Each sentence, crammed with countless clauses and parenthetical elements, turns into a separate section—an independent whole. But without focusing on Lord Brougham’s oversights or deficiencies, let me briefly address one of his key points, which sums up the value of his philosophy on this matter. He asserts as a general rule that we should favor the Saxon part of our English language over the portions that have gracefully integrated from Latin or Greek. This idea, which some other writers have endorsed and even implemented, is akin to the constraints that certain poets impose on themselves—like writing lengthy verses while avoiding a particular letter, or ensuring that each line excludes a different letter. What was the result? Did it yield any perceptible beauty for the reader? Not at all; the noticeable difference came from the occasional limitations and quirks that the writer had to navigate due to their self-imposed restrictions. The same absurdity exists in Germany; it’s taken so far that one staunch proponent of this belief (Wolf) published an extensive dictionary, aiming to eliminate every word of foreign origin from the language by providing a native Teutonic equivalent. For instance, the word bayonet is patriotically dismissed because it can be easily replaced with musket-dirk; and this type of word formation flourishes in German, a language so flexible with composition that it's only surpassed by Greek. But what constructive purpose does such quirkiness serve? In three sentences, the essence of this philosophy can be stated. It has been calculated (see Duclos) that the vocabulary of Italian opera is limited to about six hundred words: so restricted is the range of its emotions, and so unwilling are these emotions to manifest any variety of thought. The same applies to that class of simple, homely feelings characteristic of early ballad poetry. Their feelings are indeed a deeper, more venerable quality than those of the opera, as they are more lasting and connected to human experience; but their scope is not much broader, nor do they merge readily with deep philosophical thought. Transition from these narrow realms of thought, where relationships are few and straightforward, and the entire view is confined, to the vast, ocean-like domain where Shakespeare operates—one that’s co-extensive with life itself—and indeed, something beyond life. Here lies the other extreme. What is his choice of words? Is it strictly Saxon, or does he prefer Saxon? Far from it; there’s a significant Latin influence—not necessarily in his structure, but in his word choice. These Latin words are utilized with a careful regard for their earliest (and, when applicable, their literal) meanings, which, based on this alone, can challenge Dr. Farmer’s otherwise compelling argument regarding Shakespeare’s education. In fact, I’d argue that paying attention to the Latin meanings of these words can shed light on certain Shakespearian usages that have stumped his critics. For instance, the word modern, about which Dr. Johnson claims he can’t decipher the rationale or principle behind its usage in Shakespeare, though he recognized its significance, can be explained this way: first, slightly adjust the pronunciation by replacing the short o in modern with the long o in modish, and you might then discern the analogy that led to its Shakespearian usage. The matter or essence of something is typically regarded as much more significant than its form or manner; thus, we have adopted the word material to express what is important as opposed to the trivial. Consequently, we can reverse this concept and express what is less significant by using a term that reflects only the form or external manner of an object compared to its substance. This is achieved with the word modal or mōdern, derived from modus, meaning a form or manner; and in this sense, Shakespeare uses the term. Thus, Cleopatra, downplaying to Caesar’s agent the trinkets she withheld from the inventory, which her disloyal steward revealed, dismisses them as mere trifles—
where all commentators have felt that modern must from the position mean slight and inconsiderable, though perplexed to say how it came by such a meaning. A modern friend is, in the Shakspearian sense, with relation to a real and serviceable friend, that which the fashion of a thing is by comparison with its substance. But a still better illustration may be taken from a common line, quoted every day, and ludicrously misinterpreted. In the famous picture of life—"All the world's a stage"—the justice of the peace is described as
where all commentators have felt that modern must, from the context, mean something small and insignificant, though it's unclear how it got that meaning. A modern friend, in the Shakespearian sense, is in relation to a real and helpful friend, like the superficial aspects of something compared to its true essence. But a better example can be taken from a common line that gets quoted every day and is often hilariously misinterpreted. In the famous depiction of life—"All the world's a stage"—the justice of the peace is described as
which (horrendum dictu!) has been explained, and, I verily believe, is generally understood to mean, full of wise sayings and modern illustrations. The true meaning is—full of proverbial maxims of conduct and of trivial arguments; that is, of petty distinctions, or verbal disputes, such as never touch the point at issue. The word modern I have already deduced; the word instances is equally Latin, and equally used by Shakspeare in its Latin sense. It is originally the word instantia, which, by the monkish and scholastic writers, is uniformly used in the sense of an[Pg 68] argument, and originally of an argument urged in objection to some previous argument.[13]
which (horrendum dictu!) has been explained, and I truly believe, is generally understood to mean, full of wise sayings and modern illustrations. The true meaning is—full of proverbial maxims about behavior and trivial arguments; that is, of petty distinctions or wordy disputes that never actually address the main point. I have already derived the word modern; the word instances is also Latin and used by Shakespeare in its Latin meaning. It originally comes from the word instantia, which, by the monkish and scholastic writers, is consistently used in the sense of an[Pg 68] argument, and initially of an argument brought forward in response to some previous argument.[13]
I affirm, therefore, that Lord Brougham's counsel to the Glasgow students is not only bad counsel,—and bad counsel for the result, as well as for the grounds, which are either capricious or nugatory,—but also that, in the exact proportion in which the range of thought expands, it is an impossible counsel, an impracticable counsel—a counsel having for its purpose to embarrass and lay the mind in fetters, where even its utmost freedom and its largest resources will be found all too little for the growing necessities of the intellect. "Long-tailed words in osity and ation!" What does that describe? Exactly the Latin part of our language. Now, those very terminations speak for themselves:—All high abstractions end in ation; that is, they are Latin; and, just in proportion as the abstracting power extends and widens, do the circles of thought widen, and the horizon or boundary (contradicting its own Grecian name) melts into the infinite. On this account it was that Coleridge (Biographia Literaria) remarks on Wordsworth's philosophical poetry, that, in proportion as it goes into the profound of passion and of thought, do the words increase which are vulgarly called "dictionary words." Now, these words, these[Pg 69] "dictionary" words, what are they? Simply words of Latin or Greek origin: no other words, no Saxon words, are ever called by illiterate persons dictionary words. And these dictionary words are indispensable to a writer, not only in the proportion by which he transcends other writers as to extent and as to subtlety of thinking, but also as to elevation and sublimity. Milton was not an extensive or discursive thinker, as Shakspeare was; for the motions of his mind were slow, solemn, sequacious, like those of the planets; not agile and assimilative; not attracting all things within its own sphere; not multiform: repulsion was the law of his intellect—he moved in solitary grandeur. Yet, merely from this quality of grandeur, unapproachable grandeur, his intellect demanded a larger infusion of Latinity into his diction. For the same reason (and without such aids he would have had no proper element in which to move his wings) he enriched his diction with Hellenisms and with Hebraisms[14]; but never, as could be easy to show, without a[Pg 70] full justification in the result. Two things may be asserted of all his exotic idioms—1st, That they express what could not have been expressed by any native idiom; 2d, That they harmonize with the English language, and give a colouring of the antique, but not any sense of strangeness, to the diction. Thus, in the double negative, "Nor did they not perceive," &c., which is classed as a Hebraism—if any man fancy that it expresses no more than the simple affirmative, he shows that he does not understand its force; and, at the same time, it is a form of thought so natural and universal that I have heard English people, under corresponding circumstances, spontaneously fall into it. In short, whether a man differ from others by greater profundity or by greater sublimity, and whether he write as a poet or as a philosopher, in any case, he feels, in due proportion to the necessities of his intellect, an increasing dependence upon the Latin section of the English language; and the true reason why Lord Brougham failed to perceive this, or found the Saxon equal to his wants, is one which I shall not scruple to assign, inasmuch as it does not reflect personally on Lord Brougham, or, at least, on him exclusively, but on the whole body to which he belongs. That thing which he and they call by the pompous name of statesmanship, but which is, in fact, statescraft—the art of political intrigue—deals (like the opera) with ideas so few in number, and so little adapted to associate[Pg 71] themselves with other ideas, that, possibly, in the one case equally as in the other, six hundred words are sufficient to meet all their demands.
I assert, then, that Lord Brougham's advice to the Glasgow students isn’t just bad advice—both in terms of its consequences and its foundations, which are either arbitrary or trivial—but also that, as the range of thought increases, it becomes impossible and impractical advice—a counsel meant to hinder and restrict the mind, when even its greatest freedom and its fullest resources will still be insufficient for the expanding needs of intellect. "Long-tailed words in osity and ation!" What do they refer to? Precisely the Latin part of our language. Those very endings speak for themselves: All high abstractions conclude with ation; that is, they are Latin; and, as the capacity for abstraction grows and widens, so too do the circles of thought expand, and the horizon or limit (which contradicts its own Grecian name) dissolves into the infinite. This is why Coleridge (in Biographia Literaria) comments on Wordsworth's philosophical poetry, stating that, as it delves deeper into emotion and thought, the words—which are commonly referred to as "dictionary words"—increase. Now, what are these "dictionary" words? Simply languages of Latin or Greek origin: no other words, no Anglo-Saxon words, are ever labeled as dictionary words by uneducated individuals. These dictionary words are essential for a writer, not only in proportion to how much he surpasses other writers in terms of scope and subtlety of thought, but also regarding elevation and grandeur. Milton wasn’t a broad or discursive thinker like Shakespeare; his thoughts moved slowly, solemnly, and methodically, like the planets; not quick and assimilative; not drawing everything into his orbit; not multifaceted: repulsion was the principle of his intellect—he existed in solitary magnificence. Yet, simply because of this quality of grandeur, an unapproachable grandeur, his intellect required a richer mix of Latin influence in his writing. For the same reason (and without such support, he wouldn’t have had the right environment in which to elevate his wings), he enhanced his writing with influences from Greek and Hebrew, but never, as can be easily demonstrated, without a complete justification in the outcome. Two things can be said about all his foreign expressions—1st, That they convey what could not have been expressed with any native phrase; 2nd, That they blend with the English language, adding an antique quality without giving a sense of strangeness to the text. Thus, in the double negative, "Nor did they not perceive," etc., which is categorized as a Hebraism—if anyone thinks it conveys no more than the simple affirmative, it shows they misunderstand its power; and, at the same time, it’s a thought structure so natural and universal that I've heard English speakers, in similar situations, spontaneously use it. In short, whether someone stands apart from others due to greater depth or greater grandeur, and whether they write as a poet or as a philosopher, in any case, they feel, in proportion to the demands of their intellect, a growing reliance on the Latin part of the English language; and the true reason Lord Brougham failed to recognize this, or believed Anglo-Saxon was sufficient for his needs, is one I won’t hesitate to point out, since it doesn't reflect personally on Lord Brougham, or at least not solely on him, but rather on the entire group he belongs to. That thing they refer to with the grand term statesmanship, but which is, in reality, statescraft—the art of political maneuvering—engages (like opera) with ideas that are very few in number and not easily blended with other ideas, so that, in either case, six hundred words might be enough to meet all their needs.
I have used my privilege of discursiveness to step aside from Demosthenes to another subject, no otherwise connected with the Attic orator than, first, by the common reference of both subjects to rhetoric; but, secondly, by the accident of having been jointly discussed by Lord Brougham in a paper which (though now forgotten) obtained, at the moment, most undue celebrity. For it is one of the infirmities of the public mind with us, that whatever is said or done by a public man,—any opinion given by a member of Parliament, however much out of his own proper jurisdiction and range of inquiry,—commands an attention not conceded even to those who speak under the known privilege of professional knowledge. Thus, Cowper was not discovered to be a poet worthy of any general notice until Charles Fox, a most slender critic, had vouchsafed to quote a few lines, and that not so much with a view to the poetry as to its party application. But now, returning to Demosthenes, I affirm that his case is the case of nearly all the classical writers,—at least, of all the prose writers. It is, I admit, an extreme one; that is, it is the general case in a more intense degree. Raised almost to divine honours, never mentioned but with affected rapture, the classics of Greece and Rome are seldom read, most of them never; are they, indeed, the closet companions of any man? Surely it is time that these follies were at an end; that our practice were made to square a little better with our professions, and that our pleasures were sincerely drawn from those sources in which we pretend that they lie.
I’ve used my ability to be talkative to shift from Demosthenes to another topic, which is only connected to the Attic orator in two ways: first, both topics relate to rhetoric; and second, because they were both discussed by Lord Brougham in a paper that, although now forgotten, gained an undeserved amount of attention at the time. One of the weaknesses of public perception here is that anything said or done by a public figure—any opinion offered by a member of Parliament, no matter how far outside their area of expertise—gets more attention than opinions from those who are actually knowledgeable. For example, Cowper wasn't recognized as a worthy poet until Charles Fox, a rather unimpressive critic, quoted a few lines, not really for the poetry itself but for its political relevance. But now, back to Demosthenes, I argue that his situation represents almost all classical writers—at least all prose writers. I admit it’s an extreme case; it’s the general situation taken to a more intense level. Almost glorified, never mentioned without exaggerated enthusiasm, the classics of Greece and Rome are rarely read, with most people not reading them at all. Are they really the close companions of anyone? It’s definitely time to put an end to these absurdities; we should align our practices better with our claims and seek genuine enjoyment from the sources we pretend to appreciate.
The Greek language, mastered in any eminent degree, is the very rarest of all accomplishments, and precisely because it is unspeakably the most difficult. Let not the reader dupe himself by popular cant. To be an accomplished Grecian demands a very peculiar quality of talent; and it is almost inevitable that one who is such should be vain of a distinction which represents so much labour and difficulty overcome. For myself, having, as a school-boy, attained to a very unusual mastery over this language, and (though as yet little familiar with the elaborate science of Greek metre) moving[Pg 72] through all the obstacles and resistances of a Greek book with the same celerity and ease as through those of the French and Latin, I had, in vanquishing the difficulties of the language, lost the main stimulus to its cultivation. Still, I read Greek daily; but any slight vanity which I might connect with a power so rarely attained, and which, under ordinary circumstances, so readily transmutes itself into a disproportionate admiration of the author, in me was absolutely swallowed up in the tremendous hold taken of my entire sensibilities at this time by our own literature. With what fury would I often exclaim: He who loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how shall he love God whom he hath not seen? You, Mr. A, L, M, O, you who care not for Milton, and value not the dark sublimities which rest ultimately (as we all feel) upon dread realities, how can you seriously thrill in sympathy with the spurious and fanciful sublimities of the classical poetry—with the nod of the Olympian Jove, or the seven-league strides of Neptune? Flying Childers had the most prodigious stride of any horse on record; and at Newmarket that is justly held to be a great merit; but it is hardly a qualification for a Pantheon. The parting of Hector and Andromache—that is tender, doubtless; but how many passages of far deeper, far diviner tenderness, are to be found in Chaucer! Yet in these cases we give our antagonist the benefit of an appeal to what is really best and most effective in the ancient literature. For, if we should go to Pindar, and some other great names, what a revelation of hypocrisy as respects the fade enthusiasts for the Greek poetry!
The Greek language, mastered to any significant degree, is one of the rarest achievements because it’s incredibly difficult. Readers shouldn’t fool themselves with popular beliefs. Becoming skilled in Greek requires a unique talent, and it’s almost unavoidable for someone who achieves this to feel some pride in a distinction that represents so much hard work and struggle. For my part, having, as a student, gained a rather unusual mastery of this language, and (though still not well-versed in the complex science of Greek meter) being able to navigate all the challenges of a Greek book with the same speed and ease as I would with French and Latin, I found that in overcoming the difficulties of the language, I lost the main motivation to pursue it further. Still, I read Greek every day; but any slight pride I might feel regarding such a rare skill, which under normal circumstances often transforms into an exaggerated admiration of the author, was completely overshadowed by how deeply our own literature engaged my entire sensibility at this time. How often did I exclaim in frustration: He who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen? You, Mr. A, L, M, O, who care nothing for Milton and don’t appreciate the profound complexities that ultimately rest on harsh realities, how can you genuinely resonate with the superficial and fanciful grandeur of classical poetry—with the nod of Olympian Zeus or the great strides of Neptune? Flying Childers had the most impressive stride of any horse on record; and at Newmarket, that’s rightly considered a major asset; but it hardly qualifies for a place in the Pantheon. The farewell between Hector and Andromache— that is certainly touching; but how many passages contain far deeper and more divine tenderness can be found in Chaucer! Yet in these cases, we allow our opponent the benefit of citing what is truly best and most impactful in ancient literature. For if we turn to Pindar and some other great names, what a revelation of hypocrisy we find among the enthusiasts for Greek poetry!
Still, in the Greek tragedy, however otherwise embittered against ancient literature by the dismal affectations current in the scenical poetry, at least I felt the presence of a great and original power. It might be a power inferior, upon the whole, to that which presides in the English tragedy; I believed that it was; but it was equal and appealed equally to real and deep sensibilities in our nature. Yet, also, I felt that the two powers at work in the two forms of the drama were essentially different; and, without having read a line of German at that time, or knowing of any such controversy, I began to meditate on the elementary[Pg 73] grounds of difference between the Pagan and the Christian forms of poetry. The dispute has since been carried on extensively in France, not less than in Germany, as between the classical and the romantic. But I will venture to assert that not one step in advance has been made, up to this day. The shape into which I threw the question it may be well to state; because I am persuaded that out of that one idea, properly pursued, might be evolved the whole separate characteristics of the Christian and the Antique. Why is it, I asked, that the Christian idea of sin is an idea utterly unknown to the Pagan mind? The Greeks and Romans had a clear conception of a moral ideal, as we have; but this they estimated by a reference to the will; and they called it virtue, and the antithesis they called vice. The lacheté or relaxed energy of the will, by which it yielded to the seductions of sensual pleasure, that was vice; and the braced-up tone by which it resisted these seductions was virtue. But the idea of holiness, and the antithetic idea of sin, as a violation of this awful and unimaginable sanctity, was so utterly undeveloped in the Pagan mind, that no word exists in classical Greek or classical Latin which approaches either pole of this synthesis; neither the idea of holiness, nor of its correlate, sin, could be so expressed in Latin as at once to satisfy Cicero and a scientific Christian. Again (but this was some years after), I found Schiller and Goethe applauding the better taste of the ancients, in symbolizing the idea of death by a beautiful youth, with a torch inverted, &c., as compared with the Christian types of a skeleton and hourglasses, &c. And much surprised I was to hear Mr. Coleridge approving of this German sentiment. Yet, here again, I felt, the peculiar genius of Christianity was covertly at work moving upon a different road, and under opposite ideas, to a just result, in which the harsh and austere expression yet pointed to a dark reality, whilst the beautiful Greek adumbration was, in fact, a veil and a disguise. The corruptions and the other "dishonours" of the grave, and whatsoever composes the sting of death in the Christian view, is traced up to sin as its ultimate cause. Hence, besides the expression of Christian humility, in thus nakedly exhibiting the wrecks and ruins made by sin, there is also a[Pg 74] latent profession indicated of Christian hope. For the Christian contemplates steadfastly, though with trembling awe, the lowest point of his descent; since, for him, that point, the last of his fall, is also the first of his re-ascent, and serves, besides, as an exponent of its infinity; the infinite depth becoming, in the rebound, a measure of the infinite re-ascent. Whereas, on the contrary, with the gloomy uncertainties of a Pagan on the question of his final restoration, and also (which must not be overlooked) with his utter perplexity as to the nature of his restoration, if any were by accident in reserve, whether in a condition tending downwards or upwards, it was the natural resource to consult the general feeling of anxiety and distrust, by throwing a thick curtain and a veil of beauty over the whole too painful subject. To place the horrors in high relief could here have answered no purpose but that of wanton cruelty; whereas, with the Christian hopes, the very saddest memorials of the havocks made by death are antagonist prefigurations of great victories in the rear.
Still, in Greek tragedy, despite my bitter feelings towards ancient literature due to the gloomy trends in dramatic poetry, I still sensed the presence of a significant and original force. It might be an overall lesser power compared to that found in English tragedy; I believed it was, but it was comparable and appealed equally to real and profound feelings within us. However, I also sensed that the two forces operating in these two forms of drama were fundamentally different; and without having read any German at that time or knowing of any such debate, I began to think about the basic differences between Pagan and Christian poetry. This discussion has since been extensively explored in France, as well as in Germany, regarding the classical and the romantic. However, I would dare to say that no progress has been made in this regard up to now. It might be worth stating the way I framed the question because I believe that from that one idea, if properly explored, could emerge the distinct characteristics of Christianity and Antiquity. I asked, why is the Christian concept of sin completely unknown to the Pagan mindset? The Greeks and Romans had a clear idea of a moral ideal, as we do; but they assessed it based on the will, referring to it as virtue, while the opposite was called vice. The laziness or weakened will that succumbs to the temptations of pleasure was vice, while the strengthened will that resisted these temptations was virtue. However, the idea of holiness, and its opposite idea of sin as a violation of this profound and unimaginable sanctity, was so undeveloped in the Pagan mindset that no word exists in classical Greek or Latin that captures either concept; neither the idea of holiness nor its counterpart, sin, could be expressed in Latin in a way that would satisfy both Cicero and a scientific Christian. Later on (but this was several years after), I found Schiller and Goethe praising the better taste of the ancients for symbolizing death with a beautiful youth holding an inverted torch, etc., compared to the Christian depictions of skeletons and hourglasses. I was quite surprised to hear Mr. Coleridge endorse this German sentiment. Yet, again, I felt that the unique essence of Christianity was subtly at work taking a different path, leading to a rightful conclusion, where the harsh and severe expression pointed to a dark reality, while the beautiful Greek representation, in fact, served as a veil and a disguise. The corruptions and “dishonors” of the grave, and what constitutes the sting of death from a Christian perspective, ultimately trace back to sin as its root cause. Therefore, aside from the expression of Christian humility in displaying the devastation caused by sin, there is also an underlying indication of Christian hope. The Christian gazes steadfastly, though with trembling awe, at the lowest point of his fall; for him, that point, the end of his descent, is also the beginning of his ascent, and serves as a measure of its infinity; the infinite depth becomes, in the bounce back, a measure of the infinite increase. In contrast, with the dark uncertainties faced by a Pagan regarding his final restoration, and also (which must not be overlooked) his total confusion about the nature of his potential restoration, whether it would tend downwards or upwards, it was a natural inclination to mask the anxiety and distrust by covering the painful subject with a beautiful facade. To highlight the horrors would serve no purpose but that of cruel enjoyment; however, with Christian hope, the saddest reminders of the destruction caused by death also represent opposing prefigurations of great victories on the horizon.
These speculations, at that time, I pursued earnestly; and I then believed myself, as I yet do, to have ascertained the two great and opposite laws under which the Grecian and the English tragedy has each separately developed itself. Whether wrong or right in that belief, sure I am that those in Germany who have treated the case of Classical and Romantic are not entitled to credit for any discovery at all. The Schlegels, who were the hollowest of men, the windiest and wordiest (at least, Frederick was so), pointed to the distinction; barely indicated it; and that was already some service done, because a presumption arose that the antique and the modern literatures, having clearly some essential differences, might, perhaps, rest on foundations originally distinct, and obey different laws. And hence it occurred that many disputes, as about the unities, &c., might originate in a confusion of these laws. This checks the presumption of the shallow criticism, and points to deeper investigations. Beyond this, neither the German nor the French disputers on the subject have talked to any profitable purpose.
These speculations, at that time, I pursued seriously; and I then believed, as I still do, that I had figured out the two major opposing principles under which Greek and English tragedy have each developed separately. Whether I'm right or wrong in that belief, I'm sure that those in Germany who have discussed the case of Classical and Romantic literature aren’t credited with any real discoveries. The Schlegels, who were the most superficial of people, all talk and no substance (at least Frederick was), pointed out the distinction; they barely touched on it, but that was some progress because it suggested that ancient and modern literature, having clear essential differences, might rest on fundamentally distinct foundations and follow different rules. This raises questions about whether many debates, like those about the unities, etc., might stem from a mix-up of these rules. This challenges the assumptions of shallow criticism and indicates a need for deeper exploration. Beyond this, neither the German nor the French debaters on the topic have spoken with any real value.
I have mentioned Paley as accidentally connected with my début in literary conversation; and I have taken occasion[Pg 75] to say how much I admired his style and its unstudied graces, how profoundly I despised his philosophy. I shall here say a word or two more on that subject. As respects his style, though secretly despising the opinion avowed by my tutor (which was, however, a natural opinion for a stiff lover of the artificial and the pompous), I would just as unwillingly be supposed to adopt the extravagant opinions, in the other extreme, of Dr. Parr and Mr. Coleridge. These two gentlemen, who privately hated Paley, and, perhaps, traduced him, have hung like bees over one particular paragraph in his Evidences, as though it were a flower transplanted from Hymettus. Dr. Parr pronounced it the finest sentence in the English language. It is a period (that is, a cluster of sentences) moderately well, but not too well, constructed, as the German nurses are accustomed to say. Its felicity depends on a trick easily imitated—on a balance happily placed (namely, "in which the wisest of mankind would rejoice to find an answer to their doubts and rest to their inquiries)." As a bravura, or tour de force, in the dazzling fence of rhetoric, it is surpassed by many hundreds of passages which might be produced from rhetoricians; or, to confine myself to Paley's contemporaries, it is very far surpassed by a particular passage in Burke's letter upon the Duke of Bedford's base attack upon him in the House of Lords; which passage I shall elsewhere produce, because I happen to know, on the authority of Burke's executors, that Burke himself considered it the finest period which he had ever written. At present, I will only make one remark, viz. that it is always injudicious, in the highest degree, to cite for admiration that which is not a representative specimen of the author's manner. In reading Lucian, I once stumbled on a passage of German pathos, and of German effect. Would it have been wise, or would it have been intellectually just, to quote this as the text of an eulogium on Lucian? What false criticism it would have suggested to every reader! what false anticipations! To quote a formal and periodic pile of sentences was to give the feeling that Paley was what the regular rhetorical artists designate as a periodic writer, when, in fact, no one conceivable character of style more pointedly contradicted the true description of his merits.
I mentioned Paley in connection with my debut in literary conversation, and I took the opportunity[Pg 75] to express how much I admired his style and its effortless charm, while deeply disapproving of his philosophy. I’ll say a bit more on that topic here. Regarding his style, while I secretly disagreed with my tutor’s opinion (which, to be fair, was a typical view for someone who prefers the elaborate and grandiose), I would also be reluctant to adopt the extreme views of Dr. Parr and Mr. Coleridge on the other end of the spectrum. These two men, who privately disliked Paley and maybe spoke ill of him, have fixated like bees on one specific paragraph in his Evidences, treating it like a prized flower from Hymettus. Dr. Parr declared it the finest sentence in the English language. It’s a statement (or rather, a cluster of sentences) that is constructed moderately well, but not too well, as German nurses might say. Its brilliance relies on a technique that's easy to imitate—on a balance nicely struck (specifically, "in which the wisest of mankind would rejoice to find an answer to their doubts and rest to their inquiries"). As a bravura or tour de force in the dazzling art of rhetoric, it’s outdone by countless other passages from rhetoricians; or, to be specific to Paley's contemporaries, it’s far surpassed by a particular passage in Burke's letter regarding the Duke of Bedford's baseless attack on him in the House of Lords, which I will share later because I know from Burke's executors that he considered it the finest sentence he ever wrote. For now, I’ll just note that it’s highly unwise to cite something for admiration that isn't a representative example of the author's style. While reading Lucian, I once came across a passage filled with German pathos and effect. Would it have been smart, or intellectually fair, to use this as a basis for praising Lucian? What misleading criticism that would have prompted for every reader! What false expectations! To quote a formal and periodic collection of sentences would imply that Paley was what traditional rhetorical artists call a periodic writer, when, in truth, nothing could be further from the reality of his style.
But, leaving the style of Paley, I must confess that I agree with Mr. Bulwer (England and the English) in thinking it shocking and almost damnatory to an English University, the great well-heads of creeds, moral and evangelical, that authors such in respect of doctrine as Paley and Locke should hold that high and influential station as teachers, or rather oracles of truth, which has been conceded to them. As to Locke, I, when a boy, had made a discovery of one blunder full of laughter and of fun, which, had it been published and explained in Locke's lifetime, would have tainted his whole philosophy with suspicion. It relates to the Aristotelian doctrine of syllogism, which Locke undertook to ridicule. Now, a flaw, a hideous flaw, in the soi-disant detecter of flaws, a ridicule in the exposer of the ridiculous—that is fatal; and I am surprised that Lee, who wrote a folio against Locke in his lifetime, and other examiners, should have failed in detecting this. I shall expose it elsewhere; and, perhaps, one or two other exposures of the same kind will give an impetus to the descent of this falling philosophy. With respect to Paley, and the naked prudentialism of his system, it is true that in a longish note Paley disclaims that consequence. But to this we may reply, with Cicero, Non quæro quid neget Epicurus, sed quid congruenter neget. Meantime, waiving all this as too notorious, and too frequently denounced, I wish to recur to this trite subject, by way of stating an objection made to the Paleyan morality in my seventeenth year, and which I have never since seen reason to withdraw. It is this:—I affirm that the whole work, from first to last, proceeds upon that sort of error which the logicians call ignoratio elenchi, that is, ignorance of the very question concerned—of the point at issue. For, mark, in the very vestibule of ethics, two questions arise—two different and disconnected questions, A and B; and Paley has answered the wrong one. Thinking that he was answering A, and meaning to answer A, he has, in fact, answered B. One question arises thus: Justice is a virtue; temperance is a virtue; and so forth. Now, what is the common principle which ranks these several species under the same genus? What, in the language of logicians, is the common differential principle which determines these various[Pg 77] aspects of moral obligation to a common genus? Another question, and a more interesting question to men in general, is this,—What is the motive to virtue? By what impulse, law, or motive, am I impelled to be virtuous rather than vicious? Whence is the motive derived which should impel me to one line of conduct in preference to the other? This, which is a practical question, and, therefore, more interesting than the other, which is a pure question of speculation, was that which Paley believed himself to be answering. And his answer was,—that utility, a perception of the resulting benefit, was the true determining motive. Meantime, it was objected that often the most obvious results from a virtuous action were far otherwise than beneficial. Upon which, Paley, in the long note referred to above, distinguished thus: that, whereas actions have many results, some proximate, some remote, just as a stone thrown into the water produces many concentric circles, be it known that he, Dr. Paley, in what he says of utility, contemplates only the final result, the very outermost circle; inasmuch as he acknowledges a possibility that the first, second, third, including the penultimate circle, may all happen to clash with utility; but then, says he, the outermost circle of all will never fail to coincide with the absolute maximum of utility. Hence, in the first place, it appears that you cannot apply this test of utility in a practical sense; you cannot say, This is useful, ergo, it is virtuous; but, in the inverse order, you must say, This is virtuous, ergo, it is useful. You do not rely on its usefulness to satisfy yourself of its being virtuous; but, on the contrary, you rely on its virtuousness, previously ascertained, in order to satisfy yourself of its usefulness. And thus the whole practical value of this test disappears, though in that view it was first introduced; and a vicious circle arises in the argument; as you must have ascertained the virtuousness of an act, in order to apply the test of its being virtuous. But, secondly, it now comes out that Paley was answering a very different question from that which he supposed himself answering. Not any practical question as to the motive or impelling force in being virtuous, rather than vicious,—that is, to the sanctions of virtue,—but a purely speculative question, as to the essence of virtue,[Pg 78] or the common vinculum amongst the several modes or species of virtue (justice, temperance, &c.)—this was the real question which he was answering. I have often remarked that the largest and most subtle source of error in philosophic speculations has been the confounding of the two great principles so much insisted on by the Leibnitzians, viz., the ratio cognoscendi and the ratio essendi. Paley believed himself to be assigning—it was his full purpose to assign—the ratio cognoscendi; but, instead of that, unconsciously and surreptitiously, he has actually assigned the ratio essendi, and, after all, a false and imaginary ratio essendi.
But, setting aside Paley's style, I have to admit that I agree with Mr. Bulwer (England and the English) in finding it shocking and almost damning for an English university, which is supposed to be a source of moral and evangelical truths, that authors like Paley and Locke, who have questionable doctrines, hold such prominent positions as teachers, or rather as supposed sources of truth. As for Locke, when I was a boy, I discovered a mistake that was full of humor, which, if it had been published and explained during Locke's lifetime, would have cast doubt on his entire philosophy. It relates to the Aristotelian idea of syllogism, which Locke attempted to mock. Now, a mistake, a significant flaw, in the self-proclaimed detector of flaws, a mockery in the one who ridicules the absurd—that is detrimental; and I'm surprised that Lee, who wrote a lengthy rebuttal against Locke in his lifetime, along with other critics, failed to spot this. I will reveal it in another discussion; and perhaps one or two other similar revelations will fuel the decline of this waning philosophy. Regarding Paley and the bare-bones prudentialism of his system, it's true that Paley denies that implication in a lengthy note. However, we can reply, as Cicero said, Non quæro quid neget Epicurus, sed quid congruenter neget. Meanwhile, putting all this aside as too well-known and frequently criticized, I want to revisit this cliché topic by mentioning an objection I raised against Paleyan morality when I was seventeen, which I've never seen a reason to retract. It is this:—I assert that the entire work, from beginning to end, operates on a kind of mistake known in logic as ignoratio elenchi, or ignorance of the central question—of the core issue at hand. For, note, at the very entrance of ethics, two questions come up—two different and unrelated questions, A and B; and Paley has answered the wrong one. Believing he was answering A and intending to answer A, he has actually answered B. One question arises like this: Justice is a virtue; temperance is a virtue; and so on. Now, what is the common principle that classifies these various types under the same category? What, in logical terms, is the common differentiating principle that ties these different aspects of moral obligation to a single category? Another question, one that is more interesting to most people, is this: What drives us to be virtuous? What impulse, law, or motivation makes me choose to be virtuous instead of vicious? Where does the motivation come from that should lead me to one path over the other? This, which is a practical question—and therefore more interesting than the other, which is purely speculative—is what Paley believed he was answering. His answer was that utility, the perception of the resulting benefit, was the real driving force. However, it was pointed out that often the most obvious outcomes of a virtuous act are not beneficial at all. In response, Paley, in the lengthy note mentioned above, clarified that while actions have many results, some immediate and some distant, just like a stone thrown into water creates several concentric circles, it should be noted that he, Dr. Paley, in his discussion of utility, only considers the final result, the very outer circle; because he recognizes that the first, second, third, and even the penultimate circle may all conflict with utility; yet, he argues, the outermost circle will always align with the absolute maximum of utility. Thus, first, it seems that you cannot practically apply this test of utility; you cannot say, This is useful, ergo, it is virtuous; instead, you must say, This is virtuous, ergo, it is useful. You don't rely on its usefulness to determine that it is virtuous; rather, you depend on its established virtuousness to convince yourself of its usefulness. Consequently, the entire practical value of this test vanishes, although that was its original intent, and a vicious cycle arises in the argument; as you must have determined the virtuousness of an act in order to apply the test of its being virtuous. But, secondly, it now becomes clear that Paley was answering a very different question from the one he thought he was answering. Not any practical question regarding the motivation or driving force behind being virtuous rather than vicious—that is, the sanctions of virtue—but a purely speculative question regarding the essence of virtue,[Pg 78] or the common vinculum among the different forms or types of virtue (justice, temperance, etc.)—this was the true question he was addressing. I've often noticed that the largest and most subtle source of error in philosophical speculation has been the confusion of the two major principles emphasized by the Leibnitzians, namely, the ratio cognoscendi and the ratio essendi. Paley thought he was presenting—the goal of his analysis was to present—the ratio cognoscendi; but instead, unknowingly and implicitly, he has actually provided the ratio essendi, and ultimately a false and imaginary ratio essendi.
APPENDED NOTE
As De Quincey's long and interesting Chapter on Oxford from 1803 to 1808 leaves the incidents of his own passage through the University rather hazy, the following condensation of particulars on the subject may not be unwelcome. They are partly from one of his own conversations in 1821 with Richard Woodhouse (the notes of which conversations are appended to Mr. Garnett's edition in 1885 of the Confessions of an English Opium-Eater), partly from an article in the Quarterly Review for July 1861 containing information supplied by Dr. Cotton of Worcester College, and partly from information collected by Mr. Page for his Life of De Quincey:—Admitted into Worcester College on the 17th of December 1803, he did for the first two years of his residence lead, as he tells us, a very solitary life, withdrawing himself from wine-parties, and frequenting chiefly the society of a German named Schwartzburg. Even then, however, he had the reputation with some in the college of being, though of shy and quaint ways, a man of uncommon genius and erudition; and, latterly, as this reputation spread in the college, and some inevitable appearances of his in college declamations and the like confirmed it, he became the object of more general attention, and was urged to go up for honours in taking his degree. He did attend the first examination for B.A. honours at Michaelmas in the year 1808, with the result that Dr. Goodenough of Christ Church, who was one of the examiners, is said to have told one of the Worcester College dons, "You have sent us to-day the cleverest man I ever met with; if his vivâ voce examination to-morrow correspond with what he has done in writing, he will carry everything before him." De Quincey's own account to Mr. Woodhouse was that the examination was an oral one and in Latin; which agrees more with the possibility of such a report from Dr. Goodenough on the same day. De Quincey further adds that this examination was on a Saturday, and that the remaining examination, which was to follow on Monday, was to be in Greek. He had been looking forward to this examination with much interest, his Greek readings having been of wide range and in many directions out of the ordinary academic track; and his interest had been increased by the regulation that the answers to the questions were to be wholly or largely in the Greek tongue itself. The fact that this rule had been altered at the last moment had, however, disgusted him; and this, together with "his[Pg 80] contempt for his examiners" and the thought that the examination would be of a kind that would leave his real resources untested, had such an effect upon him that, "when the time came, he was non inventus." Mr. Woodhouse's report from himself is that "on the Sunday morning he left Oxford"; the Worcester College tradition, which is equally precise as to the main fact that he "packed up his things and walked away from Oxford," makes the flight occur in the night following the first examination. Whatever other causes there may have been for the break-down, the opium-eating habit must have been chiefly responsible. That habit had been formed by De Quincey in 1804 in one of those visits of his to London which, with visits to other places, are to be understood as having varied the monotony of his Oxford residence. The habit had grown upon him in his solitude in his college rooms; and part of the college tradition respecting his break-down is that, having taken a large dose of the drug to stimulate him sufficiently for the first day's examination, he was wrecked by the reaction. He took no University degree; and, though his name remained on the college books to as late as 15th December 1810, his real connexion with Oxford ceased in 1808.—D. M.
As De Quincey's lengthy and intriguing Chapter on Oxford from 1803 to 1808 leaves his experiences at the University somewhat unclear, the following summary of details on the topic might be useful. These are drawn partly from one of his own conversations in 1821 with Richard Woodhouse (the notes of which are included in Mr. Garnett's 1885 edition of the Confessions of an English Opium-Eater), partly from an article in the Quarterly Review from July 1861 that included information provided by Dr. Cotton of Worcester College, and partly from information gathered by Mr. Page for his Life of De Quincey:—He was admitted to Worcester College on December 17, 1803, and during his first two years there, he led, as he mentioned, a very solitary life, avoiding wine gatherings and mostly associating with a German named Schwartzburg. Even back then, he was viewed by some in the college as a man of exceptional talent and knowledge, despite his shy and eccentric nature; as this reputation grew within the college, and his unavoidable appearances in college debates and similar events confirmed it, he attracted more attention and was encouraged to pursue honors for his degree. He took the first examination for B.A. honors at Michaelmas in 1808, and it's said that Dr. Goodenough of Christ Church, one of the examiners, told a Worcester College faculty member, "You have sent us today the smartest man I've ever encountered; if his vivâ voce examination tomorrow matches his written work, he'll excel in everything." De Quincey himself told Mr. Woodhouse that the examination was oral and in Latin, which aligns with the possibility of Dr. Goodenough's comment on the same day. De Quincey also mentioned that this examination took place on a Saturday, with another examination scheduled for Monday that would be in Greek. He had been looking forward to this examination with great interest, as his Greek studies had been extensive and diverged from the usual academic path; his anticipation was heightened by the rule that the answers to the questions would be entirely or mostly in Greek. However, he was disheartened by the last-minute change to this rule, and along with "his [Pg 80] contempt for his examiners" and the belief that the examination would not truly test his abilities, he ended up being "non inventus" when the time came. Mr. Woodhouse reports that "on Sunday morning he left Oxford"; the Worcester College tradition, which is equally clear about the main fact that he "packed up his things and walked away from Oxford," states that the departure happened the night after the first examination. Regardless of any other factors contributing to his breakdown, the opium habit must have played a major role. This habit was developed by De Quincey in 1804 during one of his trips to London, which, alongside trips to other places, helped alleviate the routine of his time in Oxford. The addiction grew during his solitude in his college room; part of the college lore about his departure is that after taking a large dose of the drug to help him get through the first day's examination, he was overwhelmed by the backlash. He never earned a University degree, and although his name remained on the college roster until December 15, 1810, his actual connection to Oxford ended in 1808.—D. M.
CHAPTER II
GERMAN STUDIES AND KANT IN PARTICULAR[15]
Using a New Testament, of which (in the narrative parts at least) any one word being given will suggest most of what is immediately consecutive, you evade the most irksome of the penalties annexed to the first breaking ground in a new language: you evade the necessity of hunting up and down a dictionary. Your own memory, and the inevitable suggestions of the context, furnish a dictionary pro hac vice. And afterwards, upon advancing to other books, where you are obliged to forgo such aids, and to swim without corks, you find yourself already in possession of the particles for expressing addition, succession, exception, inference—in short, of all the forms by which transition or connexion is effected (if, but, and, therefore, however, notwithstanding), together with all those adverbs for modifying or restraining the extent of a subject or a predicate, which in all languages alike compose the essential frame-work or extra-linear machinery of human thought. The filling-up—the matter (in a scholastic sense)—may differ infinitely; but the form, the periphery, the determining moulds into which this matter is fused—all this is the same for ever: and so wonderfully limited in its extent is this frame-work, so narrow and rapidly revolving is the clock-work of connexions among human thoughts, that a dozen pages of almost any book suffice to exhaust all the επεα πτεροεντα (epea pteroenta)[16] which[Pg 82] express them. To have mastered these επεα πτεροεντα (epea pteroenta) is in effect to have mastered seven-tenths, at the least, of any language; and the benefit of using a New Testament, or the familiar parts of an Old Testament, in this preliminary drill, is, that your own memory is thus made to operate as a perpetual dictionary or nomenclator. I have heard Mr. Southey say that, by carrying in his pocket a Dutch, Swedish, or other Testament, on occasion of a long journey performed in "muggy" weather, and in the inside of some venerable "old heavy"—such as used to bestow their tediousness upon our respectable fathers some thirty or forty years ago—he had more than once turned to so valuable an account the doziness or the dulness of his fellow-travellers, that, whereas he had "booked" himself at the coach-office utterly αναλφαβητος (analphabêtos), unacquainted with the first rudiments of the given language, he had made his parting bows to his coach brethren (secretly returning thanks to them for their stupidity) in a condition for grappling with any common book in that dialect. One of the polyglot Old or New Testaments published by Bagster would be a perfect Encyclopædia, or Panorganon, for such a scheme of coach discipline, upon dull roads and in dull company. As respects the German language in particular, I shall give one caution from my own experience to the self-instructor: it is a caution which applies to the German language exclusively, or to that more than to any other, because the embarrassment which it is meant to meet grows out of a defect of taste characteristic of the German mind. It is this: elsewhere, you would naturally, as a beginner, resort to prose authors,[Pg 83] since the license and audacity of poetic thinking, and the large freedom of a poetic treatment, cannot fail to superadd difficulties of individual creation to the general difficulties of a strange dialect. But this rule, good for every other case, is not good for the literature of Germany. Difficulties there certainly are, and perhaps in more than the usual proportion, from the German peculiarities of poetic treatment; but even these are overbalanced in the result by the single advantage of being limited in the extent by the metre, or (as it may happen) by the particular stanza. To German poetry there is a known, fixed, calculable limit. Infinity, absolute infinity, is impracticable in any German metre. Not so with German prose. Style, in any sense, is an inconceivable idea to a German intellect. Take the word in the limited sense of what the Greeks called Συνθεσις ονοματων (Synthesis onomatôn)—i.e., the construction of sentences—I affirm that a German (unless it were here and there a Lessing) cannot admit such an idea. Books there are in German, and, in other respects, very good books too, which consist of one or two enormous sentences. A German sentence describes an arch between the rising and the setting sun. Take Kant for illustration: he has actually been complimented by the cloud-spinner, Frederick Schlegel, who is now in Hades, as a most original artist in the matter of style. "Original" Heaven knows he was! His idea of a sentence was as follows:—We have all seen, or read of, an old family coach, and the process of packing it for a journey to London some seventy or eighty years ago. Night and day, for a week at least, sate the housekeeper, the lady's maid, the butler, the gentleman's gentlemen, &c., packing the huge ark in all its recesses, its "imperials," its "wells," its "Salisbury boots," its "sword-cases," its front pockets, side pockets, rear pockets, its "hammer-cloth cellars" (which a lady explains to me as a corruption from hamper-cloth, as originally a cloth for hiding a hamper, stored with viaticum), until all the uses and needs of man, and of human life, savage or civilized, were met with separate provision by the infinite chaos. Pretty nearly upon the model of such an old family coach packing did Kant institute and pursue the packing and stuffing of one of his regular sentences. Everything that could ever be needed in the way of explanation,[Pg 84] illustration, restraint, inference, by-clause, or indirect comment, was to be crammed, according to this German philosopher's taste, into the front pockets, side pockets, or rear pockets, of the one original sentence. Hence it is that a sentence will last in reading whilst a man
Using a New Testament, where at least in the narrative sections, just a single word can trigger much of what follows, you avoid the most frustrating consequences of starting to learn a new language: the need to endlessly search through a dictionary. Your own memory, along with the inevitable suggestions from the context, acts as a temporary dictionary. Later, as you move on to other texts, where you can’t rely on such aids and have to navigate without support, you’ll find you already know the words needed to express addition, sequence, exception, and inference—in other words, all the words that facilitate transition or connection (like “if,” “but,” “and,” “therefore,” “however,” “notwithstanding”), along with the adverbs that modify or limit the scope of a subject or predicate, which in every language form the essential structure or underlying machinery of human thought. The content—the “matter” (in a scholastic sense)—can vary greatly, but the “form,” the outline, the specific molds that shape this matter remain constant. And so limited is this framework, so narrow and rapidly operating is the mechanism of connections among human thoughts, that a few pages from almost any book will fully illustrate all the necessary expressions to convey them. Mastering these expressions is, in effect, to have mastered at least seven-tenths of any language; the advantage of using a New Testament or familiar sections from an Old Testament in this initial training is that your own memory effectively becomes an ongoing dictionary or reference guide. I have heard Mr. Southey say that by carrying a Dutch, Swedish, or other Testament during a long journey in “muggy” weather, while seated in some old-fashioned carriage that seemed to drag its feet like the ones our fathers put up with thirty or forty years ago, he managed to make great use of the sluggishness or dullness of his fellow passengers, so that although he started out completely unacquainted with the basics of that language, he was able to part ways with his fellow travelers (silently thanking them for their lack of awareness) in a position to tackle any standard book in that dialect. One of the multilingual Old or New Testaments published by Bagster would serve as a perfect encyclopedia for such a plan of studying while bored on dull roads and with dull company. Regarding the German language in particular, I’ll offer one piece of advice from my own experience for those teaching themselves: this advice is specific to German or applies more so than to any other language, due to a particular lack of taste often found in the German mindset. This is it: elsewhere, as a beginner, you’d typically turn to prose authors, since the freedom and boldness of poetic language and its expansive treatment can only add to the challenges of learning a new language. But this rule, which works for every other language, does NOT apply to German literature. Sure, there are difficulties, and perhaps even more than usual, due to the unique characteristics of German poetry, but overall those challenges are outweighed by the single advantage that poetry is confined by its meter or, as can happen, by its specific stanza. There is a known, fixed, calculable limit to German poetry. Absolute infinity does not work within any German meter. Not so with German prose. Style, in any form, is an unfathomable concept to a German mind. Take the term in the restricted sense of what the Greeks called Συνθεσις ονοματων (Synthesis onomatôn)—i.e., the construction of sentences—I assert that a German (except for the rare case of someone like Lessing) cannot grasp such an idea. There are certainly German books, and some are quite good, that consist of one or two enormous sentences. A German sentence spans an arch between the rising and setting sun. Take Kant as an example: he was actually praised by the grandiose thinker Frederick Schlegel, who is now in the afterlife, as a uniquely original artist when it comes to style. "Original," God knows he was! His concept of a sentence went like this: We’ve all seen or read about an old family coach and the lengthy process of packing it for a trip to London seventy or eighty years ago. Day and night, for at least a week, the housekeeper, the lady’s maid, the butler, the gentleman’s servants, etc., would pack the massive vehicle in all its compartments, its “imperials,” “wells,” “Salisbury boots,” “sword cases,” front pockets, side pockets, back pockets, and its “hammer-cloth cellars” (which a woman explains to me is a derivative of “hamper-cloth,” originally intended to cover a hamper filled with provisions), until all human needs, savage or civilized, were separately addressed in this overwhelming chaos. Almost akin to the way an old family coach was packed, Kant constructed and filled one of his long sentences. Everything that might possibly be needed in terms of explanation, illustration, limitation, inference, by-clauses, or indirect commentary was crammed, in this philosopher’s German taste, into the front pockets, side pockets, or rear pockets of that one original sentence. That’s why a sentence can go on indefinitely while a person...
Nor is this any peculiarity of Kant's. It is common to the whole family of prose-writers of Germany, unless when they happen to have studied French models, who cultivate the opposite extreme. As a caution, therefore, practically applied to this particular anomaly in German prose-writing, I advise all beginners to choose between two classes of composition—ballad poetry, or comedy—as their earliest school of exercise: ballad poetry, because the form of the stanza (usually a quatrain) prescribes a very narrow range to the sentences; comedy, because the form of dialogue, and the imitation of daily life in its ordinary tone of conversation, and the spirit of comedy, naturally suggesting a brisk interchange of speech, all tend to short sentences. These rules I soon drew from my own experience and observation. And the one sole purpose towards which I either sought or wished for aid respected the pronunciation; not so much for attaining a just one (which I was satisfied could not be realized out of Germany, or, at least, out of a daily intercourse with Germans) as for preventing the formation, unawares, of a radically false one. The guttural and palatine sounds of the ch, and some other German peculiarities, cannot be acquired without constant practice. But the false Westphalian or Jewish pronunciation of the vowels, diphthongs, &c., may easily be forestalled, though the true delicacy of Meissen should happen to be missed. Thus much guidance I purchased, with a very few guineas, from my young Dresden tutor, who was most anxious for permission to extend his assistance; but this I would not hear of: and, in the spirit of fierce (perhaps foolish) independence, which governed most of my actions at that time of life, I did all the rest for myself.
This isn’t just a quirk of Kant's writing. It's a common trait among many German prose writers, unless they’ve studied French styles, which take an entirely different approach. To avoid this specific issue in German prose, I recommend that beginners choose between two types of writing—ballad poetry or comedy—as their initial practice. Ballad poetry, because the structure of the stanza (usually a four-line quatrain) limits sentence length; comedy, because the dialogue form and the realistic portrayal of everyday conversation, along with the lively spirit of comedy, naturally encourage shorter sentences. I quickly learned these from my own experiences and observations. The main thing I was looking for help with was pronunciation—not so much to achieve a perfect one (which I knew was impossible outside of Germany, or at least outside of daily interactions with Germans) but to avoid developing a completely incorrect one. The guttural and palatal sounds of the ch and some other unique German features can only be mastered with consistent practice. However, the incorrect Westphalian or Jewish pronunciation of the vowels, diphthongs, etc., can easily be prevented, even if I might miss the true subtlety of Meissen. I gained this much insight for just a few guineas from my young tutor in Dresden, who was very eager to offer more help, but I wasn’t interested. With a strong (maybe foolish) sense of independence that characterized most of my actions during that time, I handled everything else on my own.
"The image of that western world."
These, or words like these, in which Wordsworth conveys the sudden apocalypse, as by an apparition, to an ardent and sympathising spirit, of the stupendous world of America, rising, at once, like an exhalation, with all its shadowy forests, its endless savannas, and its pomp of solitary waters—well and truly might I have applied to my first launching upon that vast billowy ocean of the German literature. As a past literature, as a literature of inheritance and tradition, the German was nothing. Ancestral titles it had none; or none comparable to those of England, Spain, or even Italy; and there, also, it resembled America, as contrasted with the ancient world of Asia, Europe, and North Africa.[17] But, if its inheritance were nothing, its prospects, and the scale of its present development, were in the amplest style of American grandeur. Ten thousand new books, we are assured by Menzel, an author of high reputation—a literal myriad—is considerably below the number annually poured from all quarters of Germany into the vast reservoir of Leipsic: spawn infinite, no doubt, of crazy dotage, of dreaming imbecility, of wickedness, of frenzy, through every phasis of Babylonian confusion; yet, also, teeming and heaving with life and the instincts of truth—of truth hunting and chasing in the broad daylight, or of truth groping in the chambers of darkness; sometimes seen as it displays its cornucopia of tropical fruitage; sometimes heard dimly, and in promise, working its way through diamond mines. Not the tropics, not the ocean, not life itself, is such a type of variety, of infinite forms, or of creative power, as the German literature in its recent motions (say for the last twenty years), gathering, like the Danube, a fresh volume of power at every stage of its advance. A banner it was, indeed, to me of miraculous promise, and suddenly unfurled. It seemed, in those days, an El Dorado as true and undeceiving as it was evidently inexhaustible. And the central object in this interminable wilderness of what then seemed imperishable bloom and[Pg 86] verdure—the very tree of knowledge in the midst of this Eden—was the new or transcendental philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
These words, or ones like them, show how Wordsworth captures the sudden revelation, almost like a vision, of the vast world of America, appearing instantly like a mist, with all its mysterious forests, endless plains, and the grandeur of its solitary waters. This perfectly reflected my first experience diving into the vast ocean of German literature. As a past literature, as something inherited and traditional, German literature seemed insignificant. It didn’t have ancestral titles that could compare to those of England, Spain, or even Italy; in that way, it was also similar to America when compared to the ancient worlds of Asia, Europe, and North Africa.[17] But while its inheritance was nothing, the potential and current scale of its development were remarkably grand, like America. Menzel, a highly regarded author, assures us that ten thousand new books—which is actually just a literal drop in the bucket—come out every year from all over Germany, filling the vast reservoir of Leipsic: undoubtedly overflowing with foolishness, delusional dreams, wickedness, and chaos, yet also bursting with life and the pursuit of truth—truth that hunts in the daylight or searches in the shadows; sometimes visible as it reveals its abundance of rich fruits; sometimes faintly heard, promisingly, as it works through diamond mines. Nothing, not the tropics, not the ocean, not life itself, represents such variety, infinite forms, or creative energy like recent German literature (let’s say over the last twenty years), gathering power like the Danube with every step forward. To me, it served as a flag of miraculous promise, suddenly revealed. Back then, it felt like a true El Dorado, undeniably abundant and clearly never-ending. And the central figure in this endless wilderness of what then seemed like lasting beauty and[Pg 86] vitality—the very tree of knowledge in this Eden—was the new or transcendental philosophy of Immanuel Kant.
I have described the gorgeousness of my expectations in those early days of my prelusive acquaintance with German literature. I have a little lingered in painting that glad aurora of my first pilgrimage to the fountains of the Rhine and of the Danube, in order adequately to shadow out the gloom and blight which soon afterwards settled upon the hopes of that golden dawn. In Kant, I had been taught to believe, were the keys of a new and a creative philosophy. Either "ejus ductu," or "ejus auspiciis"—that is, either directly under his guidance, or indirectly under any influence remotely derived from his principles—I looked confidingly to see the great vistas and avenues of truth laid open to the philosophic inquirer. Alas! all was a dream. Six weeks' study was sufficient to close my hopes in that quarter for ever. The philosophy of Kant—so famous, so commanding in Germany from about the period of the French Revolution—already, in 1805, I had found to be a philosophy of destruction, and scarcely in any one chapter so much as tending to a philosophy of reconstruction. It destroys by wholesale, and it substitutes nothing. Perhaps, in the whole history of man, it is an unexampled case that such a scheme of speculation—which offers nothing seducing to human aspirations, nothing splendid to the human imagination, nothing even positive and affirmative to the human understanding—should have been able to found an interest so broad and deep among thirty-five millions of cultivated men. The English reader who supposes this interest to have been confined to academic bowers, or the halls of philosophic societies, is most inadequately alive to the case. Sects, heresies, schisms, by hundreds, have arisen out of this philosophy; many thousands of books have been written by way of teaching it, discussing it, extending it, opposing it. And yet it is a fact that all its doctrines are negative—teaching, in no case, what we are, but simply what we are not, to believe—and that all its truths are barren. Such being its unpopular character, I cannot but imagine that the German people have received it with so much ardour from[Pg 87] profound incomprehension of its meaning, and utter blindness to its drift: a solution which may seem extravagant, but is not so; for, even amongst those who have expressly commented on this philosophy, not one of the many hundreds whom I have myself read but has retracted from every attempt to explain its dark places. In these dark places lies, indeed, the secret of its attraction. Were light poured into them, it would be seen that they are culs-de-sac, passages that lead to nothing; but, so long as they continue dark, it is not known whither they lead, how far, in what direction, and whether, in fact, they may not issue into paths connected directly with the positive and the infinite. Were it known that upon every path a barrier faces you insurmountable to human steps—like the barriers which fence in the Abyssinian valley of Rasselas—the popularity of this philosophy would expire at once; for no popular interest can long be sustained by speculations which, in every aspect, are known to be essentially negative and essentially finite. Man's nature has something of infinity within itself, which requires a corresponding infinity in its objects. We are told, indeed, by Mr. Bulwer, that the Kantian system has ceased to be of any authority in Germany—that it is defunct, in fact—and that we have first begun to import it into England after its root had withered, or begun to wither, in its native soil. But Mr. Bulwer is mistaken. The philosophy has never withered in Germany. It cannot even be said that its fortunes have retrograded: they have oscillated: accidents of taste and ability in particular professors, or caprices of fashion, have given a momentary fluctuation to this or that new form of Kantianism—an ascendency, for a period, to various, and, in some respects, conflicting modifications of the transcendental system; but all alike have derived their power mediately from Kant. No weapons, even if employed as hostile weapons, are now forged in any armoury but that of Kant; and, to repeat a Roman figure which I used above, all the modern polemic tactics of what is called metaphysics are trained and made to move either ejus ductu or ejus auspiciis. Not one of the new systems affects to call back the Leibnitzian philosophy, the Cartesian, or any other of earlier or later date, as adequate to the purposes of[Pg 88] the intellect in this day, or as capable of yielding even a sufficient terminology. Let this last fact decide the question of Kant's vitality. Qui bene distinguit bene docet. This is an old adage. Now, he who imposes new names upon all the acts, the functions, and the objects of the philosophic understanding must be presumed to have distinguished most sharply, and to have ascertained with most precision, their general relations—so long as his terminology continues to be adopted. This test, applied to Kant, will show that his spirit yet survives in Germany. Frederick Schlegel, it is true, twenty years ago, in his lectures upon Literature, assures us that even the disciples of the great philosopher have agreed to abandon his philosophic nomenclature. But the German philosophic literature, since that date, tells another tale. Mr. Bulwer is, therefore, wrong; and, without going to Germany, looking only to France, he will see cause to revise his sentence. Cousin—the philosophic Cousin, the only great name in philosophy for modern France—familiar as he is with North Germany, can hardly be presumed unacquainted with a fact so striking, if it were a fact, as the extinction of a system once so triumphantly supreme as that of Kant; and yet Mr. Bulwer, admiring Cousin as he does, cannot but have noticed his efforts to naturalize Kant in France. Meantime, if it were even true that transcendentalism had lost its hold of the public mind in Germany, prima facie, this would prove little more than the fickleness of that public which must have been wrong in one of the two cases—either when adopting the system, or when rejecting it. Whatever there may be of truth and value in the system will remain unimpeached by such caprices, whether of an individual or of a great nation; and England would still be in the right to import the philosophy, however late in the day, if it were true even (which I doubt greatly) that she is importing it.
I described the beauty of my expectations during those early days of my initial exploration of German literature. I lingered a bit to paint the bright dawn of my first journey to the rivers of the Rhine and the Danube, to adequately convey the darkness and disappointment that soon fell upon the hopes of that golden morning. I believed that in Kant lay the keys to a new and innovative philosophy. Either "ejus ductu," or "ejus auspiciis"—that is, either directly under his guidance or indirectly influenced by his principles—I confidently expected to see the vast landscapes of truth opened to the philosophical seeker. Alas! it was all a dream. Six weeks of study were enough to squash my hopes in that area forever. The philosophy of Kant—so renowned, so authoritative in Germany since around the time of the French Revolution—was already, in 1805, a philosophy of destruction, and hardly in any chapter did it even hint at a philosophy of reconstruction. It destroys broadly, and offers nothing in return. Perhaps, in all of human history, it's an unparalleled case that such a speculative scheme—which provides nothing appealing for human aspirations, nothing impressive for the human imagination, nothing even positive or affirming for human understanding—could generate such broad and deep interest among thirty-five million educated people. The English reader who thinks this interest is limited to academic circles or philosophical societies is profoundly mistaken. Hundreds of sects, heresies, and schisms have emerged from this philosophy; thousands of books have been written to teach it, discuss it, expand it, and oppose it. Yet it's a fact that all its doctrines are negative—teaching us not what we are, but merely what we are not to believe—and that all its truths are fruitless. Given its unpopular nature, I can't help but think that the German people have embraced it with such enthusiasm due to a deep misunderstanding of its meaning and complete ignorance of its implications: a solution that might seem extreme but isn't; because even among those who have specifically commented on this philosophy, no one of the many hundreds I've read has succeeded in explaining its obscure aspects. It's within these obscure aspects that the secret of its appeal lies. If light were cast upon them, it would be evident that they are cul-de-sacs, passages that lead to nowhere; but as long as they remain dark, no one knows where they lead, how far, or in what direction, and whether, in fact, they might connect directly to paths that are positively infinite. If it were known that there is an insurmountable barrier on every path—like the barriers that enclose the Abyssinian valley of Rasselas—the popularity of this philosophy would instantly vanish; for no popular interest can last long based on speculations that are inherently negative and finite. Human nature holds something infinite within, which requires a corresponding infinity in its objects. Mr. Bulwer informs us that the Kantian system has lost its authority in Germany—that it is actually defunct—and that we've only begun to import it into England after its roots have withered, or begun to wither, in its homeland. But Mr. Bulwer is mistaken. The philosophy has never withered in Germany. It can't even be said that its fortunes have declined: they have fluctuated; accidents of taste and talent in specific professors, or whims of fashion, have given temporary rises to various and, in some respects, conflicting forms of Kantianism—each gaining prominence for a time—but all have drawn their power indirectly from Kant. No weapons, even when wielded as hostile, are now forged in any arsenal but that of Kant; and, to repeat a Roman phrase I used earlier, all modern debates about what is referred to as metaphysics are guided and shaped either ejus ductu or ejus auspiciis. Not one of the new systems claims to revive the Leibnitzian philosophy, the Cartesian, or any others from earlier or later times, as sufficient for the purposes of the intellect today, or as capable of providing even an adequate terminology. Let this last fact settle the question of Kant's relevance. Qui bene distinguit bene docet. This is an old saying. Now, whoever assigns new names to all the acts, functions, and objects of philosophical understanding must be presumed to have distinguished them very clearly and identified their general relations with precision—as long as their terminology continues to be adopted. This test, applied to Kant, will reveal that his influence still lives on in Germany. Frederick Schlegel, indeed, twenty years ago, in his lectures on Literature, assured us that even the followers of the great philosopher have agreed to abandon his philosophical terminology. But the German philosophical literature since then tells a different story. Mr. Bulwer is therefore incorrect; and without needing to go to Germany, just looking at France, he'll find reasons to revise his conclusion. Cousin—the philosophical Cousin, the only significant name in philosophy for modern France—familiar as he is with Northern Germany, cannot be assumed to be unaware of such a striking fact, if it were true, as the extinction of a system once so triumphantly dominant as that of Kant; yet Mr. Bulwer, admiring Cousin as he does, must have noticed Cousin's efforts to establish Kant in France. Meanwhile, even if it were true that transcendentalism had lost its grip on the public mind in Germany, prima facie, that would suggest little more than the fickleness of that public which must have been wrong in one of two scenarios—either when embracing the system or when rejecting it. Whatever truth and value exist in the system will remain unscathed by such whims, whether from an individual or a large nation; and England would still be right to adopt the philosophy, however late, if it were true—even though I greatly doubt it—that she is importing it.
Both truth and value there certainly is in one part of the Kantian philosophy; and that part is its foundation. I had intended, at this point, to introduce an outline of the transcendental philosophy—not, perhaps, as entering by logical claim of right into any biographical sketch, but as a very allowable digression in the record of that man's life to whom,[Pg 89] in the way of hope and of profound disappointment, it had been so memorable an object. For two or three years before I mastered the language of Kant,[18] it had been a pole-star to my hopes, and in hypothesi, agreeably to the uncertain plans of uncertain knowledge, the luminous guide to my future life—as a life dedicated and set apart to philosophy. Such it was some years before I knew it: for at least ten long years after I came into a condition of valuing its true pretensions and measuring its capacities, this same philosophy shed the gloom of something like misanthropy upon my views and estimates of human nature; for man was an abject animal if the limitations which Kant assigned to the motions of his speculative reason were as absolute and hopeless as, under his scheme of the understanding and his genesis of its powers, too evidently they were. I belonged to a reptile race, if the wings by which we had sometimes seemed to mount, and the buoyancy which had seemed to support our flight, were indeed the fantastic delusions which he represented them. Such, and so deep and so abiding in its influence upon my life, having been the influence of this German philosophy, according to all logic of proportions, in selecting the objects of my notice, I might be excused for setting before the reader, in its full array, the analysis of its capital sections. However, in any memorial of a life which professes to keep in view (though but as a secondary purpose) any regard to popular taste, the logic of proportions must bend, after all, to the law of the occasion—to the proprieties of time and place. For the present, therefore, I shall restrict myself to the few sentences in which it may be proper to gratify the curiosity of some readers, the two or three in a hundred, as to the peculiar distinctions of this philosophy. Even to these two or three out of each hundred I shall not venture to ascribe a larger curiosity than with respect to the[Pg 90] most general "whereabouts" of its position—from what point it starts, whence and from what aspect it surveys the ground, and by what links from this starting point it contrives to connect itself with the main objects of philosophic inquiry.
Both truth and value definitely exist in part of Kant's philosophy; and that part is its foundation. I was planning to outline the transcendental philosophy here—not necessarily as a logical right to include it in a biographical sketch, but as a perfectly acceptable digression in recounting the life of the man who, through hope and deep disappointment, played such a significant role in my life. For two or three years before I fully understood Kant's language, it had been a guiding star for my hopes and, according to the uncertain paths of knowledge, a bright guide to my future—a life dedicated to philosophy. This was true even years before I grasped it: for at least ten long years after I started to appreciate its true claims and measure its capabilities, this same philosophy cast a shadow of something like misanthropy over my views of human nature; for man was a pitiful creature if the limits Kant set on the workings of his speculative reason were as strict and despairing as they clearly were under his understanding and the origins of its powers. I belonged to a lowly species if the wings that had once seemed to lift us and the buoyancy that seemed to support our flight were really the mere illusions he suggested. Such was the profound and lasting influence of this German philosophy on my life, and according to all logical reasoning, in choosing what to focus on, I could be forgiven for laying out for the reader the detailed analysis of its main sections. However, in any account of a life that aims to consider, albeit secondarily, popular taste, the logic of proportions must ultimately yield to the context of time and place. Therefore, for now, I will limit myself to a few sentences that may satisfy the curiosity of some readers—those two or three in a hundred—about the specific distinctions of this philosophy. Even for those two or three in each hundred, I won’t presume to attribute a greater curiosity than around the most general "whereabouts" of its position—where it begins, how it looks at the landscape, and by what connections from this starting point it ties itself to the main subjects of philosophical inquiry.
Immanuel Kant was originally a dogmatist in the school of Leibnitz and Wolf; that is, according to his trisection of all philosophy into dogmatic, sceptical, and critical, he was, upon all questions disposed to a strong affirmative creed, without courting any particular examination into the grounds of this creed, or into its assailable points. From this slumber, as it is called by himself, he was suddenly aroused by the Humian doctrine of cause and effect. This celebrated essay on the nature of necessary connexion—so thoroughly misapprehended at the date of its first publication to the world by its soi-disant opponents, Oswald, Beattie, &c., and so imperfectly comprehended since then by various soi-disant defenders—became in effect the "occasional cause" (in the phrase of the logicians) of the entire subsequent philosophic scheme of Kant; every section of which arose upon the accidental opening made to analogical trains of thought by this memorable effort of scepticism applied by Hume to one capital phenomenon among the necessities of the human understanding. What is the nature of Hume's scepticism as applied to this phenomenon? What is the main thesis of his celebrated Essay on Cause and Effect? For few, indeed, are they who really know anything about it. If a man really understands it, a very few words will avail to explain the nodus. Let us try. It is a necessity of the human understanding (very probably not a necessity of a higher order of intelligences) to connect its experiences by means of the idea of cause and its correlate, effect: and, when Beattie, Oswald, Reid, &c., were exhausting themselves in proofs of the indispensableness of this idea, they were fighting with shadows; for no man had ever questioned the practical necessity for such an idea to the coherency of human thinking. Not the practical necessity, but the internal consistency of this notion, and the original right to such a notion, was the point of inquisition. For, attend, courteous reader, and three separate propositions will set before your eyes the difficulty. First Prop., which, for the sake of greater precision,[Pg 91] permit me to throw into Latin:—Non datur aliquid [A] quo posito ponitur aliud [B] a priori; that is, in other words, You cannot lay your hands upon that one object or phenomenon [A] in the whole circle of natural existences, which, being assumed, will entitle you to assume a priori, any other object whatsoever [B] as succeeding it. You could not, I say, of any object or phenomenon whatever, assume this succession a priori—that is, previously to experience. Second Prop. But, if the succession of B to A be made known to you, not a priori (by the involution of B in the idea of A), but by experience, then you cannot ascribe necessity to the succession: the connection between them is not necessary but contingent. For the very widest experience—an experience which should stretch over all ages, from the beginning to the end of time—can never establish a nexus having the least approximation to necessity; no more than a rope of sand could gain the cohesion of adamant by repeating its links through a billion of successions. Prop. Third. Hence (i.e. from the two preceding propositions), it appears that no instance or case of nexus that ever can have been offered to the notice of any human understanding has in it, or by possibility could have had, anything of necessity. Had the nexus been necessary, you would have seen it beforehand; whereas, by Prop. 1, Non datur aliquid, quo posito ponitur aliud a priori. This being so, now comes the startling fact, that the notion of a cause includes the notion of necessity. For, if A (the cause) be connected with B (the effect) only in a casual or accidental way, you do not feel warranted in calling it a cause. If heat, applied to ice (A) were sometimes followed by a tendency to liquefaction (B) and sometimes not, you would not consider A connected with B as a cause, but only as some variable accompaniment of the true and unknown cause, which might allowably be present or be absent. This, then, is the startling and mysterious phenomenon of the human understanding—that, in a certain notion, which is indispensable to the coherency of our whole experience, indispensable to the establishing any nexus between the different parts and successions of our whole train of notions, we include an accessary notion of necessity, which yet has no justification or warrant, no assignable[Pg 92] derivation from any known or possible case of human experience. We have one idea at least—viz. the idea of causation—which transcends our possible experience by one important element, the element of necessity, that never can have been derived from the only source of ideas recognised by the philosophy of this day. A Lockian never can find his way out of this dilemma. The experience (whether it be the experience of sensation or the experience of reflection) which he adopts for his master-key never will unlock this case; for the sum total of human experience, collected from all ages, can avail only to tell us what is, but never what must be. The idea of necessity is absolutely transcendent to experience, per se, and must be derived from some other source. From what source? Could Hume tell us? No: he, who had started the game so acutely (for, with every allowance for the detection made in Thomas Aquinas of the original suggestion, as recorded in the Biographia Literaria of Coleridge, we must still allow great merit of a secondary kind to Hume for his modern revival and restatement of the doctrine), this same acute philosopher broke down confessedly in his attempt to hunt the game down. His solution is worthless.
Immanuel Kant was initially a dogmatist in the tradition of Leibniz and Wolff; that is, when he divided philosophy into dogmatic, skeptical, and critical, he had a strong affirmative belief on all questions without scrutinizing the basis of that belief or its vulnerable points. He was suddenly awakened from this slumber, as he called it, by Hume’s theory of cause and effect. This well-known essay on the nature of necessary connection—so thoroughly misunderstood at the time of its first publication by its self-proclaimed opponents, Oswald, Beattie, etc., and so inadequately understood since then by various self-proclaimed defenders—became, in fact, the "occasional cause" (in the words of logicians) of Kant's entire subsequent philosophical framework; each part of which stemmed from the accidental opening made to analogical ways of thinking by this memorable act of skepticism Hume applied to one crucial aspect of human understanding. What is Hume's skepticism concerning this aspect? What is the main argument of his celebrated Essay on Cause and Effect? For very few truly know anything about it. If someone genuinely understands it, only a few words can explain the knot. Let’s try. It’s a necessity of human understanding (likely not a necessity for a higher order of intelligences) to connect its experiences using the idea of cause and its counterpart, effect: and, when Beattie, Oswald, Reid, etc., were exhausting themselves in proving the indispensability of this idea, they were battling with shadows; because no one had ever questioned the practical necessity of such an idea for coherent human thinking. The question was not the practical necessity, but the internal consistency of this notion and the original justification for such a concept. So, listen, dear reader, and three separate propositions will present the difficulty to you. **First Prop.**, which, for clarity, let me express in Latin:—*Non datur aliquid* [A] *quo posito ponitur aliud* [B] *a priori*; that is, in other words, you can’t point to any single object or phenomenon [A] in the entire realm of natural existence that, if assumed, would allow you to assume *a priori* any other object [B] as succeeding it. You could not, I say, assume this succession *a priori*—that is, *before experience*. **Second Prop.** But if the succession of B to A is made known to you, not *a priori* (by the inclusion of B in the idea of A), but through experience, then you cannot attribute *necessity* to the succession: the connection between them is not necessary, but contingent. For even the broadest experience—an experience that should cover all ages, from the beginning to the end of time—can never establish a *nexus* that even remotely approaches necessity; no more than a rope of sand could achieve the coherence of adamant by repeating its links a billion times. **Third Prop.** Hence (i.e., from the two previous propositions), it appears that no instance or case of *nexus* that has ever been presented to any human understanding contains, or could possibly contain, anything of necessity. If the *nexus* were necessary, you would have recognized it beforehand; whereas, by Prop. 1, *Non datur aliquid, quo posito ponitur aliud a priori*. Given this, the surprising fact is that the concept of a *cause* includes the concept of necessity. For, if A (the cause) is only casually or accidentally connected to B (the effect), you don’t feel justified in calling it a cause. If heat applied to ice (A) sometimes leads to melting (B) and sometimes does not, you wouldn’t consider A as having a causal connection to B, but rather as a variable accompaniment of the true and unknown cause, which could be present or absent. This, then, is the astonishing and mysterious aspect of human understanding—that in a certain notion, which is essential for the coherence of our entire experience, crucial for establishing any *nexus* between the various parts and sequences of our entire train of thought, we include an additional notion of necessity that has no justification or support, no identifiable derivation from any known or possible instance of human experience. We have at least one idea—namely, the idea of causation—that surpasses our potential experience by one critical element, the element of *necessity*, which could never have been derived from the only source of ideas acknowledged by contemporary philosophy. A Lockian will never escape this dilemma. The experience—whether it's sensory or reflective—that they take as the master key will never unlock this problem; for the totality of human experience, gathered from all ages, can only inform us about what *is*, but never about what *must be*. The idea of necessity is entirely beyond experience, *per se*, and must come from some other source. From what source? Could Hume tell us? No: he, who initiated the inquiry so sharply (even with allowances for the suggestion made by Thomas Aquinas as mentioned in the *Biographia Literaria* of Coleridge, we still have to credit Hume with significant merit for his modern revival and clarification of the doctrine), this sharp philosopher openly failed in his attempt to chase down the inquiry. His solution is of no worth.
Kant, however, having caught the original scent from Hume, was more fortunate. He saw, at a glance, that here was a test applied to the Lockian philosophy, which showed, at the very least, its insufficiency. If it were good even for so much as it explained—which Burke is disposed to receive as a sufficient warrant for the favourable reception of a new hypothesis—at any rate, it now appeared that there was something which it could not explain. But, next, Kant took a large step in advance proprio marte. Reflecting upon the one idea adduced by Hume as transcending the ordinary source of ideas, he began to ask himself whether it were likely that this idea should stand alone? Were there not other ideas in the same predicament; other ideas including the same element of necessity, and, therefore, equally disowning the parentage assigned by Locke? Upon investigation, he found that there were: he found that there were eleven others in exactly the same circumstances. The entire twelve he denominated categories; and the mode by which[Pg 93] he ascertained their number—that there were so many and no more—is of itself so remarkable as to merit notice in the most superficial sketch. But, in fact, this one explanation will put the reader in possession of Kant's system, so far as he could understand it without an express and toilsome study. With this explanation, therefore, of the famous categories, I shall close my slight sketch of the system. Has the reader ever considered the meaning of the term Category—a term so ancient and so venerable from its connexion with the most domineering philosophy that has yet appeared amongst men? The doctrine of the Categories (or, in its Roman appellation, of the Predicaments) is one of the few wrecks from the Peripatetic philosophy which still survives as a doctrine taught by public authority in the most ancient academic institutions of Europe.[19] It continues to form a section in the code of public instruction; and perhaps under favour of a pure accident. For, though, strictly speaking, a metaphysical speculation, it has always been prefixed as a sort of preface to the Organon (or logical treatises) of Aristotle, and has thus accidentally shared in the immortality conceded to that most perfect of human works. Far enough were the Categories from meriting such distinction. Kant was well aware of this: he was aware that the Aristotelian Categories were a useless piece of scholastic lumber: unsound in their first conception; and, though illustrated through long centuries by the schoolmen, and by still earlier Grecian philosophers, never in any one known instance turned to a profitable account. Why, then, being aware that even in idea they were false, besides being practically unsuitable, did Kant adopt or borrow a name laden with this superfetation of reproach—all that is false in theory superadded to all that is useless in practice? He did so for a remarkable reason: he felt, according to his own explanation, that Aristotle had been groping (the German word expressive of his blind procedure is herumtappen)—groping in the dark, but under a semi-conscious instinct of truth. Here is a most remarkable case or situation of the human intellect,[Pg 94] happening alike to individuals and to entire generations—in the situation of yearning or craving, as it were, for a great idea as yet unknown, but dimly and uneasily prefigured.
Kant, however, having picked up on Hume's original ideas, was more fortunate. He immediately recognized that this presented a test to Locke's philosophy, which revealed, at the very least, its insufficiency. Even if it explained as much as Burke would accept as enough reason to seriously consider a new hypothesis, it had now become clear that there was something it could not explain. But then, Kant made a significant advancement proprio marte. Reflecting on the one idea proposed by Hume as going beyond the usual source of ideas, he began to wonder if it was likely that this idea stood alone. Were there not other ideas in the same situation; ideas that also contained the same element of necessity, thereby rejecting the lineage attributed to Locke? Upon further investigation, he discovered there were indeed: he found that there were eleven others in exactly the same situation. He called all twelve categories; and the way he determined their number—that there were exactly twelve and no more—is notable enough to be mentioned even in a brief overview. In fact, this single explanation gives the reader insight into Kant's system, as much as they could grasp without a detailed and diligent study. With this explanation of the famous categories, I will conclude my brief overview of the system. Has the reader ever thought about the meaning of the term Category—a term so ancient and esteemed due to its connection with the most dominant philosophy ever developed by humans? The doctrine of the Categories (or, as called in Roman times, the Predicaments) is one of the few remnants of the Peripatetic philosophy that still exists as a teaching endorsed by public authority in the most ancient academic institutions of Europe.[19] It continues to be a part of public education; perhaps by sheer chance. Although it is strictly a metaphysical speculation, it has consistently been presented as a sort of introduction to Aristotle's Organon (or logical works), and has thus shared in the immortality granted to those most refined of human works. The Categories certainly did not deserve such distinction. Kant knew this: he recognized that the Aristotelian Categories were just unnecessary pieces of academic clutter: flawed in their original conception; and, while they were discussed for centuries by scholars and even earlier Greek philosophers, they were never utilized effectively in any known instance. So, why, knowing that they were false in concept and practically ineffective, did Kant adopt or borrow a term burdened with this accumulation of criticism—all that is incorrect in theory compounded by all that is futile in practice? He did it for a significant reason: he believed, according to his own interpretation, that Aristotle had been groping (the German term that captures his blind approach is herumtappen)—groping in the dark, but guided by a semi-conscious sense of truth. This illustrates a remarkable situation of the human intellect,[Pg 94] experienced both by individuals and entire generations—in a state of longing or desire, as it were, for a great idea that remains unknown, yet is vaguely and anxiously anticipated.
Sometimes the very brink, as it may be called, of such an idea is approached; sometimes it is even imperfectly discovered; but with marks in the very midst of its imperfections which serve as indications to a person coming better armed for ascertaining the sub-conscious thought which had governed their tentative motions. As it stands in Aristotle's scheme, the idea of a category is a mere lifeless abstraction. Rising through a succession of species to genera, and from these to still higher genera, you arrive finally at a highest genus—a naked abstraction, beyond which no farther regress is possible. This highest genus, this genus generalissimum, is, in peripatetic language, a category; and no purpose or use has ever been assigned to any one of these categories, of which ten were enumerated at first, beyond that of classification—i.e. a purpose of mere convenience. Even for as trivial a purpose as this, it gave room for suspecting a failure, when it was afterwards found that the original ten categories did not exhaust the possibilities of the case; that other supplementary categories (post-prœdicamenta) became necessary. And, perhaps, "more last words" might even yet be added, supplementary supplements, and so forth, by a hair-splitting intellect. Failures as gross as these, revisals still open to revision, and amendments calling for amendments, were at once a broad confession that here there was no falling in with any great law of nature. The paths of nature may sometimes be arrived at in a tentative way; but they are broad and determinate; and, when found, vindicate themselves. Still, in all this erroneous subtilisation, and these abortive efforts, Kant perceived a grasping at some real idea—fugitive indeed and coy, which had for the present absolutely escaped; but he caught glimpses of it continually in the rear; he felt its necessity to any account of the human understanding that could be satisfactory to one who had meditated on Locke's theory as probed and searched by Leibnitz. And in this uneasy state—half sceptical, half creative, rejecting and substituting, pulling down and building up—what was, in sum and finally, the course which he took for bringing his trials[Pg 95] and essays to a crisis? He states this himself, somewhere in the Introduction to his Critik der reinen Vernunft; and the passage is a memorable one. Fifteen years at the least have passed since I read it; and, therefore, I cannot pretend to produce the words; but the substance I shall give; and I appeal to the candour of all his readers whether they have been able to apprehend his meaning. I certainly did not for years. But, now that I do, the passage places his procedure in a most striking and edifying light. Astronomers, says Kant, had gone on for ages, assuming that the earth was the central body of our system; and insuperable were the difficulties which attended that assumption. At length, it occurred to try what would result from inverting the assumption. Let the earth, instead of offering a fixed centre for the revolving motions of other heavenly bodies, be supposed itself to revolve about some one of these, as the sun. That supposition was tried, and gradually all the phenomena which, before, had been incoherent, anomalous, or contradictory, began to express themselves as parts of a most harmonious system. "Something," he goes on to say, "analogous to this I have practised with regard to the subject of my inquiry—the human understanding. All others had sought their central principle of the intellectual phenomena out of the understanding, in something external to the mind. I first turned my inquiries upon the mind itself. I first applied my examination to the very analysis of the understanding." In words not precisely these, but pretty nearly equivalent to them, does Kant state, by contradistinction, the value and the nature of his own procedure. He first, according to his own representation, thought of applying his investigation to the mind itself. Here was a passage which for years (I may say) continued to stagger and confound me. What! he, Kant, in the latter end of the 18th century, about the year 1787—he the first who had investigated the mind! This was not arrogance so much as it was insanity. Had he said—I, first, upon just principles, or with a fortunate result, investigated the human understanding, he would have said no more than every fresh theorist is bound to suppose, as his preliminary apology for claiming the attention of a busy world. Indeed, if a writer, on any part of knowledge, does not hold himself[Pg 96] superior to all his predecessors, we are entitled to say—Then, why do you presume to trouble us? It may look like modesty, but is, in effect, downright effrontery, for you to think yourself no better than other critics; you were at liberty to think so whilst no claimant of public notice—as being so, it is most arrogant in you to be modest. This would be the criticism applied justly to a man who, in Kant's situation, as the author of a new system, should use a language of unseasonable modesty or deprecation. To have spoken boldly of himself was a duty; we could not tolerate his doing otherwise. But to speak of himself in the exclusive terms I have described does certainly seem, and for years did seem to myself, little short of insanity. Of this I am sure,—that no student of Kant, having the passage before him, can have known heretofore what consistent, what rational interpretation to give it; and, in candour, he ought to own himself my debtor for the light he will now receive. Yet, so easy is it to imagine, after a meaning is once pointed out, and the station given from which it shows itself as the meaning—so easy, under these circumstances, is it to imagine that one has, or that one could have, found it for one's self—that I have little expectation of reaping much gratitude for my explanation. I say this, not as of much importance one way or the other in a single case of the kind, but because a general consideration of this nature has sometimes operated to make me more indifferent or careless as to the publication of commentaries on difficult systems when I had found myself able to throw much light on the difficulties. The very success with which I should have accomplished the task—the perfect removal of the obstacles in the student's path—were the very grounds of my assurance that the service would be little valued. For I have found what it was occasionally, in conversation, to be too luminous—to have explained, for instance, too clearly a dark place in Ricardo. In such a case, I have known a man of the very greatest powers mistake the intellectual effort he had put forth to apprehend my elucidation, and to meet it half way, for his own unassisted conquest over the difficulties; and, within an hour or two after, I have had, perhaps, to stand, as an attack upon myself, arguments entirely and recently furnished by[Pg 97] myself. No case is more possible: even to apprehend complex explanation, a man cannot be passive; he must exert considerable energy of mind; and, in the fresh consciousness of this energy, it is the most natural mistake in the world for him to feel the argument which he has by considerable effort appropriated to be an argument which he has originated. Kant is the most unhappy champion of his own doctrines, the most infelicitous expounder of his own meaning, that has ever existed. Neither has any other commentator succeeded in throwing a moonlight radiance upon his philosophy. Yet certain I am that, were I, or any man, to disperse all his darkness, exactly in that proportion in which we did so—exactly in the proportion in which we smoothed all hindrances—exactly in that proportion would it cease to be known or felt that there had ever been any hindrances to be smoothed. This, however, is digression, to which I have been tempted by the interesting nature of the grievance. In a jesting way, this grievance is obliquely noticed in the celebrated couplet—
Sometimes the very edge of such an idea is approached; at times it’s even discovered in a flawed way, but with hints right in the middle of its shortcomings that serve as clues for someone coming better prepared to understand the subconscious thought that guided their tentative actions. As presented in Aristotle's framework, the concept of a category is just a lifeless abstraction. Moving through various species to genera, and from these to even higher genera, you finally reach a highest genus—a bare abstraction, beyond which no further regression is possible. This highest genus, this genus generalissimum, is, in peripatetic language, a category; and no purpose or function has ever been assigned to any of these categories, of which ten were initially listed, other than classification—i.e. a purpose of mere convenience. Even for such a trivial purpose as this, doubt arose when it became clear that the original ten categories did not cover all possible cases; other additional categories (post-prœdicamenta) turned out to be necessary. And maybe "more final words" could still be added, supplementary supplements, and so on, by an overly meticulous thinker. Such glaring failures, along with ongoing revisions and amendments calling for even more revisions, were a clear acknowledgment that there was no alignment with any significant natural law. The paths of nature might sometimes be reached in a tentative fashion; however, they are broad and definite; and once found, they validate themselves. Still, amidst all this erroneous subtlety and these unsuccessful attempts, Kant perceived a grasping at some real idea—fleeting and elusive, which had for now completely escaped; yet he continually caught glimpses of it in the background; he sensed its necessity for any satisfactory account of human understanding that could stand up to the examination of Locke's theory as explored by Leibnitz. In this uneasy state—half skeptical, half creative, rejecting and replacing, dismantling and rebuilding—what, in summary, was the path he took to bring his trials[Pg 95] and essays to a conclusion? He explains this himself somewhere in the Introduction to his Critik der reinen Vernunft; and that passage is quite memorable. At least fifteen years have passed since I read it; thus, I cannot recall the exact words; but I will provide the substance of it; and I ask all of his readers to consider whether they have been able to grasp his meaning. I certainly didn’t for many years. However, now that I do, the passage reveals his approach in a striking and enlightening way. Astronomers, Kant says, have long assumed that the Earth was the center of our system; and that assumption brought along insurmountable difficulties. Finally, it occurred to them to see what would happen if they inverted that assumption. Let’s suppose the Earth, instead of being a fixed center for the revolving motions of other celestial bodies, revolves around one of them, like the sun. That hypothesis was examined, and gradually all of the phenomena, which had previously been incoherent, strange, or contradictory, began to align into a harmonious system. "Something," he continues, "analogous to this I have practiced regarding the subject of my inquiry—the human understanding. Everyone else had searched for their central principle of intellectual phenomena externally, outside of the mind. I turned my inquiries inward onto the mind itself. I first focused my examination on the very analysis of the understanding." In words not exactly these, but quite similar, Kant indicates the value and nature of his own method by contrast. First, according to his own account, he considered applying his investigation to the mind itself. This was a statement that, for years (I can say), left me dumbfounded. What! He, Kant, in the late 18th century, around the year 1787—he was the first to investigate the mind! This was not arrogance as much as it was madness. Had he claimed—"I was the first, based on sound principles, or with successful results, to investigate the human understanding," he would have stated no more than any new theorist must assume as a preliminary apology for seeking the attention of a busy world. Indeed, if a writer, on any area of knowledge, does not consider themselves[Pg 96] superior to all their predecessors, we can rightfully ask—Then, why do you dare to bother us? It may seem like modesty, but is, in reality, sheer audacity, for you to consider yourself no better than other critics; you were free to think that way when you were not seeking public attention—now that you are, it is incredibly arrogant of you to appear modest. This would be the fair criticism directed at a person like Kant, as the author of a new system, should he use the language of inappropriate modesty or self-deprecation. To speak boldly about himself was a responsibility; we would not tolerate anything less. But to refer to himself in the exclusive terms I described does indeed come off as, and for years seemed to me, nearly insane. I am certain of one thing: that no student of Kant, upon reading that passage, could have known previously what consistent, rational interpretation to give it; and, in honesty, he should recognize himself as indebted to me for the insight he will now gain. Yet, it is so easy to imagine, once a meaning is highlighted, and the viewpoint is established from which it appears as the meaning—that it is so easy, under these circumstances, to think that one has, or that one could have, discovered it on their own—that I have little expectation of receiving much gratitude for my explanation. I mention this, not as being of great importance one way or another in a single case like this, but because such general considerations have sometimes led me to be more indifferent or careless about publishing commentaries on challenging systems when I managed to cast much light on their difficulties. The very success with which I might fulfill the task—the complete removal of obstacles in the student's way—would be the very reason for my assurance that the service wouldn't be highly valued. For I have noticed how, in conversation, clarifying too much—a dark point, for instance, in Ricardo—can lead someone with great abilities to mistake the intellectual effort they had put in to comprehend my explanation, and to engage with it halfway as their own unassisted victory over the difficulties; and a little while later, I may find myself facing arguments that were entirely and recently provided by[Pg 97] myself, presented as an attack against me. There is no scenario more likely: even to grasp a complex explanation, one cannot be passive; they must exert considerable mental energy; and, in the fresh awareness of this effort, it is a natural mistake for someone to feel that the argument they have appropriated with substantial effort is one they have originated. Kant is the most unfortunate advocate of his own doctrines and the least successful explainer of his own meaning that has ever existed. No other commentator has managed to shed a bright light on his philosophy either. Yet I am positive that if I, or anyone else, were to eliminate all the confusion in the same proportion as we did—exactly in the same manner as we resolved all the barriers—the level of awareness of any prior barriers would completely disappear. However, this is digression, which I have been tempted to pursue due to the interesting nature of the complaint. In a humorous way, this complaint is indirectly referenced in the famous couplet—
"You would raise your hands and bless Marshal Wade."
The pleasant bull here committed conceals a most melancholy truth, and one of large extent. Innumerable are the services to truth, to justice, or society, which never can be adequately valued by those who reap their benefits, simply because the transition from the early and bad state to the final or improved state cannot be retraced or kept alive before the eyes. The record perishes. The last point gained is seen; but the starting point, the point from which it was gained, is forgotten. And the traveller never can know the true amount of his obligations to Marshal Wade, because, though seeing the roads which the Marshal has created, he can only guess at those which he superseded. Now, returning to this impenetrable passage of Kant, I will briefly inform the reader that he may read it into sense by connecting it with a part of Kant's system from which it is in his own delivery entirely dislocated. Going forwards some thirty or forty pages, he will find Kant's development of his own categories. And, by placing in juxtaposition with that[Pg 98] development this blind sentence, he will find a reciprocal light arising. All philosophers, worthy of that name, have found it necessary to allow of some great cardinal ideas that transcended all the Lockian origination—ideas that were larger in their compass than any possible notices of sense or any reflex notices of the understanding; and those who have denied such ideas will be found invariably to have supported their denial by a vitium subreptionis, and to have deduced their pretended genealogies of such ideas by means of a petitio principii—silently and stealthily putting into some step of their leger-de-main process everything that they would pretend to have extracted from it. But, previously to Kant, it is certain that all philosophers had left the origin of these higher or transcendent ideas unexplained. Whence came they? In the systems to which Locke replies they had been called innate or connate. These were the Cartesian systems. Cudworth, again, who maintained certain "immutable ideas" of morality, had said nothing about their origin; and Plato had supposed them to be reminiscences from some higher mode of existence. Kant first attempted to assign them an origin within the mind itself, though not in any Lockian fashion of reflection upon sensible impressions. And this is doubtless what he means by saying that he first had investigated the mind—that is, he first for such a purpose.
The charming complexity here hides a very sad truth, and it's a widespread one. Countless services to truth, justice, or society can never be fully appreciated by those who benefit from them, simply because the shift from an early, flawed state to a final or improved state can't be traced back or kept visible. The record is lost. We can see the last achievement, but the starting point from which it was achieved is forgotten. And the traveler can never truly understand how much he owes to Marshal Wade, because while he sees the roads the Marshal built, he can only guess at those that were replaced. Now, returning to this dense passage of Kant, I'll briefly inform the reader that it can be understood by connecting it with a part of Kant's system from which it is completely disconnected in his delivery. If he flips ahead thirty or forty pages, he will find Kant’s explanation of his own categories. By placing this unclear sentence alongside that[Pg 98] explanation, he will find a mutual clarity emerging. All philosophers worth their title have deemed it necessary to recognize some crucial ideas that go beyond the Lockean origins—ideas that encompass more than any possible sensory experiences or any reflective insights. Those who deny such ideas have consistently backed their denial with a vitium subreptionis, and they have derived their supposed genealogies of such ideas through petitio principii—quietly and sneakily inserting into some part of their leger-de-main process everything they claim to have drawn from it. However, before Kant, it is clear that all philosophers left the origin of these higher or transcendent ideas unexplained. Where did they come from? In the systems addressing Locke, they were referred to as innate or connate. These were the Cartesian systems. Cudworth, who asserted certain "immutable ideas" of morality, said nothing about where they originated; and Plato believed they were memories from some higher state of existence. Kant was the first to try to assign them an origin within the mind itself, though not in any Lockean sense of reflecting on sensory impressions. And this is undoubtedly what he means when he says he first explored the mind—that is, he was the first for such a purpose.
Where, then, is it, in what act or function of the mind, that Kant finds the matrix of these transcendent ideas? Simply in the logical forms of the understanding. Every power exerts its agency under some laws—that is, in the language of Kant, by certain forms. We leap by certain laws—viz., of equilibrium, of muscular motion, of gravitation. We dance by certain laws. So also we reason by certain laws. These laws, or formal principles, under a particular condition, become the categories.
Where is it, then, in what action or function of the mind, that Kant finds the source of these transcendent ideas? It's simply in the logical structures of understanding. Every ability operates according to some laws—that is, in Kant's terms, by certain forms. We jump according to certain laws—namely, the laws of balance, muscle movement, and gravity. We dance according to certain laws. In the same way, we reason according to certain laws. These laws, or formal principles, under specific conditions, become the categories.
Here, then, is a short derivation, in a very few words, of those ideas transcending sense which all philosophy, the earliest, has been unable to dispense with, and yet none could account for. Thus, for example, every act of reasoning must, in the first place, express itself in distinct propositions; that is, in such as contain a subject (or that concerning[Pg 99] which you affirm or deny something), a predicate (that which you affirm or deny), and a copula, which connects them. These propositions must have what is technically called, in logic, a certain quantity, or compass (viz., must be universal, particular, or singular); and again they must have what is called quality (that is, must be affirmative, or negative, or infinite): and thus arises a ground for certain corresponding ideas, which are Kant's categories of quantity and quality.
Here’s a brief explanation, in just a few words, of those abstract ideas that all philosophy, from the very beginning, has struggled to address, yet no one has been able to fully explain. For instance, every logical reasoning must, first and foremost, be expressed in clear statements; that is, in ones that include a subject (the thing you are asserting or denying something about), a predicate (what you claim or deny), and a connection that links them. These statements need to have what is technically known in logic as a certain quantity, or scope (meaning they must be universal, particular, or singular); and they must also have what is referred to as quality (meaning they must be affirmative, negative, or infinite): and from this foundation, certain corresponding ideas emerge, which are Kant's categories of quantity and quality.
But, to take an illustration more appropriately from the very idea which first aroused Kant to the sense of a vast hiatus in the received philosophies—the idea of cause, which had been thrown as an apple of discord amongst the schools by Hume. How did Kant deduce this? Simply thus: it is a doctrine of universal logic that there are three varieties of syllogism—viz., 1st, Categoric, or directly declarative [A is B]; 2d, Hypothetic, or conditionally declarative [If C is D, then A is B]; 3d, Disjunctive, or declarative by means of a choice which exhausts the possible cases [A is either B, or C, or D; but not C or D, ergo B]. Now, the idea of causation, or, in Kant's language, the category of Cause and Effect, is deduced immediately, and most naturally, as the reader will acknowledge on examination, from the 2d or hypothetic form of syllogism, when the relation of dependency is the same as in the idea of causation, and the necessary connexion a direct type of that which takes place between a cause and its effect.
But to illustrate more fittingly the very idea that first inspired Kant with a sense of a huge gap in the accepted philosophies—the idea of cause, which Hume had tossed around like a controversial topic among philosophers. How did Kant arrive at this? Simply put, it's a principle of universal logic that there are three types of syllogism—1st, Categorical, or directly declarative [A is B]; 2nd, Hypothetic, or conditionally declarative [If C is D, then A is B]; 3rd, Disjunctive, or declarative through a choice that covers all possible cases [A is either B, or C, or D; but not C or D, so B]. Now, the idea of causation, or in Kant's terms, the category of Cause and Effect, can be immediately and most naturally inferred, as any reader will recognize upon review, from the 2nd or hypothetical form of syllogism, where the relationship of dependency aligns with the concept of causation and the necessary connection directly mirrors what occurs between a cause and its effect.
Thus, then, without going one step further, the reader will find grounds enough for reflection, and for reverence towards Kant, in these two great results: 1st, That an order of ideas has been established which all deep philosophy has demanded, even when it could not make good its claim. This postulate is fulfilled. 2dly, The postulate is fulfilled without mysticism or Platonic reveries. Ideas, however indispensable to human needs, and even to the connexion of our thoughts, which came to us from nobody knew whence must for ever have been suspicious; and, as in the memorable instance cited from Hume, must have been liable for ever to a question of validity. But, deduced as they now are from a matrix within our own minds, they cannot reasonably fear any assaults of scepticism.
So, without going any further, the reader will find plenty of reasons to reflect on and honor Kant, based on these two significant outcomes: 1st, an order of ideas has been established that all serious philosophy has sought, even when it couldn't justify its claim. This assumption is now validated. 2nd, this assumption is validated without any mysticism or Platonic fantasies. Ideas, no matter how essential they are to human needs and even to connecting our thoughts, which appeared out of nowhere, must always have raised suspicions; and, as highlighted in the well-known example from Hume, they must have been forever open to questions about their validity. However, since they are now derived from a foundation within our own minds, they shouldn't reasonably fear any challenges from skepticism.
Here I shall stop. A reader new to these inquiries may think all this a trifle. But he who reflects a little will see that, even thus far, and going no step beyond this point, the Kantian doctrine of the Categories answers a standing question hanging aloft as a challenge to human philosophy, fills up a lacuna pointed out from the era of Plato. It solves a problem which has startled and perplexed every age: viz. this—that man is in possession, nay, in the hourly exercise, of ideas larger than he can show any title to. And, in another way, the reader may measure the extent of this doctrine, by reflecting that, even so far as now stated, it is precisely coextensive with the famous scheme of Locke. For what is the capital thesis of that scheme? Simply this—that all necessity for supposing immediate impressions made upon our understandings by God, or other supernatural, or antenatal, or connatal, agencies, is idle and romantic; for that, upon examining the furniture of our minds, nothing will be found there which cannot adequately be explained out of our daily experience; and, until we find something that cannot be solved by this explanation, it is childish to go in quest of higher causes. Thus says Locke: and his whole work, upon its first plan, is no more than a continual pleading of this single thesis, pursuing it through all the plausible objections. Being, therefore, as large in its extent as Locke, the reader must not complain of the transcendental scheme as too narrow, even in that limited section of it here brought under his notice.
Here I will stop. A reader who is new to these topics might think all this is a bit trivial. But those who think it over for a moment will see that, even up to this point and without going any further, the Kantian theory of the Categories addresses a longstanding question that has challenged human philosophy and fills a gap pointed out since the time of Plato. It tackles a problem that has surprised and confused every era: that is, humans hold ideas that are broader than they can justify. Moreover, the reader can gauge the significance of this doctrine by realizing that, even as it's currently stated, it aligns perfectly with Locke's famous theory. What is the main argument of that theory? Simply this—that it’s unnecessary to assume that immediate impressions are made on our minds by God, or by supernatural, pre-birth, or innate forces; because, if we examine our thoughts, we will find nothing that can't be adequately explained by our everyday experiences. Unless we encounter something that can't be clarified by this explanation, it’s foolish to search for higher causes. This is Locke's stance, and his entire work, in its basic outline, is just a continuous defense of this single idea, addressing all plausible objections. Therefore, since it is just as expansive as Locke’s, the reader shouldn’t criticize the transcendental idea as being too limited, even in the small part of it discussed here.
For the purpose of repelling it, he must do one of two things: either he must shew that these categories or transcendent notions are not susceptible of the derivation and genesis here assigned to them—that is, from the forms of the logos or formal understanding; or, if content to abide by that derivation, he must allege that there are other categories besides those enumerated, and unprovided with any similar parentage.
To push back against it, he needs to do one of two things: either he must show that these categories or overarching concepts can't be derived from the forms of the logos or formal understanding as stated here; or, if he's okay with that derivation, he must claim that there are other categories not listed here that don't have a similar origin.
Thus much in reply to him who complains of the doctrine here stated as, 1st, Too narrow, or, 2d, As insufficiently established. But, 3d, in reply to him who wishes to see it further pursued or applied, I say that the possible applications are perhaps infinite. With respect to those made by Kant himself, they are chiefly contained in his main and[Pg 101] elementary work, the Critik der reinen Vernunft; and they are of a nature to make any man melancholy. Indeed, let a man consider merely this one notion of causation; let him reflect on its origin; let him remember that, agreeably to this origin, it follows that we have no right to view anything in rerum naturâ as objectively, or in itself, a cause; that, when, upon the fullest philosophic proof, we call A the cause of B, we do in fact only subsume A under the notion of a cause—we invest it with that function under that relation; that the whole proceeding is merely with respect to a human understanding, and by way of indispensable nexus to the several parts of our experience; finally, that there is the greatest reason to doubt whether the idea of causation is at all applicable to any other world than this, or any other than a human experience. Let a man meditate but a little on this or other aspects of this transcendental philosophy, and he will find the steadfast earth itself rocking as it were beneath his feet; a world about him which is in some sense a world of deception; and a world before him which seems to promise a world of confusion, or "a world not realised." All this he might deduce for himself without further aid from Kant. However, the particular purposes to which Kant applies his philosophy, from the difficulties which beset them, are unfitted for anything below a regular treatise. Suffice it to say here, that, difficult as these speculations are from one or two embarrassing doctrines on the Transcendental Consciousness, and depressing as they are from their general tendency, they are yet painfully irritating to the curiosity, and especially so from a sort of experimentum crucis which they yield in the progress of their development on behalf of the entire doctrine of Kant—a test which, up to this hour, has offered defiance to any hostile hand. The test or defiance which I speak of takes the shape of certain antinomies (so they are termed), severe adamantine arguments, affirmative and negative, on two or three celebrated problems, with no appeal to any possible decision, but one which involves the Kantian doctrines. A quæstio vexata is proposed—for instance, the infinite divisibility of matter; each side of this question, thesis and antithesis, is argued; the logic is irresistible,[Pg 102] the links are perfect, and for each side alternately there is a verdict, thus terminating in the most triumphant reductio ad absurdum,—viz. that A, at one and the same time and in the same sense, is and is not B,—from which no escape is available but through a Kantian solution. On any other philosophy, it is demonstrated that this opprobrium of the human understanding, this scandal of logic, cannot be removed. This celebrated chapter of antinomies has been of great service to the mere polemics of the transcendental philosophy: it is a glove or gage of defiance, constantly lying on the ground, challenging the rights of victory and supremacy so long as it is not taken up by any antagonist, and bringing matters to a short decision when it is.
Thus, in response to those who complain about the doctrine stated here as, 1st, too narrow, or, 2nd, insufficiently established, I say that the potential applications are perhaps infinite. Regarding those made by Kant himself, they are primarily found in his main and [Pg 101] foundational work, the Critique of Pure Reason, and they have a tendency to make anyone feel melancholic. Indeed, if someone considers just the idea of causation; reflects on where it comes from; and remembers that, according to this origin, we have no right to see anything in rerum naturâ as objectively or in itself a cause; that when, after thorough philosophical proof, we say A is the cause of B, we are merely placing A under the concept of a cause—we attribute that function based on that relationship; that the entire process is solely related to human understanding, and serves as a necessary nexus to the different parts of our experience; and finally, that there is significant reason to doubt whether the concept of causation applies to any other world than this one, or any experience other than a human one. If someone meditates even a little on this or other aspects of this transcendental philosophy, they will find the solid earth itself seeming to sway beneath them; a world around them that is, in some way, deceptive; and a world ahead that appears to promise chaos, or "a world not realized." All this they could deduce for themselves without further help from Kant. However, the specific purposes for which Kant applies his philosophy, with the difficulties that surround them, aren't suitable for anything less than a comprehensive treatise. It's enough to say here that, despite the complexity of these speculations due to one or two challenging doctrines on Transcendental Consciousness, and their generally depressing nature, they nevertheless drive curiosity, especially because of a sort of experimentum crucis they provide during their development on behalf of the entire doctrine of Kant—a test that, even now, has resisted any opposing challenge. The test or challenge I mention appears in the form of certain antinomies (as they are called), rigorous and adamantine arguments, both affirmative and negative, on two or three well-known issues, with no appeal to any possible solution outside of those involving Kantian doctrines. A quæstio vexata is posed—for example, the infinite divisibility of matter; each side of this issue, thesis and antithesis, is debated; the logic is compelling, [Pg 102] the connections are flawless, and for each side, there is an alternating verdict, ultimately reaching the most triumphant reductio ad absurdum,—that A, at the same time and in the same sense, is and is not B,—from which there is no escape except through a Kantian solution. It is demonstrated that on any other philosophy, this embarrassment of human understanding, this scandal of logic, cannot be resolved. This famous chapter of antinomies has greatly aided the polemics of transcendental philosophy: it is a glove or challenge of defiance, constantly on the ground, questioning the rights to victory and supremacy as long as it is not picked up by any opponent, and bringing issues to a swift conclusion when it is.
One section, and that the introductory section, of the transcendental philosophy, I have purposely omitted, though in strictness not to be insulated or dislocated from the faithful exposition even of that which I have given. It is the doctrine of Space and Time. These profound themes, so confounding to the human understanding, are treated by Kant under two aspects—1st, as Anschauungen, or Intuitions—(so the German word is usually translated for want of a better); 2dly, as forms, a priori, of all our other intuitions. Often have I laughed internally at the characteristic exposure of Kant's style of thinking—that he, a man of so much worldly sagacity, could think of offering, and of the German scholastic habits, that any modern nation could think of accepting such cabalistic phrases, such a true and very "Ignotium per Ignotius," in part payment of an explanatory account of Time and Space. Kant repeats these words—as a charm before which all darkness flies; and he supposes continually the case of a man denying his explanations or demanding proofs of them, never once the sole imaginable case—viz., of all men demanding an explanation of these explanations. Deny them! Combat them! How should a man deny, why should he combat, what might, for anything to the contrary appearing, contain a promissory note at two months after date for 100 guineas? No; it will cost a little preliminary work before such explanations will much avail any scheme of philosophy, either for the pro or the con. And yet I do myself really profess to understand the dark[Pg 103] words; and a great service it would be to sound philosophy amongst us, if this one word anschauung were adequately unfolded and naturalized (as naturalized it might be) in the English philosophic dictionary, by some full Grecian equivalent. Strange that no man acquainted with German philosophy should yet have been struck by the fact—or, being struck, should not have felt it important to call public attention to the fact,—of our inevitable feebleness in a branch of study for which as yet we want the indispensable words. Our feebleness is at once argued by this want, and partly caused. Meantime, as respects the Kantian way of viewing space, by much the most important innovation which it makes upon the old doctrines is—that it considers space as a subjective not an objective aliquid; that is, as having its whole available foundation lying ultimately in ourselves, not in any external or alien tenure. This one distinction, as applied to space, for ever secures (what nothing else can secure or explain) the cogency of geometrical evidence. Whatever is true for any determinations of a space originally included in ourselves, must be true for such determinations for ever, since they cannot become objects of consciousness to us but in and by that very mode of conceiving space, that very form of schematism which originally presented us with these determinations of space, or any whatever. In the uniformity of our own space-conceiving faculty we have a pledge of the absolute and necessary uniformity (or internal agreement among themselves) of all future or possible determinations of space; because they could no otherwise become to us conceivable forms of space than by adapting themselves to the known conditions of our conceiving faculty. Here we have the necessity which is indispensable to all geometrical demonstration: it is a necessity founded in our human organ, which cannot admit or conceive a space, unless as preconforming to these original forms or schematisms. Whereas, on the contrary, if space were something objective, and consequently, being a separate existence, independent of a human organ, then it is altogether impossible to find any intelligible source of obligation or cogency in the evidence—such as is indispensable to the very nature of geometrical demonstration. Thus we will suppose that a regular demonstration[Pg 104] has gradually, from step to step downwards, through a series of propositions—No. 8 resting upon 7, that upon 5, 5 upon 3—at length reduced you to the elementary axiom that Two straight lines cannot enclose a space. Now, if space be subjective originally—that is to say, founded (as respects us and our geometry) in ourselves—then it is impossible that two such lines can enclose a space, because the possibility of anything whatever relating to the determinations of space is exactly co-extensive with (and exactly expressed by) our power to conceive it. Being thus able to affirm its impossibility universally, we can build a demonstration upon it. But, on the other hypothesis, of space being objective, it is impossible to guess whence we are to draw our proof of the alleged inaptitude in two straight lines for enclosing a space. The most we could say is, that hitherto no instance has been found of an enclosed space circumscribed by two straight lines. It would not do to allege our human inability to conceive, or in imagination to draw, such a circumscription. For, besides that such a mode of argument is exactly the one supposed to have been rejected, it is liable to this unanswerable objection, so long as space is assumed to have an objective existence, viz. that the human inability to conceive such a possibility only argues (what in fact is often found in other cases) that the objective existence of space—i.e. the existence of space in itself, and in its absolute nature—is far larger than its subjective existence—i.e. than its mode of existing quoad some particular subject. A being more limited than man might be so framed as to be unable to conceive curve lines; but this subjective inaptitude for those determinations of space would not affect the objective reality of curves, or even their subjective reality for a higher intelligence. Thus, on the hypothesis of an objective existence for space, we should be thrown upon an ocean of possibilities, without a test for saying what was—what was not possible. But, on the other hypothesis, having always in the last resort what is subjectively possible or impossible (i.e. what is conceivable or not by us, what can or cannot be drawn or circumscribed by a human imagination), we have the means of demonstration in our power, by having the ultimate appeals in our power to a known uniform test—viz. a known human faculty.
One part, specifically the introductory part, of transcendental philosophy, I have intentionally left out, although technically it shouldn't be isolated from the faithful explanation of what I have presented. It’s the theory of Space and Time. These deep topics, which can be perplexing to human comprehension, are addressed by Kant in two ways—1st, as Anschauungen, or Intuitions—(this is how the German term is typically translated due to lack of a better alternative); 2dly, as forms, a priori, of all our other intuitions. I have often chuckled internally at Kant's characteristic way of thinking—that he, a person with so much worldly wisdom, could consider offering such esoteric phrases, in the German academic tradition, that any modern society could think of accepting as a partial explanation of Time and Space. Kant uses these words as if they were a charm that banishes all confusion; he constantly assumes a situation where a person denies his explanations or asks for proof of them, without once considering the only imaginable scenario—namely, that everyone is asking for an explanation of these explanations. Deny them! Challenge them! How could someone deny, and why would they challenge, something that, for all anyone knows, might contain a promissory note for 100 guineas due in two months? No; it will take some foundational work before such explanations will be useful in any philosophical system, whether for the pro or the con. Yet, I truly claim to understand these obscure words; it would greatly benefit sound philosophy among us if this one word anschauung were properly clarified and made commonplace (which it could be) in the English philosophical lexicon, with some complete Greek equivalent. It’s odd that no one familiar with German philosophy has yet noticed, or if they have, that they haven’t deemed it essential to bring public awareness to the fact—that we are inherently weak in a field of study for which we currently lack the necessary terminology. Our weakness is indicated by this lack and is also partly caused by it. Meanwhile, in regard to Kant's perspective on space, the most significant change it introduces to the old theories is that it views space as a subjective rather than an objective thing; that is, it sees its entire foundational basis ultimately arising from ourselves, not from any external or foreign source. This distinction, applied to space, permanently guarantees (which nothing else can guarantee or explain) the validity of geometric evidence. Anything that holds true for any determinations of space that initially lie within us must hold true for such determinations forever, since they cannot become objects of our awareness except through that very method of conceiving space, that exact form of schematism that initially presented us with these various spatial determinations. In the consistency of our own spatial-conceiving ability, we possess a guarantee of the absolute and necessary uniformity (or internal harmony) of all future or possible spatial determinations; because they could not otherwise be imaginable forms of space to us than by conforming to the known conditions of our capacity for understanding. Here we have the necessity crucial to all geometric proof: a necessity grounded in our human faculties, which cannot acknowledge or conceive space except in accordance with these original forms or schematisms. In contrast, if space were something objective, being a separate existence independent of human faculties, then it becomes impossible to identify any clear source of obligation or validity in the evidence—something essential to the very nature of geometric demonstration. So we could assume that a logical demonstration[Pg 104] has progressively led you, step by step, through a series of propositions—No. 8 dependent on 7, that on 5, 5 on 3—until you reach the basic axiom that two straight lines cannot enclose a space. Now, if space is originally subjective—that is, founded (as far as we and our geometry are concerned) within ourselves—then it is impossible for two such lines to enclose a space, because the feasibility of anything related to the determinations of space aligns exactly with (and is exactly defined by) our ability to conceive it. Being thus able to universally assert its impossibility, we can build a proof on that. However, on the other hypothesis, that space is objective, it becomes impossible to figure out where we draw our proof of the claimed incapacity of two straight lines to enclose a space. The best we could say is that, to date, no instance has been found of an enclosed space formed by two straight lines. We couldn’t claim our human inability to conceive, or to imagine drawing, such an enclosure. For, aside from the fact that this kind of argument is precisely what is assumed to have been rejected, it faces this undeniable objection: as long as we assume space has an objective existence, i.e., the existence of space in itself, independent of us, this implies that the objective existence of space is much broader than its subjective existence—i.e., than its way of existing quoad some specific subject. A being more restricted than humans might be incapable of conceiving curved lines; yet this subjective limitation for those spatial determinations would not influence the objective reality of curves, or even their subjective existence for a more advanced intelligence. Thus, under the hypothesis of an objective existence for space, we would be cast into a sea of possibilities, without a means to determine what was—what was not possible. But, on the other hypothesis, as long as we ultimately refer to what is subjectively possible or impossible (i.e. what is conceivable or not by us, what can or cannot be drawn or defined by human imagination), we have the tools for demonstration at our disposal, as we have the ultimate recourse to a known standard—namely, a recognized human capacity.
This is no trifling matter, and therefore no trifling advantage on the side of Kant and his philosophy, to all who are acquainted with the disagreeable controversies of late years among French geometricians of the first rank, and sometimes among British ones, on the question of mathematical evidence. Legendre and Professor Leslie took part in one such a dispute; and the temper in which it was managed was worthy of admiration, as contrasted with the angry controversies of elder days, if, indeed, it did not err in an opposite spirit, by too elaborate and too calculating a tone of reciprocal flattery. But, think as we may of the discussion in this respect, most assuredly it was painful to witness so infirm a philosophy applied to an interest so mighty. The whole aerial superstructure—the heaven-aspiring pyramid of geometrical synthesis—all tottered under the palsying logic of evidence, to which these celebrated mathematicians appealed. And wherefore?—From the want of any philosophic account of space, to which they might have made a common appeal, and which might have so far discharged its debt to truth as at least to reconcile its theory with the great outstanding phenomena in the most absolute of sciences. Geometry is the science of space: therefore, in any philosophy of space, geometry is entitled to be peculiarly considered, and used as a court of appeal. Geometry has these two further claims to distinction—that, 1st, It is the most perfect of the sciences, so far as it has gone; and, 2dly, That it has gone the farthest. A philosophy of space which does not consider and does not reconcile to its own doctrines the facts of geometry, which, in the two points of beauty and of vast extent, is more like a work of nature than of man, is, prima facie, of no value. A philosophy of space might be false which should harmonize with the facts of geometry—it must be false if it contradict them. Of Kant's philosophy it is a capital praise that its very opening section—that section which treats the question of space—not only quadrates with the facts of geometry, but also, by the subjective character which it attributes to space, is the very first philosophic scheme which explains and accounts for the cogency of geometrical evidence.
This is no small issue, and there’s certainly a significant advantage for Kant and his philosophy for anyone familiar with the unpleasant debates in recent years among top French and sometimes British mathematicians over the question of mathematical evidence. Legendre and Professor Leslie were involved in one of these disputes, and the way it was handled was commendable compared to the heated arguments of earlier times, though it may have gone too far in the opposite direction with excessive and calculated mutual praise. Regardless of our views on the discussion in this regard, it was undoubtedly painful to see such a weak philosophy applied to such an important interest. The entire lofty framework—the towering pyramid of geometric synthesis—wavered under the debilitating logic of evidence to which these renowned mathematicians referred. And why? Because there was a lack of any philosophical explanation of space that they could have collectively relied on, which might have reconciled their theory with the significant outstanding phenomena in the most fundamental of sciences. Geometry is the science of space; therefore, in any philosophy of space, geometry deserves special consideration and should be used as a reference point. Geometry has two additional reasons to stand out: 1st, it is the most complete of the sciences, as far as it has developed; and 2ndly, it has advanced the furthest. A philosophy of space that doesn’t address and reconcile the facts of geometry, which is more like a creation of nature than of humans in terms of beauty and vastness, is, prima facie, not valuable. A philosophy of space might be false even if it aligns with geometric facts, but it must be false if it conflicts with them. A major strength of Kant's philosophy is that its very first section—dealing with the question of space—not only aligns with the facts of geometry but also, by attributing a subjective nature to space, is the very first philosophical framework that explains and justifies the strength of geometric evidence.
These are the two primary merits of the transcendental[Pg 106] theory—1st, Its harmony with mathematics, and the fact of having first, by its doctrine of space, applied philosophy to the nature of geometrical evidence; 2dly, That it has filled up, by means of its doctrine of categories, the great hiatus in all schemes of the human understanding from Plato downwards. All the rest, with a reserve as to the part which concerns the practical reason (or will), is of more questionable value, and leads to manifold disputes. But I contend that, had transcendentalism done no other service than that of laying a foundation, sought but not found for ages, to the human understanding—namely, by showing an intelligible genesis to certain large and indispensable ideas—it would have claimed the gratitude of all profound inquirers. To a reader still disposed to undervalue Kant's service in this respect, I put one parting question—Wherefore he values Locke? What has he done, even if value is allowed in full to his pretensions? Has the reader asked himself that? He gave a negative solution at the most. He told his reader that certain disputed ideas were not deduced thus and thus. Kant, on the other hand, has given him at the least a positive solution. He teaches him, in the profoundest revelation, by a discovery in the most absolute sense on record, and the most entirely a single act—without parts, or contributions, or stages, or preparations from other quarters—that these long disputed ideas could not be derived from the experience assigned by Locke, inasmuch as they are themselves previous conditions under which any experience at all is possible: he teaches him that these ideas are not mystically originated, but are, in fact, but another phasis of the functions or forms of his own understanding; and, finally, he gives consistency, validity, and a charter of authority, to certain modes of nexus without which the sum total of human experience would be a rope of sand.
These are the two main advantages of the transcendental[Pg 106] theory—1st, its alignment with mathematics, and how it first applied philosophy to the nature of geometrical evidence through its doctrine of space; 2dly, that it has addressed, through its doctrine of categories, a significant gap in all theories of human understanding since Plato. Everything else, except for the part that concerns the practical reason (or will), is more debatable and leads to numerous conflicts. However, I argue that if transcendentalism had only provided a foundation that had been sought but not found for ages for human understanding—specifically, by demonstrating an understandable origin for certain essential ideas—it would have earned the gratitude of all serious thinkers. To any reader who still tends to undervalue Kant's contributions in this regard, I ask one final question—Why does he value Locke? What has he achieved, even if we grant full validity to his claims? Has the reader considered that? He provided a negative answer at best. He informed his readers that certain debated ideas were not derived in this way or that. On the other hand, Kant has provided at least a positive answer. He teaches, in the most profound way, through a discovery that is the most absolute on record, and entirely singular—without parts, contributions, stages, or preparations from elsewhere—that these long-disputed ideas cannot be derived from the experiences Locke described because they are themselves previous conditions under which any experience at all is possible: he shows that these ideas are not mystically created but are, in fact, just another aspect of the functions or forms of his own understanding; and finally, he gives consistency, validity, and a charter of authority to certain modes of nexus without which the totality of human experience would be a rope of sand.
In terminating this slight account of the Kantian philosophy, I may mention that, in or about the year 1818-19, Lord Grenville, when visiting the lakes of England, observed to Professor Wilson that, after five years' study of this philosophy, he had not gathered from it one clear idea. Wilberforce, about the same time, made the same confession to another friend of my own.
In wrapping up this brief overview of Kant's philosophy, I should note that around 1818-19, Lord Grenville, while visiting the lakes in England, told Professor Wilson that after five years of studying this philosophy, he hadn't come away with a single clear idea. Wilberforce, around the same time, admitted the same thing to another friend of mine.
It is not usual for men to meet with their capital disappointments in early life, at least not in youth. For, as to disappointments in love, which are doubtless the most bitter and incapable of comfort, though otherwise likely to arise in youth, they are in this way made impossible at a very early age, that no man can be in love to the whole extent of his capacity until he is in full possession of all his faculties, and with the sense of dignified maturity. A perfect love, such as is necessary to the anguish of a perfect disappointment, presumes also for its object not a mere girl, but woman, mature both in person and character, and womanly dignity. This sort of disappointment, in a degree which could carry its impression through life, I cannot therefore suppose occurring earlier than at twenty-five or twenty-seven. My disappointment—the profound shock with which I was repelled from German philosophy, and which thenceforwards tinged with cynical disgust towards man in certain aspects a temper which originally I will presume to consider the most benign that can ever have been created—occurred when I was yet in my twentieth year. In a poem under the title of Saul, written many years ago by Mr. Sotheby, and perhaps now forgotten, having never been popular, there occurs a passage of some pathos, in which Saul is described as keeping amongst the splendid equipments of a royal wardrobe that particular pastoral habit which he had worn in his days of earliest manhood, whilst yet humble and undistinguished by honour, but also yet innocent and happy. There, also, with the same care, he preserved his shepherd's crook, which, in hands of youthful vigour, had been connected with remembrances of heroic prowess. These memorials, in after times of trouble or perplexity, when the burthen of royalty, its cares, or its feverish temptations, pointed his thoughts backwards, for a moment's relief, to scenes of pastoral gaiety and peace, the heart-wearied prince would sometimes draw from their repository, and in solitude would apostrophise them separately, or commune with the bitter-sweet remembrances which they recalled. In something of the same spirit—but with a hatred to the German philosopher such as men are represented as feeling towards the gloomy enchanter, Zamiel or whomsoever, by whose hateful seductions they have been[Pg 108] placed within a circle of malign influences—did I at times revert to Kant: though for me his power had been of the very opposite kind; not an enchanter's, but the power of a disenchanter—and a disenchanter the most profound. As often as I looked into his works, I exclaimed in my heart, with the widowed queen of Carthage, using her words in an altered application—
It's not common for men to face significant disappointments early in life, especially not in their youth. When it comes to heartbreak, which is surely the most painful and hardest to soothe, these experiences are typically postponed until later, as no man can truly love to his full capacity until he has all his faculties and a sense of mature dignity. A true love, which is needed for a deep disappointment, requires not just a girl as its object, but a woman who is developed in both body and character, displaying a sense of dignity. Therefore, I don't think such profound disappointment could happen before the ages of twenty-five or twenty-seven. My own disappointment—the deep shock of being turned away from German philosophy, which then left me with a cynical view of humanity in certain respects, contrasting with my original belief in the goodness of life—occurred when I was still twenty. In a poem titled Saul, written many years ago by Mr. Sotheby and perhaps now forgotten because it never gained popularity, there's a poignant moment where Saul is portrayed as keeping among the glorious items of a royal wardrobe the simple pastoral outfit he wore in his early manhood, before he gained honor, but also when he was still innocent and happy. He also carefully kept his shepherd's crook, which, in his youthful hands, was a reminder of heroic deeds. In later troubled times, when the weight of royalty, its responsibilities, or its tempting distractions made him long for the peaceful, joyful days, the weary prince would occasionally retrieve those items from their place and privately converse with them or reflect on the bittersweet memories they invoked. In a similar vein—but fueled by a hatred of the German philosopher, like the way men are depicted feeling towards the gloomy sorcerer Zamiel or anyone whose distasteful charms have trapped them within a circle of harmful influences—I sometimes revisited Kant. But for me, his influence was entirely different; rather than being an enchanter, he was a profound disenchanter. Each time I delved into his works, I found myself exclaiming in my heart, echoing the feelings of the widowed queen of Carthage, albeit with a changed context—
Had the transcendental philosophy corresponded to my expectations, and had it left important openings for further pursuit, my purpose then was to have retired, after a few years spent in Oxford, to the woods of Lower Canada. I had even marked out the situation for a cottage and a considerable library, about seventeen miles from Quebec. I planned nothing so ambitious as a scheme of Pantisocracy. My object was simply profound solitude, such as cannot now be had in any part of Great Britain—with two accessary advantages, also peculiar to countries situated in the circumstances and under the climate of Canada: viz. the exalting presence in an under-consciousness of forests endless and silent, the everlasting sense of living amongst forms so ennobling and impressive, together with the pleasure attached to natural agencies, such as frost, more powerfully manifested than in English latitudes, and for a much longer period. I hope there is nothing fanciful in all this. It is certain that in England, and in all moderate climates, we are too slightly reminded of nature or the forces of nature. Great heats, or great colds (and in Canada there are both), or great hurricanes, as in the West Indian latitudes, recall us continually to the sense of a powerful presence, investing our paths on every side; whereas in England it is possible to forget that we live amongst greater agencies than those of men and human institutions. Man, in fact, "too much man," as Timon complained most reasonably in Athens, was then, and is now, our greatest grievance in England. Man is a weed everywhere too rank. A strange place must that be with us from which the sight of a hundred men is not before us, or the sound of a thousand about us.
If transcendental philosophy had met my expectations and offered significant opportunities for further exploration, my goal would have been to retreat, after a few years at Oxford, to the forests of Lower Canada. I had even chosen a spot for a cottage and a decent library about seventeen miles from Quebec. I wasn’t planning anything as ambitious as a project of Pantisocracy. My aim was simply to find deep solitude that cannot be found anywhere in Great Britain now—with two additional perks unique to countries with Canada’s climate and conditions: the uplifting presence of endless, silent forests in my subconscious, and the everlasting feeling of living among such noble and impressive forms, along with the enjoyment of natural phenomena like frost, which is much more intense and lasts longer than in England. I hope there's nothing unrealistic in this. It’s true that in England and other moderate climates, we don’t get enough reminders of nature or its forces. Intense heat or cold (and Canada experiences both), or powerful hurricanes, like in the Caribbean, constantly bring us back to the awareness of a strong presence surrounding us. In contrast, in England, it's easy to forget that we live among forces greater than just humans and human-made systems. Indeed, as Timon rightly complained in Athens, "too much man" has always been our main issue in England. Man is like an overgrown weed everywhere. It must be a strange place for us where we are not surrounded by the sight of a hundred men or the sounds of a thousand voices.
Nevertheless, being in this hotbed of man inevitably for some years, no sooner had I dismissed my German philosophy[Pg 109] than I relaxed a little that spirit of German abstraction which it had prompted; and, though never mixing freely with society, I began to look a little abroad. It may interest the reader, more than anything else which I can record of this period, to recall what I saw within the ten first years of the century that was at all noticeable or worthy of remembrance amongst the literati, the philosophers, or the poets of the time. For, though I am now in my academic period from 1804 to 1808, my knowledge of literary men—or men distinguished in some way or other, either by their opinions, their accomplishments, or their position and the accidents of their lives—began from the first year of the century, or, more accurately, from the year 1800; which, with some difficulty and demurs, and with some arguments from the Laureate Pye, the world was at length persuaded to consider the last year of the eighteenth century.[20]
However, after spending several years in this hub of humanity, I quickly set aside my German philosophy [Pg 109] and loosened the grip of that German abstraction it had instilled in me. Although I never fully engaged with society, I began to glance around me a bit. It might interest the reader, more than anything else I can share from this time, to reflect on what I noticed in the first ten years of the century that stood out or was worth remembering among the literary figures, philosophers, or poets of the era. Even though I’m now in my academic phase from 1804 to 1808, my acquaintance with literary figures—or those notable for their beliefs, talents, or their status and life circumstances—actually began in the very first year of the century, or more precisely, in 1800. After some reluctance and debate, and with a bit of persuasion from the Laureate Pye, the world eventually accepted that year as the last year of the eighteenth century.[20]
LITERARY & LAKE REMINISCENCES
CHAPTER I
A MANCHESTER SWEDENBORGIAN AND A LIVERPOOL LITERARY
COTERIE[21]
It was in the year 1801, whilst yet at school, that I made my first literary acquaintance. This was with a gentleman now dead, and little, at any time, known in the literary world; indeed, not at all; for his authorship was confined to a department of religious literature as obscure and as narrow in its influence as any that can be named—viz. Swedenborgianism.
It was in 1801, while I was still in school, that I made my first literary connection. This was with a man who has since passed away and was hardly known in the literary world; in fact, not at all, since his work was limited to a niche of religious literature that was as obscure and narrow in its influence as any you can think of—namely, Swedenborgianism.
Already, on the bare mention of that word, a presumption arises against any man, that, writing much (or writing at all) for a body of doctrines so apparently crazy as those of Mr. Swedenborg, a man must have bid adieu to all good sense and manliness of mind. Indeed, this is so much of a settled case, that even to have written against Mr. Swedenborg would be generally viewed as a suspicious act, requiring explanation, and not very easily admitting of it. Mr. Swedenborg I call him, because I understand that his title to call himself "Baron" is imaginary; or rather he never did call himself by any title of honour—that mistake having originated amongst his followers in this country, who have chosen to designate him as the "Honourable" and as the "Baron" Swedenborg, by way of translating, to the ear of England, some one or other of those irrepresentable distinctions, Legations-Rath, Hofrath, &c., which are tossed about with so[Pg 114] much profusion in the courts of continental Europe, on both sides the Baltic. For myself, I cannot think myself qualified to speak of any man's writings without a regular examination of some one or two among those which his admirers regard as his best performances. Yet, as any happened to fall in my way, I have looked into them; and the impression left upon my mind was certainly not favourable to their author. They laboured, to my feeling, with two opposite qualities of annoyance, but which I believe not uncommonly found united in lunatics—excessive dulness or matter-of-factness in the execution, with excessive extravagance in the conceptions. The result, at least, was most unhappy: for, of all writers, Swedenborg is the only one I ever heard of who has contrived to strip even the shadowy world beyond the grave of all its mystery and all its awe. From the very heaven of heavens, he has rent away the veil; no need for seraphs to "tremble while they gaze"; for the familiarity with which all objects are invested makes it impossible that even poor mortals should find any reason to tremble. Until I saw this book, I had not conceived it possible to carry an atmosphere so earthy, and steaming with the vapours of earth, into regions which, by early connexion in our infant thoughts with the sanctities of death, have a hold upon the reverential affections such as they rarely lose. In this view, I should conceive that Swedenborg, if it were at all possible for him to become a popular author, would, at the same time, become immensely mischievous. He would dereligionize men beyond all other authors whatsoever.
Already, just mentioning that word raises a presumption against any man that if he writes a lot (or writes at all) about a set of beliefs as seemingly bizarre as those of Mr. Swedenborg, he must have lost all good sense and manliness. In fact, this is such an established notion that even writing against Mr. Swedenborg would generally be viewed as suspicious, needing justification, and not easily explained. I call him Mr. Swedenborg because I understand that his claim to the title "Baron" is not real; in fact, he never actually called himself by any title of honor. That misunderstanding started with his followers in this country, who chose to refer to him as the "Honourable" and "Baron" Swedenborg, as a way to translate for an English audience some of those untranslatable distinctions, like "Legations-Rath," "Hofrath," etc., which are tossed around so freely in the courts of continental Europe on both sides of the Baltic. Personally, I don't believe I'm qualified to comment on any man's writings without thoroughly reviewing a few of those that his fans consider to be his best work. Still, whenever I came across any of his writings, I took a look at them, and the impression they left on me was definitely not favorable to him. They struck me with two opposing qualities of annoyance, which I believe are commonly found in lunatics—extreme dullness or matter-of-factness in the writing combined with extreme absurdity in the ideas. The outcome was truly unfortunate: among all writers, Swedenborg is the only one I've ever heard of who managed to strip even the mystical world beyond the grave of all its mystery and awe. He has torn away the veil from the very heaven of heavens; there’s no need for seraphs to "tremble while they gaze" because the familiarity with which all things are presented makes it impossible for even mere mortals to find any reason to tremble. Until I saw this book, I couldn’t imagine it was possible to bring such a earthy, steaming atmosphere into realms that, due to our early connections to the sacredness of death, hold a grip on our feelings of reverence that they rarely lose. In this sense, I would think that if Swedenborg could somehow become a popular author, he would also become incredibly harmful. He would completely remove the sense of religion from people more than any other writer ever could.
Little could this character of Swedenborg's writings—this, indeed, least of all—have been suspected from the temper, mind, or manners of my new friend. He was the most spiritual-looking, the most saintly in outward aspect, of all human beings whom I have known throughout life. He was rather tall, pale, and thin; the most unfleshly, the most of a sublimated spirit dwelling already more than half in some purer world, that a poet could have imagined. He was already aged when I first knew him, a clergyman of the Church of England; which may seem strange in connexion with his Swedenborgianism; but he was, however, so. He was rector of a large parish in a large town, the more active duties[Pg 115] of which parish were discharged by his curate; but much of the duties within the church were still discharged by himself, and with such exemplary zeal that his parishioners, afterwards celebrating the fiftieth anniversary, or golden jubilee of his appointment to the living (the twenty-fifth anniversary is called in German the silver—the fiftieth, the golden jubilee), went farther than is usual in giving a public expression and a permanent shape to their sentiments of love and veneration. I am surprised, on reflection, that this venerable clergyman should have been unvexed by Episcopal censures. He might, and I dare say would, keep back the grosser parts of Swedenborg's views from a public display; but, in one point, it would not be easy for a man so conscientious to make a compromise between his ecclesiastical duty and his private belief; for I have since found, though I did not then know it, that Swedenborg held a very peculiar creed on the article of atonement. From the slight pamphlet which let me into this secret I could not accurately collect the exact distinctions of his creed; but it was very different from that of the English Church.
Little could anyone have guessed from the personality, mindset, or behavior of my new friend that he had the character of Swedenborg's writings—this, of all things, least of all. He looked incredibly spiritual, almost saintly, more than anyone I’ve known in my life. He was tall, pale, and thin; the kind of person a poet might envision as an ethereal spirit already living more than halfway in a purer world. He was already older when I first met him, a clergyman in the Church of England, which might seem odd considering his Swedenborgian beliefs; but that was indeed the case. He served as rector of a large parish in a sizable town, with most of the parish's active duties handled by his curate. Nevertheless, he still took on many of the responsibilities within the church with such admirable dedication that when his parishioners later celebrated the fiftieth anniversary—or golden jubilee—of his appointment (the twenty-fifth anniversary is called the silver jubilee in German, while the fiftieth is the golden jubilee), they expressed their feelings of love and respect in a way that went beyond what is usual. Looking back, I’m surprised this respected clergyman managed to avoid scrutiny from the Episcopal leadership. He might have kept the more controversial aspects of Swedenborg’s ideas from public view; however, he would have found it challenging to reconcile his religious duties with his personal beliefs. I later discovered, although I didn’t realize it then, that Swedenborg had a very unique perspective on the concept of atonement. From the brief pamphlet that revealed this secret to me, I couldn’t fully grasp the specific distinctions of his beliefs; however, they were quite different from those of the English Church.
However, my friend continued unvexed for a good deal more than fifty years, enjoying that peace, external as well as internal, which, by so eminent a title, belonged to a spirit so evangelically meek and dovelike. I mention him chiefly for the sake of describing his interesting house and household, so different from all which belong to this troubled age, and his impressive style of living. The house seemed almost monastic; and yet it stood in the centre of one of the largest, busiest, noisiest towns in England; and the whole household seemed to have stepped out of their places in some Vandyke, or even some Titian, picture, from a forgotten century and another climate. On knocking at the door, which of itself seemed an outrage to the spirit of quietness which brooded over the place, you were received by an ancient manservant in the sober livery which belonged traditionally to Mr.—— 's[22] family; for he was of a gentleman's descent,[Pg 116] and had had the most finished education of a gentleman. This venerable old butler put me in mind always, by his noiseless steps, of the Castle of Indolence, where the porter or usher walked about in shoes that were shod with felt, lest any rude echoes might be roused. An ancient housekeeper was equally venerable, equally gentle in her deportment, quiet in her movements, and inaudible in her tread. One or other of these upper domestics,—for the others rarely crossed my path,—ushered me always into some room expressing by its furniture, its pictures, and its coloured windows, the solemn tranquillity which, for half a century, had reigned in that mansion. Among the pictures were more than one of St. John, the beloved apostle, by Italian masters. Neither the features nor the expression were very wide of Mr. Clowes's own countenance; and, had it been possible to forget the gross character of Swedenborg's reveries, or to substitute for these fleshly dreams the awful visions of the Apocalypse, one might have imagined easily that the pure, saintly, and childlike evangelist had been once again recalled to this earth, and that this most quiet of mansions was some cell in the island of Patmos. Whence came the stained glass of the windows I know not, and whether it were stained or painted. The revolutions of that art are known from Horace Walpole's account; and, nine years after this period, I found that, in Birmingham, where the art of staining glass was chiefly practised, no trifling sum was charged even for a vulgar lacing of no great breadth round a few drawing-room windows, which one of my friends thought fit to introduce as an embellishment. These windows, however, of my clerical friend were really "storied windows," having Scriptural histories represented upon them. A crowning ornament to the library or principal room was a sweet-toned organ, ancient, and elaborately carved in its wood-work, at which my venerable friend readily sate down, and performed the music of anthems as often as I asked him, sometimes accompanying it with his voice, which was tremulous from old age, but neither originally unmusical, nor (as might be perceived) untrained.
However, my friend remained undisturbed for over fifty years, enjoying a peace, both external and internal, that truly belonged to a spirit so kindly and gentle. I mention him mainly to describe his fascinating house and lifestyle, which stood in stark contrast to the chaos of the modern world. The house felt almost like a monastery; yet it was situated in the midst of one of the largest, busiest, and noisiest towns in England. The entire household seemed to have emerged from a painting by Vandyke or Titian, from a long-forgotten era in a different climate. When you knocked on the door, which felt like a disturbance to the serene atmosphere surrounding the place, you were welcomed by an elderly manservant in a traditional livery that belonged to Mr.——'s family, as he was of gentle birth and had received a gentleman's education. This dignified old butler always reminded me of the Castle of Indolence, where the porter moved about in felt-soled shoes to avoid making any noise. The ancient housekeeper was equally venerable, gentle in her manner, soft in her movements, and nearly silent on her feet. One or the other of these senior staff members—since the others rarely crossed my path—always escorted me into a room that reflected the solemn tranquility that had prevailed in that mansion for decades, shown in its furniture, paintings, and stained glass windows. Among the artwork were several depictions of St. John, the beloved apostle, by Italian masters. The features and expressions were quite similar to my friend Mr. Clowes’s own face; and had it been possible to overlook the bizarre aspects of Swedenborg’s musings, or to replace those earthly dreams with the awe-inspiring visions of the Apocalypse, one might easily imagine that the pure, saintly, and childlike evangelist had been brought back to life, and that this tranquil mansion was a cell on the island of Patmos. I do not know where the stained glass windows came from, nor whether they were stained or painted. The evolution of that art is described in Horace Walpole's accounts; and, nine years later, I learned that, in Birmingham, where stained glass art was most practiced, even a modest design around a few drawing-room windows cost a fair amount, which one of my friends chose to add for decoration. However, my clerical friend’s windows were genuinely “storied windows,” depicting stories from the Scriptures. A crowning feature of the library or main room was a beautifully toned organ, ancient and intricately carved, at which my venerable friend would happily sit down and play anthems whenever I requested, sometimes singing along with a voice that trembled with age but was still musical and well-trained.
Often, from the storms and uproars of this world, I have looked back upon this most quiet and, I believe, most innocent abode (had I said saintly I should hardly have erred), conneacting[Pg 117] it in thought with Little Gidding, the famous mansion (in Huntingdonshire, I believe) of the Farrers, an interesting family in the reigns of James I. and Charles I. Of the Farrers there is a long and circumstantial biographical account, and of the conventual discipline maintained at Little Gidding. For many years it was the rule at Gidding—and it was the wish of the Farrers to have transmitted that practice through succeeding centuries—that a musical or cathedral service should be going on at every hour of night and day in the chapel of the mansion. Let the traveller, at what hour he would, morning or evening, summer or winter, and in what generation or century soever, happen to knock at the gate of Little Gidding, it was the purpose of Nicholas Farrer—a sublime purpose—that always he should hear the blare of the organ, sending upwards its surging volumes of melody, God's worship for ever proceeding, anthems of praise for ever ascending, and jubilates echoing without end or known beginning. One stream of music, in fact, never intermitting, one vestal fire of devotional praise and thanksgiving, was to connect the beginnings with the ends of generations, and to link one century into another. Allowing for the sterner asceticism of N. Farrer—partly arising out of the times, partly out of personal character, and partly, perhaps, out of his travels in Spain—my aged friend's arrangement of the day, and the training of his household, might seem to have been modelled on the plans of Mr. Farrer; whom, however, he might never have heard of. There was also, in each house, the same union of religion with some cultivation of the ornamental arts, or some expression of respect for them. In each case, a monastic severity, that might, under other circumstances, have terminated in the gloom of a La Trappe, had been softened by English sociality, and by the habits of a gentleman's education, into a devotional pomp, reconcilable with Protestant views. When, however, remembering this last fact in Mr. Clowes's case (the fact I mean of his liberal education), I have endeavoured to explain the possibility of one so much adorned by all the accomplishments of a high-bred gentleman, and one so truly pious, falling into the grossness, almost the sensuality, which appears to besiege the visions of Swedenborg, I fancy that the whole may be[Pg 118] explained out of the same cause which occasionally may be descried, through a distance of two complete centuries, as weighing heavily upon the Farrers—viz. the dire monotony of daily life, when visited by no irritations either of hope or fear—no hopes from ambition, no fears from poverty.
Often, from the storms and chaos of this world, I have looked back upon this quiet and, I believe, innocent home (if I had called it saintly, I wouldn't have been too far off), connecting[Pg 117] it in my mind with Little Gidding, the well-known house (in Huntingdonshire, I think) of the Farrers, an interesting family during the reigns of James I and Charles I. There is a detailed biographical account of the Farrers and the religious practices maintained at Little Gidding. For many years, it was a tradition at Gidding—and the Farrers hoped to pass it down through the ages—that there should be a musical or church service happening every hour, day and night, in the chapel of the house. No matter when a traveler might knock at the gate of Little Gidding, whether morning or evening, summer or winter, or in any generation or century, it was Nicholas Farrer’s grand aim—that they would always hear the sound of the organ, flooding the air with waves of melody, God’s worship continually taking place, anthems of praise perpetually rising, and jubilates echoing endlessly without a start. In essence, one stream of music, never ceasing, one eternal fire of praise and thanks, was meant to connect the beginnings and endings of generations, linking one century to the next. While allowing for the stricter asceticism of N. Farrer—partly due to his time, partly his personal character, and perhaps a bit from his travels in Spain—my elderly friend's organization of the day, along with the training of his household, might have seemed influenced by Mr. Farrer’s plans; whom, however, he may never have known of. In both households, there was also a common blend of religion and some appreciation of the decorative arts, or some sign of respect for them. In both cases, a monastic strictness, which might have led, under other conditions, to the gloomy atmosphere of a La Trappe, had been softened by English sociability and the habits of a gentleman’s upbringing, turning into a devotional grandeur that was compatible with Protestant beliefs. However, when remembering this last point about Mr. Clowes (specifically, that he was well-educated), I have tried to understand how someone so refined with all the qualities of a high-class gentleman, and who was genuinely pious, could fall into the coarseness, almost the sensuality, which seems to surround the visions of Swedenborg. I think that the whole situation can be explained by the same cause that occasionally seemed to weigh heavily on the Farrers over two centuries ago—specifically, the dreadful monotony of daily life, lacking any instigations of hope or fear—no aspirations from ambition, no anxieties from poverty.
Nearly (if not quite) sixty years did my venerable friend inhabit that same parsonage house, without any incident more personally interesting to himself than a cold or a sore throat. And I suppose that he resorted to Swedenborg—reluctantly, perhaps, at the first—as to a book of fairy tales connected with his professional studies. And one thing I am bound to add in candour, which may have had its weight with him, that more than once, on casually turning over a volume of Swedenborg, I have certainly found most curious and felicitous passages of comment—passages which extracted a brilliant meaning from numbers, circumstances, or trivial accidents, apparently without significance or object, and gave to things, without a place or a habitation in the critic's regard, a value as hieroglyphics or cryptical ciphers, which struck me as elaborately ingenious. This acknowledgment I make not so much in praise of Swedenborg, whom I must still continue to think a madman, as in excuse for Mr. Clowes. It may easily be supposed that a person of Mr. Clowes's consideration and authority was not regarded with indifference by the general body of the Swedenborgians. At his motion it was, I believe, that a society was formed for procuring and encouraging a translation into English of Swedenborg's entire works, most of which are written in Latin. Several of these translations are understood to have been executed personally by Mr. Clowes; and in this obscure way, for anything I know, he may have been an extensive author. But it shows the upright character of the man that never, in one instance, did he seek to bias my opinions in this direction. Upon every other subject, he trusted me confidentially—and, notwithstanding my boyish years (15-16), as his equal. His regard for me, when thrown by accident in his way, had arisen upon his notice of my fervent simplicity, and my unusual thoughtfulness. Upon these merits, I had gained the honourable distinction of a general invitation to his house, without exception as to days and hours, when few others[Pg 119] could boast of any admission at all. The common ground on which we met was literature—more especially the Greek and Roman literature; and much he exerted himself, in a spirit of the purest courtesy, to meet my animation upon these themes. But the interest on his part was too evidently a secondary interest in me, for whom he talked, and not in the subject: he spoke much from memory, as it were of things that he had once felt, and little from immediate sympathy with the author; and his animation was artificial, though his courtesy, which prompted the effort, was the truest and most unaffected possible.
Nearly (if not quite) sixty years my respected friend lived in that same parsonage house, without any incident more personally interesting to him than a cold or a sore throat. I assume he turned to Swedenborg—perhaps reluctantly at first—as if it were a book of fairy tales related to his professional studies. One thing I must honestly mention, which may have influenced him, is that more than once, when I casually flipped through a volume of Swedenborg, I found genuinely intriguing and insightful passages—passages that pulled out a brilliant meaning from numbers, circumstances, or trivial events that appeared to have no significance or purpose, assigning value to things that had no clear place or importance in the critic's eyes as if they were hieroglyphics or cryptic symbols, which I found remarkably clever. I share this not so much in praise of Swedenborg, whom I still believe to be a madman, but as a justification for Mr. Clowes. It's easy to assume that a person of Mr. Clowes's stature and authority was not viewed with indifference by the general body of Swedenborgians. It was, I believe, at his urging that a society was formed to facilitate and promote a translation into English of Swedenborg's complete works, most of which are written in Latin. Several of these translations are understood to have been completed personally by Mr. Clowes; and in this obscure manner, for all I know, he may have been a prolific author. But it speaks to the integrity of the man that he never once attempted to sway my opinions in this regard. On every other topic, he trusted me openly—and, despite my youthful years (15-16), as his equal. His regard for me, when we happened to cross paths, stemmed from his observation of my passionate simplicity and unusual thoughtfulness. Based on these qualities, I earned the honorable distinction of a general invitation to his house, without restrictions on days or times, when few others could claim any sort of admission at all. The common ground we shared was literature—more specifically, Greek and Roman literature; and he made great efforts, in a spirit of pure courtesy, to engage with my enthusiasm on these topics. However, his interest was clearly secondary to his interest in me, the person he was talking to, rather than the subject itself: he spoke mostly from memory, as though recalling things he had once felt, and not from a current sympathy with the author; his enthusiasm felt forced, though his courtesy, which drove the effort, was genuine and heartfelt.
The connexion between us must have been interesting to an observer; for, though I cannot say with Wordsworth, of old Daniel and his grandson, that there were "ninety good years of fair and foul weather" between us, there were, however, sixty, I imagine, at the least; whilst as a bond of connexion there was nothing at all that I know of beyond a common tendency to reverie, which is a bad link for a social connexion. The little ardour, meantime, with which he had, for many years, participated in the interests of this world, or all that it inherits, was now rapidly departing. Daily and consciously he was loosening all ties which bound him to earlier recollections; and, in particular, I remember—because the instance was connected with my last farewell visit, as it proved—that for some time he was engaged daily in renouncing with solemnity (though often enough in cheerful words) book after book of classical literature in which he had once taken particular delight. Several of these, after taking his final glance at a few passages to which a pencil reference in the margin pointed his eye, he delivered to me as memorials in time to come of himself. The last of the books given to me under these circumstances was a Greek "Odyssey," in Clarke's edition. "This," said he, "is nearly the sole book remaining to me of my classical library—which, for some years, I have been dispersing amongst my friends. Homer I retained to the last, and the 'Odyssey,' by preference to the 'Iliad,' both in compliance with my own taste, and because this very copy was my chosen companion for evening amusement during my freshman's term at Trinity College, Cambridge—whither I went early in the spring of[Pg 120] 1743. Your own favourite Grecian is Euripides; but still you must value—we must all value—Homer. I, even as old as I am, could still read him with delight; and, as long as any merely human composition ought to occupy my time, I should have made an exception in behalf of this solitary author. But I am a soldier of Christ; the enemy, the last enemy, cannot be far off; sarcinas colligere is, at my age, the watchword for every faithful sentinel, hourly to keep watch and ward, to wait and to be vigilant. This very day I have taken my farewell glance at Homer, for I must no more be found seeking my pleasure amongst the works of man; and, that I may not be tempted to break my resolution, I make over this my last book to you."
The connection between us must have been interesting to an observer; for, although I can’t say, like Wordsworth, that there were “ninety good years of fair and foul weather” between us, there were at least sixty. However, there was really nothing that I know of linking us beyond a shared tendency to daydream, which is a poor foundation for a social connection. Meanwhile, the little enthusiasm he had for the interests of this world, or anything related to it, was quickly fading. Day by day, he was consciously loosening all the ties that connected him to earlier memories; and specifically, I remember—because it was tied to my last farewell visit—that for some time he was daily engaged in solemnly giving up (though often cheerfully) book after book of classical literature in which he had once taken great pleasure. Several of these, after taking his final look at a few highlighted passages, he gave to me as keepsakes for the future. The last book he gave me in this manner was a Greek "Odyssey," in Clarke's edition. “This,” he said, “is nearly the only book left in my classical library, which I’ve been dispersing among my friends for some years. I kept Homer until the end, and I prefer the ‘Odyssey’ over the ‘Iliad,’ both because of my taste and because this very copy was my favorite companion for evening enjoyment during my freshman year at Trinity College, Cambridge—where I went early in the spring of [Pg 120] 1743. Your favorite Greek playwright is Euripides, but still, you must appreciate—we all must appreciate—Homer. Even at my age, I can still read him with joy; and as long as any human work should occupy my time, I would have made an exception for this one author. But I am a soldier of Christ; the enemy, the final enemy, can’t be far off; sarcinas colligere is, at my age, the motto for every faithful sentinel, to be alert and watchful. Today I took my farewell look at Homer, for I must no longer be found seeking joy in human works; and to avoid being tempted to break my resolution, I’m giving you this last book.”
Words to this effect, uttered with his usual solemnity, accompanied his gift; and, at the same time, he added, without any separate comment, a little pocket Virgil—the one edited by Alexander Cunningham, the bitter antagonist of Bentley—with a few annotations placed at the end. The act was in itself a solemn one; something like taking the veil for a nun—a final abjuration of the world's giddy agitations. And yet to him—already and for so long a time linked so feebly to anything that could be called the world, and living in a seclusion so profound—it was but as if an anchorite should retire from his outer to his inner cell. Me, however, it impressed powerfully in after years; because this act of self-dedication to the next world, and of parting from the intellectual luxuries of this, was also, in fact, though neither of us at the time knew it to be such, the scene of his final parting with myself. Immediately after his solemn speech, on presenting me with the "Odyssey," he sat down to the organ, sang a hymn or two, then chanted part of the liturgy, and, finally, at my request, performed the anthem so well known in the English Church service—the collect for the seventh Sunday after Trinity—(Lord of all power and might, &c.) It was summer—about half after nine in the evening; the light of day was still lingering, and just strong enough to illuminate the Crucifixion, the Stoning of the Protomartyr, and other grand emblazonries of the Christian faith, which adorned the rich windows of his library. Knowing the early hours of his household, I now received his usual[Pg 121] fervent adieus—which, without the words, had the sound and effect of a benediction—felt the warm pressure of his hand, saw dimly the outline of his venerable figure, more dimly his saintly countenance, and quitted that gracious presence, which, in this world, I was destined no more to revisit. The night was one in the first half of July 1802; in the second half of which, or very early in August, I quitted school clandestinely, and consequently the neighbourhood of Mr. Clowes. Some years after, I saw his death announced in all the public journals, as having occurred at Leamington Spa, then in the springtime of its medicinal reputation. Farewell, early friend! holiest of men whom it has been my lot to meet! Yes, I repeat, thirty-five years are past since then, and I have yet seen few men approaching to this venerable clergyman in paternal benignity—none certainly in child-like purity, apostolic holiness, or in perfect alienation of heart from the spirit of this fleshly world.
Words to this effect, spoken with his usual seriousness, accompanied his gift; and at the same time, he added, without any further comment, a little pocket Virgil—the one edited by Alexander Cunningham, Bentley's harsh rival—with a few notes added at the end. The act itself was solemn, similar to a nun taking her vows—a final renouncement of the world's dizzying distractions. Yet for him—already so loosely connected to anything resembling the world, living in such deep seclusion—it felt more like an anchorite moving from his outer cell to his inner one. For me, however, it left a powerful impression in the years that followed; because this act of dedicating himself to the next world, and parting from the intellectual comforts of this one, was also, though neither of us realized it at the time, the moment of his final farewell to me. Right after his serious speech, when he gave me the "Odyssey," he sat down at the organ, sang a hymn or two, then chanted part of the liturgy, and finally, at my request, performed the well-known anthem in the English Church service—the collect for the seventh Sunday after Trinity—(Lord of all power and might, &c.) It was summer—around half past nine in the evening; the daylight was still lingering, just bright enough to illuminate the Crucifixion, the Stoning of the Protomartyr, and other majestic depictions of the Christian faith that decorated the rich windows of his library. Knowing his household kept early hours, I received his usual[Pg 121] heartfelt goodbyes—which, without words, had the feel and effect of a blessing—felt the warm grip of his hand, glimpsed the outline of his venerable figure, and more faintly, his saintly face, before leaving that gracious presence, which I was destined never to revisit in this world. The night was in the first half of July 1802; in the second half, or very early in August, I secretly left school, and therefore the neighborhood of Mr. Clowes. A few years later, I saw his death announced in all the public newspapers, stating that it occurred at Leamington Spa, which was then flourishing in its medicinal reputation. Farewell, early friend! holiest of men I have had the fortune to meet! Yes, I say again, thirty-five years have passed since then, and I have yet to meet many men who come close to this venerable clergyman in paternal kindness—none certainly in childlike purity, apostolic holiness, or in perfect separation of heart from the spirit of this earthly world.
I have delineated the habits and character of Mr. Clowes at some length, chiefly because a connexion is rare and interesting between parties so widely asunder in point of age—one a schoolboy, and the other almost an octogenarian, to quote a stanza from one of the most spiritual sketches of Wordsworth—
I have outlined the habits and character of Mr. Clowes in detail, mainly because the connection between two people so different in age is both rare and fascinating—one being a schoolboy and the other nearly eighty, to quote a line from one of the most moving sketches of Wordsworth—
A couple of friends, even though I was young,
And Matthew 73."
I have stated a second reason for this record, in the fact that Mr. Clowes was the first of my friends who had any connexion with the press. At one time I have reason to believe that this connexion was pretty extensive, though not publicly avowed, and so far from being lucrative that at first I believe it to have been expensive to him, and whatever profits might afterwards arise were applied, as much of his regular income, to the benefit of others.[23] Here, again, it[Pg 122] seems surprising that a spirit so beneficent and, in the amplest sense, charitable, could coalesce in any views with Swedenborg, who, in some senses, was not charitable. Swedenborg had been scandalized by a notion which, it seems, he found prevalent amongst the poor of the Continent—viz., that, if riches were a drag and a negative force on the road to religious perfection, poverty must be positive title per se to the favour of Heaven. Grievously offended with this error, he came almost to hate poverty as a presumptive indication of this offensive heresy; scarcely would he allow it an indirect value, as removing in many cases the occasions or incitements of evil. No: being in itself neutral and indifferent, he argued that it had become erroneously a ground of presumptuous hope; whilst the rich man, aware of his danger, was, in some degree, armed against it by fear and humility. And, in this course of arguing and of corresponding feeling, Mr. Swedenborg had come to hate the very name of a poor candidate for Heaven, as bitterly as a sharking attorney hates the applications of a pauper client. Yet so entirely is it true that "to the pure, all things are pure," and that perfect charity "thinketh no ill," but is gifted with a power to transmute all things into its own resemblance—so entirely is all this true, that this most spiritual, and, as it were, disembodied of men, could find delight in the dreams of the very "fleshliest incubus" that has intruded amongst heavenly objects; and, secondly, this benignest of men found his own pure feelings not outraged by one who threw a withering scowl over the far larger half of his fellow-creatures.
I mentioned another reason for documenting this, which is that Mr. Clowes was the first of my friends to have any connection with the press. At one point, I believe this connection was quite extensive, although not openly acknowledged, and rather than being profitable, it likely cost him money at first. Any profits that did come later were mostly used to support others, just like his regular income.[23] Here, it’s surprising that someone so generous and charitable could align his views with Swedenborg, who, in some ways, lacked charity. Swedenborg was offended by a belief that he found common among the poor on the Continent: that if wealth was a hindrance and a negative force on the path to spiritual perfection, then poverty must be a valid claim to God’s favor. Deeply troubled by this misconception, he grew to dislike poverty as a presumed evidence of this troubling error; he barely acknowledged its indirect value, like reducing temptations or opportunities for wrongdoing. Instead, he viewed it as neutral and indifferent, arguing that it had mistakenly become a source of misguided hope; whereas the wealthy, being aware of their potential pitfalls, were somewhat protected by fear and humility. In this line of reasoning and corresponding feelings, Mr. Swedenborg came to despise the very idea of a poor candidate for Heaven as much as a predatory lawyer dislikes the applications of a needy client. Yet, it is completely true that "to the pure, all things are pure," and that true charity "thinks no ill," possessing the ability to transform everything into its own likeness—so much so that this most spiritual, almost disembodied man could find joy in the dreams of the very "fleshliest incubus" intruding among heavenly matters; and additionally, this kindest of men did not feel his pure emotions violated by someone who cast a scornful gaze over the majority of his fellow human beings.
Concurrently with this acquaintance, so impressive and so elevating to me, from the unusual sanctity of Mr. Clowes's character, I formed another with a well-known coterie, more avowedly, and in a more general sense, literary, resident at Liverpool or its neighbourhood. In my sixteenth year [1801] I had accompanied my mother and family on a summer's excursion to Everton, a well-known village upon the heights immediately above Liverpool; though by this time I believe it has thrown out so many fibres of connexion as to have become a mere quarter or suburban "process" (to speak by[Pg 123] anatomical phrase) of the great town below it. In those days, however, distant by one third of a century from ours, Everton was still a distinct village (for a mile of ascent is worth three of level ground in the way of effectual separation); it was delightfully refreshed by marine breezes, though raised above the sea so far that its thunders could be heard only under favourable circumstances. There we had a cottage for some months; and the nearest of our neighbours happened to be that Mr. Clarke, the banker, to whom acknowledgments are made in the Lorenzo the Magnificent, for aid in procuring MSS. and information from Italy. This gentleman called on my mother, merely in the general view of offering neighbourly attentions to a family of strangers. I, as the eldest of my brothers, and already with strong literary propensities, had received a general invitation to his house. Thither I went, indeed, early and late; and there I met Mr. Roscoe, Dr. Currie (who had just at that time published his Life and Edition of Burns), and Mr. Shepherd of Gatacre, the author of some works on Italian literature (particularly a Life of Poggio Bracciolini), and, since then, well known to all England by his Reform politics.
At the same time I was getting to know Mr. Clowes, whose impressive and uplifting character had a profound impact on me, I also became acquainted with a well-known literary group based in Liverpool and its surrounding area. In my sixteenth year [1801], I joined my mother and family on a summer trip to Everton, a well-known village located on the heights just above Liverpool; though by this time, I believe it has expanded so much that it has essentially become just a part of the larger city below. However, back then, which was a third of a century ago, Everton was still a separate village (a mile uphill can feel like three miles of flat ground in terms of separation); it was pleasantly refreshed by sea breezes, even though it was high enough that the sounds of the ocean could only be heard in good weather. We rented a cottage there for several months, and our closest neighbor happened to be Mr. Clarke, the banker, who is acknowledged in Lorenzo the Magnificent for his help in obtaining manuscripts and information from Italy. This gentleman visited my mother simply to offer his friendly support to a family of newcomers. As the oldest of my brothers, I had already developed a strong interest in writing, and I received a general invitation to his home. I went there frequently, meeting people like Mr. Roscoe, Dr. Currie (who had just published his Life and Edition of Burns at that time), and Mr. Shepherd of Gatacre, who wrote several works on Italian literature (notably a Life of Poggio Bracciolini) and later became well known across England for his reformist politics.
There were other members of this society—some, like myself, visitors merely to that neighbourhood; but those I have mentioned were the chief. Here I had an early opportunity of observing the natural character and tendencies of merely literary society—by which society I mean all such as, having no strong distinctions in power of thinking or in native force of character, are yet raised into circles of pretension and mark by the fact of having written a book, or of holding a notorious connexion with some department or other of the periodical press. No society is so vapid and uninteresting in its natural quality, none so cheerless and petrific in its influence upon others. Ordinary people, in such company, are in general repressed from uttering with cordiality the natural expression of their own minds or temperaments, under a vague feeling of some peculiar homage due, or at least customarily paid, to those lions: such people are no longer at their ease, or masters of their own natural motions in their own natural freedom; whilst indemnification of any sort is least of all to be looked for from the literary[Pg 124] dons who have diffused this unpleasant atmosphere of constraint. They disable others, and yet do nothing themselves to fill up the void they have created. One and all—unless by accident people of unusual originality, power, and also nerve, so as to be able without trepidation to face the expectations of men—the literary class labour under two opposite disqualifications for a good tone of conversation. From causes visibly explained, they are either spoiled by the vices of reserve, and of over-consciousness directed upon themselves—this is one extreme; or, where manliness of mind has prevented this, beyond others of equal or inferior natural power, they are apt to be desperately commonplace. The first defect is an accident arising out of the rarity of literary pretensions, and would rapidly subside as the proportion became larger of practising literati to the mass of educated people. But the other is an adjunct scarcely separable from the ordinary prosecution of a literary career, and growing in fact out of literature per se, as literature is generally understood. That same day, says Homer, which makes a man a slave robs him of half his value. That same hour which first awakens a child to the consciousness of being observed, and to the sense of admiration, strips it of its freedom and unpremeditated graces of motion. Awkwardness at the least—and too probably, as a consequence of that, affectation and conceit—follow hard upon the consciousness of special notice or admiration. The very attempt to disguise embarrassment too often issues in a secondary and more marked embarrassment.
There were other members of this society—some, like me, just visitors to that neighborhood; but the ones I mentioned were the main ones. Here, I had an early chance to observe the natural character and tendencies of purely literary society—by which I mean all those who, without any significant differences in their thinking abilities or innate character strength, elevate themselves into circles of pretension simply because they’ve written a book or have some notable connection with a section of the periodical press. No society is as dull and uninteresting in its true nature, nor as bleak and stifling in its effect on others. Ordinary people, in this kind of company, usually hold back from expressing their genuine thoughts or feelings comfortably, feeling a vague need to show some kind of respect, or at least a customary acknowledgment, to those so-called "lions." These folks can no longer relax or be themselves in their own natural freedoms; meanwhile, any kind of compensation is least expected from the literary figures who have spread this uncomfortable atmosphere of constraint. They hinder others, yet contribute nothing to fill the emptiness they’ve created. Overall—unless by chance there are unusually original, powerful, and daring individuals able to face others’ expectations without fear—the literary class struggles with two opposing issues that hurt conversation. For clear reasons, they are either spoiled by a tendency to be reserved and self-conscious—this is one extreme; or, if they manage to avoid this, they often end up being painfully ordinary compared to others with equal or lesser natural talent. The first flaw is a result of the scarcity of literary pretensions and would quickly diminish if more practicing writers were around compared to the general educated population. But the other is almost inseparable from the typical pursuit of a literary career and actually grows out of literature itself, as literature is commonly understood. As Homer says, that same day which makes a man a slave takes away half his worth. That same hour that first makes a child aware of being watched, and of feeling admired, strips them of their freedom and spontaneous grace of movement. Awkwardness at best—and likely, as a result of that, affectation and arrogance—follows closely behind the awareness of special attention or admiration. The very effort to hide embarrassment often leads to a secondary, more pronounced embarrassment.
Another mode of reserve arises with some literary men, who believe themselves to be in possession of novel ideas. Cordiality of communication, or ardour of dispute, might betray them into a revelation of those golden thoughts, sometimes into a necessity of revealing them, since, without such aid, it might be impossible to maintain theirs in the discussion. On this principle it was—a principle of deliberate unsocial reserve—that Adam Smith is said to have governed his conversation; he professed to put a bridle on his words, lest by accident a pearl should drop out of his lips amongst the vigilant bystanders. And in no case would he have allowed himself to be engaged in a disputation, because both[Pg 125] the passions of dispute and the necessities of dispute are alike apt to throw men off their guard. A most unamiable reason it certainly is, which places a man in one constant attitude of self-protection against petty larceny. And yet, humiliating as that may be to human nature, the furtive propensities or instincts of petty larceny are diffused most extensively through all ranks—directed, too, upon a sort of property far more tangible and more ignoble, as respects the possible motives of the purloiner, than any property in subjects purely intellectual. Rather more than ten years ago, a literary man of the name of Alton published, some little time before his own death, a very searching essay upon this chapter of human integrity—arraying a large list of common cases (cases of hats, gloves, umbrellas, books, newspapers, &c.) where the claim of ownership, left to itself and unsupported by accidents of shame and exposure, appeared to be weak indeed amongst classes of society prescriptively "respectable." And yet, for a double reason, literary larceny is even more to be feared; both because it is countenanced by a less ignoble quality of temptation, and because it is far more easy of achievement—so easy, indeed, that it may be practised without any clear accompanying consciousness.
Another type of reserve comes from some writers who think they have original ideas. Being open in conversation or getting into heated debates might lead them to accidentally share those valuable thoughts, sometimes to the point where they feel they have to reveal them, since without such support, it might be tough to hold their ground in a discussion. This is the principle—one of intentional social reserve—that Adam Smith supposedly used to guide his conversations; he claimed to hold back his words so that a gem wouldn’t accidentally slip out in front of watchful listeners. He would never allow himself to get into a debate because both the emotions and the demands of arguing tend to catch people off guard. It’s certainly an unappealing reason that keeps a person always in a defensive mode against petty stealing. And yet, as humiliating as it may be for human nature, the sneaky tendencies of petty theft are widespread across all social classes—targeted, too, at a type of property that is much more tangible and more disreputable, given the possible motives of the thief, than any property concerning purely intellectual subjects. A little over ten years ago, a writer named Alton published, shortly before his own death, a thorough essay on this aspect of human integrity—listing many common examples (like hats, gloves, umbrellas, books, newspapers, etc.) where the claim of ownership, if left alone and unsupported by feelings of shame and exposure, seemed quite weak among groups of society typically considered "respectable." Yet, for two reasons, literary theft is even more concerning; not only because it’s fueled by a less disgraceful type of temptation, but also because it's much easier to pull off—so easy, in fact, that it can happen without any clear awareness.
I have myself witnessed or been a party to a case of the following kind:—A new truth—suppose for example, a new doctrine or a new theory—was communicated to a very able man in the course of conversation, not didactically, or directly as a new truth, but polemically,—communicated as an argument in the current of a dispute. What followed? Necessarily it followed that a very able man would not be purely passive in receiving this new truth; that he would co-operate with the communicator in many ways—as by raising objections, by half dissipating his own objections, and in a variety of other co-agencies. In such cases, a very clever man does in effect half-generate the new idea for himself, but then he does this entirely under your leading; you stand ready at each point of possible deviation, to warn him away from the wrong turn—from the turn which leads nowhither or the turn which leads astray. Yet the final result has been that the catechumen, under the full consciousness of self-exertion, has so far confounded his just and true belief of having contributed to[Pg 126] the evolution of the doctrine, quoad his own apprehension of it, with the far different case of having evolved the truth itself into light, as to go off with the firm impression that the doctrine had been a product of his own.[24] There is therefore ground enough for the jealousy of Adam Smith, since a robbery may be committed unconsciously; though, by the way, it is not a peril peculiarly applicable to himself, who has not so much succeeded in discovering new truths as in establishing a logical connexion amongst old ones.
I've personally seen or been involved in a situation like this: a new truth—let’s say a new doctrine or theory—was presented to a very smart person during a conversation. It wasn’t delivered in a teaching manner or directly labeled as a new truth, but rather as part of a debate. What happened next? Naturally, a very intelligent person wouldn’t just passively accept this new truth; he would engage with the communicator in various ways—such as raising objections, slightly diminishing his own objections, and through a range of other interactions. In these instances, a clever person essentially helps create the new idea for himself, but he does this completely under your guidance; you’re there to steer him away from any missteps—either a path that leads nowhere or one that leads him astray. Ultimately, however, the result is that the learner, while fully aware of his own efforts, mistakenly believes he has contributed to the development of the doctrine in his own understanding, confusing this with the concept that he has brought the truth itself to light, leading him to walk away with the firm belief that the doctrine was his own creation. There’s definitely reason for the jealousy of Adam Smith since it’s possible for a theft to occur unconsciously; though, it’s worth mentioning, this isn’t a risk that is uniquely his, as he has had more success in linking existing truths than in discovering new ones.
On the other hand, it is not by reserve, whether of affectation or of Smithian jealousy, that the majority of literary people offend—at least not by the latter; for, so far from having much novelty to protect against pirates, the most general effect of literary pursuits is to tame down all points of originality to one standard of insipid monotony. I shall not go into the reasons for this. I make my appeal to the matter of fact. Try a Parisian populace, very many of whom are highly cultivated by reading, against a body of illiterate rustics. Mr. Scott of Aberdeen,[25] in his "Second Tour to Paris" (1815), tells us that, on looking over the shoulder of poor stall women selling trifles in the street, he usually found them reading Voltaire, Rousseau, or even (as I think he adds) Montesquieu; but, notwithstanding the polish which such reading both presumes as a previous condition and produces as a natural effect, yet no people could be more lifeless in their minds, or more barren of observing faculties, than they; and so he describes them. Words! words! nothing but words! On the other hand, listen to the conversation of a few scandalous village dames collected at a tea-table. Vulgar as the spirit may be which possesses them, and not seldom malicious, still how full of animation and of keen perception it will generally be found, and of a learned spirit of connoisseurship in human character, by comparison with the fade generalities and barren recollections of mere literati!
On the other hand, it’s not out of pretentiousness or jealousy that most literary people annoy us—at least not the jealousy part; because, instead of having much uniqueness to defend against copycats, the typical outcome of literary pursuits is to dull down all points of originality into one bland standard of boring monotony. I won’t delve into the reasons for this. I appeal to the facts. Compare a Parisian crowd, many of whom are well-educated through reading, to a group of uneducated country folks. Mr. Scott of Aberdeen,[25] in his "Second Tour to Paris" (1815), tells us that when he looked over the shoulders of poor women selling trinkets on the street, he often found them reading Voltaire, Rousseau, or even (as he notes) Montesquieu; but despite the refinement that such reading suggests and produces, no group could be more mentally lifeless or less observant than they are, and he describes them as such. Words! words! just words! On the flip side, listen to the chatter of a few gossiping village women gathered around a tea table. As crude as their spirit might be, and often malicious, it usually brims with energy and sharp insight, showing a knowledgeable taste for human character, especially when compared to the fade generalities and empty recollections of mere literati!
All this was partially illustrated in the circle to which I was now presented. Mr. Clarke was not an author, and he was by much the most interesting person of the whole. He[Pg 127] had travelled, and, particularly, he had travelled in Italy—then an aristocratic distinction; had a small, but interesting, picture gallery; and, at this time, amused himself by studying Greek, for which purpose he and myself met at sunrise every morning through the summer, and read Æschylus together. These meetings, at which we sometimes had the company of any stranger who might happen to be an amateur in Greek, were pleasant enough to my schoolboy vanity—placing me in the position of teacher and guide to men old enough to be my grandfathers. But the dinner parties, at which the literati sometimes assembled in force, were far from being equally amusing. Mr. Roscoe[26] was simple and manly in his demeanour; but there was the feebleness of a mere belle-lettrist, a mere man of virtù, in the style of his sentiments on most subjects. Yet he was a politician, and took an ardent interest in politics, and wrote upon politics—all which are facts usually presuming some vigour of mind. And he wrote, moreover, on the popular side, and with a boldness which, in that day, when such politics were absolutely disreputable, seemed undeniably to argue great moral courage. But these were accidents arising out of his connexion with the Whig party, or (to speak more accurately) with the Opposition party in Parliament; by whom he was greatly caressed. Mr. Fox, the Duchess of Devonshire, Mr. Sheridan, and all the powers on that side of the question, showed him the most marked attention in a great variety of forms; and this it was, not any native propensity for such speculations, which drove him into pamphleteering upon political questions. Mr. Fox (himself the very feeblest of party writers) was probably sincere in his admiration of Mr. Roscoe's pamphlets; and did seriously think him, as I know that he described him in private letters, an antagonist well matched against Burke; and that he afterwards became in form. The rest of the world wondered at his presumption, or at his gross miscalculation of his own peculiar powers. An eminent person, in after years (about 1815), speaking to me of Mr. Roscoe's political writings, especially those which had connected his[Pg 128] name with Burke, declared that he always felt of him in that relation not so much as of a feeble man, but absolutely as of a Sporus (that was his very expression), or a man emasculated. Right or wrong in his views, he showed the most painful defect of good sense and prudence in confronting his own understanding, so plain and homely, with the Machiavelian Briareus of a hundred arms—the Titan whom he found in Burke; all the advantages of a living antagonist over a dead one could not compensate odds so fearful in original power.
All this was partly shown in the group I was now a part of. Mr. Clarke wasn't an author, but he was by far the most interesting person there. He had traveled, especially in Italy—back then, that was quite a noble achievement; he had a small but intriguing art collection; and at that time, he kept himself entertained by studying Greek, which is why we met at sunrise every morning during the summer to read Æschylus together. These meetings, sometimes joined by any random amateur in Greek, were enjoyable for my schoolboy pride—putting me in the role of teacher and guide to men old enough to be my grandfathers. However, the dinner parties, where the intellectuals sometimes gathered in large numbers, were far less entertaining. Mr. Roscoe was straightforward and manly in his demeanor; however, there was a weakness of a mere literary critic, just a man of culture, in how he expressed his views on most topics. Still, he was a politician, passionately interested in politics, and wrote about it—which usually suggests some mental strength. He also wrote in favor of popular opinions and with a boldness that, during that time when such politics were completely disreputable, clearly indicated a significant amount of moral courage. But these were due to his connection with the Whig party, or more accurately, with the Opposition in Parliament, which warmly embraced him. Mr. Fox, the Duchess of Devonshire, Mr. Sheridan, and all the influential figures on that side showed him notable attention in various ways; it was this, not any intrinsic inclination for such debates, that pushed him into writing pamphlets on political issues. Mr. Fox (who himself was the weakest of party writers) likely genuinely admired Mr. Roscoe's pamphlets and seriously considered him, as I know he described in private letters, a worthy opponent against Burke; and indeed he later became one. The rest of the world looked at his audacity with surprise or thought he misunderstood his own capabilities. A notable figure, years later (around 1815), spoke to me about Mr. Roscoe's political writings, particularly those linking his name with Burke, and said he always regarded him not just as a weak man, but more like a Sporus (that was his exact term), or a emasculated man. Whether right or wrong in his views, he displayed a troubling lack of good sense and caution in matching his straightforward and simple understanding against the Machiavellian beast with a hundred arms—the Titan he found in Burke; all the advantages of a living adversary over a dead one couldn't make up for such a significant disparity in original strength.
It was a striking illustration of the impotence of mere literature against natural power and mother wit that the only man who was considered indispensable in these parties, for giving life and impulse to their vivacity, was a tailor; and not, I was often assured, a person deriving a designation from the craft of those whose labours he supported as a capitalist, but one who drew his own honest daily bread from his own honest needle, except when he laid it aside for the benefit of drooping literati, who needed to be watered with his wit. Wit, perhaps, in a proper sense, he had not—it was rather drollery, and sometimes even buffoonery.
It was a striking example of how powerless mere literature is against the forces of nature and common sense that the only person considered essential at these gatherings, for bringing energy and excitement, was a tailor. And not, as I was often told, someone who supported those who worked in his trade as a businessman, but someone who earned his living honestly by his own hands, except when he set it aside to help struggling writers who needed a boost from his humor. Perhaps he didn’t have true wit; it was more like a quirky sense of humor, and sometimes even slapstick.
These, in the lamentable absence of the tailor, could be furnished of an inferior quality by Mr. Shepherd,[27] who (as may be imagined from this fact) had but little dignity in private life. I know not how far he might alter in these respects; but certainly, at the time (1801-2), he was decidedly, or could be, a buffoon, and seemed even ambitious of the title, by courting notice for his grotesque manner and coarse stories, more than was altogether compatible with the pretensions of a scholar and a clergyman. I must have leave to think that such a man could not have emerged from any great University, or from any but a sectarian training. Indeed, about Poggio himself there were circumstances which would have indisposed any regular clergyman of the Church of England, or of the Scottish Kirk, to usher him into the literature of his country. With what coarseness and low[Pg 129] buffoonery have I heard this Mr. Shepherd in those days run down the bishops then upon the bench, but especially those of any public pretensions or reputation, as Horsley and Porteus, and, in connexion with them, the pious Mrs. Hannah More! Her he could not endure.
These, in the unfortunate absence of the tailor, could be provided in a lower quality by Mr. Shepherd,[27] who (as you might expect from this fact) had little dignity in his personal life. I’m not sure how much he could change in this regard; but definitely, at that time (1801-2), he was clearly, or could easily be, a clown and even seemed to seek that title, drawing attention to himself with his silly behavior and crude stories, more than was really fitting for someone claiming to be a scholar and a clergyman. I have to believe that a man like this couldn’t have come from any prestigious university, or from any but a sectarian background. In fact, there were aspects about Poggio that would have discouraged any respectable clergyman from the Church of England or the Scottish Kirk from introducing him into the literary world. With what crudeness and lowbrow humor I heard this Mr. Shepherd in those days mock the bishops in office, particularly those with any public standing or reputation, like Horsley and Porteus, and, connected with them, the devout Mrs. Hannah More! He couldn't stand her.
Of this gentleman, having said something disparaging, I am bound to go on and add, that I believe him to have been at least a truly upright man—talking often wildly, but incapable of doing a conscious wrong to any man, be his party what it might; and, in the midst of fun or even buffoonery, a real, and, upon occasion, a stern patriot, Mr. Canning and others he opposed to the teeth upon the Liverpool hustings, and would take no bribe, as others did, from literary feelings of sympathy, or (which is so hard for an amiable mind to resist) from personal applications of courtesy and respect. Amusing it is to look back upon any political work of Mr. Shepherd's, as upon his "Tour to France," published in 1815, and to know that the pale pink of his Radicalism was then accounted deep, deep scarlet.
After saying something negative about this gentleman, I have to add that I believe he was at least a truly honorable man—often speaking wildly, but incapable of consciously wronging anyone, no matter their side; and in the midst of fun or even silliness, he was a genuine, sometimes stern patriot. He opposed Mr. Canning and others fiercely on the Liverpool hustings and wouldn’t take bribes, like others did, from literary feelings of sympathy, or (which is so hard for a kind-hearted person to resist) from personal gestures of courtesy and respect. It’s amusing to look back at any political work of Mr. Shepherd's, like his "Tour to France," published in 1815, knowing that the pale pink of his Radicalism was once considered deep, deep scarlet.
Nothing can better serve to expound the general force of intellect amongst the Liverpool coterie than the quality of their poetry, and the general standard which they set up in poetry. Not that even in their errors, as regarded poetry, they were of a magnitude to establish any standard or authority in their own persons. Imitable or seducing there could be nothing in persons who wrote verses occasionally, and as a παρεργον (parergon) or by-labour, and were themselves the most timid of imitators. But to me, who, in that year, 1801, already knew of a grand renovation of poetic power—of a new birth in poetry, interesting not so much to England as to the human mind—it was secretly amusing to contrast the little artificial usages of their petty traditional knack with the natural forms of a divine art—the difference being pretty much as between an American lake, Ontario, or Superior, and a carp pond or a tench preserve. Mr. Roscoe had just about this time published a translation from the Balia of Luigi Tansillo—a series of dullish lines, with the moral purpose of persuading young women to suckle their own children. The brilliant young Duchess of Devonshire, some half century ago, had, for a frolic—a great lady's caprice—set a[Pg 130] precedent in this way; against which, however, in that rank, medical men know that there is a good deal to be said; and in ranks more extensive than those of the Duchess it must be something of an Irish bull to suppose any general neglect of this duty, since, upon so large a scale, whence could come the vicarious nurses? There is, therefore, no great sense in the fundamental idea of the poem, because the abuse denounced cannot be large enough; but the prefatory sonnet, addressed to the translator's wife, as one at whose maternal breast "six sons successive" had hung in infancy—this is about the one sole bold, natural thought, or natural expression of feeling, to which Mr. Roscoe had committed himself in verse. Everywhere else, the most timid and blind servility to the narrowest of conventional usages, conventional ways of viewing things, conventional forms of expression, marks the style. For example, Italy is always Italia, Scotland Scotia, France Gallia; so inveterately had the mind, in this school of feeling, been trained, alike in the highest things and in the lowest, to a horror of throwing itself boldly upon the great realities of life: even names must be fictions for their taste. Yet what comparison between "France, an Ode," and "Gallia, an Ode"?
Nothing illustrates the overall intellectual strength of the Liverpool group better than the quality of their poetry and the general standards they set for it. Even in their mistakes regarding poetry, they weren't significant enough to establish any standard or authority on their own. There was nothing admirable or enticing about people who wrote verses occasionally as a side project and were, in fact, the most fearful of imitators. But for me, in that year, 1801, when I already knew of a significant revival of poetic power—a new birth in poetry that was more interesting to the human mind than to England—it was amusing to compare their trivial, artificial customs with the natural forms of a divine art. The difference was much like comparing an American lake, such as Ontario or Superior, to a carp pond or a tench preserve. Mr. Roscoe had just published a translation from the Balia of Luigi Tansillo—a series of rather dull lines aiming to persuade young women to breastfeed their own children. The bright young Duchess of Devonshire had, about fifty years ago, set a precedent in this respect for fun—a whim of a great lady; however, in that rank, medical professionals have a lot to say against it. And in social classes broader than the Duchess's, it seems absurd to suggest any general neglect of this duty, since on such a large scale, where would the wet nurses come from? Therefore, the fundamental idea of the poem doesn’t make much sense because the abuse it criticizes can't be widespread enough; but the introductory sonnet addressed to the translator's wife, who “[nursed] six successive sons” during infancy, is pretty much the only bold, natural thought or genuine expression of feeling that Mr. Roscoe managed to write in verse. Everywhere else, there's an overwhelming timidity and blind submission to the strictest conventional norms, conventional ways of thinking, and conventional forms of expression. For instance, Italy is always Italia, Scotland Scotia, and France Gallia; the mindset in this school of thought has been so deeply trained, in both high and low matters, to avoid confronting the great realities of life directly: even names must be fictional to suit their taste. Yet, what comparison can there be between "France, an Ode," and "Gallia, an Ode"?
Dr. Currie was so much occupied with his professional duties that of him I saw but little. His edition of Burns was just then published (I think in that very month), and in everybody's hands. At that time, he was considered not unjust to the memory of the man, and (however constitutionally phlegmatic, or with little enthusiasm, at least in external show) not much below the mark in his appreciation of the poet.[28]
Dr. Currie was so busy with his work that I hardly saw him. His edition of Burns had just been published (I think it was that very month), and everyone had a copy. At that time, he was seen as respectful to the memory of the man, and even though he might have seemed somewhat calm or lacking enthusiasm on the outside, he was still pretty close to the mark in how he valued the poet.[28]
So stood matters some twelve or fourteen years; after which period a "craze" arose on the subject of Burns, which allowed no voice to be heard but that of zealotry and violent partisanship. The first impulse to this arose out of an oblique collision between Lord Jeffrey and Mr. Wordsworth;[Pg 131] the former having written a disparaging critique upon Burns's pretensions—a little, perhaps, too much coloured by the fastidiousness of long practice in the world, but, in the main, speaking some plain truths on the quality of Burns's understanding, as expressed in his epistolary compositions. Upon which, in his celebrated letter to Mr. James Gray, the friend of Burns, himself a poet, and then a master in the High School of Edinburgh, Mr. Wordsworth commented with severity, proportioned rather to his personal resentments towards Lord Jeffrey than to the quantity of wrong inflicted upon Burns. Mr. Wordsworth's letter, in so far as it was a record of embittered feeling, might have perished; but, as it happened to embody some profound criticisms, applied to the art of biography, and especially to the delicate task of following a man of original genius through his personal infirmities or his constitutional aberrations—this fact, and its relation to Burns and the author's name, have all combined to embalm it.[29] Its momentary effect, in conjunction with Lord Jeffrey's article, was to revive the interest (which for some time had languished under the oppression of Sir Walter Scott and Lord Byron) in all that related to Burns. Fresh Lives appeared in a continued succession, until, upon the death of Lord Byron in 1824, Mr. Allan Cunningham, who had personally known Burns, so far as a boy could know a mature man, gave a new impulse to the interest, by an impressive paper in which he contrasted the circumstances of Burns's death with those of Lord Byron's, and also the two funerals—both of which, one altogether, and the other in part, Mr. Cunningham had personally witnessed. A man of genius, like Mr. Cunningham, throws a new quality of interest upon all which he touches; and, having since brought fresh research and the illustrative power of the arts to bear upon the subject, and all this having gone on concurrently with the great modern revolution in literature—that is, the great extension of a popular interest, through the astonishing reductions of price—the result is, that Burns has, at length, become a[Pg 132] national, and, therefore, in a certain sense, a privileged subject; which, in a perfect sense, he was not, until the controversial management of his reputation had irritated the public attention. Dr. Currie did not address the same alert condition of the public feeling, nor, by many hundred degrees, so diffused a condition of any feeling which might imperfectly exist, as a man must consciously address in these days, whether as the biographer or the critic of Burns. The lower-toned enthusiasm of the public was not of a quality to irritate any little enthusiasm which the worthy Doctor might have felt. The public of that day felt with regard to Burns exactly as with regard to Bloomfield—not that the quality of his poems was then the staple of the interest, but the extraordinary fact that a ploughman or a lady's shoemaker should have written any poems at all. The sole difference in the two cases, as regarded by the public of that day, was that Burns's case was terminated by a premature, and, for the public, a very sudden death: this gave a personal interest to his case which was wanting in the other; and a direct result of this was that his executors were able to lay before the world a series of his letters recording his opinions upon a considerable variety of authors, and his feelings under many ordinary occasions of life.
Things remained this way for about twelve to fourteen years, after which a "craze" erupted around Burns, where only extreme views and fervent supporters were heard. This all began from a tense encounter between Lord Jeffrey and Mr. Wordsworth; the former had written a negative critique of Burns's aspirations—perhaps a bit harsh, influenced by his experience in the literary world, but mostly stating some truths about the quality of Burns's understanding as shown in his letters. In response, Mr. Wordsworth wrote a famous letter to Mr. James Gray, a friend of Burns and a poet who was then a teacher at the High School of Edinburgh, where he harshly criticized Lord Jeffrey, motivated more by his personal grievances than by any real harm done to Burns. Mr. Wordsworth's letter, which expressed his bitterness, might have faded away if it didn't also contain some deep insights on the art of biography, particularly the challenging task of depicting a man of original genius through his flaws or eccentricities—this connection to Burns and the author's reputation helped preserve it. Its immediate impact, along with Lord Jeffrey's article, sparked renewed interest (that had dwindled under the dominance of Sir Walter Scott and Lord Byron) in everything related to Burns. New biographies emerged in quick succession, and after Lord Byron's death in 1824, Mr. Allan Cunningham, who had known Burns as a boy, reignited interest with a powerful piece comparing Burns's death to Lord Byron's, as well as the two funerals—both of which Cunningham had attended. A talented man like Mr. Cunningham adds a new layer of interest to whatever he engages with; having since conducted further research and applied artistic insight to the topic, this coincided with a wider modern literary revolution—that is, the rise of a popular interest due to remarkably lowered prices—leading to Burns finally becoming a national and, in a way, a special topic; something he hadn't fully been until the debates surrounding his reputation caught public attention. Dr. Currie did not engage with the same level of public interest, nor did he address such a widespread sentiment as a biographer or critic of Burns must today. The milder enthusiasm of the public back then did not provoke any small excitement that Dr. Currie might have felt. The public then regarded Burns in the same way they did Bloomfield—not that the quality of Burns's poems was the main focus, but rather the remarkable fact that a ploughman or a shoemaker had written any poems at all. The only difference, as seen by the public at the time, was that Burns’s story ended with an early and sudden death, which lent a personal connection to his narrative that was absent in the other case; consequently, his executors were able to present a collection of his letters sharing his thoughts on numerous writers and his experiences during many ordinary moments of life.
Dr. Currie, therefore, if phlegmatic, as he certainly was, must be looked upon as upon a level with the public of his own day—a public how different, different by how many centuries, from the world of this present 1837! One thing I remember which powerfully illustrates the difference. Burns, as we all know, with his peculiarly wild and almost ferocious spirit of independence, came a generation too soon. In this day, he would have been forced to do that, clamorously called upon to do that, and would have found his pecuniary interest in doing that, which in his own generation merely to attempt doing loaded him with the reproach of Jacobinism. It must be remembered that the society of Liverpool wits on whom my retrospect is now glancing were all Whigs—all, indeed, fraternizers with French Republicanism. Yet so it was that—not once, not twice, but daily almost, in the numerous conversations naturally elicited by this Liverpool monument to Burns's memory—I[Pg 133] heard every one, clerk or layman, heartily agreeing to tax Burns with ingratitude and with pride falsely directed, because he sate uneasily or restively under the bridle-hand of his noble self-called "patrons." Aristocracy, then, the essential spirit of aristocracy—this I found was not less erect and clamorous amongst partisan democrats—democrats who were such merely in a party sense of supporting his Majesty's Opposition against his Majesty's Servants—than it was or could be among the most bigoted of the professed feudal aristocrats. For my part, at this moment, when all the world was reading Currie's monument to the memory of Burns and the support of his family, I felt and avowed my feeling most loudly—that Burns was wronged, was deeply, memorably wronged. A £10 bank note, by way of subscription for a few copies of an early edition of his poems—this is the outside that I could ever see proof given of Burns having received anything in the way of patronage; and doubtless this would have been gladly returned, but from the dire necessity of dissembling.
Dr. Currie, if he was indeed calm and unflappable, must be seen as being on the same level as the public of his time—a public so different, separated by centuries, from the world of 1837! One thing I remember that powerfully highlights this difference. Burns, as we all know, with his uniquely wild and almost fierce spirit of independence, came along a generation too early. In this era, he would have been compelled to act, loudly called upon to do so, and would have found it financially beneficial to do what in his own time merely trying to do earned him the label of Jacobinism. It’s important to remember that the group of clever people in Liverpool I'm reflecting on were all Whigs, indeed, allies of French Republicanism. Yet, it happened that—not just once, not just twice, but almost daily, in the many conversations sparked by this Liverpool monument to Burns's memory—I[Pg 133] heard everyone, whether clerk or layperson, happily accusing Burns of ingratitude and misdirected pride because he was uncomfortable or restless under the control of his so-called "patrons." The essence of aristocracy—this I found was just as rigid and vocal among partisan democrats—democrats who were such only in the sense of supporting his Majesty's Opposition against his Majesty's Servants—than it was among the most extreme of feudal aristocrats. For my part, at that moment, when the whole world was reading Currie's tribute to Burns's memory and the support for his family, I felt, and openly expressed my feeling, that Burns was wronged, profoundly and memorably wronged. A £10 bank note, meant as a subscription for a few copies of an early edition of his poems—this is the only evidence I've ever seen of Burns receiving any form of patronage; and surely this would have been willingly returned, if not for the desperate need to keep up appearances.
Lord Glencairn is the "patron" for whom Burns appears to have felt the most sincere respect. Yet even he—did he give him more than a seat at his dinner table? Lord Buchan again, whose liberalities are by this time pretty well appreciated in Scotland, exhorts Burns, in a tone of one preaching upon a primary duty of life, to exemplary gratitude towards a person who had given him absolutely nothing at all. The man has not yet lived to whose happiness it was more essential that he should live unencumbered by the sense of obligation; and, on the other hand, the man has not lived upon whose independence as professing benefactors so many people practised, or who found so many others ready to ratify and give value to their pretences.[30] Him, whom[Pg 134] beyond most men nature had created with the necessity of conscious independence, all men besieged with the assurance that he was, must be, ought to be dependent; nay, that it was his primary duty to be grateful for his dependence. I have not looked into any edition of Burns, except once for a quotation, since this year 1801—when I read the whole of Currie's edition, and had opportunities of meeting the editor—and once subsequently, upon occasion of a fifth or supplementary volume being published. I know not, therefore, how this matter has been managed by succeeding editors, such as Allan Cunningham, far more capable of understanding Burns's situation, from the previous struggles of their own honourable lives, and Burns's feelings, from something of congenial power.
Lord Glencairn is the "patron" for whom Burns seems to have had the deepest respect. But even he—did he offer him more than a spot at his dinner table? Lord Buchan, whose generosity is now pretty well recognized in Scotland, urges Burns, with the tone of someone teaching a fundamental duty of life, to show gratitude towards a person who had given him absolutely nothing at all. There hasn't been a person yet whose happiness depended more on living free from a sense of obligation; and on the other hand, there hasn't been anyone whose independence as a supposed benefactor so many people relied on, or who found so many others ready to approve and give weight to their claims.[30] For him, whom[Pg 134] nature had shaped with a strong need for conscious independence, everyone pressed him with the belief that he was, must be, and ought to be dependent; indeed, that it was his primary duty to be grateful for that dependence. I haven’t looked at any edition of Burns, except once for a quote, since the year 1801—when I read through Currie's edition and had the chance to meet the editor—and once afterwards when a fifth or supplementary volume was published. Therefore, I don’t know how this situation has been handled by later editors, like Allan Cunningham, who are much better equipped to understand Burns's situation from their own honorable struggles, and Burns's feelings due to a similar powerful experience.
I, in this year, 1801, when in the company of Dr. Currie, did not forget, and, with some pride I say that I stood alone in remembering, the very remarkable position of Burns: not merely that, with his genius, and with the intellectual pretensions generally of his family, he should have been called to a life of early labour, and of labour unhappily not prosperous, but also that he, by accident about the proudest of human spirits, should have been by accident summoned, beyond all others, to eternal recognitions of some mysterious gratitude which he owed to some mysterious patrons little and great, whilst yet, of all men, perhaps, he reaped the least obvious or known benefit from any patronage that has ever been put on record. Most men, if they reap little from patronage, are liberated from the claims of patronage, or, if they are summoned to a galling dependency, have at least the fruits of their dependency. But it was this man's unhappy fate—with an early and previous irritability on[Pg 135] this very point—to find himself saddled, by his literary correspondents, with all that was odious in dependency, whilst he had every hardship to face that is most painful in unbefriended poverty.
I, in this year, 1801, when with Dr. Currie, didn’t forget, and I say with some pride that I stood alone in remembering, the truly remarkable situation of Burns: not only that, with his talent, and the general intellectual aspirations of his family, he was forced into a life of early work, which unfortunately was not successful, but also that he, by chance, became one of the proudest human spirits, called upon, more than others, to receive eternal recognition for some mysterious gratitude he owed to some unknown patrons, both big and small, while perhaps he gained the least obvious or known benefit from any patronage ever recorded. Most people, if they gain little from patronage, are freed from its demands, or if they endure a burdensome dependence, at least enjoy some rewards from it. But this man’s unfortunate fate—marked by an early and persistent sensitivity on this very point—was to find himself burdened, by his literary correspondents, with everything unpleasant about dependency, while facing every hardship that comes with painful, unsupported poverty.
On this view of the case, I talked, then, being a schoolboy, with and against the first editor of Burns:—I did not, and I do not, profess to admire the letters (that is, the prose), all or any, of Burns. I felt that they were liable to the charges of Lord Jeffrey, and to others beside; that they do not even express the natural vigour of Burns's mind, but are at once vulgar, tawdry, coarse, and commonplace; neither was I a person to affect any profound sympathy with the general character and temperament of Burns, which has often been described as "of the earth, earthy"—unspiritual—animal—beyond those of most men equally intellectual. But still I comprehended his situation; I had for ever ringing in my ears, during that summer of 1801, those groans which ascended to heaven from his over-burthened heart—those harrowing words, "To give him leave to toil," which record almost a reproach to the ordinances of God—and I felt that upon him, amongst all the children of labour, the primal curse had fallen heaviest and sunk deepest. Feelings such as these I had the courage to express: a personal compliment, or so, I might now and then hear; but all were against me on the matter. Dr. Currie said—"Poor Burns! such notions had been his ruin"; Mr. Shepherd continued to draw from the subject some scoff or growl at Mr. Pitt and the Excise; the laughing tailor told us a good story of some proud beggar; Mr. Clarke proposed that I should write a Greek inscription for a cenotaph which he was to erect in his garden to the memory of Burns;—and so passed away the solitary protestation on behalf of Burns's jacobinism, together with the wine and the roses, and the sea-breezes of that same Everton, in that same summer of 1801. Mr. Roscoe is dead, and has found time since then to be half forgotten; Dr. Currie, the physician, has been found "unable to heal himself"; Mr. Shepherd of Gatacre is a name and a shadow; Mr. Clarke is a shadow without a name; the tailor, who set the table in a roar, is dust and ashes; and three men at the most remain of all who in those convivial[Pg 136] meetings held it right to look down upon Burns as upon one whose spirit was rebellious overmuch against the institutions of man, and jacobinical in a sense which "men of property" and master manufacturers will never brook, albeit democrats by profession.[31]
In this perspective, I spoke, as a schoolboy, with and against the first editor of Burns:—I didn’t, and I still don’t, claim to admire any of Burns’s letters (the prose). I felt they were vulnerable to Lord Jeffrey’s critiques and others; they fail to convey the natural strength of Burns’s mind and come across as vulgar, cheap, crude, and ordinary. I also didn’t claim to have any deep sympathy with Burns’s overall character and temperament, often described as "of the earth, earthy"—unspiritual—animal—more so than most equally intellectual people. But I understood his situation; throughout that summer of 1801, I constantly heard those groans rising from his heavily burdened heart—those distressing words, "To give him leave to toil," almost reproaching the laws of God—and I felt that among all workers, the primal curse had fallen heaviest and sunk deepest on him. I had the courage to express such feelings: I might occasionally receive a personal compliment, but everyone opposed me on the matter. Dr. Currie said—"Poor Burns! such ideas had led to his downfall"; Mr. Shepherd kept turning the topic into a joke or complaint about Mr. Pitt and the Excise; the joking tailor told us an amusing story about a proud beggar; Mr. Clarke suggested that I should write a Greek inscription for a cenotaph he was planning to set up in his garden in memory of Burns;—and thus faded the lone defense of Burns’s jacobinism, along with the wine, roses, and sea breezes of that same Everton in that summer of 1801. Mr. Roscoe has passed away and has become half forgotten; Dr. Currie, the physician, has been found "unable to heal himself"; Mr. Shepherd of Gatacre is now just a name and a shadow; Mr. Clarke is a shadow without a name; the tailor, who made the table laugh, is now just dust and ashes; and at most, three men remain from all those convivial[Pg 136] gatherings who thought it proper to look down on Burns as someone whose spirit rebelled too much against societal institutions and was jacobinical in a way that "men of property" and master manufacturers would never tolerate, even as they professed to be democrats.[31]
CHAPTER II
SAMUEL TAYLOR COLERIDGE[32]
It was, I think, in the month of August, but certainly in the summer season, and certainly in the year 1807, that I first saw this illustrious man. My knowledge of him as a man of most original genius began about the year 1799. A little before that time Wordsworth had published the first edition (in a single volume) of the "Lyrical Ballads,"[33] and into this had been introduced Mr. Coleridge's poem of the "Ancient Mariner," as the contribution of an anonymous friend. It would be directing the reader's attention too much to myself if I were to linger upon this, the greatest event in the unfolding of my own mind. Let me say, in one word, that, at a period when neither the one nor the other writer was valued by the public—both having a long warfare to accomplish of contumely and ridicule before they [Pg 139]could rise into their present estimation—I found in these poems "the ray of a new morning," and an absolute revelation of untrodden worlds teeming with power and beauty as yet unsuspected amongst men. I may here mention that, precisely at the same time, Professor Wilson, entirely unconnected with myself, and not even known to me until ten years later, received the same startling and profound impressions from the same volume.[34] With feelings of reverential interest, so early and so deep, pointing towards two contemporaries, it may be supposed that I inquired eagerly after their names. But these inquiries were self-baffled; the same deep feelings which prompted my curiosity causing me to recoil from all casual opportunities of pushing the inquiry, as too generally lying amongst those who gave no sign of participating in my feelings; and, extravagant as this may seem, I revolted with as much hatred from coupling my question with any occasion of insult to the persons whom it respected, as a primitive Christian from throwing frankincense upon the altars of Cæsar, or a lover from giving up the name of his beloved to the coarse license of a Bacchanalian party. It is laughable to record for how long a period my curiosity in this particular was thus self-defeated. Two years passed before I ascertained the two names. Mr. Wordsworth published his in the second and enlarged edition of the poems[35]; and for Mr. Coleridge's I was "indebted" to a private source; but I discharged that debt ill, for I quarrelled with my informant for what I considered his profane way of dealing with a subject so hallowed in my own thoughts. After this I searched, east and west, north and south, for all known works or fragments of the same authors. I had read, therefore, as respects Mr. Coleridge, the Allegory which he contributed to Mr. Southey's "Joan of Arc."[36] I had read his fine Ode entitled "France,"[37] his Ode to the Duchess of Devonshire, and various other contributions, more or less interesting, to the two volumes of the "Anthology"[Pg 140] published at Bristol, about 1799-1800, by Mr. Southey[38]; and, finally, I had, of course, read the small volume of poems published under his own name. These, however, as a juvenile and immature collection, made expressly with a view to pecuniary profit, and therefore courting expansion at any cost of critical discretion, had in general greatly disappointed me.[39]
It was, I think, in August, definitely in the summer of 1807, that I first saw this remarkable man. My awareness of him as a person of exceptional genius began around 1799. Just before that, Wordsworth published the first edition (in a single volume) of the "Lyrical Ballads,"[33] which included Mr. Coleridge's poem "The Ancient Mariner" as a contribution from an anonymous friend. It would be too self-referential if I focused too much on this, the biggest turning point in my own intellectual journey. Let me just say that at a time when neither writer was appreciated by the public—both enduring a long struggle against disdain and mockery before they could attain their current recognition—I discovered in these poems "the ray of a new morning," an absolute revelation of uncharted worlds filled with power and beauty that had yet to be recognized by people. At the same time, Professor Wilson, completely unrelated to me and unknown to me until a decade later, received the same profound and shocking impressions from that same volume.[34] With such deep and early feelings of reverence pointing toward two contemporaries, one can assume I eagerly sought their names. But my inquiries were thwarted; the same intense feelings that sparked my curiosity made me shy away from any casual chances to pursue the inquiry, as those I encountered showed no signs of sharing my sentiments; and, as strange as it may seem, I recoiled just as fiercely from coupling my question with any occasion that might insult the individuals involved, much like a primitive Christian avoiding burning incense at Caesar's altars, or a lover refusing to share his beloved's name with a rowdy party. It's amusing to note how long my curiosity was undermined in this regard. It took two years before I learned the two names. Mr. Wordsworth published his in the second and enlarged edition of the poems[35]; for Mr. Coleridge's name, I was "indebted" to a private source; but I didn't handle that debt well, as I ended up arguing with my informant over what I thought was a disrespectful way of dealing with a topic so sacred in my own mind. After this, I searched high and low for all known works or fragments by those authors. Therefore, I had read, regarding Mr. Coleridge, the Allegory he contributed to Mr. Southey's "Joan of Arc."[36] I had read his beautiful Ode titled "France,"[37] his Ode to the Duchess of Devonshire, and various other contributions, of varying interest, to the two volumes of the "Anthology"[Pg 140] published in Bristol around 1799-1800 by Mr. Southey[38]; and, of course, I had read the small volume of poems published under his own name. However, these, as a youthful and immature collection made specifically for monetary gain and thus catering to expansion at the expense of critical integrity, generally left me quite disappointed.[39]
Meantime, it had crowned the interest which to me invested his name, that about the year 1804 or 1805 I had been informed by a gentleman from the English Lakes, who knew him as a neighbour, that he had for some time applied his whole mind to metaphysics and psychology—which happened to be my own absorbing pursuit. From 1803 to 1808, I was a student at Oxford; and, on the first occasion when I could conveniently have sought for a personal knowledge of one whom I contemplated with so much admiration, I was met by a painful assurance that he had quitted England, and was then residing at Malta, in the quality of secretary to the Governor. I began to inquire about the best route to Malta; but, as any route at that time promised an inside place in a French prison, I reconciled myself to waiting; and at last, happening to visit the Bristol Hotwells in the summer of 1807, I had the pleasure to hear that Coleridge was not only once more upon English ground, but within forty and odd miles of my own station. In that same hour I bent my way to the south; and, before evening, reaching a ferry on the river Bridgewater, at a village called, I think, Stogursey (i.e., Stoke de Courcy, by way of distinction from some other Stoke), I crossed it, and a few miles farther attained my object—viz., the little town of Nether Stowey, amongst the Quantock Hills. Here I had been assured that I should find Mr. Coleridge, at the house of his old friend Mr. Poole. On presenting myself, however, to that gentleman, I found that Coleridge was absent at Lord Egmont's, an elder brother (by the father's side) of[Pg 141] Mr. Perceval, the Prime Minister, assassinated five years later; and, as it was doubtful whether he might not then be on the wing to another friend's in the town of Bridgewater, I consented willingly, until his motions should be ascertained, to stay a day or two with this Mr. Poole—a man on his own account well deserving a separate notice; for, as Coleridge afterwards remarked to me, he was almost an ideal model for a useful member of Parliament.[40] I found him a stout, plain-looking farmer, leading a bachelor life, in a rustic, old-fashioned house; the house, however, upon further acquaintance, proving to be amply furnished with modern luxuries, and especially with a good library, superbly mounted in all departments bearing at all upon political philosophy; and the farmer turning out a polished and liberal Englishman, who had travelled extensively, and had so entirely dedicated himself to the service of his humble fellow-countrymen—the hewers of wood and drawers of water in this southern part of Somersetshire—that for many miles round he was the general arbiter of their disputes, the guide and counsellor of their difficulties; besides being appointed executor and guardian to his children by every third man who died in or about the town of Nether Stowey.
In the meantime, it only added to my interest in his name that around 1804 or 1805, I had heard from a gentleman from the English Lakes, who knew him as a neighbor, that he had devoted himself entirely to metaphysics and psychology—my own passionate interest. From 1803 to 1808, I was a student at Oxford; and the first time I had the chance to seek out a personal meeting with someone I admired so much, I was met with the disappointing news that he had left England and was then living in Malta as the secretary to the Governor. I started looking into the best way to get to Malta, but since any route at that time could lead to a stay in a French prison, I settled in to wait. Finally, while visiting the Bristol Hotwells in the summer of 1807, I was pleased to learn that Coleridge was not only back on English soil but within about forty miles of where I was. That same hour, I headed south, and by evening, after reaching a ferry on the River Bridgewater at a village called, if I remember right, Stogursey (i.e., Stoke de Courcy, to distinguish it from other Stokes), I crossed it and a few miles later reached my destination—the little town of Nether Stowey in the Quantock Hills. I had been told that I would find Mr. Coleridge at the home of his old friend Mr. Poole. However, when I presented myself to that gentleman, I found that Coleridge was away at Lord Egmont's, an elder brother (on the father's side) of Mr. Perceval, the Prime Minister who would be assassinated five years later. Since it was uncertain whether he might be heading to another friend's place in Bridgewater, I agreed to stay a day or two with Mr. Poole—who deserved recognition on his own; as Coleridge later noted to me, he was almost an ideal model for a useful member of Parliament. I found him to be a sturdy, plain-looking farmer living a bachelor life in an old-fashioned house; however, upon getting to know him better, I discovered the house was well-equipped with modern luxuries, especially a great library stocked with everything related to political philosophy. The farmer turned out to be a well-educated and generous Englishman who had traveled a lot and had fully committed himself to serving his humble fellow countrymen—the woodcutters and water drawers in this part of Somerset—that for many miles around he was the go-to person for resolving disputes, a guide, and a counselor for their problems; he was also appointed executor and guardian for every third person who died in or around Nether Stowey.
The first morning of my visit, Mr. Poole was so kind as to propose, knowing my admiration of Wordsworth, that we should ride over to Alfoxton[41]—a place of singular interest to myself, as having been occupied in his unmarried days by that poet, during the minority of Mr. St. Aubyn, its present youthful proprietor. At this delightful spot, the ancient residence of an ancient English family, and surrounded by those ferny Quantock Hills which are so beautifully glanced at in the poem of "Ruth," Wordsworth, accompanied by his sister, had passed a good deal of the interval between leaving the University (Cambridge) and the period of his final settlement amongst his native lakes of Westmoreland: some allowance, however, must be made—but[Pg 142] how much I do not accurately know—for a long residence in France, for a short one in North Germany, for an intermitting one in London, and for a regular domestication with his sister at Race Down in Dorsetshire.
The first morning of my visit, Mr. Poole kindly suggested that, knowing my admiration for Wordsworth, we should ride over to Alfoxton[41]—a place that holds special interest for me, as it was occupied by the poet during his unmarried years, while Mr. St. Aubyn, its young current owner, was still a minor. At this lovely spot, the historic home of an old English family, surrounded by the ferny Quantock Hills that are beautifully depicted in the poem "Ruth," Wordsworth spent a lot of time between leaving Cambridge University and finally settling among the lakes of Westmoreland. However, some consideration must be given—but[Pg 142] how much I can’t say accurately—to his long stay in France, a brief time in North Germany, intermittent stays in London, and his consistent time living with his sister at Race Down in Dorsetshire.
Returning late from this interesting survey, we found ourselves without company at dinner; and, being thus seated tête-à-tête, Mr. Poole propounded the following question to me, which I mention because it furnished me with the first hint of a singular infirmity besetting Coleridge's mind:—"Pray, my young friend, did you ever form any opinion, or, rather, did it ever happen to you to meet with any rational opinion or conjecture of others, upon that most revolting dogma of Pythagoras about beans? You know what I mean: that monstrous doctrine in which he asserts that a man might as well, for the wickedness of the thing, eat his own grandmother as meddle with beans."[42]
Returning late from this intriguing survey, we found ourselves alone at dinner; and, being thus seated tête-à-tête, Mr. Poole posed the following question to me, which I mention because it gave me the first clue to a unique flaw in Coleridge's thinking:—"Please, my young friend, have you ever formed any opinion, or rather, have you ever come across any rational opinion or conjecture from others, regarding that incredibly bizarre belief of Pythagoras about beans? You know what I mean: that outrageous doctrine where he claims that a man might as well, due to the wickedness of the act, eat his own grandmother as touch beans."[42]
"Yes," I replied; "the line is, I believe, in the Golden Verses. I remember it well."
"Yes," I replied, "I think that line is in the Golden Verses. I remember it clearly."
P.—"True: now, our dear excellent friend Coleridge, than whom God never made a creature more divinely endowed, yet, strange it is to say, sometimes steals from other people, just as you or I might do; I beg your pardon—just as a poor creature like myself might do, that sometimes have not wherewithal to make a figure from my own exchequer: and the other day, at a dinner party, this question arising about Pythagoras and his beans, Coleridge gave us an interpretation which, from his manner, I suspect to have been not original. Think, therefore, if you have anywhere read a plausible solution."
P.—"It's true: our dear, amazing friend Coleridge, who is truly one of the most wonderfully gifted people ever created, strangely sometimes takes ideas from others, just like you or I might do; I apologize—just like someone like me might do, who sometimes doesn’t have the resources to shine on my own. The other day, at a dinner party, when the topic of Pythagoras and his beans came up, Coleridge offered an interpretation that, based on how he presented it, I suspect wasn’t original. So, think if you’ve come across a convincing explanation anywhere."
"I have: and it was a German author. This German, understand, is a poor stick of a man, not to be named on the same day with Coleridge: so that, if Coleridge should appear to have robbed him, be assured that he has done the scamp too much honour."
"I have: and it was a German author. This German, just so you know, is a pathetic guy, not even worth mentioning in the same breath as Coleridge: so if it seems like Coleridge has taken anything from him, you can be sure he's given that loser way too much respect."
P.—"Well: what says the German?"
P.—"So, what does the German say?"
"Why, you know the use made in Greece of beans in voting and balloting? Well: the German says that Pythagoras speaks symbolically; meaning that electioneering, or, more generally, all interference with political intrigues, is fatal to a philosopher's pursuits and their appropriate serenity. Therefore, says he, follower of mine, abstain from public affairs as you would from parricide."
"Did you know that in Greece, they used beans for voting? The German says that Pythagoras was speaking figuratively; which means that getting involved in politics or, more broadly, any interference in political schemes is harmful to a philosopher's goals and their peace of mind. So, he advises his followers to stay away from public affairs just like they would avoid committing murder."
P.—"Well, then, Coleridge has done the scamp too much honour: for, by Jove, that is the very explanation he gave us!"
P.—"Well, then, Coleridge has given that rascal way too much credit: because, seriously, that’s exactly the explanation he gave us!"
Here was a trait of Coleridge's mind, to be first made known to me by his best friend, and first published to the world by me, the foremost of his admirers! But both of us had sufficient reasons:—Mr. Poole knew that, stumbled on by accident, such a discovery would be likely to impress upon a man as yet unacquainted with Coleridge a most injurious jealousy with regard to all he might write: whereas, frankly avowed by one who knew him best, the fact was disarmed of its sting; since it thus became evident that, where the case had been best known and most investigated, it had not operated to his serious disadvantage. On the same argument,—to forestall, that is to say, other discoverers, who would make a more unfriendly use of the discovery,—and also as matters of literary curiosity, I shall here point out a few others of Coleridge's unacknowledged obligations, noticed by myself in a very wide course of reading.[43]
Here was a characteristic of Coleridge's mind that I first learned about from his closest friend and later shared with the world as one of his biggest fans! Both of us had good reasons: Mr. Poole realized that if this had been discovered by chance, it could lead to harmful jealousy for someone who was still unfamiliar with Coleridge's work. However, when openly acknowledged by someone who knew him best, the truth lost its bite; it became clear that, after thorough investigation, it hadn’t negatively affected him in a significant way. For the same reasons—to prevent other discoverers from using this information in a more negative light—and also out of literary interest, I will point out a few other uncredited influences on Coleridge's work that I have noticed during my extensive reading.[43]
1. The Hymn to Chamouni is an expansion of a short poem in stanzas, upon the same subject, by Frederica Brun, a female poet of Germany, previously known to the world under her maiden name of Münter. The mere framework of the poem is exactly the same—an appeal to the most impressive features of the regal mountain (Mont Blanc), adjuring them to proclaim their author: the torrent, for instance, is required to say by whom it had been arrested in its headlong raving, and stiffened, as by the petrific touch of Death, into everlasting pillars of ice; and the answer to these impassioned apostrophes is made by the same choral burst of rapture. In mere logic, therefore, and even as to[Pg 144] the choice of circumstances, Coleridge's poem is a translation. On the other hand, by a judicious amplification of some topics, and by its far deeper tone of lyrical enthusiasm, the dry bones of the German outline have been awakened by Coleridge into the fulness of life. It is not, therefore, a paraphrase, but a re-cast of the original. And how was this calculated, if frankly avowed, to do Coleridge any injury with the judicious?
1. The Hymn to Chamouni is an expanded version of a short poem in stanzas on the same topic, written by Frederica Brun, a female poet from Germany, who was previously known by her maiden name, Münter. The basic structure of the poem remains the same—it's a plea to the most striking features of the majestic mountain (Mont Blanc), urging them to reveal their creator: the torrent, for example, is asked to explain who stopped its wild rush and turned it, as if by the touch of death, into everlasting ice pillars; and the response to these passionate calls comes from the same chorus of joy. In simple terms, and even regarding[Pg 144] the selection of events, Coleridge's poem is a translation. However, through careful elaboration of certain themes and a much deeper tone of lyrical passion, Coleridge has brought the dry framework of the German original to life. Therefore, it’s not just a paraphrase, but a reworking of the original. And how could this, when openly acknowledged, harm Coleridge’s reputation with discerning readers?
2. A more singular case of Coleridge's infirmity is this:—In a very noble passage of "France," a fine expression or two occur from "Samson Agonistes." Now, to take a phrase or an inspiriting line from the great fathers of poetry, even though no marks of quotation should be added, carries with it no charge of plagiarism. Milton is justly presumed to be as familiar to the ear as nature to the eye; and to steal from him as impossible as to appropriate, or sequester to a private use, some "bright particular star." And there is a good reason for rejecting the typographical marks of quotation: they break the continuity of the passion, by reminding the reader of a printed book; on which account Milton himself (to give an instance) has not marked the sublime words, "tormented all the air" as borrowed; nor has Wordsworth, in applying to an unprincipled woman of commanding beauty the memorable expression "a weed of glorious feature," thought it necessary to acknowledge it as originally belonging to Spenser. Some dozens of similar cases might be adduced from Milton. But Coleridge, when saying of republican France that,
2. A more unique example of Coleridge's weakness is this:—In a very powerful section of "France," there are a couple of great lines taken from "Samson Agonistes." Now, using a phrase or an inspiring line from the great poets of the past, even without quotation marks, isn’t considered plagiarism. Milton is rightly assumed to be as well-known to the ear as nature is to the eye; and taking from him is as impossible as claiming ownership of some "bright particular star." There’s a solid reason for leaving out quotation marks: they interrupt the flow of emotion by reminding the reader of a printed book; for this reason, Milton himself (for example) didn’t mark the sublime words, "tormented all the air," as borrowed; nor did Wordsworth, when calling an unprincipled yet beautiful woman "a weed of glorious feature," feel the need to credit Spenser for it. There are many similar instances from Milton. But Coleridge, when referring to republican France, that,
Her arm mocked the warrior's walk.
not satisfied with omitting the marks of acknowledgment, thought fit positively to deny that he was indebted to Milton. Yet who could forget that semi-chorus in the "Samson" where the "bold Ascalonite" is described as having "fled from his lion ramp"? Or who, that was not in this point liable to some hallucination of judgment, would have ventured on a public challenge (for virtually it was that) to produce from the "Samson" words so impossible to be overlooked as those of "insupportably advancing the foot"? The result[Pg 145] was that one of the critical journals placed the two passages in juxtaposition and left the reader to his own conclusions with regard to the poet's veracity. But, in this instance, it was common sense rather than veracity which the facts impeach.
not satisfied with leaving out the signs of acknowledgment, thought it necessary to outright deny that he owed anything to Milton. Yet, who could forget that semi-chorus in "Samson" where the "bold Ascalonite" is described as having "fled from his lion ramp"? Or who, not suffering from some misjudgment, would have dared to issue a public challenge (because that’s essentially what it was) to find words in "Samson" that were so impossible to overlook as those of "insupportably advancing the foot"? The result[Pg 145] was that one of the critical journals set the two passages side by side and left it up to the reader to draw their own conclusions about the poet's honesty. But in this case, it was common sense rather than honesty that the facts called into question.
3. In the year 1810 I happened to be amusing myself by reading, in their chronological order, the great classical circumnavigations of the earth; and, coming to Shelvocke, I met with a passage to this effect:—That Hatley, his second captain (i.e. lieutenant), being a melancholy man, was possessed by a fancy that some long season of foul weather, in the solitary sea which they were then traversing, was due to an albatross which had steadily pursued the ship; upon which he shot the bird, but without mending their condition. There at once I saw the germ of the "Ancient Mariner"; and I put a question to Coleridge accordingly. Could it have been imagined that he would see cause utterly to disown so slight an obligation to Shelvocke? Wordsworth, a man of stern veracity, on hearing of this, professed his inability to understand Coleridge's meaning; the fact being notorious, as he told me, that Coleridge had derived from the very passage I had cited the original hint for the action of the poem; though it is very possible, from something which Coleridge said on another occasion, that, before meeting a fable in which to embody his ideas, he had meditated a poem on delirium, confounding its own dream-scenery with external things, and connected with the imagery of high latitudes.
3. In 1810, I found myself enjoying reading the famous historical journeys around the world in chronological order. When I got to Shelvocke, I came across a passage that mentioned Hatley, his second-in-command (i.e. lieutenant), who was a gloomy man. He believed that some prolonged bad weather they were experiencing in the isolated sea was caused by an albatross that had been following their ship. He shot the bird, but it didn't change their situation. In that moment, I recognized the seed of the "Ancient Mariner"; so I asked Coleridge about it. Could he really have felt no obligation to Shelvocke for such a small inspiration? Wordsworth, a man of strict honesty, claimed he couldn't grasp Coleridge's reasoning when he heard this, pointing out that it was well-known, as he mentioned to me, that Coleridge had taken the original idea for the poem's plot from the very passage I cited. However, it’s quite possible, based on something Coleridge said later, that before he found a story to express his thoughts, he had been considering a poem about delirium, mixing its dream-like scenes with reality and linked to imagery from high latitudes.
4. All these cases amount to nothing at all as cases of plagiarism, and for this reason expose the more conspicuously that obliquity of feeling which could seek to decline the very slight acknowledgments required. But now I come to a case of real and palpable plagiarism; yet that, too, of a nature to be quite unaccountable in a man of Coleridge's attainments. It is not very likely that this particular case will soon be detected; but others will. Yet who knows? Eight hundred or a thousand years hence, some reviewer may arise who having read the "Biographia Literaria" of Coleridge, will afterwards read the "Philosophical——"[44] of[Pg 146] Schelling, the great Bavarian professor—a man in some respects worthy to be Coleridge's assessor; and he will then make a singular discovery. In the "Biographia Literaria" occurs a dissertation upon the reciprocal relations of the Esse and the Cogitare,—that is, of the objective and the subjective: and an attempt is made, by inverting the postulates from which the argument starts, to show how each might arise as a product, by an intelligible genesis, from the other. It is a subject which, since the time of Fichte, has much occupied the German metaphysicians; and many thousands of essays have been written on it, or indirectly so, of which many hundreds have been read by many tens of persons. Coleridge's essay, in particular, is prefaced by a few words in which, aware of his coincidence with Schelling, he declares his willingness to acknowledge himself indebted to so great a man in any case where the truth would allow him to do so; but, in this particular case, insisting on the impossibility that he could have borrowed arguments which he had first seen some years after he had thought out the whole hypothesis proprio marte. After this, what was my astonishment to find that the entire essay, from the first word to the last, is a verbatim translation from Schelling, with no attempt in a single instance to appropriate the paper by developing the arguments or by diversifying the illustrations? Some other obligations to Schelling, of a slighter kind, I have met with in the "Biographia Literaria"; but this was a barefaced plagiarism, which could in prudence have been risked only by relying too much upon the slight knowledge of German literature in this country, and especially of that section of the German literature. Had, then, Coleridge any need to borrow from Schelling? Did he borrow in forma pauperis? Not at all: there lay the wonder. He spun daily, and at all hours, for mere amusement of his own activities, and from the loom of his own magical brain, theories more gorgeous by far, and supported by a pomp and luxury of images such as neither Schelling—no, nor any German that ever breathed, not John Paul—could have emulated in his dreams. With the riches of El Dorado lying about him, he would condescend to filch a handful of gold from any man whose purse he fancied, and in fact reproduced in a new form, applying itself to intellectual[Pg 147] wealth, that maniacal propensity which is sometimes well known to attack enormous proprietors and millionaires for acts of petty larceny. The last Duke of Anc—— could not abstain from exercising his furtive mania upon articles so humble as silver spoons; and it was the nightly care of a pious daughter, watching over the aberrations of her father, to have his pockets searched by a confidential valet, and the claimants of the purloined articles traced out.
4. All these instances don’t amount to actual cases of plagiarism, and for that reason, they highlight a certain lack of integrity in those who choose to avoid the minimal acknowledgments required. Now, I want to discuss a case of clear and obvious plagiarism; yet it's surprising coming from someone of Coleridge's caliber. It’s unlikely that this particular instance will be uncovered soon, but others might be. Who knows? Eight hundred or a thousand years from now, some reviewer might read Coleridge's "Biographia Literaria" and then go on to read the "Philosophical——"[44] of[Pg 146] Schelling, the esteemed Bavarian professor— a man who, in some respects, would be a fitting peer for Coleridge; and then he will make an interesting discovery. In the "Biographia Literaria," there's a discussion on the reciprocal relationships of the Esse and the Cogitare—that is, the objective and the subjective: and an attempt is made to show how each could come into existence, with a clear origin, from the other by flipping the assumptions on which the argument is based. This is a topic that has preoccupied German philosophers since the time of Fichte; many thousands of essays have been written about it, or related to it, and many hundreds have been read by a handful of people. Coleridge's essay, in particular, begins with a few remarks where, acknowledging his agreement with Schelling, he expresses his intention to credit such a prominent figure whenever truth permits him to do so; but in this case, he insists it’s impossible he could have taken arguments he saw years after he developed the whole hypothesis proprio marte. After this, I was shocked to find that the whole essay, from the first word to the last, is a verbatim translation from Schelling, without any attempt whatsoever to modify the paper by expanding the arguments or diversifying the illustrations. I’ve encountered some other minor borrowings from Schelling in the "Biographia Literaria"; but this was an outright plagiarism, which could only have been attempted by someone who relied too heavily on the limited understanding of German literature in this country, particularly that part of it. Did Coleridge really need to borrow from Schelling? Did he borrow in forma pauperis? Not at all: that’s what’s surprising. He created daily, at all hours, purely for his own enjoyment, and from the fabric of his own brilliant mind, concepts that were far more magnificent, supported by a richness and luxury of imagery that neither Schelling—nor any German who ever lived, not even John Paul—could have matched in his dreams. With the wealth of El Dorado around him, he would stoop to steal a handful of gold from anyone whose wallet he fancied, and in fact, he demonstrated a tendency, akin to a compulsive thief, addressing intellectual wealth as if he were a billionaire engaging in petty theft. The last Duke of Anc—— couldn’t help but exercise his stealthy obsession over items as simple as silver spoons; and it was nightly the concern of a devoted daughter, overseeing her father’s peculiar behaviors, to ensure his pockets were searched by a trusted valet while tracking down the owners of the stolen items.
Many cases have crossed me in life of people, otherwise not wanting in principle, who had habits, or at least hankerings, of the same kind. And the phrenologists, I believe, are well acquainted with the case, its signs, its progress, and its history. Dismissing, however, this subject, which I have at all noticed only that I might anticipate, and (in old English) that I might prevent, the uncandid interpreter of its meaning, I will assert finally that, after having read for thirty years in the same track as Coleridge—that track in which few of any age will ever follow us, such as German metaphysicians, Latin schoolmen, thaumaturgic Platonists, religious Mystics—and having thus discovered a large variety of trivial thefts, I do, nevertheless, most heartily believe him to have been as entirely original in all his capital pretensions as any one man that ever has existed; as Archimedes in ancient days, or as Shakspere in modern. Did the reader ever see Milton's account of the rubbish contained in the Greek and Latin Fathers?[45] Or did he ever read a statement of the monstrous chaos with which an African Obeah man stuffs his enchanted scarecrows? Or, take a more common illustration, did he ever amuse himself by searching the pockets of a child—three years old, suppose—when buried in slumber after a long summer's day of out-o'-doors intense activity? I have done this; and, for the amusement of the child's mother, have analyzed the contents, and drawn up a formal register of the whole. Philosophy is puzzled, conjecture and hypothesis are confounded, in the attempt to explain the law of selection which can have presided in the child's labours; stones remarkable[Pg 148] only for weight, old rusty hinges, nails, crooked skewers stolen when the cook had turned her back, rags, broken glass, tea-cups having the bottom knocked out, and loads of similar jewels, were the prevailing articles in this procès-verbal. Yet, doubtless, much labour had been incurred, some sense of danger perhaps had been faced, and the anxieties of a conscious robber endured, in order to amass this splendid treasure. Such in value were the robberies of Coleridge; such their usefulness to himself or anybody else; and such the circumstances of uneasiness under which he had committed them. I return to my narrative.
Many people I've encountered in life, who generally have good intentions, still have habits or desires that are similar. I believe phrenologists are quite familiar with this case, its signs, its progress, and its background. However, putting aside this topic—which I mention only to preemptively address the untrustworthy interpretations of its meaning—I will firmly state that, after spending thirty years studying along the same lines as Coleridge—a path that few from any generation will ever follow, such as German philosophers, Latin scholars, mystical Platonists, and religious mystics—and having discovered a wide range of minor appropriations, I genuinely believe he was completely original in all his major claims, just like Archimedes in ancient times or Shakespeare in modern times. Has the reader ever seen Milton's description of the nonsense found in the Greek and Latin Fathers?[45] Or has he ever come across the bizarre chaos that an African Obeah man fills his enchanted scarecrows with? Or, to use a more relatable example, has he ever entertained himself by searching the pockets of a three-year-old child while they sleep soundly after a long, active summer day outdoors? I've done this, and for the amusement of the child's mother, I analyzed the contents and made a complete list of everything. Philosophy struggles, and speculation and theory are baffled when trying to explain the selective process that must have guided the child's collection; surprisingly heavy stones, old rusty hinges, nails, crooked skewers snatched when the cook wasn’t looking, rags, broken glass, tea cups with the bottoms smashed out, and all sorts of other odd treasures made up the bulk of this procès-verbal. Yet, it’s clear that considerable effort was involved, some sense of danger may have been faced, and the anxieties of a guilty thief were experienced to gather this impressive collection. Such was the value of Coleridge's little thefts; such was their usefulness to him or anyone else; and such were the uneasy circumstances under which he committed them. I return to my narrative.
Two or three days had slipped away in waiting for Coleridge's re-appearance at Nether Stowey, when suddenly Lord Egmont called upon Mr. Poole, with a present for Coleridge: it was a canister of peculiarly fine snuff, which Coleridge now took profusely. Lord Egmont, on this occasion, spoke of Coleridge in the terms of excessive admiration, and urged Mr. Poole to put him upon undertaking some great monumental work, that might furnish a sufficient arena for the display of his various and rare accomplishments; for his multiform erudition on the one hand, for his splendid power of theorizing and combining large and remote notices of facts on the other. And he suggested, judiciously enough, as one theme which offered a field at once large enough and indefinite enough to suit a mind that could not show its full compass of power unless upon very plastic materials—a History of Christianity, in its progress and in its chief divarications into Church and Sect, with a continual reference to the relations subsisting between Christianity and the current philosophy; their occasional connexions or approaches, and their constant mutual repulsions. "But, at any rate, let him do something," said Lord Egmont; "for at present he talks very much like an angel, and does nothing at all." Lord Egmont I understood from everybody to be a truly good and benevolent man; and on this occasion he spoke with an earnestness which agreed with my previous impression. Coleridge, he said, was now in the prime of his powers—uniting something of youthful vigour with sufficient experience of life; having the benefit, beside, of vast meditation, and of reading unusually discursive. No man had ever been better qualified to revive the[Pg 149] heroic period of literature in England, and to give a character of weight to the philosophic erudition of the country upon the Continent. "And what a pity," he added, "if this man were, after all, to vanish like an apparition, and you, I, and a few others, who have witnessed his grand bravuras of display, were to have the usual fortune of ghost-seers, in meeting no credit for any statements that we might vouch on his behalf!"
Two or three days had passed while waiting for Coleridge to return to Nether Stowey when Lord Egmont suddenly visited Mr. Poole, bringing a gift for Coleridge: a canister of particularly fine snuff, which Coleridge now used frequently. On this occasion, Lord Egmont spoke of Coleridge with great admiration and encouraged Mr. Poole to get him to undertake some significant monumental work that could showcase his diverse and rare talents; on one hand, his wide-ranging knowledge, and on the other, his impressive ability to theorize and connect large and distant facts. He wisely suggested a theme that offered a sufficiently broad and indefinite field suited for a mind that couldn’t fully show its capacity unless working with very adaptable materials—a History of Christianity, covering its evolution and its major branches into Church and Sect, always referencing the relationship between Christianity and contemporary philosophy; their occasional connections or overlaps, and their constant mutual exclusions. "But, at any rate, let him do something," said Lord Egmont; "because right now he talks like an angel but does absolutely nothing." I understood from everyone that Lord Egmont was a genuinely good and kind man; and on this occasion, he spoke with a seriousness that matched my previous impression. He said Coleridge was currently at the peak of his abilities—combining youthful vigor with enough life experience, benefiting from extensive reflection and unusually broad reading. No one was better qualified to revive the[Pg 149]heroic period of literature in England and to give weight to the country's philosophical scholarship on the Continent. "And what a shame," he added, "if this man were, after all, to disappear like a ghost, and you, I, and a few others who have seen his grand bravuras of display, were to have the typical fate of ghost-seers, receiving no credibility for any claims we might make on his behalf!"
On this occasion we learned, for the first time, that Lord Egmont's carriage had, some days before, conveyed Coleridge to Bridgewater, with a purpose of staying one single day at that place, and then returning to Mr. Poole's. From the sort of laugh with which Lord Egmont taxed his own simplicity, in having confided at all in the stability of any Coleridgian plan, I now gathered that procrastination in excess was, or had become, a marking feature in Coleridge's daily life. Nobody who knew him ever thought of depending on any appointment he might make: spite of his uniformly honourable intentions, nobody attached any weight to his assurances in re futura: those who asked him to dinner or any other party, as a matter of course, sent a carriage for him, and went personally or by proxy to fetch him; and, as to letters, unless the address were in some female hand that commanded his affectionate esteem, he tossed them all into one general dead-letter bureau, and rarely, I believe, opened them at all.[46] Bourrienne mentions a mode of abridging the trouble attached to a very extensive correspondence, by which infinite labour was saved to himself, and to Napoleon, when First Consul. Nine out of ten letters, supposing them letters of business with official applications of a special kind, he contends, answer themselves: in other words, time alone must soon produce events which virtually contain the answer. On this principle the letters were opened periodically, after intervals, suppose, of six weeks; and, at the end of that time, it was found that not many remained to require any further more particular answer. Coleridge's plan, however, was shorter: he opened none, I understood, and answered none. At least such was his habit at that time. But, on that same day, all this, which[Pg 150] I heard now for the first time, and with much concern, was fully explained; for already he was under the full dominion of opium, as he himself revealed to me, and with a deep expression of horror at the hideous bondage, in a private walk of some length which I took with him about sunset.
On this occasion, we learned, for the first time, that Lord Egmont's carriage had, a few days earlier, taken Coleridge to Bridgewater, where he intended to stay just one day before returning to Mr. Poole's. The way Lord Egmont laughed at his own naivety for having trusted any Coleridgian plan made it clear to me that excessive procrastination had become a defining trait of Coleridge's daily life. No one who knew him ever relied on any appointment he might make; despite his consistently honorable intentions, no one took his promises seriously regarding future commitments. Those who invited him to dinner or other gatherings routinely sent a carriage to pick him up and went either in person or through a representative to get him. As for letters, unless they were addressed by someone he held in affectionate regard, he tossed them all into a general dead-letter pile and rarely, if ever, opened them.[46] Bourrienne mentions a method to reduce the hassle of managing extensive correspondence, which saved him and Napoleon, when he was First Consul, a lot of work. He argued that nine out of ten letters, especially those related to business with specific official applications, answer themselves; in other words, time alone will often reveal the necessary responses. Based on this approach, the letters were opened after set intervals, like every six weeks, and by that time, it turned out that few required any further detailed replies. Coleridge's method, however, was simpler: he opened none, as far as I understood, and answered none. At least, that was his habit at that time. But on that same day, all this, which I was hearing now for the first time and with great concern, was thoroughly explained; for he was already completely under the influence of opium, as he revealed to me, with a profoundly horrified look at the awful bondage, during a lengthy private walk I had with him around sunset.
Lord Egmont's information, and the knowledge now gained of Coleridge's habits, making it very uncertain when I might see him in my present hospitable quarters, I immediately took my leave of Mr. Poole, and went over to Bridgewater. I had received directions for finding out the house where Coleridge was visiting; and, in riding down a main street of Bridgewater, I noticed a gateway corresponding to the description given me. Under this was standing, and gazing about him, a man whom I will describe. In height he might seem to be about five feet eight (he was, in reality, about an inch and a-half taller, but his figure was of an order which drowns the height); his person was broad and full, and tended even to corpulence; his complexion was fair, though not what painters technically style fair, because it was associated with black hair; his eyes were large, and soft in their expression; and it was from the peculiar appearance of haze or dreaminess which mixed with their light that I recognised my object. This was Coleridge.[47] I examined him steadfastly for a minute or more; and it struck me that he saw neither myself nor any other object in the street. He was in a deep reverie; for I had dismounted, made two or three trifling arrangements at an inn-door, and advanced close to him, before he had apparently become conscious of my presence. The sound of my voice, announcing my own name, first awoke him; he started, and for a moment seemed at a loss to understand my purpose or his own situation; for he repeated rapidly a number of words which had no relation to either of us. There was no mauvaise honte in his manner, but simple perplexity, and an apparent difficulty in recovering his position amongst daylight realities. This little scene over, he received me with a kindness of manner so marked that it might be called gracious. The hospitable family with[Pg 151] whom he was domesticated were distinguished for their amiable manners and enlightened understandings: they were descendants from Chubb, the philosophic writer, and bore the same name. For Coleridge they all testified deep affection and esteem—sentiments in which the whole town of Bridgewater seemed to share; for in the evening, when the heat of the day had declined, I walked out with him; and rarely, perhaps never, have I seen a person so much interrupted in one hour's space as Coleridge, on this occasion, by the courteous attentions of young and old.
Lord Egmont's information and the understanding I've gained about Coleridge's habits made it really uncertain when I might see him in my current welcoming place, so I quickly said goodbye to Mr. Poole and headed over to Bridgewater. I had instructions on how to find the house where Coleridge was staying, and as I rode down a main street in Bridgewater, I spotted a gateway that matched the description I received. Standing there and looking around was a man I need to describe. He seemed to be about five feet eight, though in reality, he was about an inch and a half taller; his build was broad and full, even tending toward fat; his complexion was fair, but not in the way painters usually define it, because he had black hair; his eyes were large and had a soft expression; and it was the unique, hazy or dreamy look mixed with their brightness that made me recognize him. This was Coleridge.[47] I stared at him intently for a minute or so, and it struck me that he didn't seem to notice me or anything else in the street. He was deeply lost in thought; I had gotten off my horse, made a couple of minor adjustments at the inn door, and approached him closely before he seemed to become aware of my presence. The sound of my voice saying my name finally brought him back; he jumped and for a moment looked confused about my purpose or even where he was; he quickly repeated several words that were unrelated to either of us. There was no awkwardness in his demeanor, just simple confusion and a visible struggle to reconnect with the realities of daylight. After that brief moment, he welcomed me with such a warm manner that it could be called gracious. The hospitable family he was staying with were known for their friendly nature and insightful minds: they were descendants of Chubb, the philosophical writer, and shared the same name. They all showed profound affection and respect for Coleridge—sentiments that the entire town of Bridgewater seemed to share; for in the evening, when the heat of the day had eased, I went out with him, and I’ve rarely, if ever, seen someone interrupted so often in one hour as Coleridge was that evening by the polite attentions of both young and old.
All the people of station and weight in the place, and apparently all the ladies, were abroad to enjoy the lovely summer evening; and not a party passed without some mark of smiling recognition, and the majority stopping to make personal inquiries about his health, and to express their anxiety that he should make a lengthened stay amongst them. Certain I am, from the lively esteem expressed towards Coleridge at this time by the people of Bridgewater, that a very large subscription might, in that town, have been raised to support him amongst them, in the character of a lecturer, or philosophical professor. Especially I remarked that the young men of the place manifested the most liberal interest in all that concerned him; and I can add my attestation to that of Mr. Coleridge himself, when describing an evening spent amongst the enlightened tradesmen of Birmingham, that nowhere is more unaffected good sense exhibited, and particularly nowhere more elasticity and freshness of mind, than in the conversation of the reading men in manufacturing towns. In Kendal, especially, in Bridgewater, and in Manchester, I have witnessed more interesting conversations, as much information, and more natural eloquence in conveying it, than usually in literary cities, or in places professedly learned. One reason for this is that in trading towns the time is more happily distributed; the day given to business and active duties—the evening to relaxation; on which account, books, conversation, and literary leisure are more cordially enjoyed: the same satiation never can take place which too frequently deadens the genial enjoyment of those who have a surfeit of books and a monotony of leisure.[Pg 152] Another reason is that more simplicity of manner may be expected, and more natural picturesqueness of conversation, more open expression of character, in places where people have no previous name to support. Men in trading towns are not afraid to open their lips for fear they should disappoint your expectations, nor do they strain for showy sentiments that they may meet them. But, elsewhere, many are the men who stand in awe of their own reputation: not a word which is unstudied, not a movement in the spirit of natural freedom, dare they give way to, because it might happen that on review something would be seen to retract or to qualify—something not properly planed and chiselled to build into the general architecture of an artificial reputation. But to return:—
All the important people and seemingly all the ladies were out enjoying the beautiful summer evening; and not a group passed by without some sign of friendly recognition, with most stopping to ask about his health and to express their concern that he should stay with them for a longer time. I am certain, from the warm regard shown towards Coleridge at that time by the people of Bridgewater, that a significant fund could have been raised in that town to support him as a lecturer or philosophical professor. I particularly noticed that the young men in the area showed a generous interest in everything related to him; and I can corroborate Mr. Coleridge’s own comments about an evening spent among the knowledgeable tradesmen of Birmingham, noting that nowhere else is such genuine common sense displayed, and particularly nowhere else is there more freshness and energizing discourse than with the well-read individuals in manufacturing towns. In Kendal, especially in Bridgewater and Manchester, I've experienced more engaging conversations, as much information, and a more natural eloquence in sharing it than is typically found in literary cities or places that claim to be scholarly. One reason for this is that in trading towns, time is managed more effectively; the day is dedicated to work and responsibilities—the evening to relaxation; thus, books, conversation, and literary free time are enjoyed more sincerely: the same overexposure never occurs that often dulls the genuine enjoyment of those who are overwhelmed by books and a routine of leisure.[Pg 152] Another reason is that you can expect more simplicity in behavior and more vivid conversation, with more open expressions of character, in places where people don't have a reputation to uphold. Men in trading towns aren’t afraid to speak their minds for fear of disappointing expectations, nor do they try to craft impressive thoughts to meet them. But elsewhere, many men are intimidated by their own reputation: they won’t say a word that isn’t rehearsed, nor will they allow any spontaneous expression of freedom, because it might lead to something being retracted or modified—something that isn’t perfectly refined and polished to fit into the overall design of a carefully constructed reputation. But to return:—
Coleridge led me to a drawing-room, rang the bell for refreshments, and omitted no point of a courteous reception. He told me that there would be a very large dinner party on that day, which, perhaps, might be disagreeable to a perfect stranger; but, if not, he could assure me of a most hospitable welcome from the family. I was too anxious to see him under all aspects to think of declining this invitation. That point being settled, Coleridge, like some great river, the Orellana, or the St. Lawrence, that, having been checked and fretted by rocks or thwarting islands, suddenly recovers its volume of waters and its mighty music, swept at once, as if returning to his natural business, into a continuous strain of eloquent dissertation, certainly the most novel, the most finely illustrated, and traversing the most spacious fields of thought by transitions the most just and logical, that it was possible to conceive. What I mean by saying that his transitions were "just" is by way of contradistinction to that mode of conversation which courts variety through links of verbal connexions. Coleridge, to many people, and often I have heard the complaint, seemed to wander; and he seemed then to wander the most when, in fact, his resistance to the wandering instinct was greatest—viz., when the compass and huge circuit by which his illustrations moved travelled farthest into remote regions before they began to revolve. Long before this coming round commenced most people had lost him, and naturally enough[Pg 153] supposed that he had lost himself. They continued to admire the separate beauty of the thoughts, but did not see their relations to the dominant theme. Had the conversation been thrown upon paper, it might have been easy to trace the continuity of the links; just as in Bishop Berkeley's "Siris,"[48] from a pedestal so low and abject, so culinary, as Tar Water, the method of preparing it, and its medicinal effects, the dissertation ascends, like Jacob's ladder, by just gradations, into the Heaven of Heavens and the thrones of the Trinity. But Heaven is there connected with earth by the Homeric chain of gold; and, being subject to steady examination, it is easy to trace the links; whereas, in conversation, the loss of a single word may cause the whole cohesion to disappear from view. However, I can assert, upon my long and intimate knowledge of Coleridge's mind, that logic the most severe was as inalienable from his modes of thinking as grammar from his language.
Coleridge brought me into a drawing room, rang the bell for refreshments, and made sure to warmly welcome me. He mentioned that there would be a large dinner party that day, which might be uncomfortable for a complete stranger; however, he assured me that the family would provide a very hospitable welcome. I was too eager to see him in all his facets to think about turning down the invitation. Once that was settled, Coleridge, like a great river, whether the Orellana or the St. Lawrence, which, after being obstructed by rocks or islands, suddenly resumes its full flow and powerful sound, launched into an uninterrupted flow of eloquent discussion. It was certainly the most original, well-illustrated, and expansive exploration of ideas possible, with transitions that were just and logical. When I say his transitions were “just,” I mean to contrast them with conversations that seek variety through verbal connections. Many people felt that Coleridge wandered, and I’ve often heard that complaint. He seemed to meander the most when he was actually resisting the urge to wander—specifically, when the path of his illustrations extended farthest before returning. Long before he circled back, most people had lost track of him and understandably thought he had lost his way. They continued to appreciate the individual beauty of his thoughts but didn’t grasp their connection to the main theme. If the conversation had been recorded, it would have been easier to follow the continuity of the ideas, similar to how Bishop Berkeley's "Siris" ascends from something as lowly and practical as Tar Water, its preparation, and medicinal effects, to the highest levels of thought, like Jacob's ladder. Yet in that case, Heaven is connected to earth by a Homeric chain of gold; when examined closely, the links are easy to trace. In conversation, however, losing a single word can cause the entire connection to vanish from sight. Nevertheless, I can confidently say, based on my long familiarity with Coleridge’s mind, that the strictest logic was as inherent to his thinking as grammar is to his language.
On the present occasion, the original theme, started by myself, was Hartley and the Hartleian theory. I had carried as a little present to Coleridge a scarce Latin pamphlet, "De Ideis," written by Hartley about 1746,—that is, about three years earlier than the publication of his great work. He had also preluded to this great work in a little English medical tract upon Joanna Stephens's medicine for the stone; for indeed Hartley was the person upon whose evidence the House of Commons had mainly relied in giving to that same Joanna a reward of £5000 for her idle medicines—an application of public money not without its use, in so far as it engaged men by selfish motives to cultivate the public service, and to attempt public problems of very difficult solution; but else, in that particular instance, perfectly idle, as the groans of three generations since Joanna's era have too feelingly established. It is known to most literary people that Coleridge was, in early life, so passionate an admirer of the Hartleian philosophy that "Hartley" was the sole baptismal name which he gave to his eldest child;[Pg 154] and in an early poem, entitled "Religious Musings," he has characterized Hartley as
On this occasion, the main topic I introduced was Hartley and the Hartleian theory. As a small gift for Coleridge, I brought a rare Latin pamphlet, "De Ideis," written by Hartley around 1746—about three years before he published his major work. He also hinted at this major work in a short English medical pamphlet regarding Joanna Stephens's remedy for kidney stones. Hartley was the key person the House of Commons relied on when they awarded Joanna a £5000 reward for her ineffective medicines—this use of public funds, while not without merit, mostly encouraged people to pursue public service out of self-interest and tackle challenging public issues; however, in this specific case, it was utterly pointless, as the suffering of three generations since Joanna's time clearly shows. Most literary folks know that Coleridge was such a devoted fan of Hartley's philosophy in his youth that he named his eldest child "Hartley." In an early poem titled "Religious Musings," he described Hartley as [Pg 154]
Pass in fine bursts.
But at present (August 1807) all this was a forgotten thing. Coleridge was so profoundly ashamed of the shallow Unitarianism of Hartley, and so disgusted to think that he could at any time have countenanced that creed, that he would scarcely allow to Hartley the reverence which is undoubtedly his due; for I must contend that, waiving all question of the extent to which Hartley would have pushed it (as though the law of association accounted not only for our complex pleasures and pains, but also might be made to explain the act of ratiocination),—waiving also the physical substratum of nervous vibrations and miniature vibrations to which he has chosen to marry his theory of association;—all this apart, I must contend that the "Essay on Man, his Frame, his Duty, and his Expectations" stands forward as a specimen almost unique of elaborate theorizing, and a monument of absolute beauty in the impression left of its architectural grace. In this respect it has, to my mind, the spotless beauty and the ideal proportions of some Grecian statue. However, I confess that, being myself, from my earliest years, a reverential believer in the doctrine of the Trinity, simply because I never attempted to bring all things within the mechanic understanding, and because, like Sir Thomas, Browne, my mind almost demanded mysteries in so mysterious a system of relations as those which connect us with another world, and also because the farther my understanding opened the more I perceived of dim analogies to strengthen my creed, and because nature herself, mere physical nature, has mysteries no less profound; for these, and for many other "becauses," I could not reconcile with my general reverence for Mr. Coleridge the fact, so often reported to me, that he was a Unitarian. But, said some Bristol people to me, not only is he a Unitarian—he is also a Socinian. In that case, I replied, I cannot hold him a Christian. I am a liberal man, and have no bigotry or[Pg 155] hostile feelings towards a Socinian; but I can never think that man a Christian who has blotted out of his scheme the very powers by which only the great offices and functions of Christianity can be sustained; neither can I think that any man, though he make himself a marvellously clever disputant, ever could tower upwards into a very great philosopher unless he should begin or should end with Christianity. Kant is a dubious exception. Not that I mean to question his august pretensions, so far as they went, and in his proper line. Within his own circle none durst tread but he. But that circle was limited. He was called by one who weighed him well, the alles-zermalmender, the world-shattering Kant. He could destroy—his intellect was essentially destructive. He was the Gog and he was the Magog of Hunnish desolation to the existing schemes of Philosophy. He probed them; he showed the vanity of vanities which besieged their foundations—the rottenness below, the hollowness above. But he had no instincts of creation or restoration within his Apollyon mind; for he had no love, no faith, no self-distrust, no humility, no childlike docility; all which qualities belonged essentially to Coleridge's mind, and waited only for manhood and for sorrow to bring them forward.
But at that moment (August 1807), all of this was a forgotten matter. Coleridge felt deeply ashamed of Hartley's superficial Unitarianism and was repulsed by the thought that he could have ever supported that belief. As a result, he barely recognized Hartley with the respect he truly deserved; I argue that, aside from the question of how far Hartley would have taken it (as if the law of association explained not only our mixed joys and sorrows but could also clarify reasoning), and putting aside the physical basis of nervous vibrations and tiny movements to which he has linked his theory of association—setting all that aside, I maintain that the "Essay on Man, his Frame, his Duty, and his Expectations" stands out as an almost one-of-a-kind example of intricate theorizing and is a testament to stunning beauty in its architectural grace. In this regard, it has, in my opinion, the pure beauty and ideal proportions of a Grecian statue. However, I admit that I, since my early years, have been a devoted believer in the doctrine of the Trinity, simply because I never tried to force everything into a mechanical understanding and because, like Sir Thomas Browne, my mind almost demanded mysteries in such a mysterious system of relations connecting us to another world. Moreover, as my understanding grew, I found increasingly dim analogies that supported my beliefs, and nature itself—just physical nature—holds equally profound mysteries. For these reasons, and many others, I couldn't reconcile my general respect for Mr. Coleridge with the fact, often mentioned to me, that he was a Unitarian. But, some Bristol people told me, not only is he a Unitarian—he’s also a Socinian. In that case, I replied, I can’t consider him a Christian. I’m a liberal person and feel no bigotry or hostility towards a Socinian; however, I can never believe someone to be a Christian who has removed from their worldview the very powers that uphold the essential roles and functions of Christianity; nor can I think that anyone, no matter how clever a debater they may be, could rise to being a truly great philosopher unless they start or end with Christianity. Kant might be a questionable exception. Not that I intend to challenge his respected status within his own domain. Within his own realm, no one dared to tread but him. But that realm was limited. He was aptly referred to by someone who understood him well, as the alles-zermalmender, the world-shattering Kant. He had the power to destroy—his intellect was inherently destructive. He was the Gog and Magog of Hunnish ruin to the existing philosophies. He examined them; he laid bare the vanity that undermined their foundations—the decay below, the emptiness above. But he lacked the creative or restorative instincts within his destructive mind; for he had no love, no faith, no self-doubt, no humility, no childlike receptiveness—qualities that were intrinsic to Coleridge's mind, waiting only for maturity and sorrow to bring them forth.
Who can read without indignation of Kant that, at his own table, in social sincerity and confidential talk, let him say what he would in his books, he exulted in the prospect of absolute and ultimate annihilation; that he planted his glory in the grave, and was ambitious of rotting for ever? The King of Prussia, though a personal friend of Kant's, found himself obliged to level his state thunders at some of his doctrines, and terrified him in his advance; else I am persuaded that Kant would have formally delivered Atheism from the professor's chair, and would have enthroned the horrid Ghoulish creed (which privately he professed) in the University of Königsberg. It required the artillery of a great king to make him pause: his menacing or warning letter to Kant is extant. The general notion is, that the royal logic applied so austerely to the public conduct of Kant in his professor's chair was of that kind which rests its strength "upon thirty legions." My own belief is that the king had private information of Kant's ultimate tendencies[Pg 156] as revealed in his table-talk. The fact is that, as the stomach has been known, by means of its own potent acid secretion, to attack not only whatsoever alien body is introduced within it, but also (as John Hunter first showed) sometimes to attack itself and its own organic structure, so, and with the same preternatural extension of instinct, did Kant carry forward his destroying functions, until he turned them upon his own hopes and the pledges of his own superiority to the dog, the ape, the worm. But "exoriare aliquis"—and some philosopher, I am persuaded, will arise; and "one sling of some victorious arm" ("Paradise Lost," B. x.) will yet destroy the destroyer, in so far as he has applied himself to the destruction of Christian hope. For my faith is that, though a great man may, by a rare possibility, be an infidel, an intellect of the highest order must build upon Christianity. A very clever architect may choose to show his power by building with insufficient materials; but the supreme architect must require the very best, because the perfection of the forms cannot be shown but in the perfection of the matter.
Who can read without anger at Kant's claim that, at his own table, in genuine and private conversation, he could say what he wished in his writings, celebrating the idea of total and final annihilation; that he rooted his glory in the grave and aimed to rot forever? The King of Prussia, although a personal friend of Kant's, found it necessary to unleash his state authority against some of his ideas, which intimidated him in his pursuits; otherwise, I believe Kant would have formally promoted Atheism from his professorial position and would have established the ghastly belief (which he privately admitted to) at the University of Königsberg. It took the power of a great king to make him hesitate: his threatening or cautionary letter to Kant still exists. The general understanding is that the royal reasoning applied so strictly to Kant's public behavior in his professor's chair was of the sort that relies on "thirty legions." I suspect that the king had private knowledge of Kant's ultimate views as revealed in his table-talk. The truth is that just as the stomach, through its own potent acid secretion, can attack not only any foreign substance introduced into it, but also (as John Hunter first demonstrated) sometimes even its own organic structure, so did Kant, with a similarly unnatural instinct, advance his destructive tendencies until they turned against his own hopes and the claims of his own superiority over the dog, the ape, and the worm. But "exoriare aliquis"—I am convinced that a philosopher will emerge; and "one sling of some victorious arm" ("Paradise Lost," B. x.) will yet defeat the destroyer, to the extent that he has sought to undermine Christian hope. For I believe that, while a great man may, by rare chance, be an unbeliever, an intellect of the highest caliber must be grounded in Christianity. A very skilled architect may choose to demonstrate his talent by using inadequate materials; however, the supreme architect must require the very best, because the perfection of form can only be realized in the perfection of matter.
On these accounts I took the liberty of doubting, as often as I heard the reports I have mentioned of Coleridge; and I now found that he disowned most solemnly (and I may say penitentially) whatever had been true in these reports. Coleridge told me that it had cost him a painful effort, but not a moment's hesitation, to abjure his Unitarianism, from the circumstance that he had amongst the Unitarians many friends, to some of whom he was greatly indebted for great kindness. In particular, he mentioned Mr. Estlin of Bristol, a distinguished Dissenting clergyman, as one whom it grieved him to grieve. But he would not dissemble his altered views. I will add, at the risk of appearing to dwell too long on religious topics, that, on this my first introduction to Coleridge, he reverted with strong compunction to a sentiment which he had expressed in earlier days upon prayer. In one of his youthful poems, speaking of God, he had said—
On these grounds, I couldn't help but doubt every time I heard the stories I mentioned about Coleridge; and I now realized that he solemnly (and I can say regretfully) disowned most of what was true in those reports. Coleridge told me that it took him a painful effort, but not a moment’s hesitation, to give up his Unitarianism, especially since he had many friends among the Unitarians, some of whom had shown him great kindness. He specifically mentioned Mr. Estlin of Bristol, a well-known Dissenting minister, as someone he was saddened to upset. But he wouldn’t hide the fact that his views had changed. I will add, even if it seems like I'm going on too much about religious topics, that during my first meeting with Coleridge, he reflected with deep regret on a belief he had expressed in his younger days about prayer. In one of his early poems, referring to God, he had said—
"Anything to ask for was a lack of mental strength."
This sentiment he now so utterly condemned that, on the contrary, he told me, as his own peculiar opinion, that the act of praying was the very highest energy of which the human heart was capable; praying, that is, with the total concentration of the faculties; and the great mass of worldly men, and of learned men, he pronounced absolutely incapable of prayer.
This feeling he now completely rejected, telling me that, in his own unique view, praying was the highest expression of what the human heart could achieve; praying, that is, with total focus and concentration. He claimed that the vast majority of ordinary people, as well as educated individuals, were entirely unable to truly pray.
For about three hours he had continued to talk, and in the course of this performance he had delivered many most striking aphorisms, embalming more weight of truth, and separately more deserving to be themselves embalmed, than would easily be found in a month's course of select reading. In the midst of our conversation, if that can be called conversation which I so seldom sought to interrupt, and which did not often leave openings for contribution, the door opened, and a lady entered. She was in person full and rather below the common height; whilst her face showed to my eye some prettiness of rather a commonplace order. Coleridge paused upon her entrance; his features, however, announced no particular complacency, and did not relax into a smile. In a frigid tone he said, whilst turning to me, "Mrs. Coleridge"; in some slight way he then presented me to her: I bowed; and the lady almost immediately retired. From this short but ungenial scene, I gathered, what I afterward learned redundantly, that Coleridge's marriage had not been a very happy one. But let not the reader misunderstand me. Never was there a baser insinuation, viler in the motive, or more ignoble in the manner, than that passage in some lampoon of Lord Byron's, where, by way of vengeance on Mr. Southey (who was the sole delinquent), he described both him and Coleridge as having married "two milliners from Bath." Everybody knows what is meant to be conveyed in that expression, though it would be hard, indeed, if, even at Bath, there should be any class under such a fatal curse, condemned so irretrievably, and so hopelessly prejudged, that ignominy must, at any rate, attach, in virtue of a mere name or designation, to the mode by which they gained their daily bread, or possibly supported the declining years of a parent. However, in this case, the whole sting of the libel was a pure falsehood of[Pg 158] Lord Byron's. Bath was not the native city, nor at any time the residence, of the ladies in question, but Bristol. As to the other word, "milliners," that is not worth inquiring about. Whether they, or any one of their family, ever did exercise this profession, I do not know; they were, at all events, too young, when removed by marriage from Bristol, to have been much tainted by the worldly feelings which may beset such a mode of life. But, what is more to the purpose, I heard, at this time, in Bristol, from Mr. Cottle, the author, a man of high principle, as also from his accomplished sisters,—from the ladies, again, who had succeeded Mrs. Hannah More in her school, and who enjoyed her entire confidence,—that the whole family of four or five sisters had maintained an irreproachable character, though naturally exposed, by their personal attractions, to some peril, and to the malevolence of envy. This declaration, which I could strengthen by other testimony equally disinterested, if it were at all necessary, I owe to truth; and I must also add, upon a knowledge more personal, that Mrs. Coleridge was, in all circumstances of her married life, a virtuous wife and a conscientious mother; and, as a mother, she showed at times a most meritorious energy. In particular, I remember that, wishing her daughter to acquire the Italian language, and having in her retirement at Keswick no means of obtaining a master, she set to work resolutely, under Mr. Southey's guidance, to learn the language herself, at a time of life when such attainments are not made with ease or pleasure. She became mistress of the language in a very respectable extent, and then communicated her new accomplishment to her most interesting daughter.
For about three hours, he kept talking, and during that time, he shared many powerful sayings, holding more truth—each deserving to be preserved—than you'd find in a month of careful reading. In the middle of our discussion, if that can even be called a discussion since I rarely interrupted and there weren't many chances to contribute, the door opened, and a woman came in. She was of full figure and slightly shorter than average; her face had a certain prettiness that seemed rather ordinary. Coleridge paused when she entered; however, his expression showed no particular pleasure and didn’t soften into a smile. In a cold tone, he turned to me and said, “Mrs. Coleridge”; he then introduced me to her in a slight way: I bowed, and she almost immediately left. From this brief but uncomfortable scene, I gathered, as I later learned in detail, that Coleridge's marriage hadn’t been very happy. But let me be clear: there’s no baseless insinuation more vile in motive or more disgraceful in delivery than that line in one of Lord Byron's parodies where, as a means of revenge on Mr. Southey (who was the sole offender), he described both him and Coleridge as having married “two milliners from Bath.” Everyone knows what that phrase implies, though it would be truly difficult if there were, even in Bath, any group so unfairly judged, condemned without reason to disgrace just because of their name or job, which might have been their only means of support, or to help their aging parent. However, in this case, the entire sting of the slander came from Lord Byron’s complete falsehood. Bath was neither the birthplace nor the home of the women involved, but rather Bristol. As for the term “milliners,” it’s not worth investigating. I don’t know if they, or anyone in their family, ever practiced that profession; they were too young when they left Bristol to have been significantly influenced by the worldly attitudes that might come with that lifestyle. More importantly, I heard at the time, from Mr. Cottle, the author, a man of high integrity, as well as from his talented sisters—who succeeded Mrs. Hannah More at her school and had her full trust—that the whole family of four or five sisters had maintained an impeccable reputation, despite being naturally at risk of envy due to their looks. This statement, which I could back up with more unbiased evidence if necessary, is owed to the truth; and I must also add, from personal knowledge, that Mrs. Coleridge was a virtuous wife and a caring mother throughout her marriage; as a mother, she occasionally showed impressive determination. In particular, I remember that when she wanted her daughter to learn Italian, and being isolated at Keswick without the means to hire a tutor, she resolutely set out to learn the language herself, guided by Mr. Southey, at an age when such skills aren't easily or enjoyably acquired. She became quite proficient in the language and then shared her new skill with her very engaging daughter.
I go on, therefore, to say, that Coleridge afterwards made me, as doubtless some others, a confidant in this particular. What he had to complain of was simply incompatibility of temper and disposition. Wanting all cordial admiration, or indeed comprehension, of her husband's intellectual powers, Mrs. Coleridge wanted the original basis for affectionate patience and candour. Hearing from everybody that Coleridge was a man of most extraordinary endowments, and attaching little weight, perhaps, to the distinction between[Pg 159] popular talents and such as by their very nature are doomed to a slower progress in the public esteem, she naturally looked to see, at least, an ordinary measure of worldly consequence attend upon their exercise. Now, had Coleridge been as persevering and punctual as the great mass of professional men, and had he given no reason to throw the onus of the different result upon his own different habits, in that case this result might, possibly and eventually, have been set down to the peculiar constitution of his powers, and their essential mal-adaptation to the English market. But, this trial having never fairly been made, it was natural to impute his non-success exclusively to his own irregular application, and to his carelessness in forming judicious connexions. In circumstances such as these, however, no matter how caused or how palliated, was laid a sure ground of discontent and fretfulness in any woman's mind, not unusually indulgent or unusually magnanimous. Coleridge, besides, assured me that his marriage was not his own deliberate act, but was in a manner forced upon his sense of honour by the scrupulous Southey, who insisted that he had gone too far in his attentions to Miss Fricker for any honourable retreat. On the other hand, a neutral spectator of the parties protested to me, that, if ever in his life he had seen a man under deep fascination, and what he would have called desperately in love, Coleridge, in relation to Miss F., was that man. Be that as it might, circumstances occurred soon after the marriage which placed all the parties in a trying situation for their candour and good temper. I had a full outline of the situation from two of those who were chiefly interested, and a partial one from a third: nor can it be denied that all the parties offended in point of prudence. A young lady became a neighbour, and a daily companion of Coleridge's walks, whom I will not describe more particularly than by saying that intellectually she was very much superior to Mrs. Coleridge. That superiority alone, when made conspicuous by its effects in winning Coleridge's regard and society, could not but be deeply mortifying to a young wife. However, it was moderated to her feelings by two considerations:—1. That the young lady was much too kind-hearted to have designed any annoyance in this triumph, or to express any[Pg 160] exultation; 2. That no shadow of suspicion settled upon the moral conduct or motives of either party: the young lady was always attended by her brother; she had no personal charms; and it was manifest that mere intellectual sympathies, in reference to literature and natural scenery, had associated them in their daily walks.
I continue by saying that Coleridge later made me, like some others, a confidant in this matter. His complaint was simply about incompatibility in temperament and personality. Lacking any genuine admiration, or really understanding, her husband’s intellectual abilities, Mrs. Coleridge missed the fundamental basis for affectionate patience and openness. Hearing from everyone that Coleridge was an extraordinarily talented man and perhaps not fully appreciating the difference between[Pg 159] popular talents and those that naturally progress more slowly in public esteem, she naturally expected at least a standard level of societal recognition to accompany these abilities. Had Coleridge been as dedicated and punctual as most professionals, and had he not given any reason to attribute his different results to his own unique habits, this outcome might eventually have been seen as a result of his specific strengths and their inherent mismatch with the English market. However, since this trial was never properly undertaken, it was easy to assign his lack of success solely to his irregular efforts and his negligence in building wise connections. In such circumstances, regardless of the cause or justification, discontent and frustration were likely to arise in any woman's mind, especially if she wasn't particularly forgiving or generous. Coleridge also told me that his marriage wasn’t a decision he made freely, but rather something he felt obliged to pursue due to the conscientious Southey, who insisted he had gone too far in his attentions to Miss Fricker to retreat honorably. On the other hand, a neutral observer of the situation told me that if he had ever seen a man deeply enchanted, almost desperately in love, it was Coleridge regarding Miss F. Regardless, not long after the marriage, events unfolded that put everyone involved in a challenging position for their honesty and good nature. I received a comprehensive account from two of the main parties and a partial one from a third: it’s undeniable that all parties acted imprudently. A young lady became a neighbor and daily companion on Coleridge's walks; I won’t go into details other than to say she was intellectually much superior to Mrs. Coleridge. That superiority, when highlighted by its impact in earning Coleridge's attention and companionship, must have been deeply upsetting for a young wife. However, her feelings were somewhat softened by two factors: 1. The young lady was far too kind-hearted to have intended any offense in this regard or to show any[Pg 160] triumph; 2. There was no hint of suspicion regarding the moral integrity or intentions of either party: the young lady was always with her brother; she had no personal allure; and it was clear that their shared intellectual interests in literature and nature brought them together on their daily strolls.
Still, it is a bitter trial to a young married woman to sustain any sort of competition with a female of her own age for any part of her husband's regard, or any share of his company. Mrs. Coleridge, not having the same relish for long walks or rural scenery, and their residence being, at this time, in a very sequestered village, was condemned to a daily renewal of this trial.[49] Accidents of another kind embittered it still further: often it would happen that the walking party returned drenched with rain; in which case, the young lady, with a laughing gaiety, and evidently unconscious of any liberty that she was taking, or any wound that she was inflicting, would run up to Mrs. Coleridge's wardrobe, array herself, without leave asked, in Mrs. Coleridge's dresses, and make herself merry with her own unceremoniousness and Mrs. Coleridge's gravity. In all this, she took no liberty that she would not most readily have granted in return; she confided too unthinkingly in what she regarded as the natural privileges of friendship; and as little thought that she had been receiving or exacting a favour, as, under an exchange of their relative positions, she would have claimed to confer one. But Mrs. Coleridge viewed her freedoms with a far different eye: she felt herself no longer the entire mistress of her own house; she held a divided empire; and it barbed the arrow to her womanly feelings that Coleridge treated any sallies of resentment which might sometimes escape her as narrow-mindedness; whilst, on the other hand, her own female servant, and others in the same rank of life, began to drop expressions which alternately implied pity for her as an injured woman, or contempt for her as a very tame one.
Still, it's a tough challenge for a young married woman to compete with another woman of her age for any part of her husband’s affection or time. Mrs. Coleridge, who didn’t share the same love for long walks or the countryside, and who was living in a very secluded village at the time, faced this challenge every day. Accidents of another kind only made it worse: often, the walking group would come back soaked from the rain; in those cases, the young lady, with a cheerful spirit and clearly unaware of any boundaries she was crossing or any hurt she was causing, would rush to Mrs. Coleridge’s closet, put on Mrs. Coleridge’s dresses without asking, and enjoy her carefree attitude in contrast to Mrs. Coleridge’s seriousness. In all of this, she didn’t see that she was overstepping in any way she wouldn’t happily allow in return; she too naively trusted what she thought were the natural rights of friendship, and she didn’t realize she was imposing a favor, just as she wouldn’t think to request one if their roles were reversed. But Mrs. Coleridge viewed her actions very differently: she felt she was no longer the sole ruler of her own home; she shared her domain, and it stung her emotions that Coleridge dismissed any outbursts of anger she might have as being petty; meanwhile, her own female servant, along with others of the same social standing, began to drop comments that suggested either pity for her as a wronged woman or disdain for her as someone very submissive.
The reader will easily apprehend the situation, and the unfortunate results which it boded to the harmony of a young married couple, without further illustration. Whether Coleridge[Pg 161] would not, under any circumstances, have become indifferent to a wife not eminently capable of enlightened sympathy with his own ruling pursuits, I do not undertake to pronounce. My own impression is, that neither Coleridge nor Lord Byron could have failed, eventually, to quarrel with any wife, though a Pandora sent down from heaven to bless him. But, doubtless, this consummation must have been hastened by a situation which exposed Mrs. Coleridge to an invidious comparison with a more intellectual person; as, on the other hand, it was most unfortunate for Coleridge himself to be continually compared with one so ideally correct and regular in his habits as Mr. Southey. Thus was their domestic peace prematurely soured: embarrassments of a pecuniary nature would be likely to demand continual sacrifices; no depth of affection existing, these would create disgust or dissension; and at length each would believe that their union had originated in circumstances overruling their own deliberate choice.
The reader will easily grasp the situation and the unfortunate outcomes it had for the harmony of a young married couple, without needing further explanation. Whether Coleridge[Pg 161] would, under any circumstances, have become indifferent to a wife who wasn't fully supportive of his own passions, I can’t say for sure. My impression is that neither Coleridge nor Lord Byron would have failed to eventually argue with any wife, even if she were a heavenly gift meant to bless him. However, this outcome would have definitely been accelerated by a situation that put Mrs. Coleridge in an unfavorable comparison with someone more intellectual; on the flip side, it was unfortunate for Coleridge to be constantly compared to someone as ideally admirable and organized in his habits as Mr. Southey. This is how their domestic peace was soured too soon: financial struggles would likely require ongoing sacrifices; without a deep affection, these would lead to irritation or conflict; and eventually, each would think their marriage resulted from circumstances beyond their own thoughtful choice.
The gloom, however, and the weight of dejection which sat upon Coleridge's countenance and deportment at this time could not be accounted for by a disappointment (if such it were) to which time must, long ago, have reconciled him. Mrs. Coleridge, if not turning to him the more amiable aspects of her character, was at any rate a respectable partner. And the season of youth was now passed. They had been married about ten years; had had four children, of whom three survived; and the interests of a father were now replacing those of a husband. Yet never had I beheld so profound an expression of cheerless despondency. And the restless activity of Coleridge's mind, in chasing abstract truths, and burying himself in the dark places of human speculation, seemed to me, in a great measure, an attempt to escape out of his own personal wretchedness. I was right. In this instance, at least, I had hit the mark; and Coleridge bore witness himself at an after period to the truth of my divination by some impressive verses. At dinner, when a very numerous party had assembled, he knew that he was expected to talk, and exerted himself to meet the expectation. But he was evidently struggling with gloomy thoughts that prompted him to silence, and perhaps to solitude: he talked[Pg 162] with effort, and passively resigned himself to the repeated misrepresentations of several amongst his hearers. The subject chiefly discussed was Arthur Young, not for his Rural Economy, but for his Politics.[50] It must be to this period of Coleridge's life that Wordsworth refers in those exquisite "Lines written in my pocket copy of the 'Castle of Indolence.'" The passage which I mean comes after a description of Coleridge's countenance, and begins in some such terms as these:—
The gloom and heavy sense of dejection on Coleridge's face and behavior at this time couldn't be explained by a disappointment (if it was one) that he should have gotten over long ago. Mrs. Coleridge, while maybe not showing her most pleasant side, was still a respectable partner. And the days of youth were now behind them. They had been married for about ten years, had four children, three of whom survived, and Coleridge's focus as a father was now taking precedence over his role as a husband. Yet, I had never seen such a deep expression of gloomy despair. Coleridge's restless mind, chasing abstract truths and digging into dark areas of human thought, seemed like a way for him to escape his own personal misery. I was right. At least in this case, I had hit the nail on the head, and Coleridge later confirmed the truth of my insight in some powerful verses. At dinner, with a large group gathered, he knew he was expected to speak and pushed himself to rise to the occasion. But it was clear he was battling gloomy thoughts that made him want to be quiet, maybe even alone: he spoke with effort and passively accepted the many misunderstandings from some of his listeners. The main topic of discussion was Arthur Young, not for his work in Rural Economy, but for his Politics. It must be to this time in Coleridge's life that Wordsworth refers in those beautiful "Lines written in my pocket copy of the 'Castle of Indolence.'" The passage I'm thinking of comes after a description of Coleridge's face and begins in something like this:—
When he returned to us, a wilted flower," &c.
Withered he was, indeed, and to all appearance blighted. At night he entered into a spontaneous explanation of this unhappy overclouding of his life, on occasion of my saying accidentally that a toothache had obliged me to take a few drops of laudanum. At what time or on what motive he had commenced the use of opium, he did not say; but the peculiar emphasis of horror with which he warned me against forming a habit of the same kind impressed upon my mind a feeling that he never hoped to liberate himself from the bondage. My belief is that he never did. About ten o'clock at night I took leave of him; and, feeling that I could not easily go to sleep after the excitement of the day, and fresh from the sad spectacle of powers so majestic already besieged by decay, I determined to return to Bristol through the coolness of the night. The roads, though, in fact, a section of the great highway between seaports so turbulent as Bristol and Plymouth, were as quiet as garden-walks. Once only I passed through the expiring fires of a village fair or wake: that interruption excepted, through the whole stretch of forty miles from Bridgewater to the Hot-wells, I saw no living creature but a surly dog, who followed me for a mile along a park-wall, and a man, who was moving about in the half-way town of Cross. The turnpike-gates were all opened by a mechanical contrivance from a bedroom window; I seemed to myself in solitary possession of the whole sleeping country.[Pg 163] The summer night was divinely calm; no sound, except once or twice the cry of a child as I was passing the windows of cottages, ever broke upon the utter silence; and all things conspired to throw back my thoughts upon that extraordinary man whom I had just quitted.
He was indeed worn down and looked completely defeated. That night, he spontaneously explained the sad cloud hanging over his life when I casually mentioned that a toothache had forced me to take a few drops of laudanum. He didn’t say when or why he started using opium, but the intense horror with which he warned me against getting into the same habit made me feel that he didn’t believe he could ever free himself from it. I believe he never did. Around ten at night, I said goodbye to him, and since I knew I wouldn’t easily fall asleep after the day’s excitement and still felt the weight of witnessing such powerful decay, I decided to head back to Bristol in the cool night air. The roads, which were part of the main route between the bustling ports of Bristol and Plymouth, were as quiet as garden paths. I only passed through the dying glow of a village fair once; aside from that brief interruption, for the entire forty-mile stretch from Bridgewater to the Hot-wells, I saw no living soul except for a grumpy dog that followed me for a mile along a park wall and a man wandering about in the halfway town of Cross. The toll gates were all opened by a mechanism from a bedroom window; I felt like I was the only one in the entire sleeping countryside.[Pg 163] The summer night was beautifully calm; no sound, except for the occasional cry of a child as I passed cottage windows, ever broke the complete silence, and everything seemed to draw my thoughts back to that remarkable man I had just left.
The fine saying of Addison is familiar to most readers—that Babylon in ruins is not so affecting a spectacle, or so solemn, as a human mind overthrown by lunacy. How much more awful, then, when a mind so regal as that of Coleridge is overthrown, or threatened with overthrow, not by a visitation of Providence, but by the treachery of its own will, and by the conspiracy, as it were, of himself against himself! Was it possible that this ruin had been caused or hurried forward by the dismal degradations of pecuniary difficulties? That was worth inquiring. I will here mention briefly that I did inquire two days after; and, in consequence of what I heard, I contrived that a particular service should be rendered to Mr. Coleridge, a week after, through the hands of Mr. Cottle of Bristol, which might have the effect of liberating his mind from anxiety for a year or two, and thus rendering his great powers disposable to their natural uses. That service was accepted by Coleridge.[51] To save him any feelings of distress, all names were concealed; but, in a letter written by him about fifteen years after that time, I found that he had become aware of all the circumstances, perhaps through some indiscretion of Mr. Cottle's. A more important question I never ascertained, viz. whether this service had the effect of seriously lightening his mind. For some succeeding years, he did certainly appear to me released from that load of despondency which oppressed him on my first introduction. Grave, indeed, he continued to be, and at times absorbed in gloom; nor did I ever see him in a state of perfectly natural cheerfulness. But, as he strove in vain,[Pg 164] for many years, to wean himself from his captivity to opium, a healthy state of spirits could not be much expected. Perhaps, indeed, where the liver and other organs had, for so large a period in life, been subject to a continual morbid stimulation, it might be impossible for the system ever to recover a natural action. Torpor, I suppose, must result from continued artificial excitement; and, perhaps, upon a scale of corresponding duration. Life, in such a case, may not offer a field of sufficient extent for unthreading the fatal links that have been wound about the machinery of health, and have crippled its natural play.
The well-known quote by Addison is familiar to most readers—that a ruined Babylon isn't as moving or serious as a human mind shattered by madness. How much worse, then, is it when a mind as brilliant as Coleridge's is undermined or threatened, not by fate, but by its own will, and by a sort of conspiracy of himself against himself? Could this downfall have been sped up or caused by the grim weight of financial struggles? That was worth looking into. I want to briefly mention that I did inquire two days later; and, based on what I learned, I arranged for a specific assistance to be provided to Mr. Coleridge a week after, through Mr. Cottle from Bristol, which might relieve him of anxiety for a year or two, allowing his great abilities to be used for their intended purpose. Coleridge accepted that assistance. To spare him any distress, all names were kept hidden; however, in a letter he wrote about fifteen years later, I discovered that he had learned all the details, possibly due to some slip by Mr. Cottle. A more important question that I never figured out was whether this help genuinely lightened his mind. For several years afterward, he certainly seemed to me to be free from the heavy despondency that weighed on him during my first meeting with him. He remained serious and sometimes lost in gloom; I never saw him in a completely natural state of cheerfulness. But, as he struggled for years, unsuccessfully, to break free from his addiction to opium, a healthy state of mind wasn't really expected. Perhaps, indeed, when the liver and other organs have been subjected to constant unhealthy stimulation for such a long time, it might be impossible for the body to regain its natural functions. I guess lethargy must follow from continuous artificial stimulation, and maybe on a similarly long duration. In such a case, life may not provide enough of a chance to untangle the harmful links that have been twisted around the machinery of health and weakened its natural operation.
Meantime—to resume the thread of my wandering narrative—on this serene summer night of 1807, as I moved slowly along, with my eyes continually settling upon the northern constellations, which, like all the fixed stars, by their immeasurable and almost spiritual remoteness from human affairs, naturally throw the thoughts upon the perishableness of our earthly troubles, in contrast with their own utter peace and solemnity—I reverted, at intervals, to all I had ever heard of Coleridge, and strove to weave it into some continuous sketch of his life. I hardly remember how much I then knew; I know but little now: that little I will here jot down upon paper.
Meantime—to get back to my wandering story—on this calm summer night in 1807, as I walked slowly, my eyes kept drifting to the northern constellations, which, like all the fixed stars, with their vast and almost spiritual distance from human life, naturally made me reflect on the fleeting nature of our earthly troubles, especially when compared to their own complete peace and solemnity. I occasionally thought about everything I had ever heard about Coleridge and tried to piece it together into some coherent outline of his life. I can hardly remember what I knew then; I know very little now: that little I will jot down here on paper.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge was the son of a learned clergyman—the vicar of Ottery St. Mary, in the southern quarter of Devonshire.[52] It is painful to mention that he was almost an object of persecution to his mother; why, I could never learn. His father was described to me, by Coleridge himself, as a sort of Parson Adams, being distinguished by his erudition, his inexperience of the world, and his guileless simplicity. I once purchased in London, and, I suppose, still possess, two elementary books on the Latin language by this reverend gentleman; one of them, as I found, making somewhat higher pretensions than a common school grammar.[53] In particular,[Pg 165] an attempt is made to reform the theory of the cases; and it gives a pleasant specimen of the rustic scholar's naïveté, that he seriously proposes to banish such vexatious terms as the accusative; and, by way of simplifying the matter to tender minds, that we should call it, in all time to come, the "quale-quare-quidditive" case, upon what incomprehensible principle I never could fathom. He used regularly to delight his village flock, on Sundays, with Hebrew quotations in his sermons, which he always introduced as the "immediate language of the Holy Ghost." This proved unfortunate to his successor: he also was a learned man, and his parishioners admitted it, but generally with a sigh for past times, and a sorrowful complaint that he was still far below Parson Coleridge—for that he never gave them any "immediate language of the Holy Ghost." I presume that, like the reverend gentleman so pleasantly sketched in "St. Ronan's Well," Mr. Coleridge, who resembled that person in his oriental learning, in his absence of mind, and in his simplicity, must also have resembled him in shortsightedness, of which his son used to relate this ludicrous instance. Dining in a large party, one day, the modest divine was suddenly shocked by perceiving some part, as he conceived, of his own snowy shirt emerging from a part of his habiliments, which we will suppose to have been his waistcoat. It was not that; but for decorum we will so call it. The stray portion of his own supposed tunic was admonished of its errors by a forcible thrust back into its proper home; but still another limbus persisted to emerge, or seemed to persist, and still another, until the learned gentleman absolutely perspired with the labour of re-establishing order. And, after all, he saw with anguish that some arrears of the snowy indecorum still remained to reduce into obedience. To this remnant of rebellion he was proceeding to apply himself—strangely confounded, however, at the obstinacy of the insurrection—when, the mistress of the house rising to lead away the ladies from the table, and all parties naturally rising with her, it became suddenly apparent to every eye that the worthy Orientalist had been most[Pg 166] laboriously stowing away into the capacious receptacles of his own habiliments—under the delusion that it was his own shirt—the snowy folds of a lady's gown, belonging to his next neighbour; and so voluminously that a very small portion of it, indeed, remained for the lady's own use; the natural consequence of which was, of course, that the lady appeared inextricably yoked to the learned theologian, and could not in any way effect her release, until after certain operations upon the vicar's dress, and a continued refunding and rolling out of snowy mazes upon snowy mazes, in quantities which at length proved too much for the gravity of the company. Inextinguishable laughter arose from all parties, except the erring and unhappy doctor, who, in dire perplexity, continued still refunding with all his might—perspiring and refunding—until he had paid up the last arrears of his long debt, and thus put an end to a case of distress more memorable to himself and his parishioners than any "quale-quare-quidditive" case that probably had ever perplexed his learning.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge was the son of an educated clergyman—the vicar of Ottery St. Mary, in southern Devonshire.[52] It's painful to mention that he was almost persecuted by his mother; why, I could never find out. His father was described to me by Coleridge himself as a sort of Parson Adams, known for his knowledge, lack of worldly experience, and innocent simplicity. Once, I bought two basic books on the Latin language by this reverend gentleman in London, and I suppose I still have them. One of these books made higher claims than a regular school grammar.[53] In particular,[Pg 165] there was an attempt to reform the theory of cases, and it gives a charming example of the rustic scholar's naïveté when he seriously suggested getting rid of confusing terms like accusative; to simplify things for young minds, he proposed we should call it the "quale-quare-quidditive" case, based on some incomprehensible reasoning I could never figure out. He used to delight his village congregation every Sunday with Hebrew quotes in his sermons, which he always referred to as the "immediate language of the Holy Ghost." This was unfortunate for his successor; he was also learned, and while his parishioners acknowledged it, they generally sighed for the past and sadly complained that he still fell short of Parson Coleridge—because he never provided them with any "immediate language of the Holy Ghost." I assume that, like the reverend gentleman so charmingly described in "St. Ronan's Well," Mr. Coleridge, who shared that character’s knowledge of the East, absent-mindedness, and simplicity, must have also shared his short-sightedness, which his son recounted in this amusing instance. One day, while dining with a large group, the humble divine was suddenly shocked to see what he thought was part of his own pristine shirt peeking out from what we will assume was his waistcoat. It wasn’t, but for politeness, we’ll call it that. The wayward piece of his supposed tunic was corrected with a forceful push back into its rightful place, but still, another limbus seemed to emerge, or looked like it did, and then another, until the learned gentleman was sweating from the effort of restoring order. In the end, he sadly noticed that some remnants of the snowy indecorum were still there, refusing to comply. While he was struggling with this last bit of rebellion—quite bewildered by the stubbornness of the revolt—when the lady of the house stood to lead the women away from the table, and everyone naturally rose with her, it suddenly became clear to everyone that the worthy Orientalist had been laboriously shoving into his own attire—under the illusion that it was his own shirt—the snowy folds of a lady's gown from his neighbor; and so voluminously that only a tiny portion remained for the lady. The natural result was, of course, that the lady seemed inextricably linked to the learned theologian and couldn’t free herself until after some adjustments to the vicar's clothing, as well as a continued rolling out of snowy layers upon snowy layers, in quantities that ultimately proved too much for the seriousness of the gathering. Uncontrollable laughter erupted from everyone, except the confused and unhappy doctor, who, in dire frustration, kept refunding with all his strength—sweating and refunding—until he had returned the last remnants of his long-standing debt, bringing an end to a case of embarrassment that was more memorable to him and his parishioners than any "quale-quare-quidditive" case that probably ever puzzled his intellect.
In his childish days, and when he had become an orphan, Coleridge was removed to the heart of London, and placed on the great foundation of Christ's Hospital.[54] He there found himself associated, as a school-fellow, with several boys destined to distinction in after life; particularly the brilliant Leigh Hunt, and more closely with one who, if not endowed with powers equally large and comprehensive as his own, had, however, genius not less original or exquisite—viz. the inimitable Charles Lamb. But, in learning, Coleridge outstripped all competitors, and rose to be the captain of the school. It is, indeed, a memorable fact to be recorded of a boy, that, before completing his fifteenth year, he had translated the Greek Hymns of Synesius into English Anacreontic verse. This was not a school task, but a labour of love and choice. Before leaving school, Coleridge had an opportunity of reading the sonnets of Bowles, which so powerfully impressed his poetic sensibility that he made forty transcripts of them with his own pen, by way of presents to youthful friends. From Christ's Hospital, by the privilege of his station at school, he was transferred to Jesus College, Cambridge.[55] It was here, no doubt, that his acquaintance[Pg 167] began with the philosophic system of Hartley, for that eminent person had been a Jesus man. Frend also, the mathematician, of heretical memory (he was judicially tried, and expelled from his fellowship, on some issue connected with the doctrine of the Trinity), belonged to that college, and was probably contemporary with Coleridge.[56] What accident, or imprudence, carried him away from Cambridge before he had completed the usual period of study, I never heard. He had certainly won some distinction as a scholar, having obtained the prize for a Greek ode in Sapphic metre, of which the sentiments (as he observes himself) were better than the Greek. Porson was accustomed, meanly enough, to ridicule the Greek lexis of this ode; which was to break a fly upon the wheel. The ode was clever enough for a boy; but to such skill in Greek as could have enabled him to compose with critical accuracy Coleridge never made pretensions.
In his childhood, after becoming an orphan, Coleridge was moved to the heart of London and enrolled in the prestigious Christ's Hospital. There, he met several classmates who were destined for greatness, including the brilliant Leigh Hunt, and more closely with someone who, although not as broadly gifted as Coleridge, possessed a unique and refined genius—namely, the incomparable Charles Lamb. However, in academics, Coleridge surpassed all his peers, eventually becoming the captain of the school. Notably, before he turned fifteen, he translated the Greek Hymns of Synesius into English Anacreontic verse. This was not a school assignment; it was a personal project driven by passion. Before leaving school, Coleridge had the chance to read Bowles' sonnets, which deeply moved his poetic sensibility, prompting him to create forty handwritten copies to give as gifts to his young friends. Thanks to his position at school, he was later admitted to Jesus College, Cambridge. Here, he likely began his acquaintance with Hartley’s philosophical system, as that distinguished individual had been associated with Jesus College. Frend, a mathematician known for his controversial views (he was tried and expelled from his fellowship over issues related to the doctrine of the Trinity), also attended that college and was likely a contemporary of Coleridge. I never learned what incident or mistake caused him to leave Cambridge before finishing the usual study period. He certainly earned recognition as a scholar, winning a prize for a Greek ode in Sapphic meter, though he noted that the sentiments expressed were better than the Greek itself. Porson, in a rather petty manner, used to mock the Greek *lexis* of this ode, which seemed trivial in the grand scheme. The ode was impressive for a boy; however, Coleridge never claimed to have the level of Greek proficiency required for critical accuracy in composition.
The incidents of Coleridge's life about this period, and some account of a heavy disappointment in love, which probably it was that carried him away from Cambridge, are to be found embodied (with what modifications I know not) in the novel of "Edmund Oliver," written by Charles Lloyd. It is well known that, in a frenzy of unhappy feeling at the rejection he met with from the lady of his choice, Coleridge enlisted as a private into a dragoon regiment.[57] He fell off his horse on several occasions, but perhaps not more than raw recruits are apt to do when first put under the riding-master. But Coleridge was naturally ill framed for a good horseman.
The events in Coleridge's life during this time, along with a significant heartbreak that likely caused him to leave Cambridge, are captured (with who knows what changes) in the novel "Edmund Oliver," written by Charles Lloyd. It's well-known that, in a fit of sadness over being rejected by the woman he loved, Coleridge joined a cavalry regiment as a private. He fell off his horse several times, though probably not more than new recruits usually do when they first start training with a riding instructor. However, Coleridge was naturally not built to be a great horse rider.
He is also represented in "Edmund Oliver" as having found peculiar difficulty or annoyance in grooming his horse. But the most romantic incident in that scene of his life was in the circumstances of his discharge. It is said (but I vouch for no part of the story) that Coleridge, as a private, mounted guard[Pg 168] at the door of a room in which his officers were giving a ball. Two of them had a dispute upon some Greek word or passage when close to Coleridge's station. He interposed his authentic decision of the case. The officers stared as though one of their own horses had sung "Rule Britannia"; questioned him; heard his story; pitied his misfortune; and finally subscribed to purchase his discharge. So the story has been told; and also otherwise.[58] Not very long after this, Coleridge became acquainted with the two celebrated Wedgwoods of Etruria, both of whom, admiring his fine powers, subscribed to send him into North Germany, where, at the University of Göttingen, he completed his education according to his own scheme. The most celebrated professor whose lectures he attended was the far-famed Blumenbach, of whom he continued to speak through life with almost filial reverence. Returning to England, he attended Mr. Thomas Wedgwood, as a friend, throughout the afflicting and anomalous illness which brought him to the grave. It was supposed by medical men that the cause of Mr. Wedgwood's continued misery was a stricture of the colon. The external symptoms were torpor and morbid irritability, together with everlasting restlessness. By way of some relief to this latter symptom, Mr. Wedgwood purchased a travelling carriage, and wandered up and down England, taking Coleridge as his companion. And, as a desperate attempt to rouse and irritate the decaying sensibility of his system, I have been assured, by a surviving friend, that Mr. Wedgwood at one time opened a butcher's shop, conceiving that the affronts and disputes to which such a situation would expose him might act beneficially upon his increasing torpor. This strange expedient[59] served only to[Pg 169] express the anguish which had now mastered his nature; it was soon abandoned; and this accomplished but miserable man at length sank under his sufferings. What made the case more memorable was the combination of worldly prosperity which forced into strong relief and fiery contrast this curse written in the flesh. He was rich, he was young, he was popular, distinguished for his scientific attainments, publicly honoured for patriotic services, and had before him, when he first fell ill, every prospect of a career even nationally splendid.
He is also portrayed in "Edmund Oliver" as having experienced unusual difficulty or frustration in grooming his horse. However, the most dramatic moment in that part of his life was related to how he was discharged. It’s said (though I can’t confirm any part of the story) that Coleridge, as a private, stood guard at the door of a room where his officers were hosting a ball. Two of them had a disagreement about a Greek word or phrase right by Coleridge's post. He stepped in with his authoritative interpretation of the issue. The officers were taken aback as if one of their own horses had sung "Rule Britannia"; they questioned him, heard his story, sympathized with his misfortune, and eventually agreed to fund his discharge. So the story goes; although it has also been told in other ways. Shortly after this, Coleridge met the two famous Wedgwoods from Etruria, both of whom, impressed by his exceptional abilities, sponsored him to go to North Germany, where he completed his education at the University of Göttingen according to his own plan. The most famous professor he studied under was the renowned Blumenbach, who he spoke of with almost a familial admiration throughout his life. After returning to England, he stayed with Mr. Thomas Wedgwood, as a friend, during the challenging and unusual illness that led to his death. Medical professionals believed Mr. Wedgwood's ongoing pain was due to a colon stricture. The visible symptoms included lethargy and abnormal irritability, alongside constant restlessness. To alleviate some of this restlessness, Mr. Wedgwood bought a traveling carriage and traveled around England, taking Coleridge along. In a desperate bid to stimulate his dulled senses, I’ve been told by a friend who survived him that Mr. Wedgwood at one point even opened a butcher's shop, thinking that the confrontations and arguments that came with that job might positively impact his growing torpor. This unusual solution only highlighted the pain that had now taken over his being; it was soon dropped, and this skilled yet wretched man ultimately succumbed to his suffering. What made the situation even more striking was the combination of worldly success that sharply contrasted with the burden he bore. He was wealthy, young, popular, distinguished for his scientific achievements, publicly celebrated for his patriotic contributions, and had every prospect of a nationally impressive career ahead of him when he first fell ill.
By the death of Mr. Wedgwood, Coleridge succeeded to a regular annuity of £75, which that gentleman had bequeathed to him. The other Mr. Wedgwood granted him an equal allowance. Now came his marriage, his connexion with politics and political journals, his residence in various parts of Somersetshire, and his consequent introduction to Mr. Wordsworth. In his politics, Mr. Coleridge was most sincere and most enthusiastic. No man hailed with profounder sympathy the French Revolution; and, though he saw cause to withdraw his regard from many of the democratic zealots in this country, and even from the revolutionary interest as it was subsequently conducted, he continued to worship the original revolutionary cause in a pure Miltonic spirit; and he continued also to abominate the policy of Mr. Pitt in a degree which I myself find it difficult to understand. The very spirited little poem of "Fire, Famine, and Slaughter," who are supposed to meet in conference, to describe their horrid triumphs, and then to ask in a whisper who it was that unchained them,—to which each in turn replies,
By the time Mr. Wedgwood passed away, Coleridge received a regular annuity of £75 that the gentleman had left to him. The other Mr. Wedgwood also provided him with the same financial support. This is when he got married, got involved in politics and political journals, moved around different areas of Somersetshire, and met Mr. Wordsworth. In politics, Mr. Coleridge was very sincere and passionate. No one celebrated the French Revolution with more empathy than he did; and although he eventually distanced himself from many of the democratic activists in this country, and even from the way the revolutionary cause was handled later on, he continued to admire the original revolutionary cause in a pure Miltonic spirit. He also maintained a strong dislike for Mr. Pitt's policies to a degree that I personally struggle to comprehend. The lively poem "Fire, Famine, and Slaughter," where they are imagined to meet and discuss their terrifying victories, and then ask quietly who it was that set them loose,—to which each one replies,
expresses his horror of Mr. Pitt personally in a most extravagant shape, but merely for the purpose of poetic effect; for he had no real unkindness in his heart towards any human being; and I have often heard him disclaim the hatred which is here expressed for Mr. Pitt, as he did also very elaborately and earnestly in print. Somewhere about this time, Coleridge[Pg 170] attempted, under Sheridan's countenance, to bring a tragedy upon the stage of Drury Lane; but his prospect of success, as I once heard or read, was suddenly marred by Mr. Sheridan's inability to sacrifice what he thought a good jest. One scene presented a cave with streams of water weeping down the sides; and the first words were, in a sort of mimicry of the sound, "Drip, drip, drip!" Upon which Sheridan repeated aloud to the assembled green-room, expressly convoked for the purpose of hearing the play read, "Drip, drip, drip!—why, God bless me, there's nothing here but dripping!" and so arose a chorus of laughter amongst the actors fatal for the moment to the probationary play.
expresses his horror of Mr. Pitt personally in a really exaggerated way, but only for poetic effect; he didn't actually have any real unkind feelings toward anyone. I've often heard him deny the hatred expressed for Mr. Pitt here, just as he did in print very thoroughly and passionately. Around this time, Coleridge[Pg 170] tried, with Sheridan's support, to get a tragedy onto the stage at Drury Lane; however, his chances of success were suddenly ruined by Mr. Sheridan's inability to give up what he thought was a good joke. One scene featured a cave with streams of water flowing down the sides, and the first words mimicked the sound: "Drip, drip, drip!" At which point, Sheridan loudly said to the gathered green-room, specifically called together to hear the play read, "Drip, drip, drip!—why, God bless me, there's nothing here but dripping!" This led to a wave of laughter among the actors that doomed the play in that moment.
About the latter end of the century, Coleridge visited North Germany again, in company with Mr. and Miss Wordsworth.[60] Their tour was chiefly confined to the Hartz Forest and its neighbourhood. But the incident most worthy of remembrance in their excursion was a visit made to Klopstock; either at Hamburgh, or, perhaps, at the Danish town of Altona, on the same river Elbe; for Klopstock was a pensioner of the Danish king. An anonymous writer, who attacked Coleridge most truculently in an early number of "Blackwood," and with an acharnement that must astonish the neutral reader, has made the mistake of supposing Coleridge to have been the chief speaker, who did not speak at all. The case was this: Klopstock could not speak English, though everybody remembers the pretty broken English[61] of his second wife. Neither Coleridge nor Wordsworth, on the other hand, was able to speak German with any fluency. French, therefore, was the only medium of free communication; that being pretty equally familiar to Wordsworth and to Klopstock. But Coleridge found so much difficulty even in reading French that, wherever (as in the case of Leibnitz's "Theodicée") there was a choice between an original written in French and a translation, though it might be a very faulty one, in German, he always preferred the latter. Hence it happened that Wordsworth, on behalf of the English party, was the sole supporter of the dialogue. The anonymous critic says[Pg 171] another thing, which certainly has an air of truth—viz. that Klopstock plays a very secondary rôle in the interview (or words to that effect). But how was this to be avoided in reporting the case, supposing the fact to have been such? Now, the plain truth is that Wordsworth, upon his own ground, was an incomparable talker; whereas "Klubstick" (as Coleridge used to call him) was always a feeble and slovenly one, because a loose and incoherent thinker. Besides, he was now old and decaying. Nor at any time, nor in any accomplishment, could Klopstock have shone, unless in the respectable art of skating. There he had a real advantage. The author of "The Messiah," I have authority for saying, skated with the ease and grace of a regular artist; whereas the poet of the "Excursion" sprawled upon the ice like a cow dancing a cotillon. Wordsworth did the very opposite of that with which he was taxed; for, happening to look down at Klopstock's swollen legs, and recollecting his age, he felt touched by a sort of filial pity for his helplessness. And he came to the conclusion that it would not seem becoming in a young and as yet obscure author to report too consciously the real superiority which he found it easy to maintain in such a colloquy.
About the end of the century, Coleridge visited North Germany again, along with Mr. and Miss Wordsworth.[60] Their trip was mainly limited to the Hartz Forest and nearby areas. However, the most memorable part of their journey was a visit to Klopstock; either in Hamburg or possibly in the Danish town of Altona, along the Elbe river, since Klopstock was a pensioner of the Danish king. An anonymous writer, who criticizes Coleridge harshly in an early issue of "Blackwood," with an acharnement that would surprise neutral readers, mistakenly assumed Coleridge to be the main speaker, who actually said nothing. Here’s what happened: Klopstock couldn't speak English, although everyone remembers the charming broken English[61] of his second wife. Neither Coleridge nor Wordsworth could speak German fluently. Therefore, French was the only language they could comfortably communicate in, as Wordsworth and Klopstock both had a good grasp of it. However, Coleridge struggled so much with even reading French that, whenever he had the option between an original text in French and a translation—no matter how flawed—in German, he always chose the German version. This meant that Wordsworth, representing the English side, was the only one engaging in the discussion. The anonymous critic also mentions[Pg 171] another point that seems true—that Klopstock played a very minor rôle in the conversation (or something similar). But how could that have been avoided in reporting the situation, if that was indeed the case? The plain truth is that Wordsworth was an outstanding conversationalist; meanwhile, "Klubstick" (as Coleridge referred to him) was always a weak and disorganized speaker due to his loose and incoherent thoughts. Plus, he was now old and in decline. Klopstock could not have excelled in any manner, except in the respectable art of skating. There he really stood out. I can confirm that the author of "The Messiah" skated with the ease and grace of a real artist; in contrast, the poet of the "Excursion" floundered on the ice like a cow trying to dance a cotillon. Wordsworth did the exact opposite of what he was accused of; while glancing down at Klopstock's swollen legs and recalling his age, he felt a kind of filial pity for his frailty. He concluded that it wouldn’t be proper for a young and still unknown author to overtly acknowledge the advantage he easily held in such a conversation.
But neither had Klopstock the pretensions as a poet which the Blackwood writer seems to take for granted. Germany, the truth is, wanted a great epic poet. Not having produced one in that early and plastic stage of her literary soil when such a growth is natural and spontaneous, the next thing was to bespeak a substitute. The force of Coleridge's well-known repartee, when, in reply to a foreigner asserting for Klopstock the rank of German Milton, he said, "True, sir; a very German Milton," cannot be fully appreciated but by one who is familiar with the German poetry, and the small proportion in which it is a natural, racy, and domestic growth. It has been often noticed as the misfortune of the Roman literature that it grew up too much under the oppression of Grecian models, and of Grecian models depraved by Alexandrian art—a fact, so far as it was a fact, which tended to cripple the genial and characteristic spirit of the national mind. But this evil, after all, did not take effect except in a partial sense. Rome had cast much of her[Pg 172] literature in her own moulds before these exotic models had begun to domineer. In fact, the reproach is in a very narrow sense true. Not so with Germany. Her literature, since its revival in the last century (and the revival upon the impulse of what cattle!—Bodmer on the one hand, and Gottsched, the never-enough-to-be-despised Gottsched, on the other!) has hardly moved a step in the freedom of natural grace. England for nineteen, and France for the twentieth, of all her capital works, has given the too servile law: and, with regard to Klopstock, if ever there was a good exemplification of the spurious and the counterfeit in literature, seek it in "The Messiah." He is verily and indeed the Birmingham Milton. This Klopstockian dialogue, by the way, was first printed (hardly published) in the original, or Lake edition of "The Friend." In the recast of that work it was omitted; nor has it been printed anywhere else that I am aware of.
But Klopstock didn't have the poetic ambitions that the Blackwood writer seems to assume. The truth is, Germany needed a great epic poet. Since she hadn't produced one during the early and formative years of her literary culture when such a talent typically thrives, the next step was to find a substitute. Coleridge's famous comeback, when a foreigner claimed that Klopstock was the German Milton, saying, "True, sir; a very German Milton," can only be fully appreciated by someone familiar with German poetry and its limited presence as a natural, vibrant, and homegrown art form. It’s often pointed out that Roman literature suffered because it grew too much under the influence of Greek models, particularly those corrupted by Alexandrian art—a fact, if it is indeed a fact, that stifled the genial and unique spirit of the national mind. However, this issue only affect Rome to a limited extent. Rome had developed much of her[Pg 172] literature in her own style before these foreign influences began to dominate. In reality, the criticism is only partially correct. Not so with Germany. Since her literary revival in the last century (which was prompted by people like Bodmer on one side and the endlessly scorned Gottsched on the other!), her literature has hardly advanced in the freedom of natural grace. England for nineteen, and France for the twentieth, of all her major works, has imposed a too subservient standard: and with respect to Klopstock, if there's ever been a clear example of the fake and the artificial in literature, look no further than "The Messiah." He is truly the Birmingham Milton. By the way, this Klopstockian dialogue was first printed (barely published) in the original, or Lake edition of "The Friend." In the revised version of that work, it was omitted; nor has it appeared anywhere else that I know of.
About the close of the first revolutionary war it must have been, or in the brief interval of peace, that Coleridge resorted to the English Lakes as a place of residence.[62] Wordsworth had a natural connexion with that region, by birth, breeding, and family alliances. Wordsworth must have attracted Coleridge to the Lakes; and Coleridge, through his affinity to Southey, eventually attracted him. Southey, as is known to all who take an interest in the Lake colony, married a sister of Mrs. Coleridge's; and, as a singular eccentricity in the circumstances of that marriage, I may mention that, on his wedding-day, and from the very portico of the church, Southey left his bride to embark for Lisbon. His uncle, Dr. Herbert, was chaplain to the English factory in that city; and it was to benefit by the facilities in that way opened to him for seeing Portugal that Southey now went abroad. He extended his tour to Spain; and the result of his notices was communicated to the world in a volume of travels. By such accidents of personal or family connexion as I have mentioned was the Lake colony gathered; and the critics of the day, unaware of the real facts, supposed them to have assembled under common views in literature—particularly with regard to the true functions of poetry, and the true theory of poetic[Pg 173] diction. Under this original blunder, laughable it is to mention that they went on to find in their writings all the agreements and common characteristics which their blunder had presumed; and they incorporated the whole community under the name of the Lake School. Yet Wordsworth and Southey never had one principle in common; their hostility was even flagrant. Indeed, Southey troubled himself little about abstract principles in anything; and, so far from agreeing with Wordsworth to the extent of setting up a separate school in poetry, he told me himself (August 1812) that he highly disapproved both of Mr. Wordsworth's theories and of his practice. It is very true that one man may sympathize with another, or even follow his leading, unconscious that he does so; or he may go so far as, in the very act of virtual imitation, to deem himself in opposition; but this sort of blind agreement could hardly be supposed of two men so discerning and so self-examining as Wordsworth and Southey. And, in fact, a philosophic investigation of the difficult questions connected with this whole slang about schools, Lake schools, &c., would show that Southey has not, nor ever had, any peculiarities in common with Wordsworth, beyond that of exchanging the old prescriptive diction of poetry, introduced between the periods of Milton and Cowper, for the simpler and profounder forms of daily life in some instances, and of the Bible in others. The bold and uniform practice of Wordsworth was here adopted, on perfectly independent views, by Southey. In this respect, however, Cowper had already begun the reform; and his influence, concurring with the now larger influence of Wordsworth, has operated so extensively as to make their own original differences at this day less perceptible.
Towards the end of the first revolutionary war, or during the brief peace period, Coleridge chose to live in the English Lakes.[62] Wordsworth had a natural connection to that area through his birth, upbringing, and family ties. Wordsworth likely drew Coleridge to the Lakes, and Coleridge, through his connection to Southey, ultimately attracted him. Southey, as everyone interested in the Lake colony knows, married a sister of Mrs. Coleridge. In a remarkable twist regarding that marriage, I should mention that on his wedding day, right from the church steps, Southey left his bride to set sail for Lisbon. His uncle, Dr. Herbert, was the chaplain for the English factory in that city, and Southey went abroad to take advantage of the opportunities that would allow him to see Portugal. He extended his travels to Spain, and the outcome of his observations was published in a travel book. The Lake colony was formed through such personal or family connections, and the critics of the time, unaware of the actual details, thought they had come together under shared literary views—especially concerning the true roles of poetry and the genuine theory of poetic[Pg 173] diction. Ironically, they went on to find in their writings all the similarities and common traits that their misunderstanding had assumed; they grouped the entire community under the label of the Lake School. However, Wordsworth and Southey never shared a single principle; their disagreements were even quite obvious. In fact, Southey cared little about abstract principles in anything; far from agreeing with Wordsworth enough to create a separate poetry school, he personally told me (August 1812) that he strongly disapproved of both Mr. Wordsworth's theories and his practices. It’s true that one person can sympathize with another or even follow their lead without realizing it; someone might even think they’re opposing the other while actually imitating them. But this kind of blind consensus is hard to believe between two sharp and self-reflective individuals like Wordsworth and Southey. A thoughtful exploration of the complicated questions tied to this whole terminology about schools, Lake schools, etc., would reveal that Southey has not, and never had, any peculiarities in common with Wordsworth, other than replacing the old traditional diction of poetry from the time between Milton and Cowper with the simpler and deeper language of everyday life in some cases, and Biblical language in others. Southey adopted Wordsworth's bold and consistent techniques based on completely independent viewpoints. However, Cowper had already initiated this reform, and his influence, along with the now greater influence of Wordsworth, has worked so extensively that their original differences are less noticeable today.
By the way, the word colony reminds me that I have omitted to mention in its proper place some scheme for migrating to America which had been entertained by Coleridge and Southey about the year 1794-95, under the learned name of Pantisocracy. So far as I ever heard, it differed little, except in its Grecian name, from any other scheme for mitigating the privations of a wilderness by settling in a cluster of families, bound together by congenial tastes and uniform principles, rather than in self-depending, insulated[Pg 174] households. Steadily pursued, it might, after all, have been a fortunate plan for Coleridge. "Soliciting my food from daily toil," a line in which Coleridge alludes to the scheme, implies a condition of life that would have upheld Coleridge's health and happiness somewhat better than the habits of luxurious city life as now constituted in Europe. But, returning[63] to the Lakes, and to the Lake colony of poets: So little were Southey and Wordsworth connected by any personal intercourse in those days, and so little disposed to be connected, that, whilst the latter had a cottage in Grasmere, Southey pitched his tent at Greta Hall, on a little eminence rising immediately from the river Greta and the town of Keswick. Grasmere is in Westmoreland; Keswick in Cumberland; and they are thirteen good miles apart. Coleridge and his family were domiciliated in Greta Hall; sharing that house, a tolerably large one, on some principle of amicable division, with Mr. Southey. But Coleridge personally was more often to be found at Grasmere—which presented the threefold attractions of loveliness so complete as to eclipse even the scenery of Derwentwater; a pastoral state of society, free from the deformities of a little town like Keswick; and, finally, for Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the society of Wordsworth. Not before 1815 or 1816 could it be said that Southey and Wordsworth were even upon friendly terms; so entirely is it untrue that they combined to frame a school of poetry. Up to that time, they viewed each other with mutual respect, but also with mutual dislike; almost, I might say, with mutual disgust. Wordsworth disliked in Southey the want of depth, or the apparent want, as regards the power of philosophic abstraction. Southey disliked in Wordsworth the air of dogmatism, and the unaffable haughtiness of his manner. Other more trivial reasons combined with these.
By the way, the word colony reminds me that I forgot to mention a plan that Coleridge and Southey had around 1794-95 for migrating to America, known as Pantisocracy. From what I've heard, it didn't differ much, apart from its fancy name, from other plans for easing the hardships of living in a wilderness by settling in a group of families who shared similar interests and values rather than in independent, isolated[Pg 174] households. If pursued consistently, it might have turned out to be a beneficial idea for Coleridge. "Soliciting my food from daily toil," a line where Coleridge mentions the plan, suggests a lifestyle that would have supported his health and happiness better than the lavish city life typical in Europe at the time. But, going back[63] to the Lakes and the Lake colony of poets: Southey and Wordsworth were so disconnected personally during that time and so unwilling to connect that, while Wordsworth had a cottage in Grasmere, Southey set up his place at Greta Hall, on a little hill rising right from the river Greta and the town of Keswick. Grasmere is in Westmoreland; Keswick is in Cumberland; and they're a solid thirteen miles apart. Coleridge and his family lived in Greta Hall, sharing the fairly large house amicably with Mr. Southey. However, Coleridge was more often found in Grasmere—which had threefold attractions so stunning that they overshadowed even the beauty of Derwentwater; a rural community free from the problems of a small town like Keswick; and, for Samuel Taylor Coleridge, the company of Wordsworth. Not until 1815 or 1816 could it be said that Southey and Wordsworth were even on friendly terms; it’s entirely untrue that they came together to create a school of poetry. Until then, they regarded each other with mutual respect but also with mutual dislike; I might even say with mutual disgust. Wordsworth was put off by Southey's perceived lack of depth or philosophical insight. Southey was put off by the air of dogmatism and the unfriendly arrogance in Wordsworth's manner. There were also some other minor reasons mixed in with these.
At this time, when Coleridge first settled at the Lakes, or not long after, a romantic and somewhat tragical affair drew the eyes of all England, and, for many years, continued to draw the steps of tourists, to one of the most secluded Cumberland valleys, so little visited previously that it[Pg 175] might be described almost as an undiscovered chamber of that romantic district. Coleridge was brought into a closer connexion with this affair than merely by the general relation of neighbourhood; for an article of his in a morning paper, I believe, unintentionally furnished the original clue for unmasking the base impostor who figured as the central actor in this tale. The tale was at that time dramatized, and scenically represented by some of the minor theatres in London, as noticed by Wordsworth in the "Prelude." But other generations have arisen since that time, who must naturally be unacquainted with the circumstances; and on their account I will here recall them:—One day in the Lake season there drove up to the Royal Oak, the principal inn at Keswick, a handsome and well-appointed travelling carriage, containing one gentleman of somewhat dashing exterior. The stranger was a picturesque-hunter, but not of that order who fly round the ordinary tour with the velocity of lovers posting to Gretna, or of criminals running from the police; his purpose was to domiciliate himself in this beautiful scenery, and to see it at his leisure. From Keswick, as his head-quarters, he made excursions in every direction amongst the neighbouring valleys; meeting generally a good deal of respect and attention, partly on account of his handsome equipage, and still more from his visiting cards, which designated him as "The Hon. Augustus Hope." Under this name, he gave himself out for a brother of Lord Hopetoun's. Some persons had discernment enough to doubt of this; for the man's breeding and deportment, though showy, had an under-tone of vulgarity about it; and Coleridge assured me that he was grossly ungrammatical in his ordinary conversation. However, one fact, soon dispersed by the people of a little rustic post-office, laid asleep all demurs; he not only received letters addressed to him under this assumed name—that might be through collusion with accomplices—but he himself continually franked letters by that name. Now, this being a capital offence, being not only a forgery, but (as a forgery on the Post-Office) sure to be prosecuted, nobody presumed to question his pretensions any longer; and, henceforward, he went to all places with the consideration attached to an earl's brother. All doors flew open at his[Pg 176] approach; boats, boatmen, nets, and the most unlimited sporting privileges, were placed at the disposal of the "Honourable" gentleman: and the hospitality of the district was put on its mettle, in offering a suitable reception to the patrician Scotsman. It could be no blame to a shepherd girl, bred in the sternest solitude which England has to show, that she should fall into a snare which many of her betters had not escaped. Nine miles from Keswick, by the nearest bridle-road through Newlands, but fourteen or fifteen by any route which the honourable gentleman's travelling-carriage could traverse, lies the Lake of Buttermere. Its margin, which is overhung by some of the loftiest and steepest of the Cumbrian mountains, exhibits on either side few traces of human neighbourhood; the level area, where the hills recede enough to allow of any, is of a wild pastoral character, or almost savage; the waters of the lake are deep and sullen; and the barrier mountains, by excluding the sun for much of his daily course, strengthen the gloomy impressions. At the foot of this lake (that is, at the end where its waters issue) lie a few unornamented fields, through which rolls a little brook-like river, connecting it with the larger lake of Crummock; and at the edge of this miniature domain, upon the roadside, stands a cluster of cottages, so small and few that in the richer tracts of England they would scarcely be complimented with the name of hamlet. One of these, and I believe the principal, belonged to an independent proprietor, called, in the local dialect, a "Statesman"[64]; and more, perhaps, for the sake of attracting a little society than with much view to pecuniary profit at that era, this cottage offered the accommodations of an inn to the traveller and his horse. Rare, however, must have been the mounted traveller in those days, unless visiting Buttermere for itself, and as a terminus ad quem; since the road led to no further habitations of man, with the exception of some four or five pastoral cabins, equally humble, in Gatesgarthdale.
At the time Coleridge first settled in the Lakes, or shortly after, a romantic and somewhat tragic event caught the attention of all England. For many years, it drew tourists to one of the most secluded valleys in Cumberland, so rarely visited before that it could almost be described as an undiscovered part of that enchanting area. Coleridge became more connected to this event than just through the local neighborhood; an article he wrote in a morning newspaper, I believe, unintentionally provided the original clue for revealing the fraudulent person who played the central role in this story. At that time, the tale was dramatized and performed at some of the smaller theaters in London, as noted by Wordsworth in the "Prelude." However, new generations have come along since then and might naturally be unfamiliar with the details. For their sake, I’ll recount the story: One day during the Lake season, a stylish and well-fitted carriage pulled up to the Royal Oak, the main inn in Keswick, containing a striking gentleman. The stranger was a scenic traveler, but not the kind that rushed through a typical tour like lovers racing to Gretna or criminals fleeing from the law; his aim was to settle himself in this beautiful area and enjoy it at his own pace. Using Keswick as his base, he explored all directions in the nearby valleys, usually receiving quite a bit of respect and attention, partly due to his impressive carriage, but even more so because of his visiting cards, which identified him as "The Hon. Augustus Hope." Under this name, he claimed to be a brother of Lord Hopetoun. Some people had enough insight to be skeptical; while the man’s appearance and manners were flashy, they also had a hint of vulgarity. Coleridge assured me that he was grossly ungrammatical in regular conversation. However, one fact, quickly spread by the people at a small local post office, silenced all doubts; he not only received letters addressed to him under this assumed name—that could have been through collusion with accomplices—but he also regularly franked letters by that name. Now, this was a serious offense, not only a forgery but (as a forgery against the Post Office) guaranteed prosecution, so nobody dared to challenge his claims any longer; from then on, he was treated everywhere with the consideration due to an earl's brother. All doors opened at his[Pg 176] approach; boats, rowers, nets, and unlimited sporting privileges were made available to the "Honourable" gentleman: and the local hospitality was put to the test in offering a suitable welcome to the noble Scotsman. It could hardly be blamed on a shepherd girl, raised in the harshest solitude in England, that she fell into a trap that many of her betters had not escaped. Nine miles from Keswick, via the nearest bridle path through Newlands, but fourteen or fifteen by any route that the honourable gentleman’s carriage could navigate, lies Buttermere Lake. Its shores, overshadowed by some of the tallest and steepest Cumbrian mountains, show few signs of human presence on either side; the flat area, where the hills recede enough to allow habitation, is wild and pastoral, almost untamed; the waters of the lake are deep and gloomy; and the surrounding mountains, by blocking out the sun for much of the day, enhance the somber atmosphere. At the foot of this lake (that is, at the point where its waters flow out) are a few unadorned fields, through which a small brook-like river flows, connecting it to the larger Crummock Lake; at the edge of this tiny domain, alongside the road, stands a cluster of cottages, so small and sparse that they would hardly be considered a hamlet in the more affluent parts of England. One of these, and I believe the main one, belonged to an independent owner, referred to in the local dialect as a "Statesman"[64]; and perhaps more for the sake of attracting some company than for financial gain at that time, this cottage provided accommodations as an inn for travelers and their horses. However, mounted travelers were likely very rare in those days, unless they were visiting Buttermere itself, as a terminus ad quem; since the road led to no further human habitations, except for a few pastoral cabins, equally modest, in Gatesgarthdale.
Hither, however, in an evil hour for the peace of this[Pg 177] little brotherhood of shepherds, came the cruel spoiler from Keswick. His errand was, to witness or to share in the char-fishing; for in Derwentwater (the Lake of Keswick) no char is found, which breeds only in the deep waters, such as Windermere, Crummock, Buttermere, and Coniston—never in the shallow ones. But, whatever had been his first object, that was speedily forgotten in one more deeply interesting. The daughter of the house, a fine young woman of eighteen, acted as waiter.[65] In a situation so solitary, the stranger had unlimited facilities for enjoying her company, and recommending himself to her favour. Doubts about his pretensions never arose in so simple a place as this; they were overruled before they could well have arisen by the opinion now general in Keswick, that he really was what he pretended to be: and thus, with little demur, except in the shape of a few natural words of parting anger from a defeated or rejected rustic admirer, the young woman gave her hand in marriage to the showy and unprincipled stranger. I know not whether the marriage was, or could have been, celebrated in the little mountain chapel of Buttermere. If it were, I persuade myself that the most hardened villain must have felt a momentary pang on violating the altar of such a chapel; so touchingly does it express, by its miniature dimensions, the almost helpless humility of that little pastoral community to whose spiritual wants it has from generation to generation administered. It is not only the very smallest chapel by many degrees in all England, but is so mere a toy in outward appearance that, were it not for its antiquity, its wild mountain exposure, and its consecrated connexion with the final hopes and fears of the adjacent pastoral hamlet—but for these considerations, the first movement of a stranger's feelings would be towards loud laughter; for the little chapel looks not so much a mimic chapel in a drop-scene from the Opera House as a miniature copy from such a[Pg 178] scene; and evidently could not receive within its walls more than half a dozen of households. From this sanctuary it was—from beneath the maternal shadow, if not from the very altar,[66] of this lonely chapel—that the heartless villain carried off the flower of the mountains. Between this place and Keswick they continued to move backwards and forwards, until at length, with the startling of a thunder-clap to the affrighted mountaineers, the bubble burst: officers of justice appeared: the stranger was easily intercepted from flight, and, upon a capital charge, was borne away to Carlisle. At the ensuing assizes he was tried for forgery on the prosecution of the Post-Office, found guilty, left for execution, and executed accordingly.[67] On the day of his condemnation, Wordsworth and Coleridge passed through Carlisle, and endeavoured to obtain an interview with him. Wordsworth succeeded; but, for some unknown reason, the prisoner steadily refused to see Coleridge; a caprice which could not be penetrated. It is true that he had, during his whole residence at Keswick, avoided Coleridge with a solicitude which had revived the original suspicions against him in some quarters, after they had generally gone to sleep. But for this his motive had then been sufficient: he was of a Devonshire family, and naturally feared the eye, or the inquisitive examination of one who bore a name immemorially associated with the southern part of that county.
Here, however, at a bad time for the peace of this[Pg 177] small community of shepherds, came the ruthless outsider from Keswick. His purpose was to witness or participate in the char-fishing; for in Derwentwater (the Lake of Keswick) no char exists, which breeds only in the deep waters, such as Windermere, Crummock, Buttermere, and Coniston—never in the shallow ones. But whatever his initial reason, that was quickly overshadowed by something more engaging. The daughter of the house, a beautiful young woman of eighteen, served as a waitress.[65] In such a secluded setting, the stranger found countless opportunities to enjoy her company and win her over. No one questioned his intentions in such a simple place; they were dismissed before they even had a chance to arise by the widespread belief in Keswick that he truly was who he claimed to be: and so, with little hesitation, aside from a few natural words of farewell anger from a rejected local suitor, the young woman accepted the proposal of the flashy and unscrupulous stranger. I'm not sure whether the marriage was, or could have been, celebrated in the tiny mountain chapel of Buttermere. If it was, I believe even the most hardened villain would have felt a momentary pang upon violating the altar of such a chapel; its miniature size poignantly reflects the almost helpless humility of that little pastoral community it has served for generations. It is not only the smallest chapel in all of England by a significant margin, but it appears so trivial that, were it not for its age, its wild mountain setting, and its sacred connection with the hopes and fears of the nearby pastoral hamlet—but for these factors, a stranger's first reaction would likely be laughter; for the little chapel resembles not so much a replica chapel from an opera stage but more a miniature version of such a[Pg 178] scene; and it clearly could only accommodate half a dozen households. From this sanctuary it was—from beneath the protective shadow, if not from the very altar,[66] of this isolated chapel—that the heartless villain took away the pride of the mountains. Between this place and Keswick they kept moving back and forth, until at last, with the jolt of a thunderclap that startled the terrified mountaineers, the truth came out: law enforcement arrived, the stranger was easily caught before he could escape, and, charged with a serious crime, was taken away to Carlisle. At the following assizes, he was tried for forgery on behalf of the Post-Office, found guilty, sentenced to death, and executed accordingly.[67] On the day of his sentencing, Wordsworth and Coleridge passed through Carlisle and tried to meet with him. Wordsworth managed to succeed; however, for some unknown reason, the prisoner refused to see Coleridge; a whim that could not be understood. It is true that he had, during his entire stay at Keswick, avoided Coleridge with a concern that had rekindled original suspicions against him in some circles, after they had mostly subsided. But his reasoning for this had then been clear: he was from a Devonshire family, and naturally feared the gaze or probing questions from someone who carried a name deeply associated with the southern part of that county.
Coleridge, however, had been transplanted so immaturely from his native region that few people in England knew less of its family connexions. That, perhaps, was unknown to this malefactor; but, at any rate, he knew that all motive was now at an end for disguise of any sort; so that his reserve, in this particular, had now become unintelligible. However, if not him, Coleridge saw and examined his very interesting papers. These were chiefly letters from women whom he had injured, pretty much in the same way, and by the same impostures, as he had so recently practised in Cumberland; and, as Coleridge assured me, were in part the most agonizing appeals that he had ever read to human justice and pity. The man's real name was, I think, Hatfield. And amongst the papers were two separate correspondences, of some length, with two young women, apparently of superior condition in life (one the daughter of an English clergyman), whom this villain had deluded by marriage, and, after some cohabitation, abandoned,—one of them with a family of young children. Great was the emotion of Coleridge when he recurred to his remembrance of these letters, and bitter, almost vindictive, was the indignation with which he spoke of Hatfield. One set of letters appeared to have been written under too certain a knowledge of his villany to whom they were addressed; though still relying on some possible remains of humanity, or perhaps (the poor writer might think) on some lingering preference for herself. The other set was even more distressing; they were written under the first conflicts of suspicions, alternately repelling with warmth the gloomy doubts which were fast arising, and then yielding to their afflicting evidence; raving in one page under the misery of alarm, in another courting the delusions of hope, and luring back the perfidious deserter,—here resigning herself to despair, and there again labouring to show that all might yet be well. Coleridge said often, in looking back upon that frightful exposure of human guilt and misery, that the man who, when pursued by these heart-rending apostrophes, and with this litany of anguish sounding in his ears, from despairing women and from famishing children, could yet find it possible to enjoy the calm pleasures of a Lake tourist, and deliberately to hunt for the[Pg 180] picturesque, must have been a fiend of that order which fortunately does not often emerge amongst men. It is painful to remember that, in those days, amongst the multitudes who ended their career in the same ignominious way, and the majority for offences connected with the forgery of bank notes, there must have been a considerable number who perished from the very opposite cause—viz., because they felt, too passionately and profoundly for prudence, the claims of those who looked up to them for support. One common scaffold confounds the most flinty hearts and the tenderest. However, in this instance, it was in some measure the heartless part of Hatfield's conduct which drew upon him his ruin: for the Cumberland jury honestly declared their unwillingness to hang him for having forged a frank; and both they, and those who refused to aid his escape when first apprehended, were reconciled to this harshness entirely by what they heard of his conduct to their injured young fellow-countrywoman.
Coleridge, however, had been moved from his hometown so early in life that few people in England knew less about his family background. This might have been unknown to this wrongdoer; but regardless, he realized that any reason for hiding was now gone, making his silence on this matter perplexing. Still, if not him, Coleridge did see and look through his very interesting papers. These were mostly letters from women he had wronged, mostly in the same ways and using the same tricks as he had recently done in Cumberland; and, as Coleridge told me, they contained some of the most heartbreaking appeals he had ever read for human justice and compassion. The man's real name was, I think, Hatfield. Among the papers were two separate exchanges, somewhat lengthy, with two young women, likely from better backgrounds (one being the daughter of an English clergyman), whom this scoundrel had deceived into marriage and then, after a time living together, left behind—one of them with a family of young children. Coleridge felt great emotion when he thought back on these letters, and he spoke with bitter, almost vengeful, indignation about Hatfield. One group of letters seemed to have been written with a clear understanding of his wrongdoing towards them, yet still clinging to some hope that humanity remained in him, or perhaps (the poor writer might have believed) that he still held some lingering affection for her. The other set was even more upsetting; these were written during the initial struggles of doubt, alternating between passionately dismissing the dark thoughts that were rising and then succumbing to their painful reality; one moment expressing panic and despair, the next attempting to cling to hopeful illusions and coaxing back the treacherous betrayer—one moment surrendering to hopelessness, and the next trying to prove that everything could still turn out alright. Coleridge often reflected, upon recalling that horrifying exposure of human wrongdoing and suffering, that a man who, when faced with these heart-wrenching letters and the chorus of anguish from desperate women and starving children, could still find enjoyment in the peaceful pleasures of a Lake tourist and actively seek out beautiful scenery, must have been a fiend of a kind that is fortunately rare among humans. It’s painful to remember that, during that time, amidst the many who ended their lives in a similarly disgraceful manner, a significant number must have perished for the exact opposite reason—specifically, because they cared too deeply and profoundly for what was wise, feeling the need of those who depended on them for support. One common gallows unites the hardest hearts and the softest. However, in this case, it was somewhat Hatfield's heartless actions that led to his downfall: the Cumberland jury openly expressed their reluctance to hang him for simply forging a signature; and both they and those who refused to help him escape when he was first caught were entirely reconciled to this harshness by what they learned about his treatment of their wronged young fellow countrywoman.
She, meantime, under the name of The Beauty of Buttermere, became an object of interest to all England; melodramas were produced in the London suburban[68] theatres[Pg 181] upon her story; and, for many a year afterwards, shoals of tourists crowded to the secluded lake, and the little homely cabaret, which had been the scene of her brief romance; It was fortunate for a person in her distressing situation that her home was not in a town: the few and simple neighbours, who had witnessed her imaginary elevation, having little knowledge of worldly feelings, never for an instant connected with her disappointment any sense of the ludicrous, or spoke of it as a calamity to which her vanity might have co-operated. They treated it as unmixed injury, reflecting shame upon nobody but the wicked perpetrator. Hence, without much trial to her womanly sensibilities, she found herself able to resume her situation in the little inn; and this she continued to hold for many years. In that place, and that capacity, I saw her repeatedly, and shall here say a word upon her personal appearance, because the Lake poets all admired her greatly. Her figure was, in my eyes, good; but I doubt whether most of my readers would have thought it such. She was none of your evanescent, wasp-waisted beauties; on the contrary, she was rather large every way; tallish, and proportionably broad. Her face was fair, and her features feminine; and, unquestionably, she was what all the world would have agreed to call "good-looking." But, except in her arms, which had something of a statuesque beauty, and in her carriage, which expressed a womanly grace,[Pg 182] together with some degree of dignity and self-possession, I confess that I looked in vain for any positive qualities of any sort or degree. Beautiful, in any emphatic sense, she was not. Everything about her face and bust was negative; simply without offence. Even this, however, was more than could be said at all times; for the expression of her countenance could be disagreeable. This arose out of her situation; connected as it was with defective sensibility and a misdirected pride. Nothing operates so differently upon different minds and different styles of beauty as the inquisitive gaze of strangers, whether in the spirit of respectful admiration or of insolence. Some I have seen upon whose angelic beauty this sort of confusion settled advantageously, and like a softening veil; others, in whom it meets with proud resentment, are sometimes disfigured by it. In Mary of Buttermere it roused mere anger and disdain; which, meeting with the sense of her humble and dependent situation, gave birth to a most unhappy aspect of countenance. Men who had no touch of a gentleman's nature in their composition sometimes insulted her by looks and by words, supposing that they purchased the right to do this by an extra half-crown; and she too readily attributed the same spirit of impertinent curiosity to every man whose eyes happened to settle steadily upon her face. Yet, once at least, I must have seen her under the most favourable circumstances: for, on my first visit to Buttermere, I had the pleasure of Mr. Southey's company, who was incapable of wounding anybody's feelings, and to Mary, in particular, was well known by kind attentions, and I believe by some services. Then, at least, I saw her to advantage, and perhaps, for a figure of her build, at the best age; for it was about nine or ten years after her misfortune, when she might be twenty-seven or twenty-eight years old. We were alone, a solitary pair of tourists: nothing arose to confuse or distress her. She waited upon us at dinner, and talked to us freely. "This is a respectable young woman," I said to myself; but nothing of that enthusiasm could I feel which beauty, such as I have beheld at the Lakes, would have been apt to raise under a similar misfortune. One lady, not very scrupulous in her embellishments of facts, used to tell an[Pg 183] anecdote of her which I hope was exaggerated. Some friend of hers (as she affirmed), in company with a large party, visited Buttermere within one day after that upon which Hatfield suffered; and she protested that Mary threw upon the table, with an emphatic gesture, the Carlisle paper containing an elaborate account of his execution.
She, meanwhile, under the name of The Beauty of Buttermere, became a point of interest across England; melodramas were created in the suburban theatres of London[68] based on her story; and for many years after, throngs of tourists flocked to the secluded lake and the cozy little inn that was the setting for her brief romance. It was fortunate for someone in her troubling situation that her home wasn’t in a city: the few simple neighbors who had witnessed her imagined rise had little understanding of worldly feelings, and never connected her disappointment with any sense of ridicule or spoke of it as a tragedy that her vanity might have contributed to. They saw it purely as an injustice, reflecting shame on nobody but the wicked wrongdoer. Thus, without much strain on her feminine sensibilities, she found herself able to resume her position at the little inn, which she continued to hold for many years. In that place and role, I saw her repeatedly and will here say a word about her appearance because the poets of the Lake District all admired her greatly. To me, her figure was good, but I doubt most of my readers would think so. She wasn’t one of those fleeting, wasp-waisted beauties; on the contrary, she was rather large in every way; tall and proportionately broad. Her face was fair, and her features were feminine, and undoubtedly, she was what everyone would agree to call "good-looking." But aside from her arms, which had a kind of statuesque beauty, and her posture, which conveyed a feminine grace, along with a degree of dignity and self-possession, I must admit that I looked in vain for any positive qualities of any kind or degree. Beautiful, in any strong sense, she was not. Everything about her face and bust was neutral; simply unoffensive. Even this, however, was more than could be said at all times because her expression could be unpleasant. This came from her situation, which was marked by a lack of sensitivity and a misguided pride. Nothing affects different minds and styles of beauty as differently as the curious gaze of strangers, whether it comes from respectful admiration or from insolence. Some I have seen, whose angelic beauty was enhanced by this kind of confusion, like a softening veil; others, who met it with proud resentment, were sometimes disfigured by it. For Mary of Buttermere, it stirred nothing but anger and disdain; which, combined with her humble and dependent situation, created a very unhappy expression on her face. Men who lacked any gentlemanly qualities sometimes insulted her with looks and words, believing that they had the right to do so by paying an extra half-crown; and she too quickly presumed the same impudent curiosity in every man who happened to gaze steadily at her face. Yet, once at least, I must have seen her under the most favorable conditions: on my first visit to Buttermere, I had the pleasure of Mr. Southey’s company, who was incapable of hurting anyone’s feelings, and who, in particular, had known Mary through kind gestures, and I believe some services. Then, at least, I saw her at her best, and perhaps, for a woman of her build, at the ideal age; for it was about nine or ten years after her misfortune, when she might have been twenty-seven or twenty-eight years old. We were alone, a solitary pair of tourists: nothing arose to confuse or distress her. She waited on us at dinner and spoke to us openly. "This is a respectable young woman," I told myself; but I couldn’t feel the enthusiasm that beauty, such as I have seen at the Lakes, would evoke under similar misfortune. One lady, not particularly careful in her embellishments of the truth, used to tell a story about her that I hope was exaggerated. Some friend of hers (as she claimed), along with a large group, visited Buttermere the day after Hatfield was executed; and she insisted that Mary slammed the Carlisle paper containing an elaborate report of his execution onto the table with an emphatic gesture.
It is an instance of Coleridge's carelessness that he, who had as little of fixed ill-nature in his temper as any person whom I have ever known, managed, in reporting this story at the time of its occurrence, to get himself hooked into a personal quarrel, which hung over his head unsettled for nine or ten years. A Liverpool merchant, who was then meditating a house in the Vale of Grasmere, and perhaps might have incurred Coleridge's anger by thus disturbing, with inappropriate intrusions, this loveliest of all English landscapes, had connected himself a good deal with Hatfield during his Keswick masquerade; and was said even to have carried his regard to that villain so far as to have christened one of his own children by the names of "Augustus Hope." With these and other circumstances, expressing the extent of the infatuation amongst the swindler's dupes, Coleridge made the public merry. Naturally, the Liverpool merchant was not amongst those who admired the facetiousness of Coleridge on this occasion, but swore vengeance whenever they should meet. They never did meet, until ten years had gone by; and then, oddly enough, it was in the Liverpool man's own house—in that very nuisance of a house which had, I suppose, first armed Coleridge's wrath against him. This house, by time and accident, in no very wonderful way, had passed into the hands of Wordsworth as tenant. Coleridge, as was still less wonderful, had become the visitor of Wordsworth on returning from Malta; and the Liverpool merchant, as was also natural, either seeking his rent, or on the general errand of a friendly visit, calling upon Wordsworth, met Coleridge in the hall. Now came the hour for settling old accounts. I was present, and can report the case. Both looked grave, and coloured a little. But ten years work wonders: an armistice of that duration heals many a wound; and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, requesting his enemy's company[Pg 184] in the garden, entered upon a long metaphysical dissertation, bordering upon what you might call philosophical rigmarole, and rather puzzling to answer. It seemed to be an expansion, by Thomas Aquinas, of that parody upon a well-known passage in Shenstone, where the writer says—
It’s a clear example of Coleridge's carelessness that he, who had as little fixed ill temper as anyone I’ve ever known, managed to get tangled in a personal feud when he reported this story at the time it happened, which lingered over his head for nine or ten years. A merchant from Liverpool, who was then thinking about opening a house in the Vale of Grasmere, and might have upset Coleridge by intruding in this beautiful English landscape, was quite connected with Hatfield during his time at Keswick; he was even said to have liked that villain so much that he named one of his own kids "Augustus Hope." With these and other points highlighting the extent of the obsession among the swindler's victims, Coleridge made the public laugh. Naturally, the Liverpool merchant was not one of those who appreciated Coleridge's humor in this situation and vowed revenge whenever they met. They never did meet until ten years later, and oddly enough, it was in the Liverpool man's own home—in that very annoying house that, I guess, first stirred Coleridge's anger against him. Over time and circumstance, the house had fallen into Wordsworth's hands as a tenant. Coleridge, even less surprisingly, had become a visitor at Wordsworth's when he returned from Malta; and the Liverpool merchant, also naturally, either to collect rent or just to pay a friendly visit to Wordsworth, encountered Coleridge in the hall. Now was the time to settle old scores. I was there and can tell you what happened. Both looked serious and a little flushed. But ten years do wonders: such a long truce heals many wounds; and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, inviting his enemy to join him in the garden, launched into a long philosophical discussion, bordering on what you might call philosophical nonsense, which was quite confusing to respond to. It seemed to be an elaboration by Thomas Aquinas on a parody of a well-known passage in Shenstone, where the writer says—
I thought he was passing me something.
And, in the upshot, this conclusion eventuated (to speak Yankeeishly), that purely on principles of good neighbourhood and universal philanthropy could Coleridge have meditated or executed the insult offered in the "Morning Post." The Liverpool merchant rubbed his forehead, and seemed a little perplexed; but he was a most good-natured man; and he was eminently a gentleman. At length, considering, perhaps, how very like Duns Scotus, or Albertus Magnus, Coleridge had shown himself in this luminous explanation, he might begin to reflect that, had any one of those distinguished men offered a similar affront, it would have been impossible to resent it; for who could think of kicking the "Doctor Seraphicus," or would it tell to any man's advantage in history that he had caned Thomas Aquinas? On these principles, therefore, without saying one word, Liverpoliensis held out his hand, and a lasting reconciliation followed.
And, in the end, this conclusion happened (to put it in a casual way), that purely based on good neighborliness and universal kindness could Coleridge have thought about or carried out the insult given in the "Morning Post." The Liverpool merchant rubbed his forehead and looked a bit confused; but he was a kind-hearted guy and definitely a gentleman. Eventually, considering how much like Duns Scotus or Albertus Magnus Coleridge had shown himself to be in this clear explanation, he might start to think that if any of those notable men had given a similar offense, it would have been impossible to take it personally; after all, who could imagine kicking the "Doctor Seraphicus," or would it really be a point of pride in history to say he had hit Thomas Aquinas? Based on these thoughts, without saying a word, the Liverpoliensis extended his hand, and a lasting reconciliation followed.
Not very long, I believe, after this affair of Hatfield, Coleridge went to Malta.[69] His inducement to such a step must have been merely a desire to see the most interesting regions of the Mediterranean under the shelter and advantageous introduction of an official station. It was, however, an unfortunate chapter of his life: for, being necessarily thrown a good deal upon his own resources in the narrow society of a garrison, he there confirmed and cherished, if he did not there form, his habit of taking opium in large quantities. I am the last person in the world to press conclusions harshly or uncandidly against Coleridge; but I believe it to be notorious that he first began the use of opium, not as a relief from any bodily pains or nervous irritations (since his constitution was[Pg 185] strong and excellent), but as a source of luxurious sensations. It is a great misfortune, at least it is a great peril, to have tasted the enchanted cup of youthful rapture incident to the poetic temperament. That fountain of high-wrought sensibility once unlocked experimentally, it is rare to see a submission afterwards to the insipidities of daily life. Coleridge, to speak in the words of Cervantes, wanted better bread than was made of wheat; and, when youthful blood no longer sustained the riot of his animal spirits, he endeavoured to excite them by artificial stimulants.
Not long after the Hatfield incident, Coleridge went to Malta.[69] His reason for doing this must have simply been a desire to explore the fascinating areas of the Mediterranean while benefiting from the advantages of an official position. Unfortunately, it was a tough chapter in his life: being mostly alone in the limited company of a military garrison, he confirmed and nurtured, if he didn't actually start, his habit of taking opium in large amounts. I’m not one to jump to conclusions harshly or unfairly against Coleridge; however, I believe it's well-known that he began using opium, not to relieve any physical pain or nervous issues (since his health was[Pg 185] strong and robust), but as a source of pleasurable sensations. It’s a significant misfortune, or at least a huge risk, to have experienced the intoxicating joy that comes with the poetic temperament while young. Once that well of heightened sensitivity is opened, it's rare to see someone willingly settle for the dullness of everyday life. Coleridge, to use Cervantes’ words, wanted something better than the basic bread made from wheat; and when his youthful energy no longer fueled the chaos of his passions, he sought to stimulate them with artificial means.
At Malta he became acquainted with Commodore Decatur and other Americans of distinction; and this brought him afterwards into connexion with Allston, the American artist. Of Sir Alexander Ball, one of Lord Nelson's captains in the battle of the Nile, and Governor of Malta, he spoke and wrote uniformly in a lavish style of panegyric, for which plainer men found it difficult to see the slightest ground. It was, indeed, Coleridge's infirmity to project his own mind, and his own very peculiar ideas, nay, even his own expressions and illustrative metaphors, upon other men, and to contemplate these reflex images from himself as so many characters having an absolute ground in some separate object. "Ball and Bell"—"Bell and Ball,"[70] were two of these pet subjects; he had a[Pg 186] "craze" about each of them; and to each he ascribed thoughts and words to which, had they been put upon the rack, they never would have confessed.
At Malta, he got to know Commodore Decatur and other notable Americans, which later connected him with Allston, the American artist. He consistently praised Sir Alexander Ball, one of Lord Nelson's captains in the battle of the Nile and the Governor of Malta, in flattering terms that others found hard to understand. It was, in fact, Coleridge's weakness to project his own thoughts and unique ideas—often his own phrases and metaphors—onto other people, seeing these reflections as if they were real characters grounded in some separate reality. "Ball and Bell"—"Bell and Ball,"[70] were two of his favorite subjects; he had a real obsession with both of them, attributing thoughts and words to them that, if questioned, they wouldn't have admitted to at all.
From Malta, on his return homewards,[71] he went to Rome and Naples. One of the cardinals, he tells us, warned him, by the Pope's wish, of some plot, set on foot by Bonaparte, for seizing him as an anti-Gallican writer. This statement was ridiculed by the anonymous assailant in "Blackwood" as the very consummation of moonstruck vanity; and it is there compared to John Dennis's frenzy in retreating from the sea-coast, under the belief that Louis XIV had commissioned emissaries to land on the English shore and make a dash at his person. But, after all, the thing is not so entirely improbable. For it is certain that some orator of the Opposition (Charles Fox, as Coleridge asserts) had pointed out all the principal writers in the "Morning Post" to Napoleon's vengeance, by describing the war as a war "of that journal's creation."[72] And, as to the insinuation that[Pg 187] Napoleon was above throwing his regards upon a simple writer of political essays, that is not only abundantly confuted by many scores of established cases, but also is specially put down by a case circumstantially recorded in the Second Tour to Paris by the celebrated John Scott of Aberdeen.[73] It there appears that, on no other ground whatever than that of his connexion with the London newspaper press, some friend of Mr. Scott's had been courted most assiduously by Napoleon during the Hundred Days. Assuredly Coleridge deserved, beyond all other men that ever were connected with the daily press, to be regarded with distinction. Worlds of fine thinking lie buried in that vast abyss, never to be disentombed or restored to human admiration. Like the sea, it has swallowed treasures without end, that no diving-bell will bring up again. But nowhere, throughout its shoreless magazines of wealth, does there lie such a bed of pearls confounded with the rubbish and "purgamenta" of ages, as in the political papers of Coleridge. No more appreciable monument could be raised to the memory of Coleridge than a republication of his essays in the "Morning Post," and afterwards in the "Courier." And here, by the way, it may be mentioned that the sagacity of Coleridge, as applied to the signs of the times, is illustrated by this fact, that distinctly and solemnly he foretold the restoration of the Bourbons, at a period when most people viewed such an event as the most romantic of visions, and not less chimerical than that "march upon Paris" of Lord Hawkesbury's which for so many years supplied a theme of laughter to the Whigs.
On his way back from Malta,[71] he visited Rome and Naples. One of the cardinals, as he recounts, informed him, at the Pope's request, about a plot orchestrated by Bonaparte to capture him as an anti-Gallican writer. This claim was mocked by an anonymous critic in "Blackwood," likening it to John Dennis's irrational panic when he fled from the coast, believing that Louis XIV had sent agents to land in England and target him. However, it’s not entirely implausible. It is known that an Opposition speaker (Charles Fox, according to Coleridge) had placed all the key writers from the "Morning Post" in Napoleon's crosshairs, labeling the war as one "created by that journal." [72] Furthermore, the suggestion that Napoleon wouldn't bother with a mere writer of political essays is disproven by numerous examples, particularly one detailed in the Second Tour to Paris by the well-known John Scott of Aberdeen.[73] It indicates that, solely due to his connections with the London newspaper scene, a friend of Mr. Scott was fervently pursued by Napoleon during the Hundred Days. Certainly, Coleridge deserved to be recognized above all others associated with daily journalism. Countless profound ideas lie buried in that vast abyss, never to be resurrected for human appreciation. Like the sea, it has consumed treasures endlessly unrecoverable by any diving apparatus. Yet, nowhere in its boundless magazines of wealth is there a bed of pearls mixed with the debris and "purgamenta" of ages as in Coleridge’s political writings. No more meaningful tribute could be paid to Coleridge's legacy than a reissue of his essays from the "Morning Post," and later in the "Courier." Additionally, it’s worth noting that Coleridge's keen insight into the signs of the times is shown by the fact that he clearly and solemnly predicted the restoration of the Bourbons at a time when most considered such an event a mere fantasy, as outlandish as Lord Hawkesbury's long-laughed-at "march upon Paris."
Why Coleridge left Malta, is as difficult to explain upon any principles of ordinary business, as why he had ever gone thither. The post of secretary, if it imposed any official attendance of a regular kind, or any official correspondence, must have been but poorly filled by him; and Sir Alexander Ball, if I have collected his character justly, was not likely to[Pg 188] accept the gorgeous philosophy of Coleridge as an indemnification for irregular performance of his public duties. Perhaps, therefore, though on the best terms of mutual regard, mutually they might be pleased to part. Part they did, at any rate, and poor Coleridge was sea-sick the whole of his homeward (as he had been through the whole of his outward) voyage.
Why Coleridge left Malta is just as hard to explain by any standard business reasoning as why he went there in the first place. The role of secretary, if it required any regular official presence or correspondence, must have been poorly handled by him; and Sir Alexander Ball, if I've understood his character correctly, was not likely to[Pg 188] accept Coleridge's grand philosophy as an excuse for failing to perform his public duties properly. So, even though they were on good terms and respected each other, it’s possible they were both okay with parting ways. They did part, and sadly, Coleridge was seasick the entire way home (just as he had been on the way there).
It was not long after this event that my own introduction to Coleridge occurred. At that time some negotiation was pending between him and the Royal Institution,which ended in their engaging him to deliver a course of lectures on Poetry and the Fine Arts during the ensuing winter. For this series (twelve or sixteen, I think) he received a sum of one hundred guineas. And, considering the slightness of the pains which he bestowed upon them, he was well remunerated. I fear that they did not increase his reputation; for never did any man treat his audience with less respect, or his task with less careful attention. I was in London for part of the time, and can report the circumstances, having made a point of attending duly at the appointed hours. Coleridge was at that time living uncomfortably enough at the "Courier" office, in the Strand.[74] In such a situation, annoyed by the sound of feet passing his chamber-door continually to the printing-rooms of this great establishment, and with no gentle ministrations of female hands to sustain his cheerfulness, naturally enough his spirits flagged; and he took more than ordinary doses of opium. I called upon him daily, and pitied his forlorn condition. There was no bell in the room; which for many months answered the double purpose of bedroom and sitting-room. Consequently, I often saw him, picturesquely enveloped in nightcaps, surmounted by handkerchiefs indorsed upon handkerchiefs, shouting from the attics of the "Courier" office, down three or four flights of stairs, to a certain "Mrs. Brainbridge," his sole attendant,[Pg 189] whose dwelling was in the subterranean regions of the house. There did I often see the philosopher, with the most lugubrious of faces, invoking with all his might this uncouth name of "Brainbridge," each syllable of which he intonated with long-drawn emphasis, in order to overpower the hostile hubbub coming downwards from the creaking press, and the roar from the Strand, which entered at all the front windows. "Mistress Brainbridge! I say, Mistress Brainbridge!" was the perpetual cry, until I expected to hear the Strand, and distant Fleet Street, take up the echo of "Brainbridge!" Thus unhappily situated, he sank more than ever under the dominion of opium; so that, at two o'clock, when he should have been in attendance at the Royal Institution, he was too often unable to rise from bed. Then came dismissals of audience after audience, with pleas of illness; and on many of his lecture days I have seen all Albemarle Street closed by a "lock" of carriages, filled with women of distinction, until the servants of the Institution or their own footmen advanced to the carriage-doors with the intelligence that Mr. Coleridge had been suddenly taken ill. This plea, which at first had been received with expressions of concern, repeated too often, began to rouse disgust. Many in anger, and some in real uncertainty whether it would not be trouble thrown away, ceased to attend. And we that were more constant too often found reason to be disappointed with the quality of his lecture. His appearance was generally that of a person struggling with pain and overmastering illness. His lips were baked with feverish heat, and often black in colour; and, in spite of the water which he continued drinking through the whole course of his lecture, he often seemed to labour under an almost paralytic inability to raise the upper jaw from the lower. In such a state, it is clear that nothing could save the lecture itself from reflecting his own feebleness and exhaustion, except the advantage of having been precomposed in some happier mood. But that never happened: most unfortunately he relied upon his extempore ability to carry him through. Now, had he been in spirits, or had he gathered animation, and kindled by his own motion, no written lecture could have been more effectual than one of his unpremeditated colloquial harangues. But either he was[Pg 190] depressed originally below the point from which any re-ascent was possible, or else this re-action was intercepted by continual disgust from looking back upon his own ill-success; for, assuredly, he never once recovered that free and eloquent movement of thought which he could command at any time in a private company. The passages he read, moreover, in illustrating his doctrines, were generally unhappily chosen, because chosen at haphazard, from the difficulty of finding at a moment's summons those passages which his purpose required. Nor do I remember any that produced much effect, except two or three, which I myself put ready marked into his hands, among the Metrical Romances edited by Ritson.
It wasn’t long after this event that I first met Coleridge. At that time, there were some discussions happening between him and the Royal Institution, which resulted in them hiring him to give a series of lectures on Poetry and the Fine Arts during the upcoming winter. For these lectures (twelve or sixteen, I think), he was paid a sum of one hundred guineas. Given the minimal effort he put into them, he was well compensated. Unfortunately, I don’t think they helped his reputation; he treated his audience with little respect and didn’t pay much attention to his work. I was in London for part of that time and made it a point to attend his lectures regularly. Coleridge was living quite uncomfortably at the “Courier” office on the Strand.[74] In such a situation, bothered by the constant sound of footsteps passing his door to the printing rooms of this large establishment, and with no gentle care from anyone to lift his spirits, his mood naturally suffered; he took more opium than usual. I visited him daily and felt sorry for his lonely condition. There was no bell in the room, which served as both his bedroom and sitting room for many months. As a result, I often saw him, dressed in nightcaps layered with handkerchiefs, shouting from the top of the “Courier” office, down the three or four flights of stairs, calling for “Mrs. Brainbridge,” his only helper,[Pg 189] whose home was in the basement of the building. I often saw the philosopher with a very gloomy expression, shouting this awkward name “Brainbridge,” each syllable drawn out with emphasis, trying to drown out the noise from the creaking press and the din from the Strand filtering through all the front windows. “Mistress Brainbridge! I say, Mistress Brainbridge!” was his constant cry, until I expected the Strand and distant Fleet Street to echo back “Brainbridge!” In this unfortunate situation, he sank even deeper into opium’s grip; so that at two o’clock, when he should have been at the Royal Institution, he was often unable to get out of bed. This led to a series of cancellations, each time citing illness; and on many of his lecture days, I saw all of Albemarle Street blocked with carriages full of distinguished women, until the Institution’s servants or their footmen came to the carriage doors to inform them that Mr. Coleridge had suddenly taken ill. This excuse, which initially garnered expressions of concern, began to irritate due to its frequent use. Some, in anger, and others uncertain whether it would be worth the trouble, stopped attending. And those of us who attended regularly often found ourselves disappointed by the quality of his lectures. He typically appeared like someone battling pain and overwhelming illness. His lips were parched from fever and often had a dark color; and despite the water he drank throughout the lecture, he often seemed almost unable to lift his jaw. In such a state, it’s clear that nothing could prevent his lectures from reflecting his own weakness and exhaustion, except if they had been pre-written while he was in a better frame of mind. Unfortunately, that never happened; he foolishly relied on his ability to speak off the cuff. If he had been in good spirits or energized, there’s no written lecture that could have been more effective than one of his spontaneous talks. But either he was initially too depressed to recover, or that rebound was blocked by continual disappointment from his previous failures; because he never once regained that fluid and powerful expression of thought that he could access in private settings. The passages he read to illustrate his points were also often poorly chosen, as they were selected at random due to the difficulty of finding the right ones on short notice. I can’t recall any that had much impact, except for a couple that I had marked for him in the Metrical Romances edited by Ritson.
Generally speaking, the selections were as injudicious and as inappropriate as they were ill delivered; for, amongst Coleridge's accomplishments, good reading was not one; he had neither voice (so, at least, I thought) nor management of voice. This defect is unfortunate in a public lecturer; for it is inconceivable how much weight and effectual pathos can be communicated by sonorous depth and melodious cadences of the human voice to sentiments the most trivial; nor, on the other hand, how the grandest are emasculated by a style of reading which fails in distributing the lights and shadows of a musical intonation. However, this defect chiefly concerned the immediate impression; the most afflicting to a friend of Coleridge's was the entire absence of his own peculiar and majestic intellect; no heart, no soul, was in anything he said; no strength of feeling in recalling universal truths; no power of originality or compass of moral relations in his novelties: all was a poor faint reflection from jewels once scattered in the highway by himself in the prodigality of his early opulence—a mendicant dependence on the alms dropped from his own overflowing treasury of happier times.
Overall, the selections were as poorly judged and as inappropriate as they were poorly delivered; among Coleridge's skills, good reading wasn't one of them. He lacked both voice (or at least, that’s what I thought) and control over his voice. This flaw is unfortunate for a public speaker because it's hard to imagine how much weight and emotional impact can be conveyed through the rich depth and melodic tones of the human voice, even for the most trivial sentiments. Conversely, the most grand ideas can feel diminished by a reading style that fails to balance the highlights and shadows of musical intonation. However, this flaw mainly affected the immediate impression; what was most upsetting to Coleridge's friends was the complete absence of his unique and powerful intellect. There was no heart, no soul in anything he said; no intensity of feeling when expressing universal truths; no originality or breadth of moral connections in his new ideas: everything felt like a weak, faded reflection of the gems he once scattered on the road during his earlier, more abundant days—a beggar relying on the crumbs dropped from his own overflowing treasure of happier times.
The next opportunity I had of seeing Coleridge was at the Lakes, in the winter of 1809, and up to the autumn of the following year. During this period it was that he carried on the original publication of "The Friend"[75]; and for much[Pg 191] the greater part of the time I saw him daily. He lived as a visitor in the house occupied by Mr. Wordsworth. This house (Allan Bank by name) was in Grasmere; and in another part of the same vale, at a distance of barely one mile, I myself had a cottage, and a considerable library. Many of my books being German, Coleridge borrowed them in great numbers. Having a general license from me to use them as he would, he was in the habit of accumulating them so largely at Allan Bank (the name of Mr. Wordsworth's house) that sometimes as many as five hundred were absent at once: which I mention in order to notice a practice of Coleridge's, indicating his very scrupulous honour in what regarded the rights of ownership. Literary people are not always so strict in respecting property of this description; and I know more than one celebrated man who professes as a maxim that he holds it no duty of honour to restore a borrowed book; not to speak of many less celebrated persons, who, without openly professing such a principle, do however, in fact, exhibit a lax morality in such cases. The more honourable it was to poor Coleridge, who had means so trifling of buying books for himself, that, to prevent my flocks from mixing and being confounded with the flocks already folded at Allan Bank (his own and Wordsworth's), or rather that they might mix without danger, he duly inscribed my name in the blank leaves of every volume; a fact which became rather painfully made known to me; for, as he had chosen to dub me Esquire, many years after this it cost myself and a female friend some weeks of labour to hunt out these multitudinous memorials and to erase this heraldic addition; which else had the appearance to a stranger of having been conferred by myself.
The next time I saw Coleridge was at the Lakes in the winter of 1809, and up until the autumn of the following year. During this time, he worked on the original publication of "The Friend"[75]; and for a large part of that period, I saw him every day. He was staying as a guest in the house of Mr. Wordsworth. This house, called Allan Bank, was in Grasmere; and just about a mile away, I had my own cottage and a significant library. Since many of my books were in German, Coleridge borrowed a lot of them. I had given him a general permission to use them freely, and he often accumulated so many at Allan Bank (Mr. Wordsworth's house) that sometimes as many as five hundred were missing at once. I mention this to highlight Coleridge's scrupulous sense of honor regarding ownership rights. Literary people aren’t always so careful about respecting property like this; and I know of several famous individuals who believe it’s not their duty to return borrowed books, not to mention many less notable people who, without admitting such a principle, actually show a loose morality in these situations. It was particularly honorable of Coleridge, who could hardly afford to buy books for himself, that to prevent my books from getting mixed up with those already at Allan Bank (his and Wordsworth's), or so they could mix without a problem, he carefully wrote my name in the blank leaves of every book. This fact became rather painfully clear to me; as he had decided to call me Esquire, many years later, it took myself and a female friend several weeks of effort to track down these numerous inscriptions and erase that title, which otherwise would have given the impression to a stranger that it was a title I conferred upon myself.
"The Friend," in its original publication, was, as a pecuniary speculation, the least judicious, both for its objects and its means, I have ever known. It was printed at Penrith, a town in Cumberland, on the outer verge of the Lake district, and precisely twenty-eight miles removed from Coleridge's abode. This distance, enough of itself, in all conscience, was at least trebled in effect by the interposition of Kirkstone, a mountain which is scaled by a carriage ascent of three miles long, and so steep in parts that, without four[Pg 192] horses, no solitary traveller can persuade the neighbouring innkeepers to carry him. Another road, by way of Keswick, is subject to its own separate difficulties. And thus, in any practical sense, for ease, for certainty, and for despatch, Liverpool, ninety-five miles distant, was virtually nearer. Dublin even, or Cork, was more eligible. Yet, in this town, so situated as I have stated, by way of purchasing such intolerable difficulties at the highest price, Coleridge was advised, and actually persuaded, to set up a printer, to buy, to lay in a stock of paper, types, &c., instead of resorting to some printer already established in Kendal, a large and opulent town not more than eighteen miles distant, and connected by a daily post, whereas between himself and Penrith there was no post at all. Building his mechanical arrangements upon this utter "upside-down" inversion of all common sense, it is not surprising (as "madness ruled the hour") that in all other circumstances of plan or execution the work moved by principles of downright crazy disregard to all that a judicious counsel would have suggested. The subjects were chosen obstinately in defiance of the popular taste; they were treated in a style studiously disfigured by German modes of thinking, and by a German terminology; no attempt was made to win or conciliate public taste; and the plans adopted for obtaining payment were of a nature to insure a speedy bankruptcy to the concern. Coleridge had a list—nobody could ever say upon whose authority gathered together—of subscribers. He tells us himself that many of these renounced the work from an early period; and some (as Lord Corke) rebuked him for his presumption in sending it unordered, but (as Coleridge asserts) neither returned the copies nor remitted the price. And even those who were conscientious enough to do this could not remit four or five shillings for as many numbers without putting Coleridge to an expense of treble postage at the least. This he complains of bitterly in his "Biographia Literaria," forgetting evidently that the evil was due exclusively to his own defective arrangements. People necessarily sent their subscriptions through such channels as were open to them, or such as were pointed out by Coleridge himself. It is also utterly unworthy of Coleridge to have taxed, as he does, many of his subscribers (or[Pg 193] really, for anything that appears, the whole body) with neglecting to pay at all. Probably not one neglected. And some ladies, to my knowledge, scrupulously anxious about transmitting their subscriptions, paid three times over. Managed as the reader will collect from these indications, the work was going down-hill from the first. It never gained any accessions of new subscribers; from what source, then, was the continual dropping off of names to be supplied? The printer became a bankrupt: Coleridge was as much in arrear with his articles as with his lectures at the Royal Institution. That he was from the very first; but now he was disgusted and desponding; and with No. 28 or 29 the work came to a final stop. Some years after, it was re-cast and re-published. But, in fact, this re-cast was altogether and absolutely a new work. The sole contributors to the original work had been, first of all, Wordsworth who gave a very valuable paper on the principles concerned in the composition of Epitaphs; and, secondly, Professor Wilson, who, in conjunction with Mr. (now Dr.) Blair, an early friend,[76] then visiting Mr. W. on Windermere, wrote the letter signed "Mathetes," the reply to which came from Wordsworth.
"The Friend," when it was first published, was, in terms of financial strategy, the least sensible I have ever encountered, both regarding its goals and its methods. It was printed in Penrith, a town in Cumberland, at the edge of the Lake District, located exactly twenty-eight miles from Coleridge's home. This distance, already significant, felt at least three times greater because of Kirkstone, a mountain that requires a three-mile steep drive to ascend, so steep in parts that, without four[Pg 192] horses, no traveler could convince the local innkeepers to take him up. Another route, through Keswick, has its own issues. Therefore, in practical terms, for convenience and reliability, Liverpool, which is ninety-five miles away, was actually closer. Dublin or Cork would have been better options. Yet, in this town, positioned as I described, Coleridge was advised and actually convinced to establish a printing press, to purchase and stock up on paper, types, etc., instead of using an already established printer in Kendal, a prosperous town only eighteen miles away, and connected by daily mail, whereas there was no mail service at all between him and Penrith. Building his plans on this complete "upside-down" approach to common sense, it’s not surprising (as "madness ruled the hour") that the entire project followed principles of pure folly, disregarding any prudent advice. The subjects were chosen stubbornly against popular taste; they were presented in a style deliberately marred by German ways of thinking and terminology; no attempt was made to appeal to or accommodate public preference; and the methods chosen to secure payment were sure to lead to quick bankruptcy for the venture. Coleridge had a list—no one ever determined whose authority it came from—of subscribers. He admits himself that many of these backed out early on; and some (like Lord Corke) scolded him for having sent it without being requested, but (as Coleridge claims) neither returned the copies nor paid for them. Even those who were conscientious enough to do this couldn't send four or five shillings for as many issues without causing Coleridge to incur at least triple postage costs. He bitterly complains about this in his "Biographia Literaria," clearly forgetting that the problem was entirely due to his own poor planning. People inevitably sent their subscriptions through whatever means were available to them or as pointed out by Coleridge himself. It is also uncharacteristic of Coleridge to accuse many of his subscribers (or, for that matter, the entire group) of neglecting payment. Probably not one neglected to pay. Some ladies, to my knowledge, who were very careful about sending their subscriptions, ended up paying three times. As the reader will grasp, the work was on a downward trajectory from the beginning. It never gained any new subscribers; so where would the constant loss of names come from? The printer went bankrupt: Coleridge was as behind on his articles as he was on his lectures at the Royal Institution. From the very start, he was behind; now he was frustrated and hopeless; and with No. 28 or 29, the work finally stopped. A few years later, it was rewritten and republished. But, in reality, this rewrite was entirely and completely a new work. The only contributors to the original work were, first, Wordsworth, who provided a very valuable piece on the principles involved in writing Epitaphs; and, second, Professor Wilson, who, along with Mr. (now Dr.) Blair, an early friend,[76] visiting Mr. W. on Windermere, wrote the letter signed "Mathetes," to which Wordsworth responded.
At the Lakes, and summoned abroad by scenery so exquisite—living, too, in the bosom of a family endeared to him by long friendship and by sympathy the closest with all his propensities and tastes—Coleridge (it may be thought) could not sequester himself so profoundly as at the "Courier" Office within his own shell, or shut himself out so completely from that large dominion of eye and ear amongst the hills, the fields, and the woods, which once he had exercised so delightfully to himself, and with a participation so immortal, through his exquisite poems, to all generations. He was not now reduce to depend upon "Mrs. Brainbridge"—— (Mistress Brain—Brain—Brainbridge, I say—— Oh heavens! is there, can there, was there, will there ever at any future period be, an undeniable use in saying and in pressing upon the attention of the Strand and Fleet Street at their earliest convenience the painful subject of Mistress Brain—Brain—Brainbridge, I say—— Do you hear, Mrs. Brain—Brain—Brainbridge——?[Pg 194] Brain or Bain, it matters little—Bran or Brain, it's all one, I conceive):—here, on the contrary, he looked out from his study windows upon the sublime hills of Seat Sandal and Arthur's Chair, and upon pastoral cottages at their feet; and all around him he heard hourly the murmurings of happy life, the sound of female voices, and the innocent laughter of children. But apparently he was not happy; opium, was it, or what was it, that poisoned all natural pleasure at its sources? He burrowed continually deeper into scholastic subtleties and metaphysical abstractions; and, like that class described by Seneca in the luxurious Rome of his days, he lived chiefly by candlelight. At two or four o'clock in the afternoon he would make his first appearance. Through the silence of the night, when all other lights had disappeared in the quiet cottages of Grasmere, his lamp might be seen invariably by the belated traveller, as he descended the long steep from Dunmailraise; and at seven or eight o'clock in the morning, when man was going forth to his labour, this insulated son of reverie was retiring to bed.
At the Lakes, surrounded by stunning scenery—also living with a family he cherished through long friendship and a deep understanding of his interests and tastes—Coleridge (as one might think) could not isolate himself as deeply as he might have at the “Courier” Office, or completely shut himself off from the beautiful sights and sounds of the hills, fields, and woods, which once brought him so much joy and which he shared with future generations through his beautiful poems. He no longer had to rely on "Mrs. Brainbridge"—(Mistress Brain—Brain—Brainbridge, I say—Oh my! Is there, can there, has there, will there ever be any reason to discuss and emphasize to the Strand and Fleet Street as soon as possible the unfortunate topic of Mistress Brain—Brain—Brainbridge, I say—Do you hear me, Mrs. Brain—Brain—Brainbridge?—[Pg 194] Whether it’s Brain or Bain, it doesn’t matter much—Bran or Brain, it’s all the same, I believe):—here, on the contrary, he gazed out from his study windows at the majestic hills of Seat Sandal and Arthur's Chair, and at the lovely cottages below them; and all around him, he could hear the gentle sounds of a happy life, the voices of women, and the innocent laughter of children. But he seemingly wasn’t happy; was it opium that tainted all natural joy at its roots? He kept digging deeper into academic intricacies and philosophical ideas; and like the class described by Seneca in the luxurious Rome of his time, he mainly lived by candlelight. At two or four o'clock in the afternoon, he would make his first appearance. Through the quiet of the night, when all other lights had vanished in the peaceful cottages of Grasmere, his lamp could be seen by the late traveler as he went down the steep hill from Dunmailraise; and at seven or eight o’clock in the morning, when people were heading out to work, this solitary dreamer was going to bed.
Society he did not much court, because much was not to be had; but he did not shrink from any which wore the promise of novelty. At that time the leading person about the Lakes, as regarded rank and station, amongst those who had any connexion with literature, was Dr. Watson, the well-known Bishop of Llandaff.[77] This dignitary I knew myself as much as I wished to know him; he was interesting; yet also not interesting; and I will speak of him circumstantially. Those who have read his Autobiography, or are otherwise acquainted with the outline of his career, will be aware that he was the son of a Westmoreland schoolmaster. Going to Cambridge, with no great store of classical knowledge, but with the more common accomplishment of Westmoreland men, and one better suited to Cambridge, viz. a sufficient basis of mathematics, and a robust though commonplace intellect for improving his knowledge according to any[Pg 195] direction which accident should prescribe—he obtained the Professorship of Chemistry without one iota of chemical knowledge up to the hour when he gained it; and then, setting eagerly to work, that he might not disgrace the choice which had thus distinguished him, long before the time arrived for commencing his prelections he had made himself capable of writing those beautiful essays on that science which, after a revolution and a counter-revolution so great as succeeding times have witnessed, still remain a cardinal book of introductory discipline to such studies: an opinion deliberately expressed to myself by the late Sir Humphry Davy, and in answer to an earnest question which I took the liberty of proposing to him on that point. Sir Humphry said that he could scarcely imagine a time, or a condition of the science, in which the Bishop's "Essays" would be superannuated.[78] With this experimental proof that a Chemical Chair might be won and honoured without previous knowledge even of the chemical alphabet, he resolved to play the same feat with the Royal Chair of Divinity; one far more important for local honour and for wealth. Here, again, he succeeded; and this time he extended his experiment; for, whereas both Chairs had been won without previous knowledge, he resolved that in this case it should be maintained without after knowledge. He applied himself simply to the improvement of its income, which he raised from £300 to at least £1000 per annum. All this he had accomplished before reaching the age of thirty-five.
He didn't really seek out society because there wasn't much to gain from it, but he wasn't shy about engaging with anything that promised to be new. At that time, Dr. Watson, the well-known Bishop of Llandaff, was the leading figure around the Lakes in terms of rank and connection to literature.[77] I knew him well enough to feel satisfied; he was interesting but also not particularly captivating, and I'll explain that in detail. Those who have read his Autobiography or know about his life will understand that he was the son of a schoolmaster from Westmoreland. He went to Cambridge with little classical knowledge but had the typical skills of a Westmoreland man, particularly a solid foundation in mathematics and a decent, if ordinary, intellect to improve himself in any direction that opportunity presented.[Pg 195] He secured the Professorship of Chemistry without any chemical knowledge until the moment he got the position; then, eager to prove himself worthy of this honor, he worked hard and by the time he had to start his lectures, he was already capable of writing those remarkable essays on the subject. Those essays remain a foundational text for introductory studies even after the significant changes we've seen in the field, a view confirmed to me by the late Sir Humphry Davy when I earnestly asked him about it. Sir Humphry said he could hardly imagine a time or state of the science when the Bishop's "Essays" would be outdated.[78] With this evidence that a Chemical Chair could be successfully occupied without prior knowledge of chemistry, he set out to do the same with the Royal Chair of Divinity, a role far more significant for local prestige and wealth. He succeeded again, and this time he expanded his efforts; whereas he had previously obtained both positions without any prior knowledge, he decided that he would keep this one without any subsequent knowledge. He focused solely on increasing its income, which he boosted from £300 to at least £1000 a year. He accomplished all of this before he turned thirty-five.
Riches are with us the parent of riches; and success, in the hands of an active man, is the pledge of further success. On the basis of this Cambridge preferment Dr. Watson built upwards, until he had raised himself, in one way or other, to a seat in the House of Lords, and to a commensurate income. For the latter half of his life, he—originally a village schoolmaster's son—was able to associate with the magnates of the land upon equal terms. And that fact, of itself, without another word, implies, in this country, a degree of rank and fortune which one would think a sufficient reward even for merit as unquestionable as was that of Dr. Watson, considering that in quality it was merit of so vulgar a class. Yet he[Pg 196] was always a discontented man, a railer at the government and the age which could permit merit such as his to pine away ingloriously in one of the humblest amongst the bishoprics, with no other addition to its emoluments than the richest professorship in Europe, and such other accidents in life as gave him in all, perhaps, not above five thousand per annum! Poor man!—only five thousand per annum! What a trial to a man's patience!—and how much he stood in need of philosophy, or even of religion, to face so dismal a condition!
Wealth tends to create more wealth, and for an active person, success leads to even more success. Building on his position at Cambridge, Dr. Watson climbed his way up until he secured a place in the House of Lords and a corresponding income. For the latter half of his life, he—who started as the son of a village schoolmaster—was able to mingle with the elite of the land on equal footing. That alone suggests a level of status and wealth in this country that should be enough reward for someone as deserving as Dr. Watson, especially considering that in terms of quality, his merit was rather commonplace. Yet he[Pg 196] was always a dissatisfied man, constantly criticizing the government and the era that allowed his kind of merit to languish in one of the least prestigious bishoprics, with no significant boost to his income beyond the richest professorship in Europe, and other such circumstances that gave him, at most, about five thousand a year! Poor man!—only five thousand a year! What a test of patience!—and how much he needed philosophy, or even religion, to cope with such a grim situation!
This bishop was himself, in a secondary way, no uninteresting study. What I mean is, that, though originally the furthest removed from an interesting person, being a man remarkable indeed for robust faculties, but otherwise commonplace in his character, worldly-minded, and coarse, even to obtuseness, in his sensibilities, he yet became interesting from the strength of degree with which these otherwise repulsive characteristics were manifested. He was one of that numerous order in whom even the love of knowledge is subordinate to schemes of advancement; and to whom even his own success, and his own honour consequent upon that success, had no higher value than according to their use as instruments for winning further promotion. Hence it was that, when by such aids he had mounted to a certain eminence, beyond which he saw little promise of further ascent through any assistance of theirs—since at this stage it was clear that party connexion in politics must become his main reliance—he ceased to regard his favourite sciences with interest. The very organs of his early advancement were regarded with no gratitude or tenderness, when it became clear that they could yield no more. Even chemistry was now neglected. This, above all, was perplexing to one who did not understand his character. For hither one would have supposed he might have retreated from his political disappointments, and have found a perpetual consolation in honours which no intrigues could defeat, and in the esteem, so pure and untainted, which still attended the honourable exertions of his youth. But he had not feeling enough for that view; he looked at the matter in a very different light.[Pg 197] Other generations had come since then, and "other palms were won." To keep pace with the advancing science, and to maintain his station amongst his youthful competitors, would demand a youthful vigour and motives such as theirs. But, as to himself, chemistry had given all it could give. Having first raised himself to distinction by that, he had since married into an ancient family—one of the leaders amongst the landed aristocracy of his own county: he had thus entitled himself to call the head of that family—a territorial potentate with ten thousand per annum—by the contemptuous sobriquet of "Dull Daniel"; he looked down upon numbers whom, twenty years before, he scarcely durst have looked up to, except perhaps as a cat is privileged to look at a king; he had obtained a bishopric. Chemistry had done all this for him; and had, besides, co-operating with luck, put him in the way of reaping a large estate from the gratitude and early death of his pupil, Mr. Luther. All this chemistry had effected. Could chemistry do anything more? Clearly not. It was a burnt-out volcano. And here it was that, having lost his motives for cultivating it farther, he regarded the present improvers of the science, not with the feelings natural to a disinterested lover of such studies on their own account, but with jealousy, as men who had eclipsed or had bedimmed his own once brilliant reputation. Two revolutions had occurred since his own "palmy days"; Sir Humphry Davy, he said, might be right; and all might be gold that glistened; but, for his part, he was too old to learn new theories—he must be content to hobble to his grave with such old-fashioned creeds as had answered in his time, when, for aught he could see, men prospered as much as in this newfangled world. Such was the tone of his ordinary talk; and, in one sense—as regards personal claims, I mean—it was illiberal enough; for the leaders of modern chemistry never overlooked his claims. Professor Thomson of Glasgow always spoke of his "Essays" as of a book which hardly any revolution could antiquate; and Sir Humphry Davy, in reply to a question which I put to him upon that point in 1813, declared that he knew of no book better qualified as one of introductory discipline to the[Pg 198] youthful experimenter, or as an apprenticeship to the taste in elegant selection of topics.
This bishop was, in his own way, quite an intriguing character. What I mean is that, although he originally seemed far from interesting—being a man known for his strong faculties but otherwise pretty ordinary, worldly-minded, and even blunt in his sensitivities—he became interesting due to the intensity with which these otherwise off-putting traits were displayed. He was one of those people for whom even the love of knowledge takes a backseat to career ambitions; for him, his own success and the status that came with it held no higher value than their role as tools for further promotions. So, when he had climbed to a certain level of success, beyond which he didn’t see much potential for advancement without relying on political connections, he stopped caring about his favorite subjects. He felt no gratitude for the very things that had helped him get ahead when it was clear they could benefit him no longer. Even chemistry was now neglected. This was particularly confusing to those who didn’t understand his character. One might have thought he could retreat to the solace of chemistry, finding comfort in achievements that not even political wrangling could tarnish, and in the unblemished esteem he still received for his honorable efforts in his youth. But he didn’t have the appreciation for that perspective; he saw things quite differently.[Pg 197] Generations had passed since then, and "other palms were won." To keep up with advancing science and to maintain his place among his younger rivals would require the energy and ambition of youth. But as far as he was concerned, chemistry had given all it could give. After initially rising to distinction through it, he had married into an ancient family—one of the leading families in the landed aristocracy of his county: he was now entitled to call the head of that family—a landowner with an annual income of ten thousand—by the derisive nickname "Dull Daniel"; he looked down on many whom, twenty years earlier, he wouldn’t have dared to look up to, except perhaps as a cat is allowed to look at a king; he had obtained a bishopric. Chemistry had accomplished all this for him, and, along with luck, had also helped him acquire a substantial estate from the gratitude and early passing of his pupil, Mr. Luther. Chemistry had achieved all this. Could it do anything more? Clearly not. It was a burnt-out volcano. And here, having lost his reasons for pursuing it further, he viewed the current innovators of the science not with the feelings of a disinterested admirer of such studies, but with jealousy, as men who had overshadowed or diminished his once-brilliant reputation. Two revolutions had occurred since his own "glory days"; Sir Humphry Davy, he said, might be correct; and everything that sparkles might be gold; but as for him, he was too old to learn new theories—he must be content to limp to his grave with the old-fashioned beliefs that had worked in his time, when, from what he could tell, people prospered just as much in this newfangled world. That was the tone of his usual conversations; and, in one sense—regarding personal claims, that is—it was rather narrow-minded; for the leaders of modern chemistry never overlooked his contributions. Professor Thomson of Glasgow always referred to his "Essays" as a book that could barely be outdated by any revolution; and Sir Humphry Davy, in response to a question I asked him about that matter in 1813, stated that he didn’t know of any book better suited as an introductory guide for the[Pg 198] aspiring experimenter, or as a way to develop a taste for elegantly selected topics.
Yet, querulous and discontented as the bishop was, when he adverted either to chemistry or to his own position in life, the reader must not imagine to himself the ordinary "complement" and appurtenances of that character—such as moroseness, illiberality, or stinted hospitalities. On the contrary, his lordship was a joyous, jovial, and cordial host. He was pleasant, and even kind, in his manners; most hospitable in his reception of strangers, no matter of what party; and I must say that he was as little overbearing in argument, and as little stood upon his privilege in his character of a church dignitary, as any "big wig" I have happened to know. He was somewhat pompous, undoubtedly; but that, in an old academic hero, was rather agreeable, and had a characteristic effect. He listened patiently to all your objections; and, though steeped to the lips in prejudice, he was really candid. I mean to say that, although, generally speaking, the unconscious pre-occupation of his understanding shut up all avenues to new convictions, he yet did his best to open his mind to any views that might be presented at the moment. And, with regard to his querulous egotism, though it may appear laughable enough to all who contrast his real pretensions with their public appreciation as expressed in his acquired opulence and rank, and who contrast, also, his case with that of other men in his own profession—with that of Paley, for example—yet it cannot be denied that fortune had crossed his path, latterly, with foul winds, no less strikingly than his early life had been seconded by her favouring gales. In particular, Lord Holland[79] mentioned to a friend of my own the following anecdote:—"What you say of the bishop may be very true" (they were riding past his grounds at the time, which had turned the conversation upon his character and public claims): "but to us" (Lord Holland meant to the Whig party) "he was truly honourable and faithful; insomuch that my uncle" (meaning, of course, Charles Fox) "had agreed with Lord Grenville to make him Archbishop of York, sede vacante;—all was settled; and, had we staid in[Pg 199] power a little longer, he would, beyond a doubt, have had that dignity."
Yet, as much as the bishop was grumpy and unhappy, when he talked about either chemistry or his own life situation, you shouldn't picture the typical traits you might expect—like being gloomy, petty, or stingy in hospitality. In reality, he was a cheerful, friendly, and welcoming host. He had a pleasant and even kind demeanor; he was very hospitable to strangers, regardless of their affiliations; and I have to say he was neither domineering in debates nor overly proud of his status as a church leader, unlike any high-ranking person I've encountered. He was somewhat pompous, no doubt; but that, in an old academic figure, was actually rather charming and added a unique effect. He listened patiently to all your objections; and, although he was deeply biased, he was genuinely open-minded. What I mean is that, while his unconscious biases generally closed him off to new ideas, he still tried his best to consider any perspectives that were offered at the time. And regarding his whiny self-centeredness, although it might seem amusing to anyone who compares his true ambitions with how the public viewed him based on his wealth and status—and when they also compare his situation to that of other men in his profession, like Paley, for instance—it can’t be denied that luck had recently turned against him just as strikingly as earlier in his life, fortune had favored him. In particular, Lord Holland[79] mentioned to a friend of mine the following story: "What you’re saying about the bishop might be true" (they were riding past his estate at the time, which sparked the discussion about his character and public standing): "but to us" (Lord Holland was referring to the Whig party) "he was genuinely honorable and loyal; in fact, my uncle" (meaning Charles Fox) "had reached an agreement with Lord Grenville to appoint him Archbishop of York, sede vacante;—everything was set; and if we had stayed in power a little longer, he would have definitely received that position."
Now, if the reader happens to recollect how soon the death of Dr. Markham followed the sudden dissolution of that short-lived administration in 1807, he will see how narrowly Dr. Watson missed this elevation; and one must allow for a little occasional spleen under such circumstances. How grand a thing, how princely, to be an English archbishop! Yet, what an archbishop! He talked openly, at his own table, as a Socinian; ridiculed the miracles of the New Testament, which he professed to explain as so many chemical tricks, or cases of legerdemain; and certainly had as little of devotional feeling as any man that ever lived. It is, by comparison, a matter of little consequence that, so slightly regarding the Church of which he called himself a member in her spiritual interest, he should, in her temporal interests, have been ready to lay her open to any assaults from almost any quarter. He could naturally have little reverence for the rights of the shepherds, having so very little for the pastoral office itself, or for the manifold duties it imposes. All his public, all his professional duties, he systematically neglected. He was a lord in Parliament, and for many a year he never attended in his place: he was a bishop, and he scarcely knew any part of his diocese by sight, living three hundred miles away from it: he was a professor of divinity, holding the richest professorship in Europe—the weightiest, for its functions, in England—drawing, by his own admission, one thousand per annum from its endowments (deducting some stipend to his locum tenens at Cambridge), and for thirty years he never read a lecture, or performed a public exercise. Spheres how vast of usefulness to a man as able as himself!—subjects of what bitter anguish on his deathbed to one who had been tenderly conscientious! In his political purism, and the unconscious partisanship of his constitutional scruples, he was a true Whig, and thoroughly diverting. That Lord Lonsdale or that the Duke of Northumberland should interfere with elections, this he thought scandalous and awful; but that a lord of the house of Cavendish or Howard, a Duke of Devonshire or Norfolk, or an Earl of Carlisle, should traffic in boroughs, or exert the most despotic influence as landlords,[Pg 200] mutato nomine, he viewed as the mere natural right of property; and so far was he from loving the pure-hearted and unfactious champions of liberty, that, in one of his printed works, he dared to tax Milton with having knowingly, wilfully, deliberately told a falsehood.[80]
Now, if the reader remembers how quickly Dr. Markham died right after that brief government in 1807 fell apart, they will see how narrowly Dr. Watson missed out on this promotion; and it’s understandable if he felt a bit resentful in those circumstances. How impressive, how noble, to be an English archbishop! Yet, what kind of archbishop was he? He spoke openly, even at his own dinner table, as a Socinian; mocked the miracles of the New Testament, which he claimed were just chemical tricks or sleight of hand; and clearly had no religious feelings whatsoever. It’s not much of a concern that, while he hardly cared for the Church’s spiritual matters, he was ready to expose it to any threats for her worldly interests. Naturally, he had little respect for the shepherds’ rights, as he had almost none for the pastoral role itself or the many responsibilities it involved. He systematically neglected all his public and professional duties. He was a lord in Parliament who, for many years, never showed up; he was a bishop who barely recognized any part of his diocese, living three hundred miles away from it; he was a professor of divinity, holding the richest chair in Europe—the most significant one in England—earning, by his own account, a thousand a year from its funds (after deducting some salary for his locum tenens at Cambridge), and for thirty years, he never taught a lecture or did any public work. What vast opportunities for usefulness he missed as someone as capable as himself! What a source of deep regret on his deathbed for someone who had been genuinely conscientious! In his political idealism and the unintentional bias of his constitutional beliefs, he was a true Whig and quite amusing. He found it scandalous and horrifying that Lord Lonsdale or the Duke of Northumberland would interfere with elections; but he considered it perfectly natural for a lord from the houses of Cavendish or Howard, a Duke of Devonshire or Norfolk, or an Earl of Carlisle, to buy and sell boroughs or have the most tyrannical influence as landlords,[Pg 200] mutato nomine; and he was so far from appreciating the pure-hearted and non-partisan defenders of freedom that, in one of his published works, he had the audacity to accuse Milton of having knowingly, willfully, and deliberately told a lie.[80]
Could Coleridge—was it possible that he could reverence a man like this? Ordinary men might, because they were told that he had defended Christianity against the vile blasphemers and impotent theomachists of the day. But Coleridge had too pure an ideal of a Christian philosopher, derived from the age of the English Titans in theology, to share in that estimate. It is singular enough, and interesting to a man who has ever heard Coleridge talk, but especially to one who has assisted (to speak in French phrase) at a talking party between Coleridge and the Bishop, to look back upon an article in the "Quarterly Review," where, in connexion with the Bishop's Autobiography, some sneers are dropped with regard to the intellectual character of the neighbourhood in which he had settled. I have been told, on pretty good authority, that this article was written by the late Dr. Whittaker of Craven, the topographical antiquarian; a pretty sort of person, doubtless, to assume such a tone, in speaking of a neighbourhood so dazzling in its intellectual pretensions as that region at that time. Listen, reader, and judge!
Could Coleridge really admire a man like this? Ordinary people might, because they heard he defended Christianity against the vile blasphemers and ineffective atheists of his time. But Coleridge had such a pure ideal of a Christian philosopher, shaped by the age of the English Titans in theology, that he couldn’t share that view. It’s quite remarkable and interesting for anyone who has ever heard Coleridge speak, especially for someone who has participated (to use a French expression) in a discussion between Coleridge and the Bishop, to look back on an article in the "Quarterly Review." In relation to the Bishop’s Autobiography, some jabs are taken at the intellectual character of the area where he settled. I've been informed, from fairly reliable sources, that this article was penned by the late Dr. Whittaker of Craven, the topographical antiquarian; certainly an amusing choice to adopt such a tone when discussing a neighborhood so bright with intellectual aspirations at that time. Listen, reader, and judge!
The Bishop had fixed his abode on the banks of Windermere. In a small, but by the necessity of its situation a beautiful park, he had himself raised a plain, but handsome and substantial mansion; Calgarth, or Calgarth Park, was its name. Now, at Keswick (I am looking back to the sneer of the "Quarterly Review") lived Southey; twenty miles distant, it is true, but still, for a bishop with a bishop's equipage, not beyond a morning's drive. At Grasmere, about eight miles from Calgarth, were to be found Wordsworth and Coleridge. At Brathay, about four miles from Calgarth, lived Charles Lloyd; and he, far as he might be below the others I have mentioned, could not in candour be considered a common man. Common! he was a man never to be forgotten![Pg 201] He was somewhat too Rousseauish; but he had, in conversation, the most extraordinary powers for analysis of a certain kind, applied to the philosophy of manners, and the most delicate nuances of social life; and his translation of "Alfieri," together with his own poems, shows him to have been an accomplished scholar. Then, not much above a mile from Calgarth, at his beautiful creation of Elleray, lived Professor Wilson; of whom I need not speak. He, in fact, and Mr. Lloyd were on the most intimate terms with the Bishop's family. The meanest of these persons was able to have "taken the conceit" out of Dr. Whittaker and all his tribe. But even in the town of Kendal, about nine miles from Calgarth, there were many men of information, at least as extensive as Dr. Watson's, and amply qualified to have met him upon equal terms in conversation. Mathematics, it is well known, are extensively cultivated in the north of England. Sedburgh, for many years, was a sort of nursery or rural chapel-of-ease to Cambridge. Dawson of Sedburgh was a luminary better known than ever Dr. Watson was, by mathematicians both foreign and domestic. Gough, the blind mathematician and botanist of Kendal, is known to this day; but many others in that town had accomplishments equal to his; and, indeed, so widely has mathematical knowledge extended itself throughout Northern England that, even amongst the poor Lancashire weavers, mechanic labourers for their daily bread, the cultivation of pure geometry, in the most refined shape, has long prevailed; of which some accounts have been recently published. Local pique, therefore, must have been at the bottom of Dr. Whittaker's sneer. At all events, it was ludicrously contrasted with the true state of the case, as brought out by the meeting between Coleridge and the Bishop.
The Bishop had settled on the shores of Windermere. In a small but beautifully situated park, he built a simple yet elegant and sturdy mansion named Calgarth, or Calgarth Park. Now, in Keswick (I'm recalling the snub from the "Quarterly Review"), lived Southey; it was twenty miles away, but for a bishop with all his trappings, it was just a morning drive. Around eight miles from Calgarth, Wordsworth and Coleridge were at Grasmere. Just four miles from Calgarth lived Charles Lloyd, who, while he might not match the others I mentioned, certainly couldn't be called an ordinary person. Ordinary! He was someone who would never be forgotten! [Pg 201] He was perhaps a bit too “Rousseauish,” but in conversation, he showcased remarkable analytical powers, focusing on the philosophy of manners and the subtle nuances of social life. His translation of "Alfieri" and his own poems proved he was a well-educated scholar. Then, just over a mile from Calgarth, at his beautiful creation of Elleray, lived Professor Wilson, who needs no introduction. He and Mr. Lloyd were very close with the Bishop's family. Even the least accomplished among them could have easily taken Dr. Whittaker down a peg. But even in the town of Kendal, about nine miles from Calgarth, there were many knowledgeable individuals, at least as well-informed as Dr. Watson, capable of engaging him in meaningful conversation. Mathematics, as is well known, is highly pursued in the north of England. For many years, Sedburgh served as a sort of training ground for Cambridge. Dawson from Sedburgh was a notable figure, more recognized than Dr. Watson among mathematicians both abroad and at home. Gough, the blind mathematician and botanist from Kendal, is still remembered today; however, many others in that town possessed talents equal to his. In fact, mathematical knowledge has spread so widely throughout Northern England that even among the Lancashire weavers and manual laborers, the study of pure geometry in its most refined form has long thrived, with some accounts recently published. So, local envy must have fueled Dr. Whittaker's mockery. In any case, it starkly contrasted with the actual situation revealed during the meeting between Coleridge and the Bishop.
Coleridge was armed, at all points, with the scholastic erudition which bore upon all questions that could arise in polemic divinity. The philosophy of ancient Greece, through all its schools, the philosophy of the schoolmen technically so called, Church history, &c., Coleridge had within his call. Having been personally acquainted, or connected as a pupil, with Eichhorn and Michaelis, he knew the whole cycle of schisms and audacious speculations through which Biblical[Pg 202] criticism or Christian philosophy has revolved in Modern Germany. All this was ground upon which the Bishop of Llandaff trod with the infirm footing of a child. He listened to what Coleridge reported with the same sort of pleasurable surprise, alternating with starts of doubt or incredulity, as would naturally attend a detailed report from Laputa—which aërial region of speculation does but too often recur to a sober-minded person in reading of the endless freaks in philosophy of Modern Germany, where the sceptre of Mutability, that potentate celebrated by Spenser, gathers more trophies in a year than elsewhere in a century; "the anarchy of dreams" presides in her philosophy; and the restless elements of opinion, throughout every region of debate, mould themselves eternally, like the billowy sands of the desert as beheld by Bruce, into towering columns, soar upwards to a giddy altitude, then stalk about for a minute, all aglow with fiery colour, and finally unmould and "dislimn," with a collapse as sudden as the motions of that eddying breeze under which their vapoury architecture had arisen. Hartley and Locke, both of whom the bishop made into idols, were discussed; especially the former, against whom Coleridge alleged some of those arguments which he has used in his "Biographia Literaria." The bishop made but a feeble defence; and upon some points none at all. He seemed, I remember, much struck with one remark of Coleridge's, to this effect:—"That, whereas Hartley fancied that our very reasoning was an aggregation, collected together under the law of association, on the contrary, we reason by counteracting that law: just," said he, "as, in leaping, the law of gravitation concurs to that act in its latter part; but no leap could take place were it not by a counteraction of the law." One remark of the bishop's let me into the secret of his very limited reading. Coleridge had used the word "apperception," apparently without intention; for, on hearing some objection to the word, as being "surely not a word that Addison would have used," he substituted transcendental consciousness. Some months afterwards, going with Charles Lloyd to call at Calgarth, during the time when "The Friend" was appearing, the bishop again noticed this obnoxious word, and in the very same terms:—"Now, this word apperception, which Mr.[Pg 203] Coleridge uses in the last number of 'The Friend,' surely, surely it would not have been approved by Addison; no, Mr. Lloyd, nor by Swift; nor even, I think, by Arbuthnot." Somebody suggested that the word was a new word of German mintage, and most probably due to Kant—of whom the bishop seemed never to have heard. Meantime the fact was, and to me an amusing one, that the word had been commonly used by Leibnitz, a classical author on such subjects, 120 years before.
Coleridge was fully equipped with the academic knowledge relevant to any questions that could come up in controversial theology. He had access to the philosophies of ancient Greece across all its schools, the philosophical arguments of the scholastics, church history, and so on. Having personally studied under Eichhorn and Michaelis, he was well aware of the various schisms and bold ideas that modern Biblical criticism or Christian philosophy had navigated in Germany. In contrast, the Bishop of Llandaff approached this ground with the unsteady footing of a child. He listened to Coleridge’s detailed accounts with a mix of enjoyable surprise and moments of doubt or disbelief, much like one might feel when receiving an intricate report from Laputa. This fanciful realm of speculation often comes to mind when a sensible person reads about the endless twists in modern German philosophy, where the "sceptre of Mutability," a sovereign noted by Spenser, collects more trophies in a year than other places do in a century; "the anarchy of dreams" presides over this philosophy; and the restless elements of opinion, in every area of debate, constantly reshape themselves like the ever-shifting sands of the desert, as described by Bruce, into towering structures that rise to dizzying heights, briefly stand out in fiery colors, and then dissolve and "dislimn," collapsing suddenly like the swirling winds that supported their vaporous forms. The bishop idolized both Hartley and Locke, particularly Hartley, against whom Coleridge presented some arguments that he had used in his "Biographia Literaria." The bishop’s defense was weak; in some cases, he didn’t defend himself at all. I recall him being particularly taken with one of Coleridge's comments: "Whereas Hartley believed that our reasoning is just a collection brought together under the law of association, we actually reason by counteracting that law: just as, in jumping, the law of gravity plays a role in the latter part of the leap, but no jump could happen without counteracting that law." One of the bishop's remarks revealed to me his very limited reading. Coleridge had used the term "apperception," apparently without realizing it; when he heard an objection to the term as something Addison surely wouldn’t have used, he switched to transcendental consciousness. A few months later, while visiting Calgarth with Charles Lloyd during the publication of "The Friend," the bishop once again remarked on this disliked word in the same way: "Now, this word apperception, which Mr.[Pg 203] Coleridge used in the latest issue of 'The Friend,' surely, surely it could not have been approved by Addison; no, Mr. Lloyd, nor by Swift; nor even, I think, by Arbuthnot." Someone suggested that it was a new German term, likely from Kant, of whom the bishop seemed to have no knowledge. Meanwhile, it amused me to realize that the term had been commonly used by Leibnitz, a classical author on such topics, 120 years before.
In the autumn of 1810, Coleridge left the Lakes; and, so far as I am aware, for ever. I once, indeed, heard a rumour of his having passed through with some party of tourists—some reason struck me at the time for believing it untrue—but, at all events, he never returned to them as a resident. What might be his reason for this eternal self-banishment from scenes which he so well understood in all their shifting forms of beauty, I can only guess. Perhaps it was the very opposite reason to that which is most obvious: not, possibly, because he had become indifferent to their attractions, but because his undecaying sensibility to their commanding power had become associated with too afflicting remembrances, and flashes of personal recollections, suddenly restored and illuminated—recollections which will
In the fall of 1810, Coleridge left the Lakes; and, as far as I know, for good. I once heard a rumor that he had passed through with a group of tourists—at the time, something convinced me it wasn't true—but anyway, he never came back to live there. I can only speculate on why he chose this permanent exile from places he understood so well in all their changing beauty. Maybe it was for the opposite reason of what you’d expect: not that he had grown indifferent to their appeal, but because his lasting sensitivity to their powerful influence was connected to too many painful memories and sudden flashes of personal recollections that were brought back to life—memories that will
From hiding spots ten years deep,
and bring into collision the present with some long-forgotten past, in a form too trying and too painful for endurance. I have a brilliant Scotch friend, who cannot walk on the seashore—within sight of its ανηριθμον γελασμα (anêrithmon gelasma), the multitudinous laughter of its waves, or within hearing of its resounding uproar, because they bring up, by links of old association, too insupportably to his mind the agitations of his glittering, but too fervid youth. There is a feeling—morbid, it may be, but for which no anodyne is found in all the schools from Plato to Kant—to which the human mind is liable at times: it is best described in a little piece by Henry More, the "Platonist." He there represents himself as a martyr to his own too passionate sense of beauty, and his[Pg 204] consequent too pathetic sense of its decay. Everywhere—above, below, around him, in the earth, in the clouds, in the fields, and in their "garniture of flowers"—he beholds a beauty carried to excess; and this beauty becomes a source of endless affliction to him, because everywhere he sees it liable to the touch of decay and mortal change. During one paroxysm of this sad passion, an angel appears to comfort him; and, by the sudden revelation of her immortal beauty, does, in fact, suspend his grief. But it is only a suspension; for the sudden recollection that her privileged condition, and her exemption from the general fate of beauty, is only by way of exception to a universal rule, restores his grief: "And thou thyself," he says to the angel—
and clash the present with a long-forgotten past, in a way that's just too difficult and painful to handle. I have a brilliant Scottish friend who can't walk on the beach—within sight of its endless laughter, the multitude of its waves, or within earshot of its loud roar—because they drag up, through connections from the past, memories of his dazzling but overly intense youth that are just too hard for him to bear. There's a feeling—perhaps morbid—that the human mind can sometimes experience, and there's no remedy for it in all the teachings from Plato to Kant. It’s best captured in a piece by Henry More, the "Platonist." He describes himself as suffering from his own overwhelming sense of beauty, and his resulting painful awareness of its decay. Everywhere—above, below, around him, in the earth, in the clouds, in the fields, and in their "garland of flowers"—he sees beauty taken to extremes; and this beauty becomes an endless source of suffering for him, as he realizes it's always at risk of decay and change. During one episode of this sadness, an angel appears to comfort him; and, by suddenly revealing her immortal beauty, she does indeed momentarily ease his grief. But it’s only temporary; because he quickly remembers that her special status and escape from the fate of beauty is just an exception to a universal rule, bringing his sorrow back: "And you yourself," he says to the angel—
Would a strong reason for deep sadness come, "If you were subject to death!"
Every man who has ever dwelt with passionate love upon the fair face of some female companion through life must have had the same feeling, and must often, in the exquisite language of Shakspere's sonnets, have commanded and adjured all-conquering Time, there, at least, and upon that one tablet of his adoration,
Every man who has ever been deeply in love with the beautiful face of a female partner throughout life must have felt the same way, and must often, in the beautiful words of Shakespeare's sonnets, have urged and pleaded with all-powerful Time, right there, and on that one surface of his devotion,
Vain prayer! Empty adjuration! Profitless rebellion against the laws which season all things for the inexorable grave! Yet not the less we rebel again and again; and, though wisdom counsels resignation, yet our human passions, still cleaving to their object, force us into endless rebellion. Feelings the same in kind as these attach themselves to our mental power, and our vital energies. Phantoms of lost power, sudden intuitions, and shadowy restorations of forgotten feelings, sometimes dim and perplexing, sometimes by bright but furtive glimpses, sometimes by a full and steady revelation, overcharged with light—throw us back in a moment upon scenes and remembrances that we have left full thirty years behind us. In solitude, and chiefly in the solitudes of nature, and, above all, amongst the great and enduring features of nature, such as mountains, and quiet dells, and[Pg 205] the lawny recesses of forests, and the silent shores of lakes, features with which (as being themselves less liable to change) our feelings have a more abiding association—under these circumstances it is that such evanescent hauntings of our past and forgotten selves are most apt to startle and to waylay us. These are positive torments from which the agitated mind shrinks in fear; but there are others negative in their nature—that is, blank mementoes of powers extinct, and of faculties burnt out within us. And from both forms of anguish—from this twofold scourge—poor Coleridge fled, perhaps, in flying from the beauty of external nature. In alluding to this latter, or negative form of suffering—that form, I mean, which presents not the too fugitive glimpses of past power, but its blank annihilation—Coleridge himself most beautifully insists upon and illustrates the truth that all which we find in Nature must be created by ourselves; and that alike whether Nature is so gorgeous in her beauty as to seem apparelled in her wedding-garment or so powerless and extinct as to seem palled in her shroud. In either case,
Vain prayer! Empty pleas! Futile rebellion against the rules that prepare everything for the unyielding grave! Yet still, we rebel over and over; and, although wisdom advises us to accept our fate, our human passions, clinging to what they desire, push us into endless defiance. Feelings similar to these attach themselves to our mental strength and vital energies. Ghosts of lost power, sudden insights, and hazy recoveries of forgotten emotions—sometimes unclear and confusing, sometimes with bright but fleeting glimpses, sometimes with a full and steady revelation, bursting with light—suddenly throw us back into memories and scenes we left behind more than thirty years ago. In solitude, especially in the solitude of nature, particularly among the great and enduring aspects of nature, like mountains, quiet valleys, the grassy clearings of forests, and the silent shores of lakes—features that, being less likely to change, our feelings have a more lasting connection with—it’s under these circumstances that such fleeting reminders of our past and forgotten selves are most likely to surprise and ambush us. These are positive torments from which the troubled mind recoils in fear; but there are others, negative in nature—that is, blank reminders of powers we once had and of faculties that have burned out within us. From both forms of anguish—from this twofold torment—poor Coleridge might have fled, perhaps escaping from the beauty of the natural world. In referencing this latter, or negative form of suffering—that one which shows not the fleeting glimpses of past power but its total extinction—Coleridge beautifully emphasizes and illustrates the truth that everything we find in Nature must be created by ourselves; and that, whether Nature appears splendid in her beauty, looking adorned for a wedding, or so powerless and lifeless as to seem draped in a shroud— in either case,
And in our life alone does nature exist; Ours is her wedding dress, and ours is her burial cloth.
I might not expect to win through outward appearances. "The passion and the life whose sources are within."
This was one, and the most common, shape of extinguished power from which Coleridge fled to the great city. But sometimes the same decay came back upon his heart in the more poignant shape of intimations and vanishing glimpses, recovered for one moment from the paradise of youth, and from fields of joy and power, over which, for him, too certainly, he felt that the cloud of night was settling for ever. Both modes of the same torment exiled him from nature; and for the same reasons he fled from poetry and all commerce with his own soul; burying himself in the profoundest abstractions from life and human sensibilities.
This was one of the most common ways that lost power affected him, prompting Coleridge to leave for the big city. But sometimes, the same decline hit him harder in the form of feelings and fleeting memories, briefly pulled from the paradise of youth and from fields of joy and strength, over which, most definitely for him, he sensed that the shadow of night was permanently descending. Both forms of the same suffering drove him away from nature; and for the same reasons, he distanced himself from poetry and any connection with his own soul, burying himself in the deepest abstractions of life and human emotions.
But all I can do is be still and patient; And perhaps through deep research to take,
From my own nature, all of humanity; This was my only resource, my only plan; Until that, which fits one part, contaminates the entire thing,
"And now it has almost become a habit of my soul."
Such were, doubtless, the true and radical causes which, for the final twenty-four years of Coleridge's life, drew him away from those scenes of natural beauty in which only, at an earlier stage of life, he found strength and restoration. These scenes still survived; but their power was gone, because that had been derived from himself, and his ancient self had altered. Such were the causes; but the immediate occasion of his departure from the Lakes, in the autumn of 1810, was the favourable opportunity then presented to him of migrating in a pleasant way. Mr. Basil Montagu, the Chancery barrister, happened at that time to be returning to London, with Mrs. Montagu, from a visit to the Lakes, or to Wordsworth.[81] His travelling carriage was roomy enough to allow of his offering Coleridge a seat in it; and his admiration of Coleridge was just then fervent enough to prompt a friendly wish for that sort of close connexion (viz. by domestication as a guest under Mr. Basil Montagu's roof) which is the most trying to friendship, and which in this instance led to a perpetual rupture of it. The domestic habits of eccentric men of genius, much more those of a man so irreclaimably irregular as Coleridge, can hardly be supposed to promise very auspiciously for any connexion so close as this. A very extensive house and household, together with the unlimited licence of action which belongs to the ménage of some great Dons amongst the nobility, could alone have made Coleridge an inmate perfectly desirable. Probably many little jealousies and offences had been mutually suppressed; but the particular spark which at length fell amongst the combustible materials already prepared, and thus produced the final explosion, took the following shape:—Mr. Montagu had published a book[Pg 207] against the use of wine and intoxicating liquors of every sort.[82] Not out of parsimony or under any suspicion of inhospitality, but in mere self-consistency and obedience to his own conscientious scruples, Mr. Montagu would not countenance the use of wine at his own table. So far all was right. But doubtless, on such a system, under the known habits of modern life, it should have been made a rule to ask no man to dinner: for to force men, without warning, to a single (and, therefore, thoroughly useless) act of painful abstinence, is what neither I nor any man can have a right to do. In point of sense, it is, in fact, precisely the freak of Sir Roger de Coverley, who drenches his friend the "Spectator" with a hideous decoction: not, as his confiding visitor had supposed, for some certain and immediate benefit to follow, but simply as having a tendency (if well supported by many years' continuance of similar drenches) to abate the remote contingency of the stone. Hear this, ye Gods of the Future! I am required to perform a most difficult sacrifice; and forty years hence I may, by persisting so long, have some dim chance of reward. One day's abstinence could do no good on any scheme: and no man was likely to offer himself for a second. However, such being the law of the castle, and that law well known to Coleridge, he nevertheless, thought fit to ask to dinner Colonel (then Captain) Pasley, of the Engineers, well known in those days for his book on the "Military Policy of England," and since for his "System of Professional Instruction." Now, where or in what land abides that
Such were, undoubtedly, the true and fundamental causes that, for the last twenty-four years of Coleridge's life, pulled him away from those beautiful natural settings where he had once found strength and healing. These places still existed; however, their power was lost because it came from him, and he had changed. Those were the causes; but the immediate reason for his leaving the Lakes in the autumn of 1810 was the favorable opportunity he had to move in a pleasant way. Mr. Basil Montagu, a Chancery barrister, happened to be returning to London with Mrs. Montagu from a visit to the Lakes or to Wordsworth.[81] His traveling carriage was spacious enough to allow him to offer Coleridge a seat, and his admiration for Coleridge was strong enough at that moment to inspire a friendly desire for close connection (i.e., living together as a guest under Mr. Basil Montagu's roof), which can be very challenging for friendships and in this case led to a complete break. The daily habits of eccentric geniuses, especially someone as unreformed as Coleridge, hardly promise a successful close connection. Only a large house and household, along with the unlimited freedom of action typical of some prestigious figures among the nobility, could have made Coleridge a truly desirable housemate. It's likely that many small jealousies and offenses had been privately set aside; but the particular incident that finally ignited the already tense situation took the following form: Mr. Montagu had published a book[Pg 207] against the use of wine and all intoxicating drinks.[82] Not out of stinginess or any hint of inhospitality, but merely to remain consistent and adhere to his own principles, Mr. Montagu would not allow the use of wine at his own table. Up to that point, everything was fine. However, under such a system, given the known habits of modern life, it should have been established as a rule not to invite anyone to dinner at all: forcing people, without notice, into a single (and therefore totally pointless) act of painful abstinence is something that neither I nor anyone else has the right to do. In terms of logic, it's essentially the same folly of Sir Roger de Coverley, who douses his friend the "Spectator" with a horrible concoction: not, as his trusting guest assumed, for some certain and immediate benefit, but simply because it has a tendency (if maintained consistently over many years of similar treatments) to reduce the remote possibility of kidney stones. Hear this, you Gods of the Future! I am required to perform a very difficult sacrifice; and forty years from now, I might, if I persist long enough, have some faint chance of reward. A day’s abstinence wouldn’t help in any scheme: and no one was likely to volunteer for a second. However, since that was the rule of the house, and Coleridge was well aware of it, he still thought it appropriate to invite Colonel (then Captain) Pasley of the Engineers, who was well known at that time for his book on the "Military Policy of England," and later for his "System of Professional Instruction." Now, where or in what land does that
to whom wine in the analysis of dinner is a neutral or indifferent element? Wine, therefore, as it was not of a nature to be omitted, Coleridge took care to furnish at his own private cost. And so far, again, all was right. But why must Coleridge give his dinner to the captain in Mr. Montagu's house? There lay the affront; and, doubtless, it was a very inconsiderate action on the part of Coleridge. I report the case simply as it was then generally borne upon the[Pg 208] breath, not of scandal, but of jest and merriment. The result, however, was no jest; for bitter words ensued—words that festered in the remembrance; and a rupture between the parties followed, which no reconciliation has ever healed.
to whom is wine just a neutral or indifferent part of dinner? Wine, therefore, since it could not be left out, was something Coleridge made sure to provide at his own expense. So far, everything was fine. But why did Coleridge have to serve his dinner to the captain in Mr. Montagu's house? That was the insult; and it was certainly a thoughtless move on Coleridge's part. I'm sharing this simply as it was commonly understood at the time, not as a scandal, but as a joke among friends. The outcome, however, was no laughing matter; harsh words followed—words that continued to sting in their memory—and a split between the parties occurred that no attempt at reconciliation has ever mended.
Meantime, on reviewing this story, as generally adopted by the learned in literary scandal, one demur rises up. Dr. Parr, a lisping Whig pedant, without personal dignity or conspicuous power of mind, was a frequent and privileged inmate at Mr. Montagu's. Him now—this Parr—there was no conceivable motive for enduring; that point is satisfactorily settled by the pompous inanities of his works. Yet, on the other hand, his habits were in their own nature far less endurable than Samuel Taylor Coleridge's; for the monster smoked;—and how? How did the "Birmingham Doctor"[83] smoke? Not as you, or I, or other civilized people smoke, with a gentle cigar—but with the very coarsest tobacco. And those who know how that abomination lodges and nestles in the draperies of window-curtains will guess the horror and detestation in which the old Whig's memory is held by all enlightened women. Surely, in a house where the Doctor had any toleration at all, Samuel Taylor Coleridge might have enjoyed an unlimited toleration.[84]
In the meantime, as I look over this story, which is commonly accepted among those knowledgeable about literary gossip, one objection comes to mind. Dr. Parr, a stammering Whig intellectual lacking personal dignity or a notable intellect, was often a welcome guest at Mr. Montagu's place. But why put up with him? That question is easily answered by the pretentious nonsense in his writings. On the other hand, his habits were much less bearable than those of Samuel Taylor Coleridge; for this guy smoked—how did the "Birmingham Doctor" smoke? Not like you or I or any other civilized person would, with a nice cigar, but with the roughest tobacco. Anyone who knows how that wretched stuff gets embedded in the fabric of curtains will understand the disdain and disgust that enlightened women feel for the memory of that old Whig. Clearly, in a house where the Doctor was tolerated at all, Samuel Taylor Coleridge could have had unlimited acceptance.
From Mr. Montagu's Coleridge passed, by favour of what introduction I never heard, into a family as amiable in manners and as benign in disposition as I remember to have[Pg 209] ever met with. On this excellent family I look back with threefold affection, on account of their goodness to Coleridge, and because they were then unfortunate, and because their union has long since been dissolved by death. The family was composed of three members: of Mr. M——, once a lawyer, who had, however, ceased to practise; of Mrs. M——, his wife, a blooming young woman, distinguished for her fine person; and a young lady, her unmarried sister.[85] Here, for some years, I used to visit Coleridge; and, doubtless, as far as situation merely, and the most delicate attentions from the most amiable women, could make a man happy, he must have been so at this time; for both the ladies treated him as an elder brother, or as a father. At length, however, the cloud of misfortune, which had long settled upon the prospects of this excellent family, thickened; and I found, upon one of my visits to London, that they had given up their house in Berners Street, and had retired to a cottage in Wiltshire. Coleridge had accompanied them; and there I visited them myself, and, as it eventually proved, for the last time. Some time after this, I heard from Coleridge, with the deepest sorrow, that poor M—— had been thrown into prison, and had sunk under the pressure of his misfortunes. The gentle ladies of his family had retired to remote friends; and I saw them no more, though often vainly making inquiries about them.
From Mr. Montagu, Coleridge moved into a family that was as kind in their manners and as warm in their hearts as any I’ve ever known. I look back on this wonderful family with a deep sense of fondness: for their kindness to Coleridge, their unfortunate circumstances at the time, and the fact that their bond has long since been broken by death. The family consisted of three members: Mr. M——, who was once a lawyer but had stopped practicing; Mrs. M——, his wife, a beautiful young woman known for her lovely looks; and a young woman, her single sister. Here, for several years, I used to visit Coleridge; and surely, as far as being in a good environment and receiving the most thoughtful care from the kindest women could make a man happy, he must have been quite content during that time, as both ladies treated him like an older brother or even a father. Eventually, however, the shadow of misfortune that had hung over this wonderful family darkened further; and during one of my trips to London, I learned that they had to give up their home in Berners Street and moved to a cottage in Wiltshire. Coleridge went with them, and that was the last time I saw them. Not long after, I received the heartbreaking news from Coleridge that poor M—— had been imprisoned and succumbed to the weight of his hardships. The kind ladies of his family withdrew to stay with distant friends; I never saw them again, even though I frequently tried in vain to find out about them.
Coleridge, during this part of his London life, I saw constantly—generally once a day, during my own stay in London; and sometimes we were jointly engaged to dinner parties. In particular, I remember one party at which we met Lady Hamilton—Lord Nelson's Lady Hamilton—the beautiful, the accomplished, the enchantress! Coleridge admired her, as who would not have done, prodigiously; and she, in her turn, was fascinated with Coleridge. He was unusually effective in his display; and she, by way of expressing her acknowledgments appropriately, performed a scene in Lady Macbeth—how splendidly, I cannot better express than by saying that all of us who then witnessed[Pg 210] her performance were familiar with Mrs. Siddons's matchless execution of that scene, and yet, with such a model filling our imaginations, we could not but acknowledge the possibility of another, and a different perfection, without a trace of imitation, equally original, and equally astonishing. The word "magnificent" is, in this day, most lavishly abused: daily I hear or read in the newspapers of magnificent objects, as though scattered more thickly than blackberries; but for my part I have seen few objects really deserving that epithet. Lady Hamilton was one of them. She had Medea's beauty, and Medea's power of enchantment. But let not the reader too credulously suppose her the unprincipled woman she has been described. I know of no sound reason for supposing the connexion between Lord Nelson and her to have been other than perfectly virtuous. Her public services, I am sure, were most eminent—for that we have indisputable authority; and equally sure I am that they were requited with rank ingratitude.
During this time in London, I saw Coleridge regularly—usually once a day while I was there; sometimes we were both invited to dinner parties. I particularly remember one where we met Lady Hamilton—Lord Nelson's Lady Hamilton—the stunning, talented, captivating woman! Coleridge admired her immensely, as anyone would, and she, in turn, was captivated by him. He was exceptionally impressive in his performance, and as a way of showing her appreciation, she acted out a scene from Lady Macbeth—how wonderfully she did it, I can only express by saying that all of us who witnessed her performance were familiar with Mrs. Siddons's incomparable portrayal of that scene, and yet, with such a model in our minds, we couldn’t help but recognize the possibility of another, different kind of perfection that was completely original and equally astonishing. The word "magnificent" is often overused today; I hear or read about magnificent things in the news daily, as if they are as common as blackberries. But for me, I have seen few things truly deserving that title. Lady Hamilton was one of them. She had Medea's beauty and her enchanting power. But please don't assume she was the unprincipled woman she’s often portrayed as. I see no solid reason to believe that her connection with Lord Nelson was anything other than completely virtuous. Her public service, I’m sure, was outstanding—of that we have undeniable proof; and I'm equally sure that it was met with great ingratitude.
After the household of the poor M—— s had been dissolved, I know not whither Coleridge went immediately: for I did not visit London until some years had elapsed. In 1823-24 I first understood that he had taken up his residence as a guest with Mr. Gillman, a surgeon, in Highgate. He had then probably resided for some time at that gentleman's: there he continued to reside on the same terms, I believe, of affectionate friendship with the members of Mr. Gillman's family as had made life endurable to him in the time of the M—— s; and there he died in July of the present year. If, generally speaking, poor Coleridge had but a small share of earthly prosperity, in one respect at least he was eminently favoured by Providence: beyond all men who ever perhaps have lived, he found means to engage a constant succession of most faithful friends; and he levied the services of sisters, brothers, daughters, sons, from the hands of strangers—attracted to him by no possible impulses but those of reverence for his intellect, and love for his gracious nature. How, says Wordsworth—
After the household of the poor M—— s broke up, I don’t know where Coleridge went right away: I didn’t visit London until a few years later. In 1823-24, I learned that he had moved in as a guest with Mr. Gillman, a surgeon, in Highgate. He had probably been living there for some time; he stayed there on the same friendly terms that made life bearable for him during the time of the M—— s, and he died there in July of this year. Generally speaking, poor Coleridge didn’t have much earthly success, but in one way, he was greatly blessed by Providence: more than anyone else who has ever lived, he managed to have a continuous stream of very loyal friends; he drew the support of sisters, brothers, daughters, and sons from people he didn't know—attracted solely by admiration for his intellect and love for his kind spirit. How, Wordsworth says—
How can he, indeed? It is most unreasonable to do so: yet this expectation, if Coleridge ought not to have entertained, at all events he realized. Fast as one friend dropped off, another, and another, succeeded: perpetual relays were laid along his path in life, of judicious and zealous supporters, who comforted his days, and smoothed the pillow for his declining age, even when it was beyond all human power to take away the thorns which stuffed it.
How could he, really? It’s totally unreasonable to expect that: yet this expectation, which Coleridge shouldn't have had, was something he definitely experienced. As one friend faded away, another took their place: there were always thoughtful and passionate supporters in his life, who made his days easier and softened the challenges he faced in his later years, even when it was impossible to remove the difficulties that came with them.
And what were those thorns?—and whence derived? That is a question on which I ought to decline speaking, unless I could speak fully. Not, however, to make any mystery of what requires none, the reader will understand that originally his sufferings, and the death within him of all hope—the palsy, as it were, of that which is the life of life, and the heart within the heart—came from opium. But two things I must add—one to explain Coleridge's case, and the other to bring it within the indulgent allowance of equitable judges:—First, the sufferings from morbid derangements, originally produced by opium, had very possibly lost that simple character, and had themselves re-acted in producing secondary states of disease and irritation, not any longer dependent upon the opium, so as to disappear with its disuse: hence, a more than mortal discouragement to accomplish this disuse, when the pains of self-sacrifice were balanced by no gleams of restorative feeling. Yet, secondly, Coleridge did make prodigious efforts to deliver himself from this thraldom; and he went so far at one time in Bristol, to my knowledge, as to hire a man for the express purpose, and armed with the power of resolutely interposing between himself and the door of any druggist's shop. It is true that an authority derived only from Coleridge's will could not be valid against Coleridge's own counter-determination: he could resume as easily as he could delegate the power. But the scheme did not entirely fail; a man shrinks from exposing to another that infirmity of will which he might else have but a feeble motive for disguising to himself; and the delegated man, the external conscience, as it were, of Coleridge, though destined—in the final resort, if matters came to absolute rupture, and to an obstinate duel, as it were, between himself and his principal—in that extremity[Pg 212] to give way, yet might have long protracted the struggle before coming to that sort of dignus vindice nodus: and in fact, I know, upon absolute proof, that, before reaching that crisis, the man showed fight, and, faithful to his trust, and comprehending the reasons for it, declared that, if he must yield, he would "know the reason why."
And what were those thorns?—and where did they come from? That's a question I should avoid discussing unless I could speak completely. To not create any mystery where none is needed, the reader will understand that originally his suffering, and the death of all hope within him—the paralysis, so to speak, of what is the essence of life, and the core within the core—came from opium. But I need to add two things—one to clarify Coleridge's situation, and the other to make it understandable to fair judges:—First, the suffering from abnormal disturbances originally caused by opium had likely lost that simple nature and had themselves reacted to produce secondary states of illness and irritation, no longer dependent on the opium, which could vanish with its cessation: hence, an overwhelming discouragement to achieve this cessation, when the pains of self-sacrifice were weighed against no signs of restorative feeling. Yet, secondly, Coleridge did make great efforts to free himself from this bondage; at one point in Bristol, to my knowledge, he even hired a man specifically for this purpose, giving him the authority to firmly intervene between him and any drugstore. It’s true that an authority based solely on Coleridge’s will couldn’t overpower Coleridge's own resistance: he could resume control just as easily as he could delegate it. But the plan didn’t completely fail; a person often hesitates to reveal to another the weakness of will that they might otherwise have no strong incentive to hide from themselves; and this assigned man, acting as Coleridge's external conscience, though ultimately bound to yield if it came to a complete breakdown, and to a stubborn showdown between himself and Coleridge, might still prolong the struggle before reaching that kind of critical point: and indeed, I know from undeniable proof that, before arriving at that crisis, the man put up a fight, and remained loyal to his duty, understanding the reasons for it, declaring that if he had to give in, he would "know the reason why."
Opium, therefore, subject to the explanation I have made, was certainly the original source of Coleridge's morbid feelings, of his debility, and of his remorse. His pecuniary embarrassments pressed as lightly as could well be expected upon him. I have mentioned the annuity of £150 made to him by the two Wedgwoods. One half, I believe, could not be withdrawn, having been left by a regular testamentary bequest. But the other moiety, coming from the surviving brother, was withdrawn on the plea of commercial losses, somewhere, I think, about 1815. That would have been a heavy blow to Coleridge; and assuredly the generosity is not very conspicuous of having ever suffered an allowance of that nature to be left to the mercy of accident. Either it ought not to have been granted in that shape—viz. as an annual allowance, giving ground for expecting its periodical recurrence—or it ought not to have been withdrawn. However, this blow was broken to Coleridge by the bounty of George IV, who placed Coleridge's name in the list of twelve to whom he granted an annuity of 100 guineas per annum. This he enjoyed so long as that Prince reigned. But at length came a heavier blow than that from Mr. Wedgwood: a new King arose, who knew not Joseph. Yet surely he was not a King who could so easily resolve to turn adrift twelve men of letters, many of them most accomplished men, for the sake of appropriating a sum no larger to himself than 1200 guineas—no less to some of them than the total freight of their earthly hopes?—No matter: let the deed have been from whose hand it might, it was done: ἑιργασται (heirgastai), it was perpetrated, as saith the Medea of Euripides; and it will be mentioned hereafter, "more than either once or twice." It fell with weight, and with effect upon the latter days of Coleridge; it took from him as much heart and hope as at his years, and with his unworldly prospects, remained[Pg 213] for man to blight: and, if it did not utterly crush him, the reason was—because for himself he had never needed much, and was now continually drawing near to that haven in which, for himself, he would need nothing; secondly, because his children were now independent of his aid; and, finally, because in this land there are men to be found always of minds large enough to comprehend the claims of genius, and with hearts, by good luck, more generous, by infinite degrees, than the hearts of Princes.
Opium, therefore, following the explanation I’ve given, was clearly the original source of Coleridge's troubled emotions, his weakness, and his guilt. His financial troubles weighed on him as lightly as could be expected. I mentioned the £150 annuity given to him by the two Wedgwoods. I believe one half of it couldn’t be withdrawn because it was left to him by a formal will. But the other half, which came from the surviving brother, was taken out on the grounds of business losses, around 1815, if I remember correctly. That must have hit Coleridge hard; and it certainly doesn't show much generosity to leave someone’s allowance vulnerable to chance. It either shouldn’t have been given as an annual allowance—leading him to expect it regularly—or it shouldn’t have been taken away. Still, this blow was softened for Coleridge by the generosity of George IV, who included Coleridge's name among twelve others to whom he granted an annuity of 100 guineas a year. He enjoyed this as long as that Prince was in power. However, a bigger blow than that from Mr. Wedgwood eventually came: a new King arose who didn’t know Joseph. But he surely wasn’t a King who would easily decide to dismiss twelve men of letters, many of them highly accomplished, just to save a sum that was only 1200 guineas for himself—less than the total hope for some of them?—No matter who carried out the deed, it was done: it was perpetrated, as Euripides’s Medea says; and it will be mentioned again, "more than once or twice." It had a significant impact on the later years of Coleridge; it took away as much heart and hope as was left for someone at his age and with his unrealistic prospects: and if it didn’t completely crush him, it was because he never needed much for himself and was now continually approaching that refuge where he wouldn’t need anything at all; secondly, because his children were now independent; and finally, because in this country, there are always people with minds broad enough to understand the needs of genius, and with hearts, by sheer luck, infinitely more generous than those of Princes.
Coleridge, as I now understand, was somewhere about sixty-two years of age when he died.[86] This, however, I take upon the report of the public newspapers; for I do not, of my own knowledge, know anything accurately upon that point.
Coleridge, as I understand it now, was around sixty-two years old when he died.[86] However, I'm relying on what I've read in the newspapers for this information, as I don't know anything precise about it myself.
It can hardly be necessary to inform any reader of discernment or of much practice in composition that the whole of this article upon Mr. Coleridge, though carried through at intervals, and (as it has unexpectedly happened) with time sufficient to have made it a very careful one, has, in fact, been written in a desultory and unpremeditated style. It was originally undertaken on the sudden but profound impulse communicated to the writer's feelings by the unexpected news of this great man's death; partly, therefore, to relieve, by expressing, his own deep sentiments of reverential affection to his memory, and partly, in however imperfect a way, to meet the public feeling of interest or curiosity about a man who had long taken his place amongst the intellectual potentates of the age. Both purposes required that it should be written almost extempore: the greater part was really and unaffectedly written in that way, and under circumstances of such extreme haste as would justify the writer in pleading the very amplest privilege of licence and indulgent construction which custom concedes to such cases. Hence it had occurred to the writer, as a judicious principle, to create a sort of merit out of his own necessity, and rather to seek after the graces which belong to the epistolary form, or to other modes of composition professedly careless, than after those[Pg 214] which grow out of preconceived biographies, which, having originally settled their plan upon a regular foundation, are able to pursue a course of orderly development, such as his slight sketch had voluntarily renounced from the beginning. That mode of composition having been once adopted, it seemed proper to sustain it, even after delays and interruption had allowed time for throwing the narrative into a more orderly movement, and modulating it, as it were, into a key of the usual solemnity. The qualis ab incepto processerit—the ordo prescribed by the first bars of the music predominated over all other considerations, and to such an extent that he had purposed to leave the article without any regular termination or summing up—as, on the one hand, scarcely demanded by the character of a sketch so rapid and indigested, whilst, on the other, he was sensible that anything of so much pretension as a formal peroration challenged a sort of consideration to the paper which it was the author's chief wish to disclaim. That effect, however, is sufficiently parried by the implied protest now offered; and, on other reasons, it is certainly desirable that a general glance, however cursory, should be thrown over the intellectual claims of Mr. Coleridge by one who knew him so well, and especially in a case where those very claims constitute the entire and sole justification of the preceding personal memoir. That which furnishes the whole moving reason for any separate notice at all, and forms its whole latent interest, ought not, in mere logic, to be left without some notice itself, though as rapidly executed as the previous biographical sketch, and, from the necessity of the subject, by many times over more imperfect.
It hardly needs to be said to any discerning reader or anyone experienced in writing that this entire article about Mr. Coleridge, although written over several intervals and, somewhat surprisingly, with enough time to make it quite thorough, has actually been done in a haphazard and unplanned manner. It was initially prompted by the sudden and powerful emotions stirred by the unexpected news of this great man's death; partly, therefore, to express his own deep feelings of respect and affection for his memory, and partly, even if imperfectly, to address the public's interest or curiosity about a man who had long been recognized as one of the intellectual leaders of the age. Both intentions required that it be written almost spontaneously: most of it was genuinely and effortlessly written that way, under such extreme time pressure that the writer feels justified in claiming the broadest allowances of flexibility and understanding that custom grants in such cases. Thus, the writer considered it a smart approach to turn his own necessity into a kind of merit, focusing more on the elegance found in casual writing or other relaxed forms of composition rather than the structured biographies that, having established a regular framework from the start, can pursue a more orderly development, which his brief sketch had willingly chosen to forgo from the beginning. Once this style of writing was adopted, it felt appropriate to maintain it, even after delays and interruptions allowed for a more organized narrative flow and a more solemn tone. The way it began—dictated by the initial notes of the piece—took precedence over all other factors, to the extent that he intended to leave the article without any formal conclusion or summary, which seemed unnecessary for such a quick and rough sketch, while also being aware that anything as ambitious as a formal closing would impose a kind of importance on the paper that he preferred to avoid. However, this effect is sufficiently addressed by the implied statement now made; and for other reasons, it is certainly important that a brief overview, however brief, should be given of Mr. Coleridge’s intellectual contributions by someone who knew him well, especially since those contributions provide the entire basis for this personal memoir. The very reasons for any separate acknowledgment and the inherent interest it brings should not be left unmentioned, even if executed quickly, and, due to the nature of the subject, is likely much less polished.
To this task, therefore, the writer now addresses himself; and by way of gaining greater freedom of movement and of resuming his conversational tone, he will here again take the liberty of speaking in the first person.
To this task, therefore, the writer now turns his attention; and to gain more freedom of expression and return to a conversational tone, he will once again take the liberty of speaking in the first person.
If Mr. Coleridge had been merely a scholar—merely a philologist—or merely a man of science—there would be no reason apparent for travelling in our survey beyond the field of his intellect, rigorously and narrowly so called. But, because he was a poet, and because he was a philosopher in a comprehensive and a most human sense, with whose functions the moral nature is so largely interwoven, I shall feel myself[Pg 215] entitled to notice the most striking aspects of his character (using that word in its common limited meaning), of his disposition, and his manners, as so many reflex indications of his intellectual constitution. But let it be well understood that I design nothing elaborate, nothing comprehensive or ambitious: my purpose is merely to supply a few hints and suggestions drawn from a very hasty retrospect, by way of adding a few traits to any outline which the reader may have framed to himself, either from some personal knowledge, or from more full and lively memorials.
If Mr. Coleridge had just been a scholar—just a linguist—or just a scientist—there wouldn’t be any clear reason to explore beyond the boundaries of his intellect, strictly defined. But, because he was a poet and because he was a philosopher in a broad and very human sense, with whose functions the moral nature is so deeply intertwined, I feel entitled to highlight the most notable aspects of his character (using that term in its usual, limited sense), of his temperament, and his behavior, as reflections of his intellectual makeup. However, it should be clear that I don’t intend anything elaborate, comprehensive, or ambitious: my goal is simply to provide a few insights and suggestions based on a quick review, to add a few details to any sketch the reader may have formed from personal experience or from more complete and engaging accounts.
One character in which Mr. Coleridge most often came before the public was that of politician. In this age of fervent partisanship, it will, therefore, naturally occur as a first question to inquire after his party and political connexions: was he Whig, Tory, or Radical? Or, under a new classification, were his propensities Conservative or Reforming? I answer that, in any exclusive or emphatic sense, he was none of these; because, as a philosopher, he was, according to circumstances, and according to the object concerned, all of these by turns. These are distinctions upon which a cloud of delusion rests. It would not be difficult to show that in the speculations built upon the distinction of Whig and Tory, even by as philosophic a politician as Edmund Burke, there is an oversight of the largest practical importance. But the general and partisan use of these terms superadds to this πρωτον ψευδος (prôton pseudos) a second which is much more flagrant. It is this: the terms Whig or Tory, used by partisans, are taken extra gradum, as expressing the ideal or extreme cases of the several creeds; whereas, in actual life, few such cases are found realized, by far the major part of those who answer to either one or the other denomination making only an approximation (differing by infinite degrees) to the ideal or abstract type. A third error there is, relating to the actual extent of the several denominations, even after every allowance made for the faintest approximations. Listen to a Whig, or to a Tory, and you will suppose that the great bulk of society range under his banner: all, at least, who have any property at stake. Listen to a Radical, and you will suppose that all are marshalled in the same ranks with himself, unless those who have some private interest in existing abuses, or[Pg 216] have aristocratic privileges to defend. Yet, upon going extensively into society as it is, you find that a vast majority of good citizens are of no party whatsoever, own no party designation, care for no party interest, but carry their good wishes by turns to men of every party, according to the momentary purpose they are pursuing. As to Whig and Tory, it is pretty clear that only two classes of men, both of limited extent, acknowledge these as their distinctions: first, those who make politics in some measure their profession or trade—whether by standing forward habitually in public meetings as leaders or as assistants, or by writing books and pamphlets in the same cause; secondly, those whose rank, or birth, or position in a city, or a rural district, almost pledges them to a share in the political struggles of the day, under the penalty of being held fainéans, truants, or even malignant recusants, if they should decline a warfare which often, perhaps, they do not love in secret. These classes, which, after all, are not numerous, and not entirely sincere, compose the whole extent of professing Whigs and Tories who make any approach to the standards of their two churches; and, generally speaking, these persons have succeeded to their politics and their party ties, as they have to their estates, viz. by inheritance. Not their way of thinking in politics has dictated their party connexions; but these connexions, traditionally bequeathed from one generation to another, have dictated their politics. With respect to the Radical or the Reformer, the case is otherwise; for it is certain that in this, as in every great and enlightened nation, enjoying an intense and fervid communication of thought through the press, there is, and must be, a tendency widely diffused to the principles of sane reform—an anxiety to probe and examine all the institutions of the land by the increasing lights of the age—and a salutary determination that no acknowledged abuse shall be sheltered by prescription, or privileged by its antiquity. In saying, therefore, that his principles are spread over the length and breadth of the land, the Reformer says no more than the truth. Whig and Tory, as usually understood, express only two modes of aristocratic partisanship: and it is strange, indeed, to find people deluded by the notion that the reforming principle has any more natural connexion with[Pg 217] the first than the last. Reformer, on the other hand, to a certain extent expresses the political creed and aspect of almost every enlightened citizen: but, then, how? Not, as the Radical would insinuate, as pledging a man to a specific set of objects, or to any visible and apparent party, having known leaders and settled modes of action. British society, in its large majority, may be fairly described as Reformers, in the sense of being favourably disposed to a general spirit of ventilation and reform carried through all departments of public business, political or judicial; but it is so far from being, therefore, true that men in general are favourably disposed to any known party, in or out of Parliament, united for certain objects and by certain leaders, that, on the contrary, this reforming party itself has no fixed unity, and no generally acknowledged heads. It is divided both as to persons and as to things: the ends to be pursued create as many schisms as the course of means proper for the pursuit, and the choice of agents for conducting the public wishes. In fact, it would be even more difficult to lay down the ideal standard of a Reformer, or his abstract creed, than of a Tory: and, supposing this done, it would be found, in practice, that the imperfect approximations to the pure faith would differ by even broader shades as regarded the reforming creed than as regarded that of the rigorous or ultra Tory.
One role in which Mr. Coleridge frequently presented himself to the public was that of a politician. In this age of intense partisanship, it naturally raises the first question to ask which party and political connections he had: was he a Whig, Tory, or Radical? Or, under a new classification, were his inclinations Conservative or Reformist? I reply that, in any exclusive or definitive sense, he was none of these; because, as a philosopher, he was, depending on the situation and the subject at hand, all of these in turn. These are distinctions shrouded in confusion. It wouldn’t be hard to point out that in the arguments built on the distinction of Whig and Tory, even by a philosophically-minded politician like Edmund Burke, there is a significant oversight of practical importance. Moreover, the general and partisan use of these terms adds to this πρωτον ψευδος (prôton pseudos) a second, which is much more obvious. This is: the terms Whig or Tory, as used by partisans, are taken extra gradum, as representing the ideal or extreme cases of the various creeds; whereas, in real life, few such ideal cases are found to exist, with most who identify as one or the other being only approximate representations (varying by infinite degrees) of the ideal or abstract type. A third mistake relates to the actual extent of the various groups, even after every consideration of the slightest approximations. Listen to a Whig or a Tory, and you might think that the vast majority of society falls under their banner: at least all those with something to lose. Listen to a Radical, and you might assume that everyone is aligned with him, except those who have a personal stake in existing injustices or who have aristocratic privileges to defend. Yet, when you delve into society as it really is, you discover that a large majority of good citizens are affiliated with no party at all, own no party label, care about no party agenda, but lend their support to individuals from every party according to the immediate goals they are pursuing. Regarding Whigs and Tories, it’s pretty clear that only two limited groups of people acknowledge these as their identities: first, those who make politics somewhat their profession or business—whether by regularly showing up in public meetings as leaders or helpers, or by writing books and pamphlets supporting the same cause; and second, those whose rank, lineage, or position in a city or rural area nearly compels them to participate in the political struggles of the day, under the threat of being considered lazy, truant, or even malevolent for refusing to fight a battle that they may secretly despise. These groups, which are not numerous and not entirely sincere, constitute the entirety of professing Whigs and Tories who come anywhere close to the standards of their two parties; generally speaking, these individuals have inherited their politics and party affiliations much like their estates. It is not their political thinking that has shaped their party associations; rather, these associations, passed down from one generation to the next, have dictated their political views. As for Radicals or Reformers, the situation is different; for it is certain that in this, as in every major and thoughtful nation, enjoying a rich and active exchange of ideas through the press, there exists a broad tendency towards principles of sensible reform—an eagerness to examine and scrutinize all the institutions of the country through the lens of contemporary understanding—and a healthy resolve that no recognized abuse should be protected by tradition or privileged because of its long-standing existence. Therefore, when the Reformer claims that his principles are widespread across the land, he is stating nothing but the truth. Whig and Tory, as generally understood, represent only two forms of aristocratic partisanship: and it is indeed odd to find people fooled by the belief that the reforming principle has any more inherent connection with the first than the last. Reformer, on the other hand, to a certain extent, represents the political beliefs and stance of almost every enlightened citizen: but, how? Not as the Radical might suggest, binding a person to a specific set of goals or to any visible and defined party with known leaders and established methods of action. A large majority of British society could be fairly classified as Reformers, in the sense of being open to a general spirit of discussion and reform across all areas of public business, political or judicial; but it is far from true that people are inclined towards any recognized party, whether in or out of Parliament, united for specific goals and led by particular leaders; on the contrary, this reforming group itself lacks a fixed unity and widely accepted leaders. It is divided in terms of both individuals and issues: the goals to be achieved create just as many splits as the means to pursue them, and the choice of individuals to carry out public interests. In fact, it would be even more challenging to define the ideal standard of a Reformer, or their abstract beliefs, than it would be for a Tory: and, assuming such a standard was established, it would turn out that the imperfect representations of the pure beliefs would differ even more broadly in relation to the reforming creed than they do concerning that of the strict or ultra Tory.
With respect to Mr. Coleridge: he was certainly a friend to all enlightened reforms; he was a friend, for example, to Reform in Parliament. Sensible as he was of the prodigious diffusion of knowledge and good sense amongst the classes immediately below the gentry in British society, he could not but acknowledge their right to a larger and a less indirect share of political influence. As to the plan, and its extent, and its particular provisions,—upon those he hesitated and wavered; as other friends to the same views have done, and will continue to do. The only avowed objects of modern Reformers which he would strenuously have opposed, nay, would have opposed with the zeal of an ancient martyr, are those which respect the Church of England, and, therefore, most of those which respect the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. There he would have been found in the first ranks of the Anti-Reformers. He would also have supported the House[Pg 218] of Peers, as the tried bulwark of our social interests in many a famous struggle, and sometimes, in the hour of need, the sole barrier against despotic aggressions on the one hand, and servile submissions on the other. Moreover, he looked with favour upon many modes of aristocratic influence as balances to new-made commercial wealth, and to a far baser tyranny likely to arise from that quarter when unbalanced. But, allowing for these points of difference, I know of little else stamped with the general seal of modern reform, and claiming to be a privileged object for a national effort, which would not have had his countenance. It is true,—and this I am sensible will be objected,—that his party connexions were chiefly with the Tories; and it adds a seeming strength to this objection, that these connexions were not those of accident, nor those which he inherited, nor those of his youthful choice. They were sought out by himself, and in his maturer years; or else they were such as sought him for the sake of his political principles; and equally, in either case, they argued some affinity in his political creed. This much cannot be denied. But one consideration will serve greatly to qualify the inference from these facts. In those years when Mr. Coleridge became connected with Tories, what was the predominating and cardinal principle of Toryism, in comparison with which all else was willingly slighted? Circumstances of position had thrown upon the Tories the onus of a great national struggle, the greatest which History anywhere records, and with an enemy the most deadly. The Whigs were then out of power: they were therefore in opposition; and that one fact, the simple fact, of holding an anti-ministerial position, they allowed, by a most fatal blunder, to determine the course of their foreign politics. Napoleon was to be cherished simply because he was a thorn in Mr. Pitt's side. So began their foreign policy—and in that pettiest of personal views. Because they were anti-ministerial, they allowed themselves passively to become anti-national. To be a Whig, therefore, in those days, implied little more than a strenuous opposition to foreign war; to be a Tory pledged a man to little more than war with Napoleon Bonaparte. And this view of our foreign relations it was that connected Coleridge with Tories,—a view which[Pg 219] arose upon no motives of selfish interest (as too often has been said in reproach), but upon the changes wrought in the spirit of the French Republic, which gradually transmuted its defensive warfare (framed originally to meet a conspiracy of kings crusading against the new-born democracy of French institutions, whilst yet in their cradle) into a warfare of aggression and sanguinary ambition. The military strength evoked in France by the madness of European kings had taught her the secret of her own power—a secret too dangerous for a nation of vanity so infinite, and so feeble in all means of moral self-restraint. The temptation to foreign conquest was too strong for the national principles; and, in this way, all that had been grand and pure in the early pretensions of French Republicanism rapidly melted away before the common bribes of vulgar ambition. Unoffending states, such as Switzerland, were the first to be trampled under foot; no voice was heard any more but the "brazen throat of war"; and, after all that had been vaunted of a golden age, and a long career opened to the sceptre of pure political justice, the clouds gathered more gloomily than ever; and the sword was once more reinstated, as the sole arbiter of right, with less disguise and less reserve than under the vilest despotism of kings. The change was in the French Republicans, not in their foreign admirers; they, in mere consistency, were compelled into corresponding changes, and into final alienation of sympathy, as they beheld, one after one, all titles forfeited by which that grand explosion of pure democracy had originally challenged and sustained their veneration. The mighty Republic had now begun to revolve through those fierce transmigrations foreseen by Burke, to every one of which, by turns, he had denounced an inevitable "purification by fire and blood": no trace remained of her primitive character: and of that awful outbreak of popular might which once had made France the land of hope and promise to the whole human race, and had sounded a knell to every form of oppression or abuse, no record was to be found, except in the stupendous power which cemented its martial oligarchy. Of the people, of the democracy—or that it had ever for an hour been roused from its slumbers—one sole evidence remained;[Pg 220] and that lay in the blank power of destruction, and its perfect organization, which none but a popular movement, no power short of that, could have created. The people, having been unchained, and as if for the single purpose of creating a vast system of destroying energies, had then immediately recoiled within their old limits, and themselves become the earliest victim of their own stratocracy. In this way France had become an object of jealousy and alarm. It remained to see to what purpose she would apply her new energies. That was soon settled; her new-born power was wielded from the first by unprincipled and by ambitious men; and, in 1800, it fell under the permanent control of an autocrat, whose unity of purpose, and iron will, left no room for any hope of change.
With regard to Mr. Coleridge: he was definitely a supporter of all enlightened reforms; he advocated, for instance, for Reform in Parliament. Understanding the significant spread of knowledge and good judgment among the classes just below the gentry in British society, he had to recognize their right to a greater and less indirect share of political influence. As for the plan, its extent, and its specific provisions,—he hesitated and wavered; just as other supporters of similar ideas have done and will continue to do. The only avowed goals of modern Reformers that he would have actively opposed, even with the fervor of an ancient martyr, are those that concern the Church of England and, by extension, most of those related to the two Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. There, he would have been found among the leading Anti-Reformers. He would also have backed the House[Pg 218] of Peers, as the proven protector of our social interests in many notable struggles, and, sometimes, in times of need, the only defense against tyrannical attacks on one side and servile submissions on the other. Furthermore, he viewed many forms of aristocratic influence favorably as a counterbalance to newly acquired commercial wealth and to a much worse tyranny likely to emerge from that source when unchecked. However, aside from these points of disagreement, I know of little else marked by the general seal of modern reform, and claiming to be a privileged target for national effort that would not have had his support. It is true,—and I am aware this will be critiqued,—that his political connections were mainly with the Tories; and it adds apparent weight to this critique that these connections were not accidental, nor inherited, nor the result of youthful preference. He actively sought them out, either in his later years or because they sought him for his political beliefs; in either case, they suggested some alignment in his political ideology. This much cannot be denied. But one consideration can significantly moderate the conclusion drawn from these facts. During the years when Mr. Coleridge became associated with the Tories, what was the main and fundamental principle of Toryism compared to which all else was willingly overlooked? Circumstances had placed the Tories in charge of a major national conflict, the greatest that history records, against a very deadly enemy. The Whigs were then out of power: they were in opposition; and that single fact, the simple fact of holding an anti-ministerial position, led them to a grave mistake that defined their foreign policy. They favored Napoleon solely because he was a thorn in Mr. Pitt's side. Thus, their foreign policy began—and from this petty personal perspective. Because they were anti-ministerial, they allowed themselves to passively become anti-national. So, being a Whig in those days meant little more than a vigorous opposition to foreign war; being a Tory committed a person to little more than war with Napoleon Bonaparte. And this perspective on our foreign relations connected Coleridge with the Tories—a view that[Pg 219] arose from no motives of selfish gain (as has often been said in criticism), but from the transformations brought about by the French Republic, which gradually changed its defensive warfare (originally aimed at an alliance of kings attacking the fledgling democracy of French institutions) into a war of aggression and bloody ambition. The military power that emerged in France, driven by the madness of European kings, revealed to her the secret of her own strength—a dangerous secret for a nation with such infinite vanity and so weak in moral self-restraint. The temptation for foreign conquest overwhelmed national principles; and in this way, all that had been noble and pure in the initial claims of French Republicanism quickly vanished before the common seduction of base ambition. Innocent nations, like Switzerland, were the first to be trampled; no voice was heard but the "brazen throat of war"; and, after all that had been touted about a golden age, and a long path leading to the scepter of pure political justice, the clouds grew darker than ever; and the sword was reinstated as the sole arbitrator of right, with less disguise and fewer reservations than under the most vile despotism of kings. The change occurred in the French Republicans, not in their foreign admirers; they, in mere consistency, were forced into corresponding adjustments and a final alienation of sympathy as they watched, one by one, all claims that had once earned the grand eruption of pure democracy their respect fall away. The powerful Republic had now begun to undergo those fierce transformations foreseen by Burke, for each of which he had warned of an unavoidable "purification by fire and blood": no trace remained of its original character; and of that terrible eruption of popular power which once had made France the land of hope and promise for the entire human race, and had sounded the alarm against every form of oppression or abuse, no record existed except in the tremendous power that solidified its military oligarchy. Of the people, of the democracy—or that it had ever been awakened even for a moment—only one piece of evidence remained;[Pg 220] and that lay in the sheer destructive power and its perfect organization, which only a popular movement, no lesser force, could have created. The people, once liberated, and seemingly just to create a vast system of destructive energies, immediately recoiled within their former limits and became the earliest victims of their own military state. In this way, France had become an object of jealousy and alarm. It remained to see how she would use her new powers. That was quickly determined; her newfound strength was from the outset wielded by unprincipled and ambitious individuals; and by 1800, it fell permanently under the control of an autocrat, whose unified purpose and iron will left no hope for change.
Under these circumstances, under these prospects, coupled with this retrospect, what became the duty of all foreign politicians? of the English above all, as natural leaders in any hopeful scheme of resistance? The question can scarcely be put with decency. Time and season, place or considerations of party, all alike vanished before an elementary duty to the human race, which much transcended any duty of exclusive patriotism. Plant it, however, on that narrower basis, and the answer would have been the same for all centuries, and for every land under a corresponding state of circumstances. Of Napoleon's real purposes there cannot now be any reasonable doubt. His confessions—and, in particular, his indirect revelations at St. Helena—have long since removed all demurs or scruples of scepticism. For England, therefore, as in relation to a man bent upon her ruin, all distinctions of party were annihilated—Whig and Tory were merged and swallowed up in the transcendent duties of patriots, Englishmen, lovers of liberty. Tories, as Tories, had here no peculiar or separate duties—none which belonged to their separate creed in politics. Their duties were paramount; and their partisanship had here no application—was perfectly indifferent, and spoke neither this way nor that. In one respect only they had peculiar duties, and a peculiar responsibility; peculiar, however, not by any difference of quality, but in its supreme degree; the same duties which belonged to all, belonged to them by a[Pg 221] heavier responsibility. And how, or why? Not as Tories had they, or could they have, any functions at all applying to this occasion; it was as being then the ministerial party, as the party accidentally in power at the particular crisis: in that character it was that they had any separate or higher degree of responsibility; otherwise, and as to the kind of their duty apart from this degree, the Tories stood in the same circumstances as men of all other parties. To the Tories, however, as accidentally in possession of the supreme power, and wielding the national forces at that time, and directing their application—to them it was that the honour belonged of making a beginning: on them had devolved the privilege of opening and authorizing the dread crusade. How and in what spirit they acquitted themselves of that most enviable task—enviable for its sanctity, fearful for the difficulty of its adequate fulfilment—how they persevered, and whether, at any crisis, the direst and most ominous to the righteous cause, they faltered or gave sign of retreating—History will tell—History has already told. To the Whigs belonged the duty of seconding their old antagonists: and no wise man could have doubted that, in a case of transcendent patriotism, where none of those principles could possibly apply by which the two parties were divided and distinguished, the Whigs would be anxious to show that, for the interests of their common country, they could cheerfully lay aside all those party distinctions, and forget those feuds which now had no pertinence or meaning. Simply as Whigs, had they stood in no other relation, they probably would have done so. Unfortunately, however, for their own good name and popularity in after times, they were divided from the other party, not merely as Whigs opposed to Tories, but also upon another and a more mortifying distinction, which was not, like the first, a mere inert question of speculation or theory, but involved a vast practical difference of honours and emoluments:—they were divided, I say, on another and more vexatious principle, as the Outs opposed to the Ins. Simply as Whigs, they might have coalesced with the Tories quoad hoc, and merely for this one purpose. But, as men out of power, they could not coalesce with those who were in. They constituted "his Majesty's Opposition"; and, in a[Pg 222] fatal hour, they determined that it was fitting to carry their general scheme of hostility even into this sacred and privileged ground. That resolution once taken, they found it necessary to pursue it with zeal. The case itself was too weighty and too interesting to allow of any moderate tone for the abetters or opposers. Passion and personal bitterness soon animated the contest: violent and rash predictions were hazarded—prophecies of utter ruin and of captivity for our whole army were solemnly delivered: and it soon became evident, as indeed mere human infirmity made it beforehand but too probable, that, where so much personal credit was at stake upon the side of our own national dishonour, the wishes of the prophet had been pledged to the same result as the credit of his political sagacity. Many were the melancholy illustrations of the same general case. Men were seen fighting against the evidences of some great British victory with all the bitterness and fierce incredulity which usually meet the first rumours of some private calamity: that was in effect the aspect in their eyes of each national triumph in its turn. Their position, connected with the unfortunate election made by the Whig leaders of their tone, from the very opening of the contest, gave the character of a calamity for them and for their party to that which to every other heart in Britain was the noblest of triumphs in the noblest of causes; and, as a party, the Whigs mourned for years over those events which quickened the pulses of pleasure and sacred exultation in every other heart. God forbid that all Whigs should have felt in this unnatural way! I speak only of the tone set by the Parliamentary leaders. The few who were in Parliament, and exposed to daily taunts from the just exultation of their irritated opponents, had their natural feelings poisoned and envenomed. The many who were out of Parliament, and not personally interested in this warfare of the Houses, were left open to natural influences of patriotic pride, and to the contagion of public sympathy: and these, though Whigs, felt as became them.
Under these circumstances and prospects, along with this reflection, what became the responsibility of all foreign politicians? Especially the English, as natural leaders in any hopeful scheme of resistance? The question is hard to ask decently. Time, place, and party considerations all disappeared in the face of a fundamental duty to humanity that far exceeded any obligation of mere patriotism. However, if we were to frame it on that narrower basis, the answer would have been the same for all centuries and in every land under similar circumstances. There can be no reasonable doubt about Napoleon's true intentions now. His confessions—and especially his indirect revelations at St. Helena—have long since dispelled any doubts or hesitations of skepticism. For England, then, regarding a man determined to ruin her, all political distinctions faded away—Whig and Tory were merged in the greater duties of patriots, Englishmen, and lovers of liberty. Tories, as Tories, had no specific or separate responsibilities—none that were unique to their political beliefs. Their duties were paramount; their partisanship held no relevance here—it was completely indifferent and did not sway one way or the other. Only in one respect did they have unique responsibilities and a unique burden; unique not due to a difference in quality, but in its extreme degree; the same duties applicable to all also applied to them, but with a greater level of accountability. And how, or why? Not as Tories did they have, or could they have, any functions relevant to this situation; it was as the governing party, as the party in power at that critical moment: in that role, they bore a separate and higher level of responsibility; otherwise, and concerning the kind of their duty aside from this degree, the Tories were in the same position as individuals from all other parties. However, since the Tories were in control of the supreme power and directing the national forces at that time, they held the honor of making a start: the privilege of initiating and authorizing the daunting campaign fell to them. How they handled that most enviable task—envied for its sacredness, yet fearful for the difficulty it entailed—how they persevered, and whether, at any crucial moment, the most dire and ominous one for the righteous cause, they wavered or showed signs of retreat—History will tell—History has already told. The Whigs had the duty to support their former opponents: and no wise person could doubt that, in a situation of transcendent patriotism where none of the principles that divided the two parties could apply, the Whigs would be eager to demonstrate that, for the benefit of their shared country, they could gladly set aside all party distinctions and forget the feuds that no longer held relevance. Simply as Whigs, had they stood in no other relation, they likely would have done so. Unfortunately, though, for their reputation and popularity in later times, they were divided from the other party, not just as Whigs against Tories, but also on another and more humiliating distinction, which was not merely a theoretical issue but involved a significant practical difference regarding honors and benefits:—they were divided, I say, on another and more troublesome principle, as the Outs against the Ins. Simply as Whigs, they might have joined forces with the Tories for this one purpose. But, as those out of power, they couldn't align with those who were in charge. They made up "his Majesty's Opposition"; and, at a critical moment, they decided it was appropriate to carry their overall agenda of hostility even into this sacred and privileged space. Once that resolution was made, they felt it necessary to pursue it with fervor. The case itself was too serious and too engaging to allow for any moderate tone from supporters or opponents. Emotion and personal resentment quickly fueled the conflict: bold and rash predictions were made—prophecies of complete ruin and captivity for our entire army were declared: and it soon became clear, as mere human frailty made it highly probable ahead of time, that, where so much personal reputation was at stake in terms of our own national disgrace, the prophets' wishes had been tied to the same outcome as their political judgment. Many were the sorrowful illustrations of the same general issue. Individuals were seen reacting against the evidence of some great British victory with all the bitterness and fierce disbelief that typically greet the first whispers of personal disaster: that was, effectively, how each national triumph appeared to them in turn. Their position, influenced by the unfortunate tone adopted by the Whig leaders from the outset of the conflict, turned what to every other heart in Britain was the greatest triumph in the noblest cause into a calamity for them and for their party; and, as a party, the Whigs mourned for years over events that stirred pleasure and sacred joy in every other heart. God forbid that all Whigs should have felt this way! I'm only referring to the tone set by the Parliamentary leaders. The few in Parliament, subjected to daily taunts from the justified elation of their agitated opponents, had their natural feelings poisoned and tainted. Those who were out of Parliament, and not personally embroiled in the power struggle, were left open to the natural influences of patriotic pride and public sympathy: and these, though Whigs, felt as they should.
These are things too unnatural to be easily believed, or, in a land where the force of partisanship is less, to be easily understood. Being true, however, they ought not to be forgotten:-[Pg 223] and at present it is almost necessary that they should be stated for the justification of Coleridge. Too much has been written upon this part of his life, and too many reproaches thrown out upon his levity or his want of principle in his supposed sacrifice of his early political connexions, to make it possible for any reverencer of Coleridge's memory to pass over the case without a full explanation. That explanation is involved in the strange and scandalous conduct of the Parliamentary Whigs. Coleridge passed over to the Tories only in that sense in which all patriots did so at that time, and in relation to our great foreign interest—viz. by refusing to accompany the Whigs in their almost perfidious demeanour towards Napoleon Bonaparte. Anti-ministerial they affect to style their policy, but in the most eminent sense it was anti-national. It was thus far—viz. exclusively, or almost exclusively, in relation to our great feud with Napoleon—that Coleridge adhered to the Tories. But, because this feud was so capital and so earth-shaking a quarrel that it occupied all hearts and all the councils of Christendom, suffering no other question almost to live in its neighbourhood, hence it happened that he who acceded to the Tories in this one chapter of their policy was regarded as an ally in the most general sense. Domestic politics were then, in fact, forgotten; no question, in any proper sense a Tory one, ever arose in that era; or, if it had, the public attention would not have settled upon it, and it would speedily have been dismissed.
These things are so unnatural that they're hard to believe or, in a place where partisanship is less intense, difficult to understand. But, since they're true, they shouldn't be forgotten: [Pg 223]. Right now, it's almost necessary to state them to justify Coleridge. There has been too much written about this part of his life and too many criticisms aimed at his perceived lack of seriousness or principles in abandoning his early political connections, making it impossible for anyone who respects Coleridge's memory to ignore the situation without a thorough explanation. That explanation lies in the strange and scandalous behavior of the Parliamentary Whigs. Coleridge aligned himself with the Tories only in the way that all patriots did back then, particularly regarding our major foreign interests—specifically, by refusing to join the Whigs in their almost treacherous attitude toward Napoleon Bonaparte. They claim to follow an anti-ministerial policy, but in a significant way, it was anti-national. Thus, Coleridge supported the Tories primarily in relation to our major conflict with Napoleon. However, because this conflict was so significant and far-reaching that it captured everyone's hearts and dominated the discussions in Christendom, almost pushing out any other issues, he who joined the Tories in this specific aspect of their policy was viewed as an ally in a broader sense. Domestic politics were largely overlooked; no true Tory issues emerged during that time; or if they did, public attention wouldn’t focus on them, and they would quickly be dismissed.
Hence I deduce as a possibility, and, from my knowledge of Coleridge, I deduce it as a fact, that his adhesion to the Tories was bounded by his approbation of their foreign policy; and even of that rarely in its executive details, rarely even in its military plans (for these he assailed with more keenness of criticism than to me the case seemed to justify), but solely in its animating principle, its moving and sustaining force, viz. the doctrine and entire faith that Napoleon Bonaparte ought to be resisted, was not a proper object of diplomacy or negotiation, and could be resisted hopefully and triumphantly. Thus far he went along with the Tories: in all else he belonged quite as much to other parties—so far as he belonged to any. And that he did not[Pg 224] follow any bias of private interest in connecting himself with Tories, or rather in allowing Tories to connect themselves with him, appears (rather more indeed than it ought to have appeared) on the very surface of his life. From Tory munificence he drew nothing at all, unless it should be imputed to his Tory connexions that George IV selected him for one of his academicians. But this slight mark of royal favour he owed, I believe, to other considerations; and I have reason to think that this way of treating political questions, so wide of dogmatism, and laying open so vast a field to scepticism that might else have gone unregarded, must have been held as evidence of too latitudinarian a creed to justify a title to Toryism. And, upon the whole, I am of opinion that few events of Mr. Coleridge's life were better calculated to place his disinterested pursuit of truth in a luminous aspect. In fact, his carelessness of all worldly interests was too notorious to leave him open to suspicions of that nature: nor was this carelessness kept within such limits as to be altogether meritorious. There is no doubt that his indolence concurred, in some degree, to that line of conduct and to that political reserve which would, at all events, have been pursued, in a degree beyond what honour the severest, or delicacy the most nervous, could have enjoined.
Therefore, I suggest as a possibility, and from what I know about Coleridge, I assert it as a fact that his support for the Tories was limited to his approval of their foreign policy; and even then, only rarely regarding its execution, and even less regarding its military strategies (which he criticized more harshly than I think warranted), but solely based on the guiding principle, the driving and sustaining force—namely, the belief and firm conviction that Napoleon Bonaparte should be resisted, was not a suitable subject for diplomacy or negotiation, and could be resisted with hope and success. This much he shared with the Tories; in every other aspect, he aligned just as much with other parties—as much as he allied with any. That he did not[Pg 224] pursue any private interests by connecting with the Tories, or rather by allowing them to connect with him, is evident (indeed more evident than it perhaps should have been) in the very nature of his life. From Tory generosity, he gained nothing at all, unless you count the fact that George IV appointed him as one of his academicians due to his Tory connections. However, I believe he owed this small gesture of royal favor to other factors; and I suspect that his way of approaching political questions, which was so far from dogmatic and opened up such a vast area for skepticism that might otherwise have been ignored, would be seen as evidence of a doctrine too liberal to justify a claim to Toryism. Overall, I believe that few events in Mr. Coleridge's life better illustrated his unselfish quest for truth. In fact, his indifference to any worldly interests was too well-known to allow for any suspicions of that sort: nor was this indifference contained within limits sufficient to be seen as entirely commendable. There’s no doubt that his laziness contributed, to some extent, to that course of action and to that political aloofness which would, in any case, have been pursued to an extent beyond what the strictest honor or the most sensitive delicacy could have mandated.
It is a singular anecdote, after all, to report of Coleridge, who incurred the reproach of having ratted solely by his inability to follow the friends of his early days into what his heart regarded as a monstrous and signal breach of patriotism, that in any eminent sense he was not a patriot. His understanding, in this, as in many instances, was too active, too restless, for any abiding feelings to lay hold of him, unless when they coincided with some palpable command of nature. Parental love, for instance, was too holy a thing to be submitted for an instant to any scrutiny or any jealousy of his hair-splitting understanding. But it must be something as sacred and as profound as that which with Coleridge could long support the endless attrition of his too active intellect. In this instance, he had the same defect, derived in part from the same cause, as a contemporary, one of the idols of the day, more celebrated, and more widely celebrated, than[Pg 225] Coleridge, but far his inferior in power and compass of intellect. I speak of Goethe: he also was defective, and defective under far stronger provocations and excitement, in patriotic feeling. He cared little for Weimar, and less for Germany. And he was, thus far, much below Coleridge—that the passion which he could not feel Coleridge yet obliged himself practically to obey in all things which concerned the world, whereas Goethe disowned this passion equally in his acts, his words, and his writings. Both are now gone—Goethe and Coleridge; both are honoured by those who knew them, and by multitudes who did not. But the honours of Coleridge are perennial, and will annually grow more verdant; whilst from those of Goethe every generation will see something fall away, until posterity will wonder at the subverted idol, whose basis, being hollow and unsound, will leave the worship of their fathers an enigma to their descendants.
It's a unique story about Coleridge, who faced criticism for changing his views because he couldn't follow his early friends into what he believed was a blatant and serious violation of patriotism. In truth, he was not a patriot in any significant way. His mind was too active and restless to hold on to any lasting feelings, unless they aligned with some clear command from nature. For example, parental love was too sacred to ever be subjected to his nitpicking scrutiny. However, it had to be something as sacred and profound as that to withstand the constant stress of his overly active intellect. In this respect, he shared a similar flaw, stemming partly from the same reason, with a contemporary who was more renowned than Coleridge, yet far less powerful and comprehensive in intellect. I'm speaking of Goethe: he also lacked patriotic feelings, even more so under much stronger provocations and excitement. He cared little for Weimar and even less for Germany. This put him at a lower level than Coleridge, as the passion he couldn’t feel, Coleridge felt obliged to follow in all matters concerning the world, while Goethe rejected this passion in his actions, words, and writings. Both are now gone—Goethe and Coleridge; both are honored by those who knew them and by countless others who did not. However, Coleridge's honors are enduring and will become increasingly vibrant each year, whereas Goethe's will gradually fade with each generation, leaving future generations wondering about the shattered idol whose foundation, being hollow and unstable, will make their ancestors' worship an enigma to their descendants.
NOTE REFERRED TO ON PAGE 143
NOTE REFERRED TO ON PAGE 143
I have somewhere seen it remarked with respect to these charges of plagiarism, that, however incontrovertible, they did not come with any propriety or grace from myself as the supposed friend of Coleridge, and as writing my sketch of slight reminiscences on the immediate suggestion of his death. My answer is this: I certainly was the first person (first, I believe, by some years) to point out the plagiarisms of Coleridge, and above all others that circumstantial plagiarism, of which it is impossible to suppose him unconscious, from Schelling. Many of his plagiarisms were probably unintentional, and arose from that confusion between things floating in the memory and things self-derived which happens at times to most of us that deal much with books on the one hand, and composition on the other. An author can hardly have written much and rapidly who does not sometimes detect himself, and perhaps, therefore, sometimes fail to detect himself, in appropriating the thoughts, images, or striking expressions of others. It is enough for his conscientious self-justification, that he is anxiously vigilant to guard himself from such unacknowledged obligations, and forward to acknowledge them as soon as ever they are pointed out. But no excess of candour the most indulgent will allow us to suppose that a most profound speculation upon the original relations inter se of the subjective and the objective, literally translated from the German, and stretching over some pages, could, after any interval of years, come to be mistaken by the translator for his own. This amounted to an entire essay. But suppose the compass of the case to lie within a single word, yet if that word were so remarkable, so provocative to the curiosity, and promising so much weight of meaning (which reasonably any great departure from ordinary diction must promise), as the word esemplastic,[87] we should all hold it impossible for a man to[Pg 227] appropriate this word inadvertently. I, therefore, greatly understated the case against Coleridge, instead of giving to it an undue emphasis. Secondly, in stating it at all, I did so (as at the time I explained) in pure kindness. Well I knew that, from the direction in which English philosophic studies were now travelling, sooner or later these appropriations of Coleridge must be detected; and I felt that it would break the force of the discovery, as an unmitigated sort of police detection, if first of all it had been announced by one who, in the same breath, was professing an unshaken faith in Coleridge's philosophic power. It could not be argued that one of those who most fervently admired Coleridge had professed such feelings only because he was ignorant of Coleridge's obligations to others. Here was a man who had actually for himself, unguided and unwarned, discovered these obligations; and yet, in the very act of making that discovery, this man clung to his original feelings and faith. But, thirdly, I must inform the reader that I was not, nor ever had been, the "friend" of Coleridge in any sense which could have a right to restrain my frankest opinions upon his merits. I never had lived in such intercourse with Coleridge as to give me an opportunity of becoming his friend. To him I owed nothing at all; but to the public, to the body of his own readers, every writer owes the truth, and especially on a subject so important as that which was then before me.
I've seen it noted somewhere regarding these plagiarism accusations that, no matter how undeniable, they didn't come from me as someone who was thought to be a friend of Coleridge, especially since I was writing my brief memories right after his death. My response is this: I was indeed the first person (some years earlier, I believe) to point out Coleridge's plagiarisms, particularly that circumstantial plagiarism that he couldn’t possibly have been unaware of, taken from Schelling. Many of his plagiarisms were likely unintentional, stemming from that mix-up between thoughts floating in memory and original ideas that can happen to anyone who frequently engages with books and writing. A writer who has produced a lot quickly will occasionally catch themselves, and possibly miss catching themselves, in taking thoughts, images, or striking phrases from others. For their own honest justification, it’s sufficient that they are carefully vigilant to avoid unacknowledged debts and quick to acknowledge them when pointed out. However, no amount of generosity would allow us to believe that a detailed speculation on the original relationship between the subjective and the objective, directly translated from the German and spanning pages, could be mistakenly assumed by the translator as their own after several years. That was essentially an entire essay. But even if we were to narrow it down to just one word, if that word was as remarkable and intriguing, promising significant meaning (which any notable deviation from ordinary language should), like the word *esemplastic*, we would all agree it’s implausible for someone to accidentally appropriate that word. Therefore, I actually understated the case against Coleridge instead of exaggerating it. Secondly, when I brought it up at all, I did it (as I explained at the time) purely out of kindness. I understood that with the way English philosophical studies were progressing, these appropriations of Coleridge would eventually be discovered; and I believed it would lessen the impact of the revelation, like some sort of blunt police detection, if it were first announced by someone who simultaneously professed unwavering faith in Coleridge's philosophical abilities. It couldn't be claimed that someone who passionately admired Coleridge expressed such feelings only because they were unaware of Coleridge's debts to others. Here was a person who independently found these obligations for themselves, entirely uninfluenced and unprepared, yet in that very act of discovery, they maintained their original feelings and faith. But, thirdly, I must inform the reader that I was not, nor had I ever been, Coleridge's "friend" in any way that would prevent me from expressing my honest opinions about his work. I never had the kind of relationship with Coleridge that would allow me to become his friend. I owed him nothing; however, every writer owes the truth to the public, to his readers, especially on a topic as significant as the one I was addressing.
With respect to the comparatively trivial case of Pythagoras, an author of great distinction in literature and in the Anglican Church has professed himself unable to understand what room there could be[Pg 228] for plagiarism in a case where the solution ascribed to Coleridge was amongst the commonplaces of ordinary English academic tuition. Locally this may have been so; but hardly, I conceive, in so large an extent as to make that solution publici juris. Yet, however this may be, no help is given to Coleridge; since, according to Mr. Poole's story, whether the interpretation of the riddle were or were not generally diffused, Coleridge claimed it for his own.—[In Mrs. Sandford's Thomas Poole and his Friends (1888), vol. ii. pp. 304-6, there is printed a letter of Mr. Poole's, dated June 1835, doubting the accuracy of De Quincey's story of their discourse in 1807, respecting Coleridge's plagiarisms.—M.]
Regarding the relatively minor case of Pythagoras, a prominent figure in literature and the Anglican Church has admitted he can't understand how there could be any room for plagiarism in a situation where the solution attributed to Coleridge was among the common knowledge taught in standard English academic settings. Locally, this might have been true; but I doubt it was widespread enough to make that solution publici juris. Nonetheless, no assistance is provided to Coleridge; since, according to Mr. Poole's account, whether the interpretation of the riddle was or was not widely known, Coleridge took it as his own.—[In Mrs. Sandford's Thomas Poole and his Friends (1888), vol. ii. pp. 304-6, there is printed a letter of Mr. Poole's, dated June 1835, doubting the accuracy of De Quincey's story of their discourse in 1807, respecting Coleridge's plagiarisms.—M.]
Finally—for distance from the press and other inconveniences of unusual pressure oblige me to wind up suddenly—the whole spirit of my record at the time (twenty years ago), and in particular the special allusion to the last Duke of Ancaster's case, as one which ran parallel to Coleridge's, involving the same propensity to appropriate what generally were trifles in the midst of enormous and redundant wealth, survives as an indication of the animus with which I approached this subject, starting even from the assumption that I was bound to consider myself under the restraints of friendship—which, for the second time let me repeat, I was not. In reality, the notes contributed to the Aldine edition of the "Biographia Literaria," by Coleridge's admirable daughter, have placed this whole subject in a new light; and, in doing this, have unavoidably reflected some degree of justification upon myself. Too much so, I understand to be the feeling in some quarters. This lamented lady is thought to have shown partialities in her distributions of praise and blame upon this subject. I will not here enter into that discussion. But, as respects the justification of her father, I regard her mode of argument as unassailable. Filial piety the most tender never was so finely reconciled with candour towards the fiercest of his antagonists. Wherever the plagiarism was undeniable, she has allowed it; whilst palliating its faultiness by showing the circumstances under which it arose. But she has also opened a new view of other circumstances under which an apparent plagiarism arose that was not real. I myself, for instance, knew cases where Coleridge gave to young ladies a copy of verses, headed thus—"Lines on——, from the German of Hölty." Other young ladies made transcripts of these lines; and, caring nothing for the German authorship, naturally fathered them upon Coleridge, the translator. These lines were subsequently circulated as Coleridge's, and as if on Coleridge's own authority. Thus arose many cases of apparent plagiarism. And, lastly, as his daughter most truly reports, if he took—he gave. Continually he fancied other men's thoughts his own; but such were the confusions of his memory that continually, and with even greater liberality, he ascribed his own thoughts to others.
Finally, since I'm far from the press and facing other unusual pressures, I need to wrap this up quickly. The essence of my account from twenty years ago, particularly the mention of the last Duke of Ancaster's case—which paralleled Coleridge's case with a similar tendency to claim trivial things amid vast wealth—reflects the mindset I had when tackling this topic. I thought I should adhere to the limits of friendship, which, let me stress again, I did not. In truth, the notes contributed to the Aldine edition of the "Biographia Literaria" by Coleridge's wonderful daughter have shed new light on the entire matter and, in doing so, have inadvertently justified my position to some extent. I understand that some people feel this justification is excessive. This beloved lady is believed to have shown biases in how she distributed praise and criticism on this subject. I won’t delve into that here. However, regarding her father’s justification, I find her arguments to be unassailable. Her deep filial love was skillfully balanced with honesty towards his fiercest critics. Whenever plagiarism was undeniable, she acknowledged it, while mitigating its seriousness by explaining the circumstances it arose from. Yet, she also presented a fresh perspective on other situations where apparent plagiarism occurred but wasn’t real. For instance, I knew instances where Coleridge would give young women a copy of verses titled “Lines on ——, from the German of Hölty.” Other young women copied these lines and, not caring about the German authorship, attributed them to Coleridge as the translator. These lines were then circulated as if they were Coleridge’s own work. This led to many instances of apparent plagiarism. Lastly, as his daughter accurately reports, if he took, he also gave. He often mistook the thoughts of others as his own, but due to his memory’s confusion, he frequently attributed his own thoughts to others with even greater generosity.
CHAPTER III
THE LAKE POETS: WILLIAM WORDSWORTH[88]
In 1807 it was, at the beginning of winter, that I first saw William Wordsworth. I have already mentioned[89] that I had introduced myself to his notice by letter as early as the spring of 1803. To this hour it has continued, I believe, a mystery to Wordsworth why it was that I suffered an interval of four and a half years to slip away before availing myself of the standing invitation with which I had been honoured to the poet's house. Very probably he accounted for this delay by supposing that the new-born liberty of an Oxford life, with its multiplied enjoyments, acting upon a boy just emancipated from the restraints of a school, and, in one hour, elevated into what we Oxonians so proudly and so exclusively denominate "a man,"[90] might have tempted me into pursuits alien from the pure intellectual passions which had so powerfully mastered my youthful heart some years before. Extinguished such a passion could not be; nor could he think so, if remembering the fervour with which I had expressed it, the sort of "nympholepsy" which had[Pg 230] seized upon me, and which, in some imperfect way, I had avowed with reference to the very lakes and mountains amongst which the scenery of this most original poetry had chiefly grown up and moved. The very names of the ancient hills—Fairfield, Seat Sandal, Helvellyn, Blencathara, Glaramara; the names of the sequestered glens—such as Borrowdale, Martindale, Mardale, Wasdale, and Ennerdale; but, above all, the shy pastoral recesses, not garishly in the world's eye, like Windermere or Derwentwater, but lurking half unknown to the traveller of that day—Grasmere, for instance, the lovely abode of the poet himself, solitary, and yet sowed, as it were, with a thin diffusion of humble dwellings—here a scattering, and there a clustering, as in the starry heavens—sufficient to afford, at every turn and angle, human remembrances and memorials of time-honoured affections, or of passions (as the "Churchyard amongst the Mountains" will amply demonstrate) not wanting even in scenic and tragical interest: these were so many local spells upon me, equally poetic and elevating with the Miltonic names of Valdarno and Vallombrosa.
In 1807, at the start of winter, I first met William Wordsworth. I’ve already mentioned[89] that I had reached out to him by letter back in the spring of 1803. To this day, I believe it remains a mystery to Wordsworth why I waited four and a half years to take him up on his standing invitation to visit his home. He likely thought that the newfound freedom of life at Oxford, with its many pleasures, might have drawn me away from the pure intellectual passions that had once so strongly captured my youthful heart. Such a passion couldn’t possibly have faded; he wouldn’t have thought so if he remembered the enthusiasm with which I’d expressed it—the sort of "nympholepsy" that had[Pg 230] gripped me, which I had partially admitted regarding the very lakes and mountains where his original poetry had emerged. The names of the ancient hills—Fairfield, Seat Sandal, Helvellyn, Blencathara, Glaramara; the names of the hidden glens—like Borrowdale, Martindale, Mardale, Wasdale, and Ennerdale; but especially the quiet pastoral areas, not flashy like Windermere or Derwentwater, but somewhat unknown to travelers of that time—like Grasmere, the beautiful home of the poet himself, isolated yet sprinkled with modest homes—some scattered, some clustered, like stars in the sky—offering, at every twist and turn, human memories and reminders of time-honored loves, or passions (as shown in "The Churchyard amongst the Mountains") that had no shortage of scenic and tragic interest: these were all local enchantments for me, just as poetic and uplifting as the Miltonic names of Valdarno and Vallombrosa.
Deep are the voices which seem to call, deep is the lesson which would be taught, even to the most thoughtless of men,
Deep are the voices that seem to call, deep is the lesson that would be taught, even to the most careless of people,
Show him an image of the pains
Which it has witnessed; send back a response "Of the sad steps taken along the way."[91]
Meantime, my delay was due to anything rather than to waning interest. On the contrary, the real cause of my delay was the too great profundity, and the increasing profundity, of my interest in this regeneration of our national poetry, and the increasing awe, in due proportion to the decaying thoughtlessness of boyhood, which possessed me for the character of its author. So far from neglecting Wordsworth, it is a fact that twice I had undertaken a long journey expressly for the purpose of paying my respects to Wordsworth; twice I came so far as the little rustic inn (then the[Pg 231] sole inn of the neighbourhood) at Church Coniston; and on neither occasion could I summon confidence enough to present myself before him. It was not that I had any want of proper boldness for facing the most numerous company of a mixed or ordinary character: reserved, indeed, I was, perhaps even shy—from the character of my mind, so profoundly meditative, and the character of my life, so profoundly sequestered—but still, from counteracting causes, I was not deficient in a reasonable self-confidence towards the world generally. But the very image of Wordsworth, as I prefigured it to my own planet-struck eye, crushed my faculties as before Elijah or St. Paul. Twice, as I have said, did I advance as far as the Lake of Coniston; which is about eight miles from the church of Grasmere, and once I absolutely went forwards from Coniston to the very gorge of Hammerscar, from which the whole Vale of Grasmere suddenly breaks upon the view in a style of almost theatrical surprise, with its lovely valley stretching before the eye in the distance, the lake lying immediately below, with its solemn ark-like island of four and a half acres in size seemingly floating on its surface, and its exquisite outline on the opposite shore, revealing all its little bays[92] and wild sylvan margin, feathered to the edge with wild flowers and ferns. In one quarter, a little wood, stretching for about half a mile towards the outlet of the lake; more directly in opposition to the spectator, a few green fields; and beyond them, just two bowshots from the water, a little white cottage gleaming from the midst of trees, with a vast and seemingly never-ending series of ascents rising above it to the height of more than three thousand feet. That little cottage was Wordsworth's from the time of his marriage, and earlier; in fact, from the beginning of the century to the year 1808. Afterwards, for many a year, it was mine. Catching one hasty glimpse of this loveliest of landscapes, I retreated like a guilty thing, for fear I might be surprised by Wordsworth, and then returned faintheartedly to Coniston, and so to Oxford, re infectâ.
In the meantime, my delay had nothing to do with losing interest. On the contrary, the real reason I hesitated was because my fascination with the revival of our national poetry was so deep, and my respect for the character of its author grew along with it, increasing as I moved away from the carefree days of boyhood. Far from neglecting Wordsworth, I actually took two long trips specifically to pay my respects to him; both times I made it to the small rustic inn (at that time the only inn in the area) in Church Coniston, but neither time could I gather the courage to introduce myself to him. It wasn’t that I lacked the confidence to face a large, mixed group of people: while I was certainly reserved, perhaps even shy—due to my deeply contemplative nature and secluded way of life—I still felt a reasonable self-assuredness about the outside world. But the very idea of Wordsworth, as I imagined it in my mind, overwhelmed me like Elijah or St. Paul. As mentioned, I tried twice to reach the Lake of Coniston, which is about eight miles from the church in Grasmere, and once I even went from Coniston straight to the breathtaking view at Hammerscar, where the entire Vale of Grasmere unfolds dramatically, with its beautiful valley stretching out before me in the distance, the lake right below, its solemn, floating island of four and a half acres on the surface, and the beautiful outline of the opposite shore revealing all its little bays and wild forest edges, adorned with wildflowers and ferns. In one spot, a small wood stretched for about half a mile toward the lake's outlet; directly opposite me were a few green fields, and just beyond them, about two arrows' distances from the water, glimmered a little white cottage among the trees, backed by a seemingly endless climb up to over three thousand feet. That little cottage was Wordsworth's from the time of his marriage and before; in fact, it had been in his family from the start of the century until 1808. Afterward, for many years, it was mine. Catching a fleeting glimpse of this beautiful landscape, I retreated like someone caught in wrongdoing, fearful of being seen by Wordsworth, and then returned timidly to Coniston, and then back to Oxford, re infectâ.
This was in 1806. And thus far, from mere excess of nervous distrust in my own powers for sustaining a conversation with Wordsworth, I had for nearly five years shrunk from a meeting for which, beyond all things under heaven, I longed. In early youth I laboured under a peculiar embarrassment and penury of words, when I sought to convey my thoughts adequately upon interesting subjects: neither was it words only that I wanted; but I could not unravel, I could not even make perfectly conscious to myself, the subsidiary thoughts into which one leading thought often radiates; or, at least, I could not do this with anything like the rapidity requisite for conversation. I laboured like a sibyl instinct with the burden of prophetic woe, as often as I found myself dealing with any topic in which the understanding combined with deep feelings to suggest mixed and tangled thoughts: and thus partly—partly also from my invincible habit of reverie—at that era of my life, I had a most distinguished talent "pour le silence." Wordsworth, from something of the same causes, suffered (by his own report to myself) at the same age from pretty much the same infirmity. And yet, in more advanced years—probably about twenty-eight or thirty—both of us acquired a remarkable fluency in the art of unfolding our thoughts colloquially. However, at that period my deficiencies were what I have described. And, after all, though I had no absolute cause for anticipating contempt, I was so far right in my fears, that since that time I have had occasion to perceive a worldly tone of sentiment in Wordsworth, not less than in Mrs. Hannah More and other literary people, by which they were led to set a higher value upon a limited respect from a person high in the world's esteem than upon the most lavish spirit of devotion from an obscure quarter. Now, in that point, my feelings are far otherwise.
This was in 1806. Up to that point, my intense nervousness about my ability to have a conversation with Wordsworth kept me from a meeting I deeply desired for nearly five years. In my early youth, I struggled with a unique awkwardness and a lack of vocabulary when trying to express my thoughts on interesting subjects. It wasn't just words I needed; I had difficulty sorting out the additional thoughts that often branch off from one main idea, and I certainly couldn't do this quickly enough for a conversation. I felt like a prophet burdened with sorrow every time I had to discuss topics where understanding intertwined with strong feelings, leading to mixed and complicated thoughts. Thus, partly due to this and also because of my unshakeable tendency to daydream, I had a natural talent for "pour le silence" at that stage in my life. Wordsworth, for similar reasons, told me he experienced the same struggle at that age. Yet, by our late twenties or early thirties, both of us became quite fluent in expressing our thoughts in conversation. However, back then, my struggles were as I described. Although I had no real reason to expect disdain, I was correct in my fears; since then, I've noticed a worldly attitude in Wordsworth, similar to that of Mrs. Hannah More and other literary figures, who seemed to value a limited respect from someone well-regarded in society more than the greatest devotion from someone obscure. In that regard, my feelings are quite different.
Meantime, the world went on; events kept moving; and, amongst them, in the course of 1807, occurred the event of Coleridge's return to England from his official station in the Governor's family at Malta. At Bridgewater, as I have already recorded, in the summer of 1807, I was introduced to him. Several weeks after he came with his family to the Bristol Hot-Wells, at which, by accident, I was[Pg 233] then visiting. On calling upon him, I found that he had been engaged by the Royal Institution to lecture at their theatre in Albemarle Street during the coming winter of 1807-8, and, consequently, was embarrassed about the mode of conveying his family to Keswick. Upon this, I offered my services to escort them in a post-chaise. This offer was cheerfully accepted; and at the latter end of October we set forwards—Mrs. Coleridge, viz., with her two sons—Hartley, aged nine, Derwent, about seven—her beautiful little daughter,[93] about five, and, finally, myself. Going by the direct route through Gloucester, Bridgenorth, &c., on the third day we reached Liverpool, where I took up my quarters at a hotel, whilst Mrs. Coleridge paid a visit of a few days to a very interesting family, who had become friends of Southey during his visit to Portugal. These were the Misses Koster, daughters of an English gold-merchant of celebrity, who had recently quitted Lisbon on the approach of the French army under Junot. Mr. Koster did me the honour to call at my quarters, and invite me to his house; an invitation which I very readily accepted, and had thus an opportunity of becoming acquainted with a family the most accomplished I had ever known. At dinner there appeared only the family party—several daughters, and one son, a fine young man of twenty, but who was consciously dying of asthma. Mr. Koster, the head of the family, was distinguished for his good sense and practical information; but, in Liverpool, even more so by his eccentric and obstinate denial of certain notorious events; in particular, some two years later, he denied that any such battle as Talavera had ever been fought, and had a large wager depending upon the decision. His house was the resort of distinguished foreigners; and, on the first evening of my dining there, as well as afterwards, I there met that marvel of women, Madame Catalani. I had[Pg 234] heard her repeatedly; but never before been near enough to see her smile and converse—even to be honoured with a smile myself. She and Lady Hamilton were the most effectively brilliant women I ever saw. However, on this occasion, the Misses Koster outshone even La Catalani; to her they talked in the most fluent Italian; to some foreign men, in Portuguese; to one in French; and to most of the party in English; and each, by turns, seemed to be their native tongue. Nor did they shrink, even in the presence of the mighty enchantress, from exhibiting their musical skill.
Meantime, life continued; things kept happening; and among them, in 1807, Coleridge returned to England from his position with the Governor's family in Malta. In Bridgewater, as I previously mentioned, I met him in the summer of 1807. A few weeks later, he came with his family to the Bristol Hot-Wells, where I happened to be visiting. When I visited him, I learned that he had been invited by the Royal Institution to give lectures at their theater on Albemarle Street during the winter of 1807-8, and he was unsure about how to get his family to Keswick. So, I offered to escort them in a post-chaise. He gladly accepted the offer, and by the end of October, we set off—Mrs. Coleridge, along with her two sons—Hartley, who was nine, Derwent, around seven, her lovely little daughter, about five, and myself. We took the direct route through Gloucester, Bridgenorth, etc., and on the third day, we arrived in Liverpool, where I stayed at a hotel, while Mrs. Coleridge visited a very interesting family who were friends of Southey's from his trip to Portugal. These were the Misses Koster, daughters of a well-known English gold merchant who had recently left Lisbon as the French army under Junot was approaching. Mr. Koster kindly came to visit me at my hotel and invited me to his home, an invitation I gladly accepted, which allowed me to get to know one of the most cultured families I had ever encountered. At dinner, only family members were present—several daughters and one son, a fine young man of twenty who was sadly suffering from asthma. Mr. Koster, the family's head, was known for his good judgment and practical knowledge; however, in Liverpool, he was also noted for his eccentric and stubborn denial of certain well-known events. Notably, two years later, he insisted that the battle of Talavera had never taken place and had a significant bet riding on the outcome. His home attracted distinguished visitors, and on my first evening dining there, as well as afterwards, I met the remarkable Madame Catalani. I had heard her many times but had never been close enough to see her smile or converse with her, even receiving a smile from her myself. She and Lady Hamilton were the most strikingly impressive women I had ever seen. However, on this occasion, the Misses Koster shone even brighter than La Catalani; they spoke to her in fluent Italian, to some foreign men in Portuguese, to one in French, and mostly to the rest of the group in English; each seemed to flow naturally in their native tongue. They even showcased their musical talent without hesitation, even in the presence of the great enchantress.
Leaving Liverpool, after about a week's delay, we pursued our journey northwards. We had slept on the first day at Lancaster. Consequently, at the rate of motion which then prevailed throughout England—which, however, was rarely equalled on that western road, where all things were in arrear by comparison with the eastern and southern roads of the kingdom—we found ourselves, about three o'clock in the afternoon, at Ambleside, fourteen miles to the north-west of Kendal, and thirty-six from Lancaster. There, for the last time, we stopped to change horses; and about four o'clock we found ourselves on the summit of the White Moss, a hill which rises between the second and third milestones on the stage from Ambleside to Keswick, and which then retarded the traveller's advance by a full fifteen minutes, but is now evaded by a lower line of road. In ascending this hill, from weariness of moving so slowly, I, with the two Coleridges, had alighted; and, as we all chose to refresh ourselves by running down the hill into Grasmere, we had left the chaise behind us, and had even lost the sound of the wheels at times, when all at once we came, at an abrupt turn of the road, in sight of a white cottage, with two yew-trees breaking the glare of its white walls. A sudden shock seized me on recognising this cottage, of which, in the previous year, I had gained a momentary glimpse from Hammerscar, on the opposite side of the lake. I paused, and felt my old panic returning upon me; but just then, as if to take away all doubt upon the subject, I saw Hartley Coleridge, who had gained upon me considerably, suddenly turn in at a garden gate; this motion to the right at once confirmed me in my belief that here at last we had reached[Pg 235] our port; that this little cottage was tenanted by that man whom, of all the men from the beginning of time, I most fervently desired to see; that in less than a minute I should meet Wordsworth face to face. Coleridge was of opinion that, if a man were really and consciously to see an apparition, in such circumstances death would be the inevitable result; and, if so, the wish which we hear so commonly expressed for such experience is as thoughtless as that of Semele in the Grecian Mythology, so natural in a female, that her lover should visit her en grand costume—presumptuous ambition, that unexpectedly wrought its own ruinous chastisement! Judged by Coleridge's test, my situation could not have been so terrific as his who anticipates a ghost; for, certainly, I survived this meeting; but at that instant it seemed pretty much the same to my own feelings.
Leaving Liverpool, after about a week's delay, we continued our journey north. We spent our first night in Lancaster. Given the slow pace that was typical across England at that time—particularly on that western route, which lagged behind the eastern and southern roads—we found ourselves in Ambleside around three o'clock in the afternoon, fourteen miles northwest of Kendal and thirty-six from Lancaster. There, for the last time, we stopped to switch horses; by four o'clock, we were at the top of White Moss, a hill located between the second and third milestones on the route from Ambleside to Keswick, which once delayed travelers by a whole fifteen minutes, but is now avoided by a lower road. While climbing this hill, I, along with the two Coleridges, had gotten out of the carriage due to the slow speed. We decided to refresh ourselves by running down the hill into Grasmere, leaving the carriage behind and even intermittently losing the sound of the wheels. Suddenly, as we turned a corner in the road, we spotted a white cottage with two yew trees softening the brightness of its white walls. A shock ran through me as I recognized this cottage, which I had caught a fleeting glimpse of from Hammerscar on the opposite side of the lake the previous year. I paused, and my old anxiety crept back; but just then, to confirm my suspicions, I saw Hartley Coleridge, who had gotten ahead of me, suddenly turn into a garden gate. This move to the right immediately convinced me that we had finally arrived at our destination; that this little cottage was home to the man I had most fervently wanted to meet throughout history; that in less than a minute, I would come face to face with Wordsworth. Coleridge believed that if a person were truly and consciously to see a ghost under such circumstances, it would inevitably lead to death; if that’s the case, then the common desire for such an experience is as thoughtless as Semele's wish in Greek mythology, a natural desire for her lover to visit her in grand style—presumptuous ambition that ultimately brought about her own disastrous punishment! According to Coleridge's criteria, my situation couldn't have been as terrifying as someone expecting a ghost; after all, I did survive this meeting, but in that moment, it certainly felt just as intense to me.
Never before or since can I reproach myself with having trembled at the approaching presence of any creature that is born of woman, excepting only, for once or twice in my life, woman herself. Now, however, I did tremble; and I forgot, what in no other circumstances I could have forgotten, to stop for the coming up of the chaise, that I might be ready to hand Mrs. Coleridge out. Had Charlemagne and all his peerage been behind me, or Cæsar and his equipage, or Death on his pale horse, I should have forgotten them at that moment of intense expectation, and of eyes fascinated to what lay before me, or what might in a moment appear. Through the little gate I pressed forward; ten steps beyond it lay the principal door of the house. To this, no longer clearly conscious of my own feelings, I passed on rapidly; I heard a step, a voice, and, like a flash of lightning, I saw the figure emerge of a tallish man, who held out his hand, and saluted me with most cordial expressions of welcome. The chaise, however, drawing up to the gate at that moment, he (and there needed no Roman nomenclator to tell me that this he was Wordsworth) felt himself summoned to advance and receive Mrs. Coleridge. I, therefore, stunned almost with the actual accomplishment of a catastrophe so long anticipated and so long postponed, mechanically went forward into the house. A little semi-vestibule between two doors[Pg 236] prefaced the entrance into what might be considered the principal room of the cottage. It was an oblong square, not above eight and a half feet high, sixteen feet long, and twelve broad; very prettily wainscoted from the floor to the ceiling with dark polished oak, slightly embellished with carving. One window there was—a perfect and unpretending cottage window, with little diamond panes, embowered at almost every season of the year with roses, and in the summer and autumn with a profusion of jasmine and other fragrant shrubs. From the exuberant luxuriance of the vegetation around it, and from the dark hue of the wainscoting, this window, though tolerably large, did not furnish a very powerful light to one who entered from the open air. However, I saw sufficiently to be aware of two ladies just entering the room, through a doorway opening upon a little staircase, The foremost, a tallish young woman, with the most winning expression of benignity upon her features, advanced to me, presenting her hand with so frank an air that all embarrassment must have fled in a moment before the native goodness of her manner. This was Mrs. Wordsworth, cousin of the poet, and, for the last five years or more, his wife.[94] She was now mother of two children, a son and a daughter; and she furnished a remarkable proof how possible it is for a woman neither handsome nor even comely according to the rigour of criticism—nay, generally pronounced very plain—to exercise all the practical fascination of beauty, through the mere compensatory charms of sweetness all but angelic, of simplicity the most entire, womanly self-respect and purity of heart speaking through all her looks, acts, and movements. Words, I was going to have added; but her words were few. In reality, she talked so little that Mr. Slave-Trade Clarkson used to allege against her that she could only say "God bless you!" Certainly, her intellect was not of an active order; but, in a quiescent, reposing, meditative way, she appeared always to have a genial enjoyment from her own thoughts; and it would have been strange, indeed, if she, who enjoyed such eminent[Pg 237] advantages of training, from the daily society of her husband and his sister, failed to acquire some power of judging for herself, and putting forth some functions of activity. But undoubtedly that was not her element: to feel and to enjoy in a luxurious repose of mind—there was her forte and her peculiar privilege; and how much better this was adapted to her husband's taste, how much more adapted to uphold the comfort of his daily life, than a blue-stocking loquacity, or even a legitimate talent for discussion, may be inferred from his verses, beginning—
Never before or since have I felt nervous about the presence of any person born of a woman, except for maybe a couple of times in my life, when it was a woman herself. But now I actually felt nervous; and I forgot, in a way I wouldn’t have under any other circumstances, to wait for the carriage to arrive so I could help Mrs. Coleridge out. If Charlemagne and all his noblemen had been behind me, or Caesar in his grand chariot, or Death on his pale horse, I would have completely overlooked them in that moment of intense anticipation, my eyes fixated on what lay ahead or what might soon appear. I pushed through the little gate; just ten steps beyond it was the main door of the house. No longer fully aware of my own feelings, I hurried on, hearing a step, a voice, and, like a flash of lightning, I saw a tall man step forward, extending his hand and greeting me with warm words of welcome. However, at that moment, the carriage pulled up to the gate, and he (no need for a Roman nomenclator to tell me this was Wordsworth) felt the call to step up and greet Mrs. Coleridge. So, nearly dazed by the reality of a long-anticipated event finally happening, I mechanically moved into the house. A small semi-vestibule between two doors led into what could be considered the main room of the cottage. It was a rectangular space, about eight and a half feet high, sixteen feet long, and twelve feet wide; beautifully paneled from floor to ceiling with dark polished oak, slightly embellished with carvings. There was one window—a perfect and modest cottage window, with small diamond panes, surrounded almost year-round by roses and, in summer and autumn, a wealth of jasmine and other fragrant shrubs. Due to the lush greenery outside and the dark color of the paneling, this window, despite being reasonably large, didn’t let in much light for someone coming in from the bright outdoors. Still, I could see well enough to notice two ladies just entering the room through a doorway leading to a small staircase. The first one, a tall young woman with the most charming, kind expression on her face, approached me, extending her hand in such a genuine manner that any awkwardness evaporated right away. This was Mrs. Wordsworth, the poet's cousin, and for the past five years or so, his wife. She was now the mother of two children, a son and a daughter; and she provided a striking example of how a woman, who might not be deemed attractive or even pleasant by conventional standards—often called quite plain—could still radiate beauty through a combination of nearly angelic sweetness, complete simplicity, genuine self-respect, and purity of heart reflected in all her looks, actions, and movements. I was about to mention her words, but she spoke very little. In fact, Mr. Slave-Trade Clarkson used to joke that she could only say, “God bless you!” Certainly, her intellect wasn’t particularly active; yet, in a calm, thoughtful way, she always seemed to gain joy from her own reflections. It would have been strange if someone with such rich advantages of upbringing, from being around her husband and his sister daily, hadn’t developed some capacity to think for herself and engage in some form of activities. But that definitely wasn’t her strength; feeling and enjoying her thoughts in a state of relaxed mindfulness was her talent and unique privilege; and how much better this suited her husband's preferences, how much better it supported the comfort of his daily life than a chatty blue-stocking or even a true talent for debate, can be guessed from his verses, starting—
When she first appeared before my eyes.
Once for all,[95] these exquisite lines were dedicated to Mrs. Wordsworth; were understood to describe her—to have been prompted by the feminine graces of her character; hers they are, and will remain for ever. To these, therefore, I may refer the reader for an idea of what was most important in the partner and second self of the poet. And I will add to this abstract of her moral portrait these few concluding traits of her appearance in a physical sense. Her figure was tolerably good. In complexion she was fair, and there was something peculiarly pleasing even in this accident of the skin, for it was accompanied by an animated expression of health, a blessing which, in fact, she possessed uninterruptedly. Her eyes, the reader may already know, were
Once and for all,[95] these beautiful lines were dedicated to Mrs. Wordsworth; they were understood to describe her and to be inspired by the feminine charm of her character; they truly belong to her and always will. Therefore, I invite the reader to refer to these lines for an understanding of what was most important in the poet's partner and second self. Additionally, I will add to this summary of her moral portrait a few final details about her physical appearance. She had a fairly good figure. Her complexion was fair, and there was something uniquely attractive about this trait, as it was accompanied by a lively expression of health, a gift she enjoyed consistently. Her eyes, as the reader may already know, were
Yet strange it is to tell that, in these eyes of vesper gentleness, there was a considerable obliquity of vision; and much beyond that slight obliquity which is often supposed to be an attractive foible in the countenance: this ought to have been displeasing or repulsive; yet, in fact, it was not. Indeed all faults, had they been ten times more and greater,[Pg 238] would have been neutralized by that supreme expression of her features to the unity of which every lineament in the fixed parts, and every undulation in the moving parts, of her countenance, concurred, viz. a sunny benignity—a radiant graciousness—such as in this world I never saw surpassed.
Yet, it’s strange to say that, in those gentle eyes, there was a noticeable misalignment of vision; and much more than the small quirk that’s often seen as an appealing flaw in someone’s face: this should have been unattractive or off-putting; yet, oddly enough, it wasn’t. In fact, any faults, even if they had been ten times worse,[Pg 238] would have been overshadowed by that incredible expression on her face, in which every feature and every movement of her expression came together in harmony, characterized by a warm kindness—a bright graciousness—like nothing I have ever seen surpassed in this world.
Immediately behind her moved a lady, shorter, slighter, and perhaps, in all other respects, as different from her in personal characteristics as could have been wished for the most effective contrast. "Her face was of Egyptian brown"; rarely, in a woman of English birth, had I seen a more determinate gipsy tan. Her eyes were not soft, as Mrs. Wordsworth's, nor were they fierce or bold; but they were wild and startling, and hurried in their motion. Her manner was warm and even ardent; her sensibility seemed constitutionally deep; and some subtle fire of impassioned intellect apparently burned within her, which, being alternately pushed forward into a conspicuous expression by the irrepressible instincts of her temperament, and then immediately checked, in obedience to the decorum of her sex and age, and her maidenly condition, gave to her whole demeanour, and to her conversation, an air of embarrassment, and even of self-conflict, that was almost distressing to witness. Even her very utterance and enunciation often suffered, in point of clearness and steadiness, from the agitation of her excessive organic sensibility. At times, the self-counteraction and self-baffling of her feelings caused her even to stammer, and so determinately to stammer that a stranger who should have seen her and quitted her in that state of feeling would have certainly set her down for one plagued with that infirmity of speech as distressingly as Charles Lamb himself. This was Miss Wordsworth, the only sister of the poet—his "Dorothy"; who naturally owed so much to the lifelong intercourse with her great brother in his most solitary and sequestered years; but, on the other hand, to whom he has acknowledged obligations of the profoundest nature; and, in particular, this mighty one, through which we also, the admirers and the worshippers of this great poet, are become equally her debtors—that, whereas the intellect of Wordsworth was, by its original[Pg 239] tendency, too stern, too austere, too much enamoured of an ascetic harsh sublimity, she it was—the lady who paced by his side continually through sylvan and mountain tracks, in Highland glens, and in the dim recesses of German charcoal-burners—that first couched his eye to the sense of beauty, humanized him by the gentler charities, and engrafted, with her delicate female touch, those graces upon the ruder growths of his nature which have since clothed the forest of his genius with a foliage corresponding in loveliness and beauty to the strength of its boughs and the massiness of its trunks. The greatest deductions from Miss Wordsworth's attractions, and from the exceeding interest which surrounded her in right of her character, of her history, and of the relation which she fulfilled towards her brother, were the glancing quickness of her motions, and other circumstances in her deportment (such as her stooping attitude when walking), which gave an ungraceful, and even an unsexual character to her appearance when out-of-doors. She did not cultivate the graces which preside over the person and its carriage. But, on the other hand, she was a person of very remarkable endowments intellectually; and, in addition to the other great services which she rendered to her brother, this I may mention, as greater than all the rest, and it was one which equally operated to the benefit of every casual companion in a walk—viz. the exceeding sympathy, always ready and always profound, by which she made all that one could tell her, all that one could describe, all that one could quote from a foreign author, reverberate, as it were, à plusieurs reprises, to one's own feelings, by the manifest impression it made upon hers. The pulses of light are not more quick or more inevitable in their flow and undulation, than were the answering and echoing movements of her sympathizing attention. Her knowledge of literature was irregular, and thoroughly unsystematic. She was content to be ignorant of many things; but what she knew and had really mastered lay where it could not be disturbed—in the temple of her own most fervid heart.
Immediately behind her walked a woman, shorter, slimmer, and perhaps, in every other way, as different in personal traits as one could wish for the most effective contrast. "Her face was of an Egyptian brown"; rarely, in a woman of English descent, had I seen such a pronounced gypsy tan. Her eyes were not soft like Mrs. Wordsworth's, nor were they fierce or bold; they were wild and startling, moving quickly. Her manner was warm and even passionate; her sensitivity seemed naturally deep; and some subtle spark of passionate intellect appeared to burn within her, which, momentarily pushed to the surface by her undeniable instincts, and then quickly restrained in compliance with the decorum of her age, sex, and single status, gave her entire demeanor and conversation an air of awkwardness, even inner conflict, that was almost painful to watch. Even her speech often suffered in clarity and steadiness due to her heightened organic sensitivity. At times, her self-conflicting emotions caused her to stutter, and so noticeably to stutter that any stranger who encountered her in that state would likely assume she suffered from a speech impediment as distressingly as Charles Lamb himself did. This was Miss Wordsworth, the only sister of the poet—his "Dorothy"; who naturally benefitted from the lifelong interaction with her great brother during his most solitary years; but, on the other hand, he acknowledged profound obligations to her; in particular, this monumental contribution, through which we, the admirers and worshippers of this great poet, also owe her a debt—that, while Wordsworth's intellect, by its original tendency, was too stern, too austere, and too much enamored with a harsh ascetic sublimity, she was—the woman who walked by his side continually through wooded trails and mountain paths, in Highland valleys, and in the dim corners of German charcoal-burners—that first couched his eye to the sense of beauty, humanized him with gentler kindness, and infused, with her delicate feminine touch, those graces onto the rough features of his nature which have since adorned the forest of his genius with foliage that matches the beauty and loveliness of its strength and massiveness. The greatest drawbacks to Miss Wordsworth's charms, and to the deep interest surrounding her due to her character, history, and her relationship to her brother, were the swift quickness of her movements, and other aspects of her behavior (such as her stooped posture while walking), which lent an ungraceful and even unladylike quality to her appearance outdoors. She did not focus on the graces that govern one’s presence and movement. However, on the flip side, she was a person of outstanding intellectual capabilities; and in addition to the many great services she provided to her brother, this I would mention, as greater than all the rest, which equally benefited every casual companion on a walk—namely, the deep and ever-present empathy with which she made everything one might share with her, everything one could describe, everything one could quote from a foreign author, resonate, so to speak, à plusieurs reprises, with one’s own feelings, by the clear impression it had on hers. The pulses of light are not quicker or more inevitable in their flow and movement than were the responsive and echoing reactions of her sympathetic attention. Her knowledge of literature was irregular and completely unsystematic. She was fine with being ignorant of many things; but what she knew and had truly mastered rested securely in the temple of her own most passionate heart.
Such were the two ladies who, with himself and two children, and at that time one servant, composed the poet's household. They were both, I believe, about twenty-eight[Pg 240] years old; and, if the reader inquires about the single point which I have left untouched in their portraiture—viz. the style of their manners—I may say that it was, in some points, naturally of a plain household simplicity, but every way pleasing, unaffected, and (as respects Mrs. Wordsworth) even dignified. Few persons had seen so little as this lady of the world. She had seen nothing of high life, for she had seen little of any. Consequently, she was unacquainted with the conventional modes of behaviour, prescribed in particular situations by high breeding. But, as these modes are little more than the product of dispassionate good sense, applied to the circumstances of the case, it is surprising how few deficiencies are perceptible, even to the most vigilant eye—or, at least, essential deficiencies—in the general demeanour of any unaffected young woman, acting habitually under a sense of sexual dignity and natural courtesy. Miss Wordsworth had seen more of life, and even of good company; for she had lived, when quite a girl, under the protection of Dr. Cookson, a near relative, canon of Windsor, and a personal favourite of the Royal Family, especially of George III. Consequently, she ought to have been the more polished of the two; and yet, from greater natural aptitudes for refinement of manner in her sister-in-law, and partly, perhaps, from her more quiet and subdued manner, Mrs. Wordsworth would have been pronounced very much the more lady-like person.
That was the setup for the two ladies who, along with him, two kids, and at that time one servant, made up the poet's household. They were both around twenty-eight[Pg 240] years old; and if you’re curious about the one detail I haven't mentioned about them—namely, the way they carried themselves—I can say that in some ways, their manner was naturally simple and homely, but overall it was charming, genuine, and in the case of Mrs. Wordsworth, even dignified. Few people had seen as little of the world as this lady. She hadn’t experienced high society at all, since she had seen very little of anything. Therefore, she was unfamiliar with the social rules expected in certain situations due to high breeding. However, since these rules are mostly just the result of common sense applied to the situation, it's surprising how few missteps are noticeable, even to the keenest observer—or at least, how few serious missteps there are—when it comes to the general behavior of any genuine young woman who acts with a sense of self-respect and natural courtesy. Miss Wordsworth had experienced more of life and even interacted with socially prominent people; she had lived, as a young girl, under the care of Dr. Cookson, a close relative, a canon of Windsor, and a favorite of the Royal Family, particularly George III. As a result, she should have been the more refined of the two; yet, due to her sister-in-law’s greater natural talent for grace and perhaps also because of her own quieter demeanor, Mrs. Wordsworth would likely be considered the more ladylike of the two.
From the interest which attaches to anybody so nearly connected as these two ladies with a great poet, I have allowed myself a larger latitude than else might have been justifiable in describing them. I now go on with my narrative:—
From the interest that comes with anyone so closely related to a great poet, I’ve taken a bit more freedom than I usually would in describing these two ladies. Now, I’ll continue with my story:—
I was ushered up a little flight of stairs, fourteen in all, to a little drawing-room, or whatever the reader chooses to call it. Wordsworth himself has described the fireplace of this room as his
I was led up a small flight of stairs, fourteen steps in total, to a small sitting room, or whatever you want to call it. Wordsworth himself described the fireplace in this room as his
It was not fully seven feet six inches high, and, in other respects, pretty nearly of the same dimensions as the rustic hall below. There was, however, in a small recess, a library[Pg 241] of perhaps three hundred volumes, which seemed to consecrate the room as the poet's study and composing room; and such occasionally it was. But far oftener he both studied, as I found, and composed, on the high road. I had not been two minutes at the fireside, when in came Wordsworth, returning from his friendly attentions to the travellers below, who, it seemed, had been over-persuaded by hospitable solicitations to stay for this night in Grasmere, and to make out the remaining thirteen miles of their road to Keswick on the following day. Wordsworth entered. And "what-like"—to use a Westmoreland as well as a Scottish expression—"what-like" was Wordsworth? A reviewer in "Tait's Magazine," noticing some recent collection of literary portraits, gives it as his opinion that Charles Lamb's head was the finest among them.[96] This remark may have been justified by the engraved portraits; but, certainly, the critic would have cancelled it, had he seen the original heads—at least, had he seen them in youth or in maturity; for Charles Lamb bore age with less disadvantage to the intellectual expression of his appearance than Wordsworth, in whom a sanguine complexion had, of late years, usurped upon the original bronze-tint; and this change of hue, and change in the quality of skin, had been made fourfold more conspicuous, and more unfavourable in its general effect, by the harsh contrast of grizzled hair which had displaced the original brown. No change in personal appearance ever can have been so unfortunate; for, generally speaking, whatever other disadvantages old age may bring along with it, one effect, at least in male subjects, has a compensating tendency—that it removes any tone of vigour too harsh, and mitigates the expression of power too unsubdued. But, in Wordsworth, the effect of the change has been to substitute an air of animal vigour, or, at least, hardiness, as if derived from constant exposure to the wind and weather, for the fine[Pg 242] sombre complexion which he once wore, resembling that of a Venetian senator or a Spanish monk.
It was not quite seven feet six inches tall, and in most other ways, it was about the same size as the rustic hall below. However, there was a small nook that held a library[Pg 241] of around three hundred volumes, which seemed to make the room feel like the poet's study and workspace; and sometimes it actually was. But much more often, as I discovered, he studied and wrote on the main road. I had barely been seated by the fire for two minutes when Wordsworth walked in, returning from seeing off the travelers downstairs, who, it seemed, had been persuaded by warm hospitality to stay the night in Grasmere and complete the last thirteen miles of their journey to Keswick the next day. Wordsworth entered. And “what was Wordsworth like?”—to use a saying from Westmoreland and Scotland—“what was Wordsworth like?” A reviewer in "Tait's Magazine," commenting on a recent collection of literary portraits, stated that Charles Lamb had the finest head among them.[96] This opinion might have held true based on the engraved portraits, but surely the critic would have changed his mind if he had seen the actual faces—at least in their youth or adulthood; because Charles Lamb aged without losing much of his intellectual expression, unlike Wordsworth, whose once bronze complexion had recently turned a reddish hue; and this color change, along with the change in skin quality, became much more striking and less flattering due to the harsh contrast of graying hair that replaced the original brown. No change in personal appearance could be more unfortunate; typically, while old age comes with various drawbacks, one effect—especially in men—is that it softens any overly harsh look of vigor and eases the expression of overwhelming power. However, in Wordsworth's case, the transformation resulted in a shift towards a raw vitality or, at least, toughness, as if from constant exposure to the elements, replacing the fine, somber complexion he once had, which was reminiscent of a Venetian senator or a Spanish monk.
Here, however, in describing the personal appearance of Wordsworth, I go back, of course, to the point of time at which I am speaking. He was, upon the whole, not a well-made man. His legs were pointedly condemned by all female connoisseurs in legs; not that they were bad in any way which would force itself upon your notice—there was no absolute deformity about them; and undoubtedly they had been serviceable legs beyond the average standard of human requisition; for I calculate, upon good data, that with these identical legs Wordsworth must have traversed a distance of 175,000 to 180,000 English miles—a mode of exertion which, to him, stood in the stead of alcohol and all other stimulants whatsoever to the animal spirits; to which, indeed, he was indebted for a life of unclouded happiness, and we for much of what is most excellent in his writings. But, useful as they have proved themselves, the Wordsworthian legs were certainly not ornamental; and it was really a pity, as I agreed with a lady in thinking, that he had not another pair for evening dress parties—when no boots lend their friendly aid to mask our imperfections from the eyes of female rigorists—those elegantes formarum spectatrices. A sculptor would certainly have disapproved of their contour. But the worst part of Wordsworth's person was the bust; there was a narrowness and a droop about the shoulders which became striking, and had an effect of meanness, when brought into close juxtaposition with a figure of a more statuesque build. Once on a summer evening, walking in the Vale of Langdale with Wordsworth, his sister, and Mr. J—-, a native Westmoreland clergyman, I remember that Miss Wordsworth was positively mortified by the peculiar illustration which settled upon this defective conformation. Mr. J—-, a fine towering figure, six feet high, massy and columnar in his proportions, happened to be walking, a little in advance, with Wordsworth; Miss Wordsworth and myself being in the rear; and from the nature of the conversation which then prevailed in our front rank, something or other about money, devises, buying and selling, we of the rear-guard thought it requisite to preserve this[Pg 243] arrangement for a space of three miles or more; during which time, at intervals, Miss Wordsworth would exclaim, in a tone of vexation, "Is it possible,—can that be William? How very mean he looks!" And she did not conceal a mortification that seemed really painful, until I, for my part, could not forbear laughing outright at the serious interest which she carried into this trifle. She was, however, right, as regarded the mere visual judgment. Wordsworth's figure, with all its defects, was brought into powerful relief by one which had been cast in a more square and massy mould; and in such a case it impressed a spectator with a sense of absolute meanness, more especially when viewed from behind and not counteracted by his countenance; and yet Wordsworth was of a good height (five feet ten), and not a slender man; on the contrary, by the side of Southey, his limbs looked thick, almost in a disproportionate degree. But the total effect of Wordsworth's person was always worst in a state of motion. Meantime, his face—that was one which would have made amends for greater defects of figure. Many such, and finer, I have seen amongst the portraits of Titian, and, in a later period, amongst those of Vandyke, from the great era of Charles I, as also from the court of Elizabeth and of Charles II, but none which has more impressed me in my own time.
Here, however, when talking about Wordsworth's appearance, I'll go back to the time I'm discussing. Overall, he wasn’t a well-built man. His legs were criticized by all the female leg critics; not that they were bad in any obvious way—there was no clear deformity; and they had certainly served him well, even better than average legs would. I estimate, based on solid information, that with those same legs, Wordsworth must have walked about 175,000 to 180,000 English miles—something that, for him, acted like alcohol or any other stimulant for boosting his spirits; it's what kept him living a clear, happy life, and it gave us much of what’s best in his writing. But even though they were quite functional, the Wordsworthian legs definitely weren’t attractive; I agreed with a lady that it was a shame he didn’t have a nicer pair for evening events—when boots don't cover up our flaws in front of the critical eyes of those elegant observers. A sculptor would have certainly disliked their shape. But the worst part of Wordsworth's appearance was his upper body; he had narrow shoulders that drooped, which made him seem small, especially next to someone with a more statuesque figure. I remember one summer evening when I was walking in the Vale of Langdale with Wordsworth, his sister, and Mr. J—-, a Westmoreland clergyman. Miss Wordsworth was really embarrassed by the awkwardness of Wordsworth's build. Mr. J—-, a tall figure at six feet, strong and column-like, happened to be walking a bit ahead with Wordsworth, while Miss Wordsworth and I trailed behind. Because of the conversation happening up front about money, deals, buying, and selling, we thought it best to keep this arrangement for over three miles; during which time, Miss Wordsworth kept exclaiming in annoyance, "Is it possible—can that be William? He looks so awful!” And she clearly showed her discomfort, which seemed genuinely painful, until I couldn’t help but laugh at how seriously she took this little matter. Yet she was right concerning the visual impression. Wordsworth's figure, despite its flaws, stood out starkly against Mr. J—-'s more solid frame; it gave viewers an impression of sheer inferiority, especially when seen from behind without his face to balance it; and still, Wordsworth was a good height (five feet ten) and not a skinny man; beside Southey, his limbs even appeared quite thick, almost too much so. But overall, Wordsworth's appearance looked worst when he moved. Meanwhile, his face—now that was something that could have compensated for greater physical flaws. Many faces like it, and even more striking ones, I've seen in portraits by Titian, and later with those by Vandyke, from the great era of Charles I, and the courts of Elizabeth and Charles II, but none have impressed me as much in my own time.
Haydon, in his great picture of "Christ's Entry into Jerusalem," has introduced Wordsworth in the character of a disciple attending his Divine Master, and Voltaire in the character of a sneering Jewish elder. This fact is well known; and, as the picture itself is tolerably well known to the public eye, there are multitudes now living who will have seen a very impressive likeness of Wordsworth—some consciously, some not suspecting it. There will, however, always be many who have not seen any portrait at all of Wordsworth; and therefore I will describe its general outline and effect. It was a face of the long order, often falsely classed as oval: but a greater mistake is made by many people in supposing the long face which prevailed so remarkably in the Elizabethan and Carolinian periods to have become extinct in our own. Miss Ferrier, in one of her novels ("Marriage," I think), makes a Highland girl[Pg 244] protest that "no Englishman with his round face" shall ever wean her heart from her own country; but England is not the land of round faces; and those have observed little, indeed, who think so: France it is that grows the round face, and in so large a majority of her provinces that it has become one of the national characteristics. And the remarkable impression which an Englishman receives from the eternal recurrence of the orbicular countenance proves of itself, without any conscious testimony, how the fact stands; in the blind sense of a monotony, not felt elsewhere, lies involved an argument that cannot be gainsaid. Besides, even upon an a priori argument, how is it possible that the long face so prevalent in England, by all confession, in certain splendid eras of our history, should have had time, in some five or six generations, to grow extinct? Again, the character of face varies essentially in different provinces. Wales has no connexion in this respect with Devonshire, nor Kent with Yorkshire, nor either with Westmoreland. England, it is true, tends, beyond all known examples, to a general amalgamation of differences, by means of its unrivalled freedom of intercourse. Yet, even in England, law and necessity have opposed as yet such and so many obstacles to the free diffusion of labour that every generation occupies, by at least five-sixths of its numbers, the ground of its ancestors.
Haydon, in his famous painting "Christ's Entry into Jerusalem," has included Wordsworth as a disciple following his Divine Master, and Voltaire as a sarcastic Jewish elder. This is widely recognized, and since the painting is fairly well known, there are many people today who have seen a striking likeness of Wordsworth—some knowingly, some without realizing it. However, there will always be many who have not seen any portrait of Wordsworth at all; therefore, I will describe its general shape and effect. He had a long-shaped face, often mistakenly labeled as oval: but an even bigger error is made by many in thinking that the long face that was so prevalent during the Elizabethan and Carolinian periods has vanished in our time. Miss Ferrier, in one of her novels ("Marriage," I believe), has a Highland girl[Pg 244] declare that "no Englishman with his round face" will ever take her heart away from her homeland; but England is not a land of round faces; those who think so have observed very little. France is the country that has the round face, and in such a large number of its regions that it has become one of its national traits. The striking impression that an Englishman gets from the constant presence of round faces indicates, without any conscious evidence, how things really are; the dull sense of a sameness, not felt anywhere else, carries an argument that cannot be disputed. Moreover, even from an a priori standpoint, how could the long face, which was clearly common in England during certain magnificent periods in our history, have completely disappeared in just five or six generations? Additionally, the shape of the face varies significantly in different regions. Wales has no connection in this regard with Devonshire, nor Kent with Yorkshire, nor either with Westmoreland. It is true that England tends, more than any known example, toward a general blending of differences, thanks to its unmatched level of communication. Yet, even in England, laws and necessities have so far created numerous barriers to the free movement of labor that each generation is made up of at least five-sixths of its ancestors' population.
The movable part of a population is chiefly the higher part; and it is the lower classes that, in every nation, compose the fundus, in which lies latent the national face, as well as the national character. Each exists here in racy purity and integrity, not disturbed in the one by alien intermarriages, nor in the other by novelties of opinion, or other casual effects, derived from education and reading. Now, look into this fundus, and you will find, in many districts, no such prevalence of the round orbicular face as some people erroneously suppose; and in Westmoreland, especially, the ancient long face of the Elizabethan period, powerfully resembling in all its lineaments the ancient Roman face, and often (though not so uniformly) the face of northern Italy in modern times. The face of Sir Walter Scott, as Irving, the pulpit orator, once remarked to me, was the[Pg 245] indigenous face of the Border: the mouth, which was bad, and the entire lower part of the face, are seen repeated in thousands of working-men; or, as Irving chose to illustrate his position, "in thousands of Border horse-jockeys." In like manner, Wordsworth's face was, if not absolutely the indigenous face of the Lake district, at any rate a variety of that face, a modification of that original type. The head was well filled out; and there, to begin with, was a great advantage over the head of Charles Lamb, which was absolutely truncated in the posterior region—sawn off, as it were, by no timid sawyer. The forehead was not remarkably lofty—and, by the way, some artists, in their ardour for realizing their phrenological preconceptions, not suffering nature to surrender quietly and by slow degrees her real alphabet of signs and hieroglyphic characters, but forcing her language prematurely into conformity with their own crude speculations, have given to Sir Walter Scott a pile of forehead which is unpleasing and cataphysical, in fact, a caricature of anything that is ever seen in nature, and would (if real) be esteemed a deformity; in one instance—that which was introduced in some annual or other—the forehead makes about two-thirds of the entire face. Wordsworth's forehead is also liable to caricature misrepresentations in these days of phrenology: but, whatever it may appear to be in any man's fanciful portrait, the real living forehead, as I have been in the habit of seeing it for more than five-and-twenty years, is not remarkable for its height; but it is, perhaps, remarkable for its breadth and expansive development. Neither are the eyes of Wordsworth "large," as is erroneously stated somewhere in "Peter's Letters"[97]; on the contrary, they are (I think) rather small; but that does not interfere with their effect, which at times is fine, and suitable to his intellectual character. At times, I say, for the depth and subtlety of eyes, even their colouring (as to condensation or dilation), varies exceedingly with the state of the stomach; and, if young ladies were aware of the magical transformations which can be wrought in the depth and sweetness of the eye by a few weeks' walking exercise, I[Pg 246] fancy we should see their habits in this point altered greatly for the better. I have seen Wordsworth's eyes oftentimes affected powerfully in this respect; his eyes are not, under any circumstances, bright, lustrous, or piercing; but, after a long day's toil in walking, I have seen them assume an appearance the most solemn and spiritual that it is possible for the human eye to wear. The light which resides in them is at no time a superficial light; but, under favourable accidents, it is a light which seems to come from unfathomed depths: in fact, it is more truly entitled to be held "the light that never was on land or sea," a light radiating from some far spiritual world, than any the most idealizing that ever yet a painter's hand created. The nose, a little arched, is large; which, by the way (according to a natural phrenology, existing centuries ago amongst some of the lowest amongst the human species), has always been accounted an unequivocal expression of animal appetites organically strong. And that expressed the simple truth: Wordsworth's intellectual passions were fervent and strong: but they rested upon a basis of preternatural animal sensibility diffused through all the animal passions (or appetites); and something of that will be found to hold of all poets who have been great by original force and power, not (as Virgil) by means of fine management and exquisite artifice of composition applied to their conceptions. The mouth, and the whole circumjacencies of the mouth, composed the strongest feature in Wordsworth's face; there was nothing specially to be noticed that I know of in the mere outline of the lips; but the swell and protrusion of the parts above and around the mouth are both noticeable in themselves, and also because they remind me of a very interesting fact which I discovered about three years after this my first visit to Wordsworth.
The mobile part of a population mainly consists of the upper classes; it's the lower classes that make up the fundus in every nation, where the national identity and character lie concealed. Each is present here in its purest form, unaffected by foreign intermarriages or by the latest trends in opinions and ideas that come from education and reading. If you take a look at this fundus, you might find that in many areas there isn't as much of a prevalence of round, full faces as some people mistakenly think; particularly in Westmoreland, the long, narrow faces from the Elizabethan era appear strongly, resembling the old Roman features, and sometimes (though not consistently) the faces of northern Italy today. Sir Walter Scott's face, as Irving, the preacher, once pointed out to me, was the native face of the Border: a mouth that wasn't great, along with the whole lower part of his face, can be seen in thousands of workingmen; or, as Irving put it, "in thousands of Border horse-jockeys." Similarly, Wordsworth's face may not be the exact native face of the Lake District, but it's definitely a variation of that face, a modification of the original type. His head was well-proportioned; and that was a big advantage compared to Charles Lamb's head, which was completely flattened at the back – almost as if it had been cut off unceremoniously. Wordsworth's forehead wasn't particularly high, and interestingly, some artists, overly eager to realize their phrenological ideas and not allowing nature to gradually reveal her true signs and symbols, have exaggerated Scott's forehead into something unpleasant and unnatural, essentially creating a caricature of anything found in nature, which, if it were real, would be considered a deformity; in one case – featured in an annual or something – the forehead made up about two-thirds of the entire face. Wordsworth's forehead can also be misrepresented in caricatures these days due to phrenology: but regardless of how it might be depicted in any fanciful portrait, the real forehead, as I've known it for over twenty-five years, isn’t known for its height; rather, it's noteworthy for its width and expansive growth. Wordsworth's eyes aren’t "large," contrary to what is mistakenly stated in "Peter's Letters"; instead, I find them to be somewhat small, but that doesn’t detract from their impact, which at times is quite fine and appropriate to his intellectual nature. I say "at times" because the depth and subtlety of one's eyes, even their size (whether wide or narrow), can vary significantly depending on one’s physical state; if young women realized the magical changes that a few weeks of walking could bring to the depth and softness of their eyes, I think we’d see a major improvement in their habits concerning this. I've seen Wordsworth's eyes deeply affected in this way; they are never particularly bright, shiny, or piercing; yet, after a long day of walking, I've seen them take on the most solemn and spiritual quality imaginable. The light within them is never superficial; rather, under the right circumstances, it seems to emerge from unfathomable depths: in fact, it deserves to be called "the light that never was on land or sea," a light emanating from some distant spiritual realm, much more than any dreamy light a painter could ever create. His nose, slightly arched and large, is noteworthy; among some of humanity's lower classes long ago, it was regarded as a clear indication of strong animal instincts. This reflected the simple truth: Wordsworth's intellectual passions were intense and powerful, grounded in an extraordinary sensitivity that spread across all the animal passions (or desires); something similar can be found in all poets who excel by their original strength and power, not (like Virgil) through clever management and exquisite craftsmanship in their ideas. The mouth, along with the surrounding features, was the most striking element of Wordsworth's face; there wasn't anything particularly notable about the shape of his lips, but the prominence and fullness of the areas above and around the mouth stand out on their own and also remind me of a fascinating fact I discovered about three years after my first visit to Wordsworth.
Being a great collector of everything relating to Milton, I had naturally possessed myself, whilst yet very young, of Richardson the painter's thick octavo volume of notes on the "Paradise Lost."[98] It happened, however, that my copy, in[Pg 247] consequence of that mania for portrait collecting which has stripped so many English classics of their engraved portraits, wanted the portrait of Milton. Subsequently I ascertained that it ought to have had a very good likeness of the great poet; and I never rested until I procured a copy of the book which had not suffered in this respect by the fatal admiration of the amateur. The particular copy offered to me was one which had been priced unusually high, on account of the unusually fine specimen which it contained of the engraved portrait. This, for a particular reason, I was exceedingly anxious to see; and the reason was—that, according to an anecdote reported by Richardson himself, this portrait, of all that were shown to her, was the only one acknowledged by Milton's last surviving daughter to be a strong likeness of her father. And her involuntary gestures concurred with her deliberate words:—for, on seeing all the rest, she was silent and inanimate; but the very instant she beheld that crayon drawing from which is derived the engraved head in Richardson's book, she burst out into a rapture of passionate recognition; exclaiming—"That is my father! that is my dear father!" Naturally, therefore, after such a testimony, so much stronger than any other person in the world could offer to the authentic value of this portrait, I was eager to see it.[99]
Being a big collector of everything related to Milton, I had, of course, managed to get my hands on Richardson the painter's thick octavo volume of notes on "Paradise Lost" while I was still quite young.[98] Unfortunately, my copy was missing Milton's portrait due to the craze for collecting portraits that has stripped many English classics of their engraved images, which made it incomplete.[Pg 247] Eventually, I found out that it should have included a great likeness of the famous poet, and I didn’t rest until I got a copy of the book that hadn't been affected by the unfortunate enthusiasm of collectors. The specific copy offered to me was priced unusually high because it contained an especially fine example of the engraved portrait. I was very eager to see this portrait for a particular reason: according to a story told by Richardson himself, this portrait was the only one acknowledged by Milton's last surviving daughter as a true likeness of her father. Her spontaneous reactions confirmed her words—while she was silent and unresponsive to all the other portraits, the moment she saw that crayon drawing, which the engraved head in Richardson's book is based on, she exclaimed in passionate recognition, “That is my father! That is my dear father!” Naturally, after such a strong endorsement, much stronger than what anyone else could provide about the authenticity of this portrait, I was desperate to see it.[99]
Judge of my astonishment when, in this portrait of Milton, I saw a likeness nearly perfect of Wordsworth, better by much than any which I have since seen of those expressly painted for himself. The likeness is tolerably preserved in that by Carruthers, in which one of the little Rydal waterfalls, &c., composes a background; yet this is much inferior, as a mere portrait of Wordsworth, to the Richardson head of Milton; and this, I believe, is the last which represents Wordsworth in the vigour of his power. The rest, which I have not seen, may be better as works of art (for anything I know to the contrary), but they must labour under the great disadvantage of presenting the features when "defeatured," in the degree and the way I have described, by the peculiar ravages of old age, as it affects this family; for it is noticed of the Wordsworths, by those who are familiar with their peculiarities, that in their very blood and constitutional differences lie hidden causes that are able, in some mysterious way,
Judge my surprise when, in this portrait of Milton, I saw a nearly perfect resemblance to Wordsworth, much better than any I've seen since that were specifically painted for him. The likeness is fairly maintained in Carruthers' version, where one of the little Rydal waterfalls, etc., serves as a background; however, this pales in comparison, as a straightforward portrait of Wordsworth, to the Richardson head of Milton. I believe this is the last one that captures Wordsworth in the full vigor of his abilities. The others, which I haven’t seen, might be better as artistic pieces (for all I know), but they would suffer from the major drawback of showing his features when "defeatured," as I’ve described, by the distinct toll of old age, which affects this family. Those familiar with the Wordsworths’ unique traits note that within their very blood and constitutional variations lie hidden factors that are, in some mysterious way,
That ruin the blossom before its time,
And lose all hope, without the owner's wrongdoing,
The most stunning hair.
Some people, it is notorious, live faster by much than others, the oil is burned out sooner in one constitution than another: and the cause of this may be various; but in the Wordsworths one part of the cause is, no doubt, the secret fire of a temperament too fervid; the self-consuming energies of the brain, that gnaw at the heart and life-strings for ever. In that account which "The Excursion" presents to us of an imaginary Scotsman who, to still the tumult of his heart, when visiting the cataracts of a mountainous region, obliges himself to study the laws of light and colour as they affect the rainbow of the stormy waters, vainly attempting to mitigate the fever which consumed him by entangling his[Pg 249] mind in profound speculations; raising a cross-fire of artillery from the subtilizing intellect, under the vain conceit that in this way he could silence the mighty battery of his impassioned heart: there we read a picture of Wordsworth and his own youth. In Miss Wordsworth every thoughtful observer might read the same self-consuming style of thought. And the effect upon each was so powerful for the promotion of a premature old age, and of a premature expression of old age, that strangers invariably supposed them fifteen to twenty years older than they were. And I remember Wordsworth once laughingly reporting to me, on returning from a short journey in 1809, a little personal anecdote, which sufficiently showed what was the spontaneous impression upon that subject of casual strangers, whose feelings were not confused by previous knowledge of the truth. He was travelling by a stage-coach, and seated outside, amongst a good half-dozen of fellow-passengers. One of these, an elderly man, who confessed to having passed the grand climacterical year (9 multiplied into 7) of 63, though he did not say precisely by how many years, said to Wordsworth, upon some anticipations which they had been mutually discussing of changes likely to result from enclosures, &c., then going on or projecting—"Ay, ay, another dozen of years will show us strange sights; but you and I can hardly expect to see them."—"How so?" said Wordsworth. "How so, my friend? How old do you take me to be?"—"Oh, I beg pardon," said the other; "I meant no offence—but what?" looking at Wordsworth more attentively—"you'll never see threescore, I'm of opinion"; meaning to say that Wordsworth had seen it already. And, to show that he was not singular in so thinking, he appealed to all the other passengers; and the motion passed (nem. con.) that Wordsworth was rather over than under sixty. Upon this he told them the literal truth—that he had not yet accomplished his thirty-ninth year. "God bless me!" said the climacterical man; "so then, after all, you'll have a chance to see your childer get up like, and get settled! Only to think of that!" And so closed the conversation, leaving to Wordsworth an undeniable record of his own prematurely expressed old age in this unaffected astonishment, amongst a whole[Pg 250] party of plain men, that he could really belong to a generation of the forward-looking, who live by hope; and might reasonably expect to see a child of seven years old matured into a man. And yet, as Wordsworth lived into his 82d year,[100] it is plain that the premature expression of decay does not argue any real decay.
Some people, as everyone knows, live much faster than others; their energy is depleted sooner in one body than another. The reasons for this can vary, but for the Wordsworths, one part of the reason is undoubtedly the intense drive of a temperament that is too passionate; the self-consuming energy of their minds, which constantly gnaws at their hearts and life forces. In the account presented in "The Excursion" of an imaginary Scotsman who, to quiet his turbulent heart while visiting a waterfall in the mountains, forces himself to study the laws of light and color as they affect the rainbow in the stormy waters, he vainly tries to calm the fever that consumes him by entangling his mind in deep speculations. He tries to fire back at the intensity of his feelings with intellectual thoughts, mistakenly believing that this would silence the powerful emotions of his passionate heart. This gives us a picture of Wordsworth and his own youth. In Miss Wordsworth, any attentive observer would recognize the same self-consuming style of thought. The effect on each was so strong that it contributed to a premature old age, with strangers consistently believing they were fifteen to twenty years older than they actually were. I remember Wordsworth once laughingly recalling a little personal story after returning from a short trip in 1809, which clearly illustrated the impression casual strangers had without any prior knowledge of the truth. He was traveling by stagecoach, sitting outside with a good half-dozen fellow passengers. One of them, an older man who admitted to having reached the significant age of 63, though he didn’t specify just how many years beyond that, said to Wordsworth during a discussion about anticipated changes from land enclosures and such, "Yes, yes, another dozen years will show us some strange sights; but you and I can hardly expect to see them." "Why not?" asked Wordsworth. "Why not, my friend? How old do you think I am?" "Oh, I apologize," said the man; "I meant no offense—but what?" looking at Wordsworth more closely—"you'll never see sixty, in my opinion," meaning to imply that Wordsworth had already reached that age. To show that he wasn’t alone in this thought, he turned to the other passengers, and they all agreed that Wordsworth seemed more over than under sixty. At this, he told them the absolute truth—that he hadn’t yet turned thirty-nine. "God bless me!" exclaimed the older man; "so then, after all, you’ll have a chance to see your children grow up and get settled! Just think about that!" And so the conversation closed, leaving Wordsworth with undeniable evidence of how he appeared to be old beyond his years, reflected in the unfeigned astonishment of a group of ordinary men that he truly belonged to a hopeful generation that looks ahead, expecting that a seven-year-old child could grow into a mature adult. And yet, as Wordsworth lived to his 82nd year, it is clear that a premature appearance of aging does not necessarily indicate any real decline.
Returning to the question of portraits, I would observe that this Richardson engraving of Milton has the advantage of presenting, not only by far the best likeness of Wordsworth, but of Wordsworth in the prime of his powers—a point essential in the case of one so liable to premature decay. It may be supposed that I took an early opportunity of carrying the book down to Grasmere, and calling for the opinions of Wordsworth's family upon this most remarkable coincidence. Not one member of that family but was as much impressed as myself with the accuracy of the likeness. All the peculiarities even were retained—a drooping appearance of the eyelids, that remarkable swell which I have noticed about the mouth, the way in which the hair lay upon the forehead. In two points only there was a deviation from the rigorous truth of Wordsworth's features—the face was a little too short and too broad, and the eyes were too large. There was also a wreath of laurel about the head, which (as Wordsworth remarked) disturbed the natural expression of the whole picture[101]; else, and with these few allowances, he also admitted that the resemblance was, for that period of his life, perfect, or as nearly so as art could accomplish.
Returning to the topic of portraits, I’d like to point out that this Richardson engraving of Milton not only provides the best likeness of Wordsworth but also captures Wordsworth at the height of his abilities—a crucial detail for someone prone to early decline. You can bet I took the first chance I got to bring the book down to Grasmere and ask Wordsworth's family for their thoughts on this remarkable coincidence. Every single member of the family was as struck as I was by how accurately the likeness was rendered. All of Wordsworth's unique features were there—the drooping eyelids, that distinctive fullness around the mouth, the way the hair fell across his forehead. There were only two ways in which the likeness strayed from the strict truth of Wordsworth's features—the face was a bit too short and slightly too wide, and the eyes were too big. There was also a wreath of laurel around the head, which (as Wordsworth pointed out) distorted the natural expression of the whole picture[101]; otherwise, with these minor allowances, he agreed that the resemblance was, for that period of his life, nearly perfect, or as close as art could get.
I have gone into so large and circumstantial a review of my recollections on this point as would have been trifling and tedious in excess, had these recollections related to a less important man; but I have a certain knowledge that the least of them will possess a lasting and a growing interest in connexion with William Wordsworth. How peculiar, how different from the interest which we grant to the ideas of a great philosopher, a great mathematician, or a great reformer, is that burning interest which settles on the great poets who have made themselves necessary to the human heart; who have first brought into consciousness, and have clothed in[Pg 251] words, those grand catholic feelings that belong to the grand catholic situations of life through all its stages; who have clothed them in such words that human wit despairs of bettering them! Mighty were the powers, solemn and serene is the memory, of Archimedes; and Apollonius shines like "the starry Galileo" in the firmament of human genius; yet how frosty is the feeling associated with these names by comparison with that which, upon every sunny lawn, by the side of every ancient forest, even in the farthest depths of Canada, many a young innocent girl, perhaps at this very moment—looking now with fear to the dark recesses of the infinite forest, and now with love to the pages of the infinite poet, until the fear is absorbed and forgotten in the love—cherishes in her heart for the name and person of Shakspere!
I’ve gone into such a detailed review of my memories on this topic that it might seem trivial and overly lengthy if these memories were about someone less significant. But I know that even the smallest of them will have a lasting and growing relevance when it comes to William Wordsworth. How unique, how different is the deep interest we have for great poets compared to the ideas of a great philosopher, mathematician, or reformer! Poets have a special place in our hearts; they first brought to awareness and expressed in words those profound feelings that relate to the fundamental situations of life in all its stages—crafted in such a way that human creativity struggles to improve upon them! The powers, the solemn and serene memory of Archimedes were immense; Apollonius shines like "the starry Galileo" in the realm of human genius. Yet, the emotions tied to these names feel so cold compared to the warmth felt on every sunlit lawn, beside every ancient forest, even in the remotest parts of Canada, where many a young, innocent girl—perhaps at this very moment—facing the dark unknowns of the infinite forest, yet gazing lovingly at the pages of the infinite poet, allows that fear to fade away in her love for the name and presence of Shakespeare!
The English language is travelling fast towards the fulfilment of its destiny. Through the influence of the dreadful Republic[102] that within the thirty last years has run through all the stages of infancy into the first stage of maturity, and through the English colonies—African, Canadian, Indian, Australian—the English language (and, therefore, the English literature) is running forward towards its ultimate mission of eating up, like Aaron's rod, all other languages. Even the German and the Spanish will inevitably sink before it; perhaps within 100 or 150 years. In the recesses of California, in the vast solitudes of Australia, The Churchyard amongst the Mountains, from Wordsworth's[Pg 252] "Excursion," and many a scene of his shorter poems, will be read, even as now Shakspere is read amongst the forests of Canada. All which relates to the writer of these poems will then bear a value of the same kind as that which attaches to our personal memorials (unhappily so slender) of Shakspere.
The English language is rapidly moving towards fulfilling its destiny. Thanks to the impact of the terrible Republic[102] that has evolved over the last thirty years from infancy to its first stage of maturity, and through the English colonies—African, Canadian, Indian, Australian—the English language (and thus, English literature) is pushing forward towards its ultimate goal of overshadowing all other languages, much like Aaron's rod. Even German and Spanish will inevitably fall away before it; possibly within the next 100 or 150 years. In the hidden corners of California, in the vast deserts of Australia, The Churchyard amongst the Mountains from Wordsworth's[Pg 252] "Excursion," along with many scenes from his shorter poems, will be read, just as Shakespeare is currently read in the forests of Canada. Everything related to the author of those poems will then hold a value similar to what we attach to our sadly limited personal memorials of Shakespeare.
Let me now attempt to trace, in a brief outline, the chief incidents in the life of William Wordsworth, which are interesting, not only in virtue of their illustrious subject, but also as exhibiting a most remarkable (almost a providential) arrangement of circumstances, all tending to one result—that of insulating from worldly cares, and carrying onward from childhood to the grave, in a state of serene happiness, one who was unfitted for daily toil, and, at all events, who could not, under such demands upon his time and anxieties, have prosecuted those genial labours in which all mankind have an interest.
Let me now try to outline the key events in the life of William Wordsworth, which are interesting not only because of his famous legacy but also because they show a remarkable (almost fateful) arrangement of circumstances, all leading to one outcome—that of shielding him from worldly worries and allowing him to move from childhood to old age in a state of peaceful happiness, someone who wasn't suited for everyday work, and who, in any case, couldn't have pursued those joyful activities that concern all of humanity due to such demands on his time and mental strain.
William Wordsworth was born[103] at Cockermouth, a small town of Cumberland, lying about a dozen miles to the north-west of Keswick, on the high road from that town to Whitehaven. His father was a solicitor, and acted as an agent for that Lord Lonsdale, the immediate predecessor of the present,[104] who is not unfrequently described by those who still remember him, as "the bad Lord Lonsdale." In what was he bad? Chiefly, I believe, in this—that, being a man of great local power, founded on his rank, on his official station of Lord-Lieutenant over two counties, and on a very large estate, he used his power at times in a most oppressive way. I have heard it said that he was mad; and, at any rate, he was inordinately capricious—capricious even to eccentricity. But, perhaps, his madness was nothing more than the intemperance of a haughty and a headstrong will, encouraged by the consciousness of power, and tempted to abuses of it by the abject servility which poverty and dependence presented in one direction, embittering the contrast of that defiance which inevitably faced him in another, throughout a land of freedom and amongst spirits as haughty[Pg 253] as his own. He was a true feudal chieftain; and, in the very approaches to his mansion, in the style of his equipage, or whatever else was likely to meet the public eye, he delighted to express his disdain of modern refinements, and the haughty carelessness of his magnificence. The coach in which he used to visit Penrith, the nearest town to his principal house of Lowther, was old and neglected; his horses fine, but untrimmed; and such was the impression diffused about him by his gloomy temper and his habits of oppression, that the streets were silent as he traversed them, and an awe sat upon many faces (so, at least, I have heard a Penrith contemporary of the old despot declare), pretty much like that which may be supposed to attend the entry into a guilty town of some royal commission for trying state criminals. In his park you saw some of the most magnificent timber in the kingdom—trees that were coeval with the feuds of York and Lancaster, yews that possibly had furnished bows to Cœur de Lion, and oaks that might have built a navy. All was savage grandeur about these native forests: their sweeping lawns and glades had been unapproached, for centuries it might be, by the hand of art; and amongst them roamed—not the timid fallow deer—but thundering droves of wild horses.
William Wordsworth was born at Cockermouth, a small town in Cumberland, about twelve miles northwest of Keswick, along the main road to Whitehaven. His father was a solicitor and served as an agent for Lord Lonsdale, the immediate predecessor of the current one, who is often referred to by those who remember him as "the bad Lord Lonsdale." What made him "bad"? Primarily, I believe, it was that as a man of significant local power—stemming from his rank, his official position as Lord-Lieutenant over two counties, and a large estate—he at times wielded this power in a very oppressive manner. I've heard it said that he was mad; regardless, he was extraordinarily unpredictable—capricious to the point of eccentricity. But perhaps his madness was simply the recklessness of a proud and stubborn personality, bolstered by the awareness of his power and tempted to abuse it by the extreme subservience exhibited by those who lived in poverty and dependence, which intensified the defiance he inevitably faced from others in a land of freedom and among spirits as proud as his own. He was a true feudal lord; in the way he approached his mansion, the style of his carriage, and in everything likely to catch the public's eye, he reveled in showing disdain for modern sophistication and the arrogant indifference of his grandeur. The coach he used to travel to Penrith, the nearest town to his main residence at Lowther, was old and neglected; his horses were beautiful but unkempt. Such was the atmosphere surrounding him, shaped by his grim demeanor and oppressive behavior, that the streets fell silent as he passed through them, and many faces carried an expression of fear (or so I’ve heard from someone who lived in Penrith during the time of the old tyrant), almost like the reaction to the arrival of a royal commission set to prosecute state criminals in a guilty town. Within his park stood some of the most magnificent trees in the kingdom—trees that were alive during the conflicts of York and Lancaster, yews that might have provided bows for Richard the Lionheart, and oaks that could have built a navy. The native forests exuded a wild grandeur: their sweeping lawns and glades had remained untouched, perhaps for centuries, by human hands; and within them roamed—not timid fallow deer—but thunderous herds of wild horses.
Lord Lonsdale went to London less frequently than else he might have done, because at home he was allowed to forget that in this world there was any greater man than himself. Even in London, however, his haughty injustice found occasions for making itself known. On a court day (I revive an anecdote once familiarly known), St. James's Street was lined by cavalry, and the orders were peremptory that no carriages should be allowed to pass, except those which were carrying parties to court. Whether it were by accident or by way of wilfully provoking such a collision, Lord Lonsdale's carriage advanced; and the coachman, in obedience to orders shouted out from the window, was turning down the forbidden route, when a trooper rode up to the horses' heads, and stopped them; the thundering menaces of Lord Lonsdale perplexed the soldier, who did not know but he might be bringing himself into a scrape by persisting in his opposition; but the officer on duty, observing the scene,[Pg 254] rode up, and, in a determined tone, enforced the order, causing two of his men to turn the horses' heads round into Piccadilly. Lord Lonsdale threw his card to the officer, and a duel followed; in which, however, the outrageous injustice of his lordship met with a pointed rebuke; for the first person whom he summoned to his aid, in the quality of second, though a friend, and, I believe, a relative of his own, declined to sanction by any interference so scandalous a quarrel with an officer for simply executing an official duty. In this dilemma (for probably he was aware that few military men would fail to take the same disapproving view of the affair) he applied to the present[105] Earl of Lonsdale, then Sir William Lowther. Either there must have been some needless discourtesy in the officer's mode of fulfilling his duty, or else Sir William thought the necessity of the case, however wantonly provoked, a sufficient justification for a relative giving his assistance, even under circumstances of such egregious injustice. At any rate, it is due to Sir William, in mere candour, to suppose that he did nothing in this instance but what his conscience approved; seeing that in all others his conduct has been such as to win him the universal respect of the two counties in which he is best known. He it was that acted as second; and, by a will which is said to have been dated the same day, he became eventually possessed of a large property, which did not necessarily accompany the title.
Lord Lonsdale went to London less often than he could have because at home he could forget there were any greater men than himself. Even in London, though, his arrogant behavior had its moments of showing through. One court day (I’m recalling a story that was once well-known), St. James's Street was lined with cavalry, and orders were given that no carriages could pass except those going to court. Whether by accident or to provoke a confrontation, Lord Lonsdale's carriage moved forward; and the coachman, following orders yelled from the window, was turning down the restricted route when a soldier rode up to the horses' heads, stopping them. Lord Lonsdale's furious threats confused the soldier, who didn't know if he was getting himself into trouble by staying firm; but the officer on duty saw what was happening, rode over, and firmly enforced the order, directing two of his men to turn the horses' heads back onto Piccadilly. Lord Lonsdale threw his card at the officer, and a duel ensued; in which, however, the outrageous injustice of his lordship was met with strong disapproval. The first person he called as his second, although a friend and, I believe, a relative, refused to get involved in such a disgraceful fight with an officer just doing his job. In this bind (since he probably realized that few military men would have a different view of the situation), he turned to the current Earl of Lonsdale, then Sir William Lowther. Either there was some unnecessary rudeness in the officer's way of doing his job, or Sir William thought the circumstances, however provocatively created, justified a relative stepping in, even in such a clear case of injustice. In any case, it’s fair to think that Sir William did nothing this time that didn't align with his conscience, considering that in all other instances, his actions have won him widespread respect in the two counties where he is best known. He acted as the second; and, by a will allegedly dated that same day, he eventually acquired a significant property that did not necessarily come with the title.
Another anecdote is told of the same Lord Lonsdale which expresses, in a more eccentric way, and a way that to many people will be affecting—to some shocking—the moody energy of his passions. He loved, with passionate fervour, a fine young woman, of humble parentage, in a Cumberland farmhouse. Her he had persuaded to leave her father, and put herself under his protection. Whilst yet young and beautiful, she died: Lord Lonsdale's sorrow was profound; he could not bear the thought of a final parting from that face which had become so familiar to his heart: he caused her to be embalmed; a glass was placed over her features; and at intervals, when his thoughts reverted to her memory, he found a consolation (or perhaps a luxurious irritation) of his sorrow in visiting this sad[Pg 255] memorial of his former happiness. This story, which I have often heard repeated by the country-people of Cumberland, strengthened the general feeling of this eccentric nobleman's self-willed character, though in this instance complicated with a trait of character that argued nobler capacities. By what rules he guided himself in dealing with the various lawyers, agents, or stewards whom his extensive estates brought into a dependency upon his justice or his moderation—whether, in fact, he had no rule, but left all to accident or caprice—I have never learned. Generally, I have heard it said that in some years of his life he resisted the payment of all bills indiscriminately which he had any colourable plea for supposing to contain overcharges; some fared ill, because they were neighbours, and his lordship could say that "he knew them to be knaves"; others fared worse, because they were so remote that "how could his lordship know what they were?" Of this number, and possibly for this reason left unpaid, was Wordsworth's father. He died whilst his four sons and one daughter were yet helpless children, leaving to them respectable fortunes, but which, as yet, were unrealized and tolerably hypothetic, as they happened to depend upon so shadowy a basis as the justice of Lord Lonsdale. The executors of the will, and trustees of the children's interests, in one point acted wisely: foreseeing the result of a legal contest with so potent a defendant as this leviathan of two counties, and that, under any nominal award, the whole estate of the orphans might be swallowed up in the costs of any suit that should be carried into Chancery, they prudently withdrew from all active measures of opposition, confiding the event to Lord Lonsdale's returning sense of justice. Unfortunately for that nobleman's reputation, and also, as was thought, for the children's prosperity, before this somewhat rusty quality of justice could have time to operate, his lordship died.
Another story is told about the same Lord Lonsdale that expresses, in a more eccentric way—and for many people, it will be moving and to some, shocking—the moody intensity of his passions. He passionately loved a beautiful young woman from a humble background who lived in a farmhouse in Cumberland. He managed to convince her to leave her father and come under his protection. While still young and beautiful, she died, and Lord Lonsdale's grief was deep; he couldn't stand the thought of permanently parting from the face that had become so dear to him. He had her embalmed, placed a glass over her features, and at times when he thought of her, he found some solace (or maybe just a luxurious irritation) in visiting this sad[Pg 255] memorial of his past happiness. This story, which I've often heard from the people of Cumberland, reinforced the general view of this eccentric nobleman's strong-willed character, though in this case, it also showed a side of him that hinted at nobler qualities. I never found out how he decided to deal with the various lawyers, agents, or stewards who depended on his fairness for their livelihoods—whether he had any rules or just acted on chance or whim. Generally, I've heard that for some years, he refused to pay any bills he thought could have overcharges; some suffered because they were neighbors, and he could claim he "knew them to be crooks," while others fared worse because they were so far away that he could say, "how could I know what they were?" One of those who possibly went unpaid was Wordsworth's father. He died while his four sons and one daughter were still helpless children, leaving them respectable fortunes, which, at that point, were only potential and somewhat hypothetical since they relied on the fairness of Lord Lonsdale. The executors of the will and trustees for the children's interests acted wisely in one regard: anticipating that a legal battle with such a powerful opponent as this giant of two counties would likely end in disaster, and knowing the children's entire inheritance could be consumed by the costs of a court case, they smartly avoided any confrontation, trusting that Lord Lonsdale would eventually act justly. Unfortunately for the nobleman's reputation—and what many believed would be the children's well-being—before his somewhat rusty sense of justice could kick in, he passed away.
However, for once the world was wrong in its malicious anticipations: the successor to Lord Lonsdale's titles and Cumberland estates was made aware of the entire case, in all its circumstances; and he very honourably gave directions for full restitution being made. This was done; and in one[Pg 256] respect the result was more fortunate for the children than if they had been trained from youth to rely upon their expectations: for, by the time this repayment was made, three out of the five children were already settled in life, with the very amplest prospects opening before them—so ample as to make their private patrimonial fortunes of inconsiderable importance in their eyes; and very probably the withholding of their inheritance it was, however unjust, and however little contemplated as an occasion of any such effect, that urged these three persons to the exertions requisite for their present success. Two only of the children remained to whom the restoration of their patrimony was a matter of grave importance; but it was precisely those two whom no circumstances could have made independent of their hereditary means by personal exertions—viz. William Wordsworth, the poet, and Dorothy, the sole daughter of the house. The three others were:—Richard, the eldest: he had become a thriving solicitor, at one of the inns of court in London; and, if he died only moderately rich, and much below the expectations of his acquaintance, in the final result of his laborious life, it was because he was moderate in his desires, and, in his later years, reverting to the pastoral region of his infancy and boyhood, chose rather to sit down by a hearth of his own amongst the Cumberland mountains, and wisely to woo the deities of domestic pleasures and health, than to follow the chase after wealth in the feverish crowds of the capital. The third son (I believe) was Christopher (Dr. Wordsworth), who, at an early age, became a man of importance in the English Church, being made one of the chaplains and librarians of the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Manners Sutton, father of the late Speaker, Lord Canterbury). He has since risen to the important and dignified station—once held by Barrow, and afterwards by Bentley—of Master of Trinity in Cambridge. Trinity in Oxford is not a first-rate college; but Trinity, Cambridge, answers in rank and authority to Christ Church in Oxford; and to be the head of that college is rightly considered a very splendid distinction.
However, for once the world was wrong in its malicious expectations: the heir to Lord Lonsdale's titles and Cumberland estates was fully informed about the entire situation, with all its details; and he honorably instructed that complete restitution be made. This was done; and in one[Pg 256] way, the outcome was more fortunate for the children than if they had been raised to depend on their expectations: by the time this repayment happened, three out of the five children were already established in life, with the brightest prospects ahead of them—so bright that their personal inheritances seemed insignificant to them; and very likely, the lack of their inheritance, despite being unjust and not foreseen as a cause for it, motivated these three to put in the effort necessary for their current success. Only two of the children were significantly affected by the restoration of their inheritance; but it was exactly those two who could not have gained independence from their family wealth through their own efforts—namely, William Wordsworth, the poet, and Dorothy, the only daughter of the family. The other three were: Richard, the eldest, who had become a successful solicitor at one of the inns of court in London; and while he died only moderately wealthy, much less than what his acquaintances expected, it was because he had modest desires and, in later years, returned to the pastoral area of his childhood, preferring to settle down by his own hearth in the Cumberland mountains and wisely pursue the comforts of home and health rather than chase wealth in the bustling capital. The third son (I believe) was Christopher (Dr. Wordsworth), who, at a young age, became an important figure in the English Church, serving as one of the chaplains and librarians for the Archbishop of Canterbury (Dr. Manners Sutton, father of the late Speaker, Lord Canterbury). He has since risen to the important and dignified position—formerly held by Barrow and later by Bentley—of Master of Trinity in Cambridge. Trinity in Oxford is not a top-tier college, but Trinity, Cambridge, ranks similarly to Christ Church in Oxford; being the head of that college is rightly considered a significant honor.
Dr. Wordsworth has distinguished himself as an author by a very useful republication, entitled, "Ecclesiastical Biography," which he has enriched with valuable notes. And[Pg 257] in his own person, besides other works more professional, he is the author of one very interesting work of historical research upon the difficult question of "Who wrote the 'Eicon Basilike'?" a question still unsettled, but much nearer to a settlement, in consequence of the strong presumptions which Dr. Wordsworth has adduced on behalf of the King's claim.[106]
Dr. Wordsworth has established his reputation as an author with a helpful reissue titled "Ecclesiastical Biography," which he has enhanced with valuable notes. And[Pg 257] in addition to other more professional works, he is also the author of a very engaging historical research piece on the challenging question of "Who wrote the 'Eicon Basilike'?" This question remains unresolved but is much closer to being settled, thanks to the strong evidence Dr. Wordsworth has presented in support of the King's claim.[106]
The fourth and youngest son, John, was in the service of the East India Company, and perished most unhappily, at the very outset of the voyage which he had meant to be his last, off the coast of Dorsetshire, in the Company's ship Abergavenny. A calumny was current in some quarters, that Captain Wordsworth was in a state of intoxication at the[Pg 258] time of the calamity. But the printed report of the affair, revised by survivors, entirely disproves this calumny; which, besides, was in itself incredible to all who were acquainted with Captain Wordsworth's most temperate and even philosophic habits of life. So peculiarly, indeed, was Captain Wordsworth's temperament, and the whole system of his life, coloured by a grave and meditative turn of thought, that amongst his brother officers in the Company's service he bore the surname of "The Philosopher." And William Wordsworth, the poet, not only always spoke of him with a sort of respect that argued him to have been no ordinary man, but he has frequently assured me of one fact which, as implying some want of sincerity in himself, gave me pain to hear—viz. that in the fine lines entitled "The Happy Warrior," reciting the main elements which enter into the composition of a hero, he had in view chiefly his brother John's character. That was true, I daresay, but it was inconsistent in some measure with the note attached to the lines, by which the reader learns that it was out of reverence for Lord Nelson, as one who transcended the estimate here made, that the poem had not been openly connected with his name, as the real suggester of the thoughts. Now, privately, though still professing a lively admiration for the mighty Admiral, as one of the few men who carried into his professional labours a real and vivid genius (and thus far Wordsworth often testified a deep admiration for Lord Nelson), yet, in reference to these particular lines, he uniformly declared that Lord Nelson was much below the ideal there contemplated, and that, in fact, it had been suggested by the recollection of his brother. But, if so, why should it have been dissembled? And surely, in some of the finest passages, this cannot be so; for example, when he makes it one trait of the heaven-born hero that he, if called upon to face some mighty day of trial—
The fourth and youngest son, John, was working for the East India Company and tragically lost his life at the very start of the voyage he intended to be his last, off the coast of Dorsetshire, on the Company ship Abergavenny. There was a rumor circulating that Captain Wordsworth was intoxicated at the[Pg 258] time of the disaster. However, the published report of the incident, verified by survivors, completely disproves this rumor, which, moreover, seemed unbelievable to anyone familiar with Captain Wordsworth's very moderate and even thoughtful lifestyle. In fact, Captain Wordsworth's nature and the overall way he lived were so deeply influenced by a serious and reflective mindset that among his fellow officers in the Company, he was nicknamed "The Philosopher." William Wordsworth, the poet, not only always spoke of him with a respect that suggested he was no ordinary man, but he has often told me something that made me uncomfortable, indicating some lack of sincerity on his part—that in the beautiful lines titled "The Happy Warrior," discussing the main qualities of a hero, he primarily had his brother John's character in mind. That might be true, but it somewhat conflicted with the note attached to the lines, which informs the reader that out of respect for Lord Nelson, who exceeded the standard being referenced here, the poem was not openly associated with his name as the actual source of inspiration. Now, privately, even while expressing a strong admiration for the great Admiral, as one of the few people who brought genuine and vivid genius to his professional work (and in this regard, Wordsworth often showed deep admiration for Lord Nelson), he consistently stated that Lord Nelson fell short of the ideal he had described in those specific lines and that the inspiration actually came from his brother’s memory. But if that’s the case, why should it have been hidden? And certainly, in some of the most beautiful passages, this cannot be true; for example, when he points out as one quality of the naturally-gifted hero that he, when faced with some great day of trial—
Important matters, whether positive or negative, for humanity—
Is as happy as a lover and dressed "With a burst of brilliance, like a man filled with inspiration"—
then, at least, he must have had Lord Nelson's idea predominating in his thoughts; for Captain Wordsworth was scarcely[Pg 259] tried in such a situation. There can be no doubt, however, that he merited the praises of his brother; and it was indeed an idle tale that he should first of all deviate from this philosophic temperance upon an occasion where his utmost energies and the fullest self-possession were all likely to prove little enough. In reality it was the pilot, the incompetent pilot, who caused the fatal catastrophe;—"O pilot, you have ruined me!" were amongst the last words that Captain Wordsworth was heard to utter—pathetic words, and fit for him, "a meek man and a brave," to use in addressing a last reproach to one who, not through misfortune or overruling will of Providence, but through miserable conceit and unprincipled levity, had brought total ruin upon so many gallant countrymen. Captain Wordsworth might have saved his own life; but the perfect loyalty of his nature to the claims upon him, that sublime fidelity to duty which is so often found amongst men of his profession, kept him to the last upon the wreck; and, after that, it is probable that the almost total wreck of his own fortunes (which, but for this overthrow, would have amounted to twenty thousand pounds, upon the successful termination of this one voyage), but still more the total ruin of the new and splendid Indiaman confided to his care, had so much dejected his spirits that he was not in a condition for making such efforts as, under a more hopeful prospect, he might have been able to make. Six weeks his body lay unrecovered; at the end of that time, it was found, and carried to the Isle of Wight, and buried in close neighbourhood to the quiet fields which he had so recently described in letters to his sister at Grasmere as a Paradise of English peace, to which his mind would be likely oftentimes to revert amidst the agitations of the sea.
then, at least, he must have had Lord Nelson's idea dominating his thoughts; for Captain Wordsworth was hardly[Pg 259] tested in such a situation. There’s no doubt that he deserved the praise of his brother; and it was indeed a foolish story that he would first stray from this wise self-control at a moment when his utmost energy and complete composure were likely to prove insufficient. The truth is, it was the pilot, the incompetent pilot, who caused the tragic disaster;—"O pilot, you have ruined me!" were among the last words Captain Wordsworth was heard to say—heartbreaking words, and fitting for him, "a humble man and a brave," to use in directing a final reproach at someone who, not through misfortune or the will of Providence, but through pathetic arrogance and lack of principle, had brought total ruin upon so many brave countrymen. Captain Wordsworth might have saved his own life; but the total loyalty of his character to his responsibilities, that noble commitment to duty which is often found among men in his line of work, kept him on the wreck until the end; and after that, it’s likely that the near-total collapse of his own fortunes (which, except for this disaster, would have amounted to twenty thousand pounds at the successful completion of this voyage), but even more so the complete loss of the new and magnificent Indiaman entrusted to his care, had so deeply depressed his spirits that he wasn’t in a state to make the efforts he might have been able to under a more promising outlook. His body lay unrecovered for six weeks; by the end of that time, it was found, taken to the Isle of Wight, and buried close to the peaceful fields that he had recently described in letters to his sister in Grasmere as a Paradise of English peace, to which his mind would likely often return amidst the turmoil of the sea.
Such were the modes of life pursued by three of the orphan children: such the termination of life to the youngest. Meantime, the one daughter of the house was reared liberally, in the family of a relative at Windsor; and she might have pursued a quiet and decorous career, of a character, perhaps, somewhat tame, under the same dignified auspices; but, at an early age, her good angel threw open to her a vista of nobler prospects, in the opportunity which then arose, and which she did not hesitate to seize, of becoming the companion,[Pg 260] through a life of delightful wanderings—of what, to her more elevated friends, seemed little short of vagrancy—the companion and confidential friend, and, with a view to the enlargement of her own intellect, the pupil, of a brother, the most original and most meditative man of his own age.
Such were the ways of life led by three of the orphaned children: such was the end of life for the youngest. Meanwhile, the one daughter of the household was raised well, in the family of a relative in Windsor; and she could have had a peaceful and respectable life, perhaps rather boring, under the same noble circumstances; but at an early age, her good fortune revealed to her a path of greater opportunities, in the chance that then came up, which she eagerly took, of becoming the companion,[Pg 260] through a life of delightful adventures—what, to her more refined friends, seemed almost like wandering aimlessly—the companion and trusted friend, and, in order to broaden her own mind, the student, of a brother, the most unique and thoughtful man of his generation.
William had passed his infancy on the very margin of the Lake district, just six miles, in fact, beyond the rocky screen of Whinlatter, and within one hour's ride of Bassenthwaite Water. To those who live in the tame scenery of Cockermouth, the blue mountains in the distance, the sublime peaks of Borrowdale and of Buttermere, raise aloft a signal, as it were, of a new country, a country of romance and mystery, to which the thoughts are habitually turning. Children are fascinated and haunted with vague temptations, when standing on the frontiers of such a foreign land; and so was Wordsworth fascinated, so haunted. Fortunate for Wordsworth that, at an early age, he was transferred to a quiet nook of this lovely district. At the little town of Hawkshead, seated on the north-west angle of Esthwaite Water, a grammar-school (which, in English usage, means a school for classical literature) was founded, in Queen Elizabeth's reign, by Archbishop Sandys, who belonged to the very ancient family of that name still seated in the neighbourhood. Hither were sent all the four brothers; and here it was that Wordsworth passed his life, from the age of nine until the time arrived for his removal to college. Taking into consideration the peculiar tastes of the person, and the peculiar advantages of the place, I conceive that no pupil of a public school can ever have passed a more luxurious boyhood than Wordsworth. The school discipline was not by many evidences very strict; the mode of living out of school very much resembled that of Eton for Oppidans; less elegant, no doubt, and less costly in its provisions for accommodation, but not less comfortable, and, in that part of the arrangements which was chiefly Etonian, even more so; for in both places the boys, instead of being gathered into one fold, and at night into one or two huge dormitories, were distributed amongst motherly old "dames," technically so called at Eton, but not at Hawkshead. In the latter place, agreeably to the inferior scale of the whole establishment, the[Pg 261] houses were smaller, and more cottage-like, consequently more like private households: and the old lady of the ménage was more constantly amongst them, providing, with maternal tenderness and with a professional pride, for the comfort of her young flock, and protecting the weak from oppression. The humble cares to which these poor matrons dedicated themselves may be collected from several allusions scattered through the poems of Wordsworth; that entitled "Nutting," for instance, in which his own early Spinosistic feeling is introduced, of a mysterious presence diffused through the solitudes of woods, a presence that was disturbed by the intrusion of careless and noisy outrage, and which is brought into a strong relief by the previous homely picture of the old housewife equipping her young charge with beggar's weeds, in order to prepare him for a struggle with thorns and brambles. Indeed, not only the moderate rank of the boys, and the peculiar kind of relation assumed by these matrons, equally suggested this humble class of motherly attentions, but the whole spirit of the place and neighbourhood was favourable to an old English homeliness of domestic and personal economy. Hawkshead, most fortunately for its own manners and the primitive style of its habits even to this day, stands about six miles out of the fashionable line for the "Lakers."
William spent his early years right on the edge of the Lake District, just six miles past the rocky barrier of Whinlatter, and within an hour's ride from Bassenthwaite Water. For those living in the unremarkable scenery of Cockermouth, the blue mountains in the distance, along with the impressive peaks of Borrowdale and Buttermere, signal a new land, one full of romance and mystery that draws their thoughts. Children are captivated and stirred by vague temptations when they find themselves on the borders of such an unfamiliar place; Wordsworth was no exception, equally captivated and inspired. Luckily for Wordsworth, at a young age, he was moved to a peaceful corner of this beautiful area. In the small town of Hawkshead, located at the north-west corner of Esthwaite Water, a grammar school (which, in English terms, refers to a school focused on classical literature) was established during the reign of Queen Elizabeth by Archbishop Sandys, who came from the very old family of that name still living nearby. All four brothers attended this school, and it was here that Wordsworth lived from age nine until it was time for him to go to college. Considering the unique interests of the individual and the distinct advantages of the location, I believe that no student at a public school could have enjoyed a more luxurious childhood than Wordsworth. The school’s discipline was not particularly strict; the living arrangements outside of school resembled those at Eton for day students—less refined and likely less expensive in terms of accommodations, but not less comfortable, and in some aspects that were similarly Etonian, even more so. Rather than being gathered into one big group and at night into one or two large dormitories, the boys were distributed among caring older women, known as "dames" at Eton, though not called that in Hawkshead. In Hawkshead, due to the smaller overall scale of the establishment, the houses were cozier and more cottage-like, resembling private homes. The older lady overseeing the household was more often present with them, providing comfort for her young charges with maternal care and a sense of pride, protecting the vulnerable from mistreatment. The modest responsibilities that these kind women dedicated themselves to can be seen in various references throughout Wordsworth's poems; for example, in "Nutting," where he reflects on his early experiences of a mysterious presence in the quiet woods, disturbed by the noisy intrusions of others, which contrasts sharply with the earlier simple depiction of the old housewife getting her young charge ready with ragged clothes to prepare him for challenges with thorns and brambles. Indeed, not only did the lower status of the boys and the nature of their relationships with these women suggest this kind of nurturing attention, but the whole atmosphere of the place and the surrounding area encouraged an old-fashioned English familiarity in domestic life. Hawkshead, fortunate for its customs and the simplicity of its lifestyle even today, is situated about six miles away from the trendy path taken by tourists exploring the Lake District.
Esthwaite, though a lovely scene in its summer garniture of woods, has no features of permanent grandeur to rely upon. A wet or gloomy day, even in summer, reduces it to little more than a wildish pond, surrounded by miniature hills: and the sole circumstances which restore the sense of a romantic region and an Alpine character are the towering groups of Langdale and Grasmere fells, which look over the little pastoral barriers of Esthwaite, from distances of eight, ten, and fourteen miles. Esthwaite, therefore, being no object for itself, and the sublime head of Coniston being accessible by a road which evades Hawkshead, few tourists ever trouble the repose of this little village town. And in the days of which I am speaking (1778-1787) tourists were as yet few and infrequent to any parts of the country. Mrs. Radcliffe had not begun to cultivate the sense of the picturesque in her popular romances; guide-books, with the[Pg 262] sole exception of "Gray's Posthumous Letters," had not arisen to direct public attention to this domestic Calabria; roads were rude, and, in many instances, not wide enough to admit post-chaises; but, above all, the whole system of travelling accommodations was barbarous and antediluvian for the requisitions of the pampered south. As yet the land had rest; the annual fever did not shake the very hills; and (which was the happiest immunity of the whole) false taste, the pseudo-romantic rage, had not violated the most awful solitudes amongst the ancient hills by opera-house decorations. Wordsworth, therefore, enjoyed this labyrinth of valleys in a perfection that no one can have experienced since the opening of the present century. The whole was one paradise of virgin beauty; the rare works of man, all over the land, were hoar with the grey tints of an antique picturesque; nothing was new, nothing was raw and uncicatrized. Hawkshead, in particular, though tamely seated in itself and its immediate purlieus, has a most fortunate and central locality, as regards the best (at least the most interesting) scenes for a pedestrian rambler. The gorgeous scenery of Borrowdale, the austere sublimities of Wastdalehead, of Langdalehead, or Mardale—these are too oppressive, in their colossal proportions and their utter solitudes, for encouraging a perfectly human interest. Now, taking Hawkshead as a centre, with a radius of about eight miles, one might describe a little circular tract which embosoms a perfect network of little valleys—separate wards or cells, as it were, of one larger valley, walled in by the great leading mountains of the region. Grasmere, Easedale, Great and Little Langdale, Tilberthwaite, Yewdale, Elter Water, Loughrigg Tarn, Skelwith, and many other little quiet nooks, lie within a single division of this labyrinthine district. All these are within one summer afternoon's ramble. And amongst these, for the years of his boyhood, lay the daily excursions of Wordsworth.
Esthwaite, while a beautiful scene in its summer attire of woods, lacks any features of lasting grandeur. A wet or gloomy day, even in summer, reduces it to little more than a wild pond surrounded by small hills. The only elements that restore a sense of romance and an Alpine vibe are the towering groups of Langdale and Grasmere fells, which overlook the small pastoral boundaries of Esthwaite from distances of eight, ten, and fourteen miles. Because Esthwaite isn’t a destination in itself, and the majestic Coniston can be reached via a road that avoids Hawkshead, few tourists ever visit this quiet village. During the period I’m referring to (1778-1787), tourists were still rare and infrequent in any part of the country. Mrs. Radcliffe hadn’t started to foster a sense of the picturesque in her popular romances; guidebooks, except for "Gray's Posthumous Letters," hadn’t emerged to draw public attention to this domestic paradise; roads were rough and often too narrow for carriages; but above all, the entire system of travel accommodations was primitive and outdated for the needs of the pampered south. The land was still at peace; the annual rush didn’t rattle the hills; and, most happily, poor taste, the false romantic craze, hadn’t desecrated the most awe-inspiring solitude among the ancient hills with theatrical decorations. Wordsworth, therefore, experienced this maze of valleys in a way no one could have since the dawn of the present century. It was a paradise of untouched beauty; the rare human-made structures scattered throughout the land had a timeless, weathered look; nothing was new, nothing was raw and unhealed. Hawkshead, in particular, though modestly situated, has an ideal central location for accessing the best (or at least the most interesting) scenes for a walking traveler. The stunning scenery of Borrowdale, the stark majesty of Wastdalehead, Langdalehead, or Mardale—these are too overwhelming in their massive scale and utter isolation to have a truly human appeal. Now, if you take Hawkshead as a center point, with a radius of about eight miles, you can outline a small circular area that is a perfect network of little valleys—separate wards or cells, if you will, of a larger valley, enclosed by the major mountains in the region. Grasmere, Easedale, Great and Little Langdale, Tilberthwaite, Yewdale, Elter Water, Loughrigg Tarn, Skelwith, and many other quiet spots lie within this single section of the maze. All these can be reached in one summer afternoon’s walk. Among these, during his childhood years, were the daily adventures of Wordsworth.
I do not conceive that Wordsworth could have been an amiable boy; he was austere and unsocial, I have reason to think, in his habits; not generous; and not self-denying. I am pretty certain that no consideration would ever have induced Wordsworth to burden himself with a lady's reticule,[Pg 263] parasol, shawl, or anything exacting trouble and attention. Mighty must be the danger which would induce him to lead her horse by the bridle. Nor would he, without some demur, stop to offer her his hand over a stile. Freedom—unlimited, careless, insolent freedom—unoccupied possession of his own arms—absolute control over his own legs and motions—these have always been so essential to his comfort, that, in any case where they were likely to become questionable, he would have declined to make one of the party. Meantime, we are not to suppose that Wordsworth the boy expressly sought for solitary scenes of nature amongst woods and mountains with a direct conscious anticipation of imaginative pleasure, and loving them with a pure, disinterested love, on their own separate account. These are feelings beyond boyish nature, or, at all events, beyond boyish nature trained amidst the selfishness of social intercourse. Wordsworth, like his companions, haunted the hills and the vales for the sake of angling, snaring birds, swimming, and sometimes of hunting, according to the Westmoreland fashion (or the Irish fashion in Galway), on foot; for riding to the chase is quite impossible, from the precipitous nature of the ground. It was in the course of these pursuits, by an indirect effect growing gradually upon him, that Wordsworth became a passionate lover of nature, at the time when the growth of his intellectual faculties made it possible that he should combine those thoughtful passions with the experience of the eye and the ear.
I can't imagine that Wordsworth could have been a friendly kid; he seemed strict and unsociable, from what I gather, in his habits; not generous; and not self-denying. I'm pretty sure that nothing would ever convince Wordsworth to take on a lady's purse,[Pg 263] parasol, shawl, or anything else that required effort and attention. Only a significant danger would make him lead her horse by the bridle. Nor would he, without some hesitation, stop to offer her his hand over a fence. Freedom—unlimited, carefree, and a bit reckless freedom—having full control of his own arms—absolute control over his legs and movements—these have always been so crucial to his comfort that, in any situation where they might be questioned, he would have refused to join the group. Meanwhile, we shouldn't assume that boyhood Wordsworth deliberately sought out solitary places in nature among woods and mountains with the clear intention of enjoying imaginative pleasure, loving them with a genuine, selfless affection for their own sake. Those feelings go beyond what’s typical for a boy, or at least beyond what a boy would feel who grew up in the selfishness of social interactions. Like his friends, Wordsworth roamed the hills and valleys for the sake of fishing, catching birds, swimming, and sometimes hunting, following the Westmoreland way (or the Irish style in Galway), on foot; since riding to the hunt is totally impractical due to the steep terrain. It was through these activities, indirectly and gradually, that Wordsworth became a passionate lover of nature, at a time when his growing intellectual abilities allowed him to merge those thoughtful feelings with what he saw and heard.
One of the most interesting among the winter amusements of the Hawkshead boys was that of skating on the adjacent lake. Esthwaite Water is not one of the deep lakes, as its neighbours of Windermere, Coniston, and Grasmere are; consequently, a very slight duration of frost is sufficient to freeze it into a bearing strength. In this respect Wordsworth found the same advantages in his boyhood as afterwards at the University; for the county of Cambridge is generally liable to shallow waters; and that University breeds more good skaters than all the rest of England. About the year 1810, by way of expressing an interest in "The Friend," which was just at that time appearing in weekly numbers, Wordsworth allowed Coleridge[Pg 264] to print an extract from the poem on his own life, descriptive of the games celebrated upon the ice of Esthwaite by all who were able to skate: the mimic chases of hare and hounds, pursued long after the last orange gleam of light had died away from the western horizon—oftentimes far into the night; a circumstance which does not speak much for the discipline of the schools, or rather, perhaps, does speak much for the advantages of a situation so pure, and free from the usual perils of a town, as could allow of a discipline so lax. Wordsworth, in this fine descriptive passage—which I wish that I had at this moment the means of citing, in order to amplify my account of his earliest tyrocinium—speaks of himself as frequently wheeling aside from his joyous companions to cut across the image of a star; and thus, already in the midst of sportiveness, and by a movement of sportiveness, half unconsciously to himself expressing the growing necessity of retirement to his habits of thought.[107] At another period of the year, when the golden summer allowed the students a long season of early play before the studies of the[Pg 265] day began, he describes himself as roaming, hand-in-hand, with one companion, along the banks of Esthwaite Water, chanting, with one voice, the verses of Goldsmith and of Gray—verses which, at the time of recording the fact, he had come to look upon as either in parts false in the principles of their composition, or, at any rate, as far below the tone of high poetic passion; but which, at that time of life, when the profounder feelings were as yet only germinating, filled them with an enthusiasm
One of the most enjoyable winter pastimes for the Hawkshead boys was skating on the nearby lake. Esthwaite Water isn’t as deep as its neighbor lakes like Windermere, Coniston, and Grasmere; so, it only takes a short period of frost to freeze it strong enough to skate on. In this way, Wordsworth experienced similar benefits in his childhood as he did later at university; after all, the area around Cambridge usually has shallow waters, and that university produces more skilled skaters than all the other ones in England. Around 1810, to show his support for "The Friend," which was being published weekly at the time, Wordsworth let Coleridge[Pg 264] include an excerpt from the poem about his life, describing the games played on the ice of Esthwaite by everyone who could skate: the playful chases of hare and hounds, carried on long after the last orange light faded from the western horizon—often deep into the night; a fact that doesn’t say much for the discipline in schools, or maybe it actually highlights the benefits of such a pure place, free from the usual dangers of a town, that could allow for such relaxed discipline. In this beautiful descriptive passage—which I wish I could quote right now to expand on his early experiences—Wordsworth mentions how he frequently veered away from his happy friends to skate across the reflection of a star; thus, even while he was caught up in the fun, he was unconsciously expressing a growing need for solitude in his thought habits.[107] At another time of year, when the warm summer gave the students a long chance to play before their day of studies began, he describes himself walking hand-in-hand with a friend along the banks of Esthwaite Water, singing together the lines of Goldsmith and Gray—lines that, at the time of recalling this, he had started to view as partially flawed in their composition principles, or at least much less inspiring than true high poetic passion; yet, during that period of life, when deeper feelings were just starting to emerge, they filled him with enthusiasm.
Meanwhile, how prospered the classical studies which formed the main business of Wordsworth at Hawkshead? Not, in all probability, very well; for, though Wordsworth finally became a very sufficient master of the Latin language, and read certain favourite authors, especially Horace, with a critical nicety, and with a feeling for the felicities of his composition, I have reason to think that little of this skill had been obtained at Hawkshead. As to Greek, that is a language which Wordsworth never had energy enough to cultivate with effect.
Meanwhile, how well did the classical studies that were the main focus of Wordsworth at Hawkshead go? Probably not very well; although Wordsworth eventually became quite proficient in Latin and read certain favorite authors, especially Horace, with a critical eye and an appreciation for the elegance of his writing, I believe that he gained little of this skill at Hawkshead. As for Greek, that's a language that Wordsworth never had the motivation to effectively study.
From Hawkshead, and, I believe, after he had entered his eighteenth year (a time which is tolerably early on the English plan), probably at the latter end of the year 1787, Wordsworth entered at St. John's College, Cambridge. St. John's ranks as the second college in Cambridge—the second as to numbers, and influence, and general consideration; in the estimation of the Johnians as the first, or at least as co-equal in all things with Trinity; from which, at any rate, the general reader will collect that no such absolute supremacy is accorded to any society in Cambridge as in Oxford is accorded necessarily to Christ Church. The advantages of a large college are considerable, both to the idle man, who wishes to lurk unnoticed in the crowd, and to the brilliant man, whose vanity could not be gratified by pre-eminence amongst a few. Wordsworth, though not idle as regarded his own pursuits, was so as regarded the pursuits of the place. With respect to them he felt—to use his own words—that his hour was not come; and that his doom for the present was a happy obscurity, which left him, unvexed by[Pg 266] the torments of competition, to the genial enjoyment of life in its most genial hours.
From Hawkshead, and I believe after he turned eighteen (which is pretty early by English standards), likely towards the end of 1787, Wordsworth enrolled at St. John's College, Cambridge. St. John's is considered the second college in Cambridge—in terms of size, influence, and overall reputation; while the Johnians see it as the first, or at least equal to Trinity in every way. From this, the general reader can understand that no single college in Cambridge holds absolute superiority as Christ Church does in Oxford. The benefits of a large college are significant, both for someone who wants to blend into the crowd and for a brilliant person whose ego demands recognition among a larger group. Wordsworth, although not idle in his own pursuits, was indifferent to the activities of the place. He felt—using his own words—that his time hadn’t come yet; for now, he was destined for a happy obscurity that allowed him to enjoy life during its most pleasant moments without the stress of competition.
It will excite some astonishment when I mention that, on coming to Cambridge, Wordsworth actually assumed the beau, or, in modern slang, the "dandy." He dressed in silk stockings, had his hair powdered, and in all things plumed himself on his gentlemanly habits. To those who remember the slovenly dress of his middle and philosophic life, this will furnish matter for a smile.
It might surprise some people when I say that, when he arrived in Cambridge, Wordsworth actually took on the role of a stylish man, or in today's terms, a "dandy." He wore silk stockings, had his hair powdered, and was quite proud of his polished habits. For those who recall his untidy style during his middle and more philosophical years, this will bring a smile.
Stranger still it is to tell that, for the first time in his life, Wordsworth became inebriated at Cambridge. It is but fair to add that the first time was also the last time. But perhaps the strangest part of the story is the occasion of this drunkenness; which was in celebration of his first visit to the very rooms at Christ College once occupied by Milton—intoxication by way of homage to the most temperate of men; and this homage offered by one who has turned out himself to the full as temperate! Every man, meantime, who is not a churl, must grant a privilege and charter of large enthusiasm to such an occasion. And an older man than Wordsworth (at that era not fully nineteen), and a man even without a poet's blood in his veins, might have leave to forget his sobriety in such circumstances. Besides which, after all, I have heard from Wordsworth's own lips that he was not too far gone to attend chapel decorously during the very acmé of his elevation.[108]
Stranger still is the fact that, for the first time in his life, Wordsworth got drunk at Cambridge. It's fair to mention that this first time was also the last. But perhaps the oddest part of the story is the reason for this drunkenness; it was in celebration of his first visit to the very rooms at Christ College that Milton once occupied—getting drunk as a tribute to the most moderate of men; and this tribute was given by someone who turned out to be quite moderate himself! Every decent person must acknowledge the right to a burst of enthusiasm for such an occasion. Even an older man than Wordsworth (who was not yet nineteen at the time), and someone without any poetic blood in his veins, might be excused for losing his sobriety under such circumstances. Plus, I have heard from Wordsworth himself that he wasn’t too far gone to attend chapel appropriately during the peak of his inebriation.[108]
The rooms which Wordsworth occupied at St. John's were singularly circumstanced; mementoes of what is highest and what is lowest in human things solicited the eye and the ear all day long. If the occupant approached the outdoors prospect, in one direction, there was visible, through the great windows in the adjacent chapel of Trinity, the statue of Newton "with his silent face and prism," memorials of the abstracting intellect, serene and absolute, emancipated from fleshly bonds. On the other hand, immediately below, stood the college kitchen; and, in that region, "from noon to dewy eve," resounded the shrill voice of scolding from the female ministers of the head cook, never suffering the mind to forget one of the meanest amongst human necessities. Wordsworth, however, as one who passed much of his time in social gaiety, was less in the way of this annoyance than a profounder student would have been. Probably he studied little beyond French and Italian during his Cambridge life; not, however, at any time forgetting (as I had so much reason to complain, when speaking of my Oxonian contemporaries) the literature of his own country. It is true that he took the regular degree of A.B., and in the regular course; but this was won in those days by a mere nominal examination, unless where the mathematical attainments of the student prompted his ambition to contest the splendid distinction of Senior Wrangler. This, in common with all other honours of the University, is won in our days with far severer effort than in that age of relaxed discipline; but at no period could it have been won, let the malicious say what they will, without an amount of mathematical skill very much beyond what has ever been exacted of its alumni by any other European University. Wordsworth was a profound admirer of the sublimer mathematics; at least of the higher geometry. The secret of this admiration for geometry[Pg 268] lay in the antagonism between this world of bodiless abstraction and the world of passion. And here I may mention appropriately, and I hope without any breach of confidence, that, in a great philosophic poem of Wordsworth's, which is still in MS., and will remain in MS. until after his death, there is, at the opening of one of the books, a dream, which reaches the very ne plus ultra of sublimity, in my opinion, expressly framed to illustrate the eternity, and the independence of all social modes or fashions of existence, conceded to these two hemispheres, as it were, that compose the total world of human power—mathematics on the one hand, poetry on the other.[109]
The rooms that Wordsworth stayed in at St. John's had a unique atmosphere; reminders of both the highest and lowest aspects of human life engaged the senses all day long. If he looked out towards the outdoors, in one direction he could see, through the large windows of the nearby chapel of Trinity, the statue of Newton “with his silent face and prism,” symbols of the abstract intellect, calm and absolute, free from physical limitations. Meanwhile, directly below, was the college kitchen, where, “from noon to dewy eve,” the sharp voice of the head cook’s assistants echoed, reminding everyone of one of the most basic human needs. However, since Wordsworth enjoyed socializing, he was less bothered by this annoyance than a more serious student would have been. He probably studied little beyond French and Italian during his time at Cambridge; yet he never forgot (as I often complained about when discussing my Oxonian peers) the literature of his own country. It’s true that he completed the regular A.B. degree in the usual timeframe; however, in those days, this was achieved through a mostly nominal examination, unless the student's math skills drove them to aim for the prestigious title of Senior Wrangler. Winning this, along with all other university honors, requires much greater effort today than in a time of looser academic standards; but it’s worth noting that it could never have been achieved, regardless of what critics may say, without a level of mathematical skill well beyond what any other European university has required from its alumni. Wordsworth had a deep appreciation for advanced mathematics, especially higher geometry. His admiration for geometry came from the contrast between this abstract world and the world of emotions. Here, I can mention, I hope without breaking any trust, that in a significant philosophical poem of Wordsworth’s, which remains unpublished and will stay that way until after his death, at the beginning of one of the sections is a dream that, in my view, reaches the ultimate level of sublimity and is specifically designed to illustrate the eternity and independence of all social structures or fashions of existence, assigned to these two areas, so to speak, that make up the complete realm of human potential—mathematics on one side, poetry on the other.
I scarcely know whether I am entitled to quote—as my memory (though not refreshed by a sight of the poem for more than twenty years) would well enable me to do—any long extract; but thus much I may allowably say, as it cannot in any way affect Mr. Wordsworth's interests, that the form of the dream is as follows; and, by the way, even this form is not arbitrary; but, with exquisite skill in the art of composition, is made to arise out of the situation in which the poet had previously found himself, and is faintly prefigured in the elements of that situation. He had been reading "Don Quixote" by the sea-side; and, oppressed by the heat of the sun, he had fallen asleep, whilst gazing on the barren sands before him. Even in these circumstances of the case—as, first, the adventurous and half-lunatic knight riding about the world, on missions of universal philanthropy, and, secondly, the barren sands of the sea-shore—one may read the germinal principles of the dream. He dreams that, walking in some sandy wilderness of Africa, some endless Zahara, he sees at a distance
I’m not sure if I'm allowed to quote—though I could remember a lot since it's been more than twenty years since I've seen the poem—but I can say this much without it impacting Mr. Wordsworth's interests: the structure of the dream is as follows; and, by the way, even this structure isn’t random; it's crafted with great skill in composition, emerging from the situation the poet found himself in, and it's hinted at in the elements of that situation. He had been reading "Don Quixote" by the seaside and, overwhelmed by the heat of the sun, had fallen asleep while staring at the barren sands before him. Even in these circumstances—first, the adventurous and somewhat crazy knight roaming the world on missions of universal goodwill, and second, the lifeless sands of the shore—you can see the foundational ideas of the dream. He dreams that, while walking in some sandy wilderness in Africa, some endless Sahara, he sees in the distance
Riding a camel.
The Arab rides forward to meet him; and the dreamer perceives, in the countenance of the rider, the agitation of fear, and that he often looks behind him in a troubled way, whilst in his hand he holds two books—one of which is "Euclid's Elements"; the other (which is a book and yet[Pg 269] not a book) seeming, in fact, a shell as well as a book—seeming neither, and yet both at once. The Arab directs him to apply the shell to his ear; upon which,
The Arab rides up to meet him, and the dreamer notices the rider's face is filled with fear. He frequently glances back anxiously while holding two books—one is "Euclid's Elements," and the other (which is a book but also not a book) appears to be both a shell and a book—looking like neither yet somehow both at the same time. The Arab tells him to hold the shell to his ear; at which point,
the dreamer says that he heard
the dreamer says that he heard
A passionate ode that predicted Destruction for the people of this planet
"Flood coming soon."
The Arab, with grave countenance, assures him that it is even so; that all was true which had been said; and that he himself was riding upon a divine mission, having it in charge
The Arab, with a serious expression, confirms that it is indeed true; that everything said was accurate; and that he was on a divine mission, tasked with it
... unaffected by Space or Time;
The other was a god, yes, many gods, Had voices louder than all the winds, and was
"A joy, a comfort, and a hope!"
That is, in effect, his mission is to secure the two great interests of poetry and mathematics from sharing in the watery ruin. As he talks, suddenly the dreamer perceives that the Arab's "countenance grew more disturbed," and that his eye was often reverted; upon which the dreaming poet also looks along the desert in the same direction; and in the far horizon he descries "a glittering light." What is it? he asks of the Arab rider. "It is," said the Arab, "the waters of the earth," that even then were travelling on their awful errand. Upon which, the poet sees this apostle of the desert riding
That is, in effect, his mission is to protect the two great fields of poetry and mathematics from sharing in the watery disaster. As he speaks, suddenly the dreamer notices that the Arab's "face looked more troubled," and his gaze kept drifting. The dreaming poet then looks towards the desert in the same direction and, on the distant horizon, he sees "a glittering light." What is it? he asks the Arab rider. "It is," the Arab replies, "the waters of the earth," which were already on their destructive path. After this, the poet sees this messenger of the desert riding.
With the fleet waters of a drowning world In pursuit of him: at which point I [meaning the poet] woke up in fear, And saw the ocean in front of me, and the book I had been reading next to me. [110]
The sketch I have here given of this sublime dream sufficiently attests the interest which Wordsworth took in the mathematic studies of the place, and the exalted privilege which he ascribed to them of co-eternity with "the vision and the faculty divine" of the poet—the destiny common to both, of an endless triumph over the ruins of nature and of time. Meantime, he himself travelled no farther in these studies than through the six elementary books usually selected from the fifteen of Euclid. Whatever might be the interests of his speculative understanding, whatever his admiration, practically he devoted himself to the more agitating interests of man, social and political, just then commencing that vast career of revolution which has never since been still or stationary; interests which in his mind alternated, nevertheless, with another and different interest, in the grander forms of external nature, as found amongst mountains and forests. In obedience to this latter passion it was—for a passion it had become—that during one of his long Cambridge vacations, stretching from June to November, he went over to Switzerland and Savoy, for a pedestrian excursion amongst the Alps; taking with him for his travelling companion a certain Mr. J——, of whom (excepting that he is once apostrophized in a sonnet, written at Calais in the year 1802) I never happened to hear him speak: whence I presume to infer that Mr. J—— owed this flattering distinction, not so much to any intellectual graces of his society, as, perhaps, to his powers of administering "punishment" (in the language of the "fancy") to restive and mutinous landlords; for such were abroad in those days,—people who presented huge reckonings with one hand, and with the other a huge cudgel, by way of opening the traveller's eyes to the propriety of settling them without demur, and without discount. I do not positively know this to have been the case; but I have heard Wordsworth speak of the ruffian landlords who played upon his youth in the Grisons; and, however well qualified to fight his own battles, he might find, amongst such savage mountaineers, two combatants better than one.
The description I've provided of this lofty dream clearly shows the interest Wordsworth had in the mathematical studies of the area, and the high regard he held for them as being timeless, akin to "the vision and the faculty divine" of the poet—both destined for an unending victory over the decay of nature and time. Meanwhile, he only delved into these studies up to the six basic books typically chosen from the fifteen of Euclid. Regardless of his intellectual curiosity and admiration, he focused more on the pressing social and political issues of his time, which were entering a vast period of revolution that has never truly settled. These concerns alternated in his mind with a different interest—his fascination with the grand forms of nature found among mountains and forests. It was in response to this latter passion—now a full-blown passion—that during one of his long vacations from Cambridge, lasting from June to November, he traveled to Switzerland and Savoy for a hiking trip in the Alps; he brought along a certain Mr. J——, of whom (except for a mention in a sonnet written in Calais in 1802) I've never heard him talk: leading me to infer that Mr. J—— was honored more for his ability to deal with "punishment" (as the "fancy" puts it) to unruly landlords than for any intellectual qualities, since those were the kind of people around back then—individuals who presented hefty bills with one hand, while brandishing a heavy club with the other, trying to convince travelers to pay up without question and without negotiation. I can't say for sure this was the case, but I've heard Wordsworth mention the brutal landlords he encountered in the Grisons; and although he was quite capable of standing up for himself, he might have found it beneficial to have an extra ally when facing such fierce mountaineers.
Wordsworth's route, on this occasion, lay at first through Austrian Flanders, then (1788, I think) on the fret for an[Pg 271] insurrectionary war against the capricious innovations of the imperial coxcomb, Joseph II. He passed through the camps then forming, and thence ascended the Rhine to Switzerland; crossed the Great St. Bernard, visited the Lake of Como, and other interesting scenes in the north of Italy, where, by the way, the tourists were benighted in a forest—having, in some way or other, been misled by the Italian clocks and their peculiar fashion of striking round to twenty-four o'clock. On his return, Wordsworth published a quarto pamphlet of verses, describing, with very considerable effect and brilliancy, the grand scenery amongst which he had been moving.[111] This poem, as well as another in the same quarto form, describing the English lake scenery of Westmoreland and Cumberland, addressed by way of letter "to a young lady" (viz., Miss Wordsworth),[112] are remarkable, in the first place, as the earliest effort of Wordsworth in verse, at least as his earliest publication; but, in the second place, and still more so, from their style of composition. "Pure description," even where it cannot be said, sneeringly, "to hold the place of sense," is so little attractive as the direct exclusive object of a poem, and in reality it exacts so powerful an effort on the part of the reader to realize visually, or make into an apprehensible unity, the scattered elements and circumstances of external landscapes painted only by words, that, inevitably, and reasonably, it can never hope to be a popular form of composition; else it is highly probable that these "Descriptive Sketches" of Wordsworth, though afterwards condemned as vicious in their principles of composition by his own maturer taste, would really have gained him a high momentary notoriety with the public, had they been fairly brought under its notice; whilst, on the other hand, his revolutionary principles of composition, and his purer taste, ended in obtaining for him nothing but scorn and ruffian insolence.
Wordsworth's journey, on this occasion, initially took him through Austrian Flanders, then (I believe in 1788) he was involved in an insurrectionary war against the unpredictable changes of the imperial dandy, Joseph II. He went through the camps that were forming at the time, and then made his way up the Rhine to Switzerland; he crossed the Great St. Bernard, visited Lake Como, and other interesting locations in northern Italy, where, by the way, tourists got lost in a forest, having been thrown off by the Italian clocks and their unique way of striking the time up to twenty-four. Upon his return, Wordsworth published a pamphlet of poems, vividly describing the stunning scenery he had experienced. This poem, along with another in the same pamphlet that described the lake scenery of Westmoreland and Cumberland, addressed in a letter "to a young lady" (namely, Miss Wordsworth), are significant not only as Wordsworth's earliest effort in poetry, at least his first publication, but even more so because of their writing style. “Pure description,” even when it can't be dismissively said to lack substance, is not particularly engaging as the sole purpose of a poem, and it demands a significant effort from the reader to visualize and create a cohesive understanding of the scattered elements and details of landscapes described only with words. Therefore, it’s understandable that it could never be a widely popular form of expression; otherwise, it's quite likely that these "Descriptive Sketches" of Wordsworth, despite being later criticized as flawed by his own developed taste, could have gained him some fleeting fame with the public had they been properly recognized. On the other hand, his innovative writing principles and refined taste led him to receive nothing but scorn and rude disrespect.
This seems marvellous; but, in fact, it is not so: it seems, I mean, primâ facie, marvellous that the inferior models should be fitted to gain a far higher reputation; but the secret lies here—that these were in a style of composition which, if[Pg 272] sometimes false, had been long reconciled to the public feelings, and which, besides, have a specific charm for certain minds, even apart from all fashions of the day; whereas, his later poems had to struggle against sympathies long trained in an opposite direction, to which the recovery of a healthier tone (even where nature had made it possible) presupposed a difficult process of weaning, and an effort of discipline for re-organizing the whole internal economy of the sensibilities that is both painful and mortifying: for—and that is worthy of deep attention—the misgivings of any vicious or unhealthy state, the impulses and suspicious gleams of the truth struggling with cherished error, the instincts of light conflicting with darkness—these are the real causes of that hatred and intolerant scorn which is ever awakened by the first dawnings of new and important systems of truth. Therefore it is, that Christianity was so much more hated than any mere variety of error. Therefore are the first feeble struggles of nature towards a sounder state of health always harsh and painful; for the false system which this change for the better disturbs had, at least, this soothing advantage—that it was self-consistent. Therefore, also, was the Wordsworthian restoration of elementary power, and of a higher or transcendent truth of nature (or, as some people vaguely expressed the case, of simplicity), received at first with such malignant disgust. For there was a galvanic awakening in the shock of power, as it jarred against the ancient system of prejudices, which inevitably revealed so much of truth as made the mind jealous; enlightened it enough to descry its own wanderings, but not enough to recover the right road. The more energetic, the more spasmodically potent, are the throes of nature towards her own re-establishment in the cases of suspended animation—by drowning, strangling, &c.—the more keen is the anguish of revival. And, universally, a transition state is a state of suffering and disquiet. Meantime, the early poems of Wordsworth, that might have suited the public taste so much better than his more serious efforts, if the fashion of the hour, or the sanction of a leading review, or the prestige of a name, had happened to bring them under the public eye, did, in fact, drop unnoticed into the market. Nowhere have I seen them quoted—no, not even since the[Pg 273] author's victorious establishment in the public admiration. The reason may be, however, that not many copies were printed at first; no subsequent edition was ever called for; and yet, from growing interest in the author, every copy of the small impression had been studiously bought up. Indeed, I myself went to the publisher's (Johnson's) as early as 1805 or 1806, and bought up all the remaining copies (which were but six or seven of the Foreign Sketches, and two or three of the English), as presents, and as future curiosities in literature to literary friends whose interest in Wordsworth might assure one of a due value being put upon the poems. Were it not for this extreme scarcity, I am disposed to think that many lines or passages would long ere this have been made familiar to the public ear. Some are delicately, some forcibly picturesque; and the selection of circumstances is occasionally very original and felicitous. In particular, I remember this one, which presents an accident in rural life that must by thousands of repetitions have become intimately known to every dweller in the country, and yet had never before been consciously taken up for a poet's use. After having described the domestic cock as "sweetly ferocious"—a prettiness of phraseology which he borrows from an Italian author—he notices those competitions or defiances which are so often carried on interchangeably between barn-door cocks from great distances:—
This seems amazing; but honestly, it's not like that: it appears, I mean, at first glance, amazing that the lesser works should be able to gain a much higher reputation; but the truth is that these were in a style of writing that, although sometimes misleading, had long been accepted by the public, and which also had specific appeal for certain minds, even outside of current trends; whereas his later poems had to battle against sympathies that had long been conditioned in the opposite direction, where reclaiming a healthier perspective (even when nature made it possible) required a challenging process of unlearning and a disciplined effort to reorganize the entire emotional landscape, which is both painful and embarrassing: for—and this is worth serious consideration—the doubts of any corrupt or unhealthy state, the urges and fleeting glimpses of truth wrestling with beloved falsehoods, the instincts of light clashing with darkness—these are the real reasons for the hatred and intolerant scorn that always arises with the first glimpses of new and significant truths. That's why Christianity was so much more despised than any simple error. Thus, the initial weak attempts of nature toward a healthier state are always tough and painful; because the false system that this positive change disrupts had, at least, the calming advantage of being self-consistent. Consequently, the Wordsworthian restoration of fundamental power and a higher or deeper truth of nature (or, as some vaguely described it, of simplicity) was initially met with such intense disgust. A shocking awakening occurred as it clashed with the old system of prejudices, revealing just enough truth to make the mind envious; it enlightened it enough to recognize its own misdirections, but not enough to find the right path. The more intense and spasmodic the struggles of nature to re-establish herself in cases of suspended animation—like from drowning, strangulation, etc.—the more intense the pain of revival. Overall, a state of transition is a state of suffering and unrest. Meanwhile, Wordsworth's early poems, which could have fit public taste far better than his more serious works, simply dropped unnoticed into the market when the fashion of the time, or endorsement from a leading review, or the prestige of a name, didn’t bring them to public attention. I have not seen them quoted anywhere—not even since the[Pg 273] author's triumphant acceptance in public esteem. The explanation might be that not many copies were printed at first; no subsequent edition was ever requested; yet, due to increasing interest in the author, every copy of the small print run was diligently bought up. In fact, I myself went to the publisher's (Johnson's) as early as 1805 or 1806 and purchased all the remaining copies (which were just six or seven of the Foreign Sketches, and two or three of the English), as gifts, and as future treasures in literature for literary friends whose interest in Wordsworth might ensure the poems received the recognition they deserved. If it weren't for this extreme scarcity, I believe that many lines or passages would have long been familiar to the public. Some are delicately, some vividly picturesque; and the choice of situations is sometimes very original and fortunate. In particular, I remember this one describes an event in rural life that must have become intimately known to every country dweller through countless repetitions, yet had never before been consciously addressed for poetic use. After describing the domestic rooster as "sweetly ferocious"—a charming phrase he borrowed from an Italian author—he notes the competitions or challenges often exchanged between barnyard roosters from great distances:—
This is the beautiful line in which he has caught and preserved so ordinary an occurrence—one, in fact, of the commonplaces which lend animation and a moral interest to rural life.
This is the beautiful line in which he has captured and preserved such a typical occurrence—one, in fact, of the everyday moments that bring energy and a moral interest to rural life.
After his return from this Swiss excursion, Wordsworth took up his parting residence at Cambridge, and prepared for a final adieu to academic pursuits and academic society.
After he got back from this trip to Switzerland, Wordsworth settled down in Cambridge and got ready to say goodbye to academic life and the academic community for good.
It was about this period that the French Revolution broke out; and the reader who would understand its appalling effects—its convulsing, revolutionary effects upon Wordsworth's heart and soul—should consult the history of the Solitary, as given by himself in "The Excursion"; for that[Pg 274] picture is undoubtedly a leaf from the personal experience of Wordsworth:—
It was around this time that the French Revolution started, and anyone wanting to grasp its shocking impact—its transformative, revolutionary effects on Wordsworth's heart and soul—should read about the history of the Solitary, as shared by him in "The Excursion"; for that[Pg 274] portrayal is definitely a part of Wordsworth's personal experience:—
Mighty was the transformation which it wrought in the whole economy of his thoughts; miraculous almost was the expansion which it gave to his human sympathies; chiefly in this it showed its effects—in throwing the thoughts inwards into grand meditations upon man, his final destiny, his ultimate capacities of elevation; and, secondly, in giving to the whole system of the thoughts and feelings a firmer tone, and a sense of the awful realities which surround the mind; by comparison with which the previous literary tastes seemed (even where they were fine and elegant, as in Collins or Gray, unless where they had the self-sufficing reality of religion, as in Cowper) fanciful and trivial. In all lands this result was accomplished, and at the same time: Germany, above all, found her new literature the mere creation and rebound of this great moral tempest; and, in Germany or England alike, the poetry was so entirely regenerated, thrown into moulds of thought and of feeling so new, that the poets everywhere felt themselves to be putting away childish things, and now first, among those of their own century, entering upon the dignity and the sincere thinking of mature manhood.
The transformation it brought about in his entire way of thinking was powerful; the expansion it gifted to his human compassion was almost miraculous. This was mainly evident in two ways: first, it turned his thoughts inward, leading to deep reflections on humanity, our ultimate fate, and our highest potential for growth; and second, it gave his thoughts and feelings a stronger foundation and a recognition of the profound realities that surround the mind. By comparison, his previous literary tastes, even those that were fine and elegant like Collins or Gray (except where they possessed the self-sufficient reality of religion, like Cowper’s work), seemed whimsical and shallow. This change happened everywhere, all at once: Germany, in particular, found that its new literature was simply a response to this great moral upheaval. In both Germany and England, poetry was completely revitalized, reshaped into new forms of thought and emotion, so that poets felt they were casting aside childish things and, for the first time among their contemporaries, embracing the dignity and sincere contemplation of adulthood.
Wordsworth, it is well known to all who know anything of his history, felt himself so fascinated by the gorgeous festival era of the Revolution—that era when the sleeping snakes which afterwards stung the national felicity were yet covered with flowers—that he went over to Paris, and spent about one entire year between that city, Orleans, and Blois. There, in fact, he continued to reside almost too long. He had been sufficiently connected with public men to have drawn upon himself some notice from those who afterwards composed the Committee of Public Safety. And, as an Englishman, when that partiality began to droop which at an earlier period had protected the English name, he became an object of gloomy suspicion with those even who would have grieved that he should fall a victim to undistinguishing popular violence. Already for England, and in her behalf, he was thought to be that spy which (as Coleridge tells us in[Pg 275] his "Biographia Literaria") afterwards he was accounted by Mr. Pitt's emissaries, in the worst of services against her. I doubt, however (let me say it without impeachment of Coleridge's veracity—for he was easily duped), this whole story about Mr. Pitt's Somersetshire spies; and it has often struck me with astonishment that Coleridge should have suffered his personal pride to take so false a direction as to court the humble distinction of having been suspected as a conspirator, in those very years when poor empty tympanies of men, such as Thelwall, Holcroft, &c., were actually recognised as enemies of the state, and worthy of a state surveillance, by ministers so blind and grossly misinformed as, on this point, were Pitt and Dundas. Had I been Coleridge, instead of saving Mr. Pitt's reputation with posterity, by ascribing to him a jealousy which he or his agents had not the discernment to cherish, I would have boldly planted myself upon the fact, the killing fact, that he had utterly ignored both myself (Coleridge, to wit) and Wordsworth. Even with Dogberry, I would have insisted upon that—"Set down, also, that I am an ass!" Clamorous should have been my exultation in this fact.[113]
Wordsworth, as everyone familiar with his story knows, was so drawn to the vibrant festival period of the Revolution—that time when the dormant threats that later harmed the nation were still hidden among blossoms—that he moved to Paris and spent nearly an entire year between that city, Orleans, and Blois. In truth, he ended up staying there almost too long. He had enough connections with key figures to attract some attention from those who later formed the Committee of Public Safety. And as an Englishman, when the earlier favoritism that had protected the English reputation started to wane, he became a target of dark suspicion from even those who would have regretted if he fell victim to indiscriminate public violence. Already on behalf of England, he was seen as that spy which (as Coleridge tells us in his "Biographia Literaria") he was later considered by Mr. Pitt’s agents, in the worst possible role against her. However, I doubt this whole tale about Mr. Pitt’s spies in Somersetshire; and it has often amazed me that Coleridge would let his personal pride mislead him into seeking the modest distinction of being suspected as a conspirator, in those very years when poor, insignificant individuals like Thelwall, Holcroft, and others were actually recognized as state enemies and were considered worthy of government surveillance by ministers as blind and grossly misinformed as Pitt and Dundas were on this issue. If I had been Coleridge, instead of preserving Mr. Pitt’s reputation for future generations by attributing to him a jealousy that he or his agents didn’t even recognize, I would have boldly asserted the undeniable fact that he had completely overlooked both myself (Coleridge, to be clear) and Wordsworth. Even with Dogberry, I would have insisted on that—“Write down, too, that I am an ass!” I would have loudly celebrated this fact.
In France, however, Wordsworth had a chance, in good earnest, of passing for the traitor that, in England, no rational person ever thought him. He had chosen his friends carelessly; nor could any man, the most sagacious, have chosen them safely, in a time when the internal schisms of the very same general party brought with them worse hostilities and more personal perils than even, upon the broader divisions of party, could have attended the most ultra professions of anti-national politics, and when the rapid changes of position shifted the peril from month to month. One individual is especially recorded by Wordsworth, in the poem on his own life, as a man of the highest merit, and personal qualities the most brilliant, who ranked first upon the list of Wordsworth's friends; and this man was so far a safe friend, at one moment, as he was a republican general—finally, indeed, a commander-in-chief. This was Beaupuis; and the description of his character and position is singularly interesting. There is, in fact, a special value and a use about the case; it opens one's eyes feelingly to the fact that, even in this thoughtless people, so full of vanity and levity, nevertheless, the awful temper of the times, and the dread burden of human interests with which it was charged, had called to a consciousness of new duties, had summoned to an audit, as if at some great final tribunal, even the gay, radiant creatures that, under less solemn auspices, under the reign of a Francis I. or a Louis XIV, would have been the merest painted butterflies of the court sunshine. This Beaupuis was a man of superb person—beautiful in a degree which made him a painter's model, both as to face and figure; and, accordingly, in a land where conquests of that nature were so easy, and the subjects of so trifling an effort, he had been distinguished, to his own as well as the public eyes, by a rapid succession of bonnes fortunes amongst women. Such, and so glorified by triumphs the most unquestionable and flattering, had the earthquake of the Revolution found him. From that moment he had no leisure, not a thought, to bestow upon his former selfish and frivolous pursuits. He was hurried, as one inspired by some high apostolic passion, into the service of the unhappy and desolate serfs amongst his own countrymen—such as are described, at an earlier[Pg 277] date, by Madame de Sevigné, as the victims of feudal institutions; and one day, as he was walking with Wordsworth in the neighbourhood of Orleans, and they had turned into a little quiet lane, leading off from a heath, suddenly they came upon the following spectacle:—A girl, seventeen or eighteen years old, hunger-bitten, and wasted to a meagre shadow, was knitting, in a dejected, drooping way; whilst to her arm was attached, by a rope, the horse, equally famished, that earned the miserable support of her family. Beaupuis comprehended the scene in a moment; and, seizing Wordsworth by the arm, he said,—"Dear English friend!—brother from a nation of freemen!—that it is which is the curse of our people, in their widest section; and to cure this it is, as well as to maintain our work against the kings of the earth, that blood must be shed and tears must flow for many years to come!" At that time the Revolution had not fulfilled its tendencies; as yet, the king was on the throne; the fatal 10th of August 1792 had not dawned; and thus far there was safety for a subject of kings.[114] The[Pg 278] irresistible stream was hurrying forwards. The king fell; and (to pause for a moment) how divinely is the fact recorded by Wordsworth, in the MS. poem on his own life, placing the awful scenes past and passing in Paris under a pathetic relief from the description of the golden, autumnal day, sleeping in sunshine—
In France, however, Wordsworth seriously risked being seen as a traitor, a label that no reasonable person in England ever attributed to him. He had chosen his friends indiscriminately; no one, perhaps the most astute, could have picked them wisely during a time when internal divisions within the same political party led to greater conflicts and more personal dangers than even the most overtly anti-national political movements might have faced, especially as the risks changed from month to month. One person is particularly noted by Wordsworth in the poem about his own life as a man of great merit and exceptional personal qualities, who was at the top of Wordsworth's list of friends; this man was, at one point, a reliable ally as a republican general—ultimately a commander-in-chief. This was Beaupuis; and the portrayal of his character and role is uniquely fascinating. In fact, there’s a special significance in this case; it highlights the reality that even in a thoughtless society, brimming with vanity and superficiality, the grim spirit of the times and the heavy weight of human issues it carried prompted a newfound sense of duty, calling even the vibrant individuals, who would have been mere decorative figures in the courts of Francis I or Louis XIV, to a greater awareness. Beaupuis was a striking individual—so handsome that he could have been a model for painters, both in face and figure; therefore, in a country where such conquests were easily won, he was well-known to both himself and the public for a rapid series of romantic successes. Such was the state of affairs when the upheaval of the Revolution struck him. From that moment, he had no time, nor thought, to spare for his previous selfish and trivial pursuits. He was swept up, as if driven by some high, apostolic passion, into helping the unfortunate and abandoned serfs among his fellow countrymen—like those described earlier by Madame de Sevigné as victims of feudal oppression; and one day, while walking with Wordsworth near Orleans, they turned into a quiet lane off a heath and suddenly encountered the following scene: A girl, around seventeen or eighteen years old, gaunt and hunger-stricken, was knitting dejectedly; tied to her arm by a rope was a similarly starved horse that supported her struggling family. Beaupuis grasped the situation instantly, and grabbing Wordsworth's arm, he exclaimed, "Dear English friend!—brother from a free nation!—that is the curse of our people at their broadest; and to heal this, as well as to uphold our struggle against the kings of the world, blood will have to be shed and tears will flow for many years to come!" At that moment, the Revolution had not yet realized its potential; the king was still on the throne; the fateful events of August 10, 1792, had yet to unfold; and for now, there was safety for a subject of kings. The unstoppable current was rushing forward. The king fell; and (to pause for a moment) how beautifully Wordsworth captures this moment in his manuscript poem about his own life, juxtaposing the terrifying scenes unfolding in Paris against the backdrop of a serene, sunlit, golden autumn day—
The king had fallen," &c.
What a picture does he give of the fury which there possessed the public mind; of the frenzy which shone in every eye, and through every gesture; of the stormy groups assembled at the Palais Royal, or the Tuileries, with "hissing factionists" for ever in their centre, "hissing" from the self-baffling of their own madness, and incapable from wrath of speaking clearly; of fear already creeping over the manners of multitudes; of stealthy movements through back streets; plotting and counter-plotting in every family; feuds to extermination, dividing children of the same house for ever; scenes such as those of the Chapel Royal (now silenced on that public stage), repeating themselves daily amongst private friends; and, to show the universality of this maniacal possession—that it was no narrow storm discharging its fury by local concentration upon a single city, but that it overspread the whole realm of France—a picture is given, wearing the same features, of what passed daily at Orleans, Blois, and other towns. The citizens are described in the attitudes they assumed at the daily coming in of the post from Paris; the fierce sympathy is portrayed with which they echoed back the feelings of their compatriots in the capital: men of all parties had been there up to this time—aristocrats as well as democrats; and one, in particular, of the former class is put forward as a representative of his class. This man, duly as the hour arrived which brought the Parisian newspapers, read restlessly of the tumults and insults amongst which the Royal Family now passed their days; of the decrees by which his own order were threatened or assailed; of the self-expatriation, now continually swelling in amount, as a measure of despair on the part of myriads, as[Pg 279] well priests as gentry—all this and worse he read in public; and still, as he read,
What a picture he paints of the rage that consumed the public mind; of the frenzy visible in every eye and through every gesture; of the chaotic crowds gathered at the Palais Royal or the Tuileries, with “hissing factions” forever at their center, “hissing” from the frustration of their own madness, unable to speak clearly due to their anger; of the fear already spreading among the masses; of sneaky movements through back alleys; planning and scheming within every household; feuds to the death, splitting family members apart forever; scenes like those at the Chapel Royal (now silenced on that public stage), replaying daily among private friends; and to illustrate the widespread nature of this frenzy—that it wasn't just a localized storm unleashing its fury upon a single city, but that it enveloped the entire nation of France—a similar image emerges from what was happening daily in Orleans, Blois, and other towns. The citizens are depicted in the stances they took as they awaited the daily arrival of the post from Paris; the intense solidarity is captured in how they echoed their compatriots' feelings from the capital: men from all sides had been present up to then—aristocrats as well as democrats; and one, in particular, from the former group is highlighted as a representative of his class. This man, anxiously as the hour arrived that brought the Parisian newspapers, read restlessly about the turmoil and insults that the Royal Family was enduring; about the decrees that threatened or attacked his own class; about the self-exile, now continually increasing as a desperate measure by countless individuals, including both priests and gentry—all of this and more he read in public; and still, as he read,
In his own body.
In short, as there never has been so strong a national convulsion diffused so widely, with equal truth it may be asserted, that no describer, so powerful, or idealizing so magnificently what he deals with, has ever been a real living spectator of parallel scenes. The French, indeed, it may be said, are far enough from being a people profound in feeling. True; but, of all people, they most exhibit their feeling on the surface; are the most demonstrative (to use a modern term), and most of all (except Italians) mark their feelings by outward expression of gesticulation: not to insist upon the obvious truth—that even a people of shallow feeling may be deeply moved by tempests which uproot the forest of a thousand years' growth; by changes in the very organization of society, such as throw all things, for a time, into one vast anarchy; and by murderous passions, alternately the effect and the cause of that same chaotic anarchy. Now, it was in this autumn of 1792, as I have already said, that Wordsworth parted finally from his illustrious friend—for, all things considered, he may be justly so entitled—the gallant Beaupuis. This great season of public trial had searched men's natures; revealed their real hearts; brought into light and action qualities oftentimes not suspected by their possessors; and had thrown men, as in elementary states of society, each upon his own native resources, unaided by the old conventional forces of rank and birth. Beaupuis had shone to unusual advantage under this general trial; he had discovered, even to the philosophic eye of Wordsworth, a depth of benignity very unusual in a Frenchman; and not of local, contracted benignity, but of large, illimitable, apostolic devotion to the service of the poor and the oppressed—a fact the more remarkable as he had all the pretensions in his own person of high birth and high rank, and, so far as he had any personal interest embarked in the struggle, should have allied himself with the aristocracy. But of selfishness in any shape he had no vestiges; or, if he[Pg 280] had, it showed itself in a slight tinge of vanity; yet, no—it was not vanity, but a radiant quickness of sympathy with the eye which expressed admiring love—sole relic of the chivalrous devotion once dedicated to the service of ladies. Now, again, he put on the garb of chivalry; it was a chivalry the noblest in the world, which opened his ear to the Pariah and the oppressed all over his misorganized country. A more apostolic fervour of holy zealotry in this great cause had not been seen since the days of Bartholomew las Casas, who showed the same excess of feeling in another direction. This sublime dedication of his being to a cause which, in his conception of it, extinguished all petty considerations for himself, and made him thenceforwards a creature of the national will—"a son of France," in a more eminent and loftier sense than according to the heraldry of Europe—had extinguished even his sensibility to the voice of worldly honour. "Injuries," says Wordsworth—
In short, although there has never been such a strong national upheaval spread so widely, it can equally be said that no one who has described it, powerfully or otherwise, has ever truly witnessed comparable scenes. The French, it might be argued, are not known for being profoundly emotional. True; however, of all peoples, they are the most expressive on the surface; they are the most demonstrative (to use a contemporary term), and unlike anyone else (except Italians), they show their feelings through gestures. It’s also evident that even a group with superficial emotions can be deeply affected by storms that uproot forests that have stood for a thousand years, by shifts in the very structure of society that throw everything into chaos for a time, and by violent passions that, at once, cause and result from that same chaos. Now, it was in the autumn of 1792, as I’ve already mentioned, that Wordsworth finally parted ways with his distinguished friend—rightfully so entitled—the brave Beaupuis. This significant period of public distress tested people's characters; it revealed their true feelings; it brought to light and action traits often unexpected even to those who possessed them; it forced people, much like in the early stages of society, to rely solely on their innate resources, without support from the traditional forces of rank and birth. Beaupuis particularly shone during this general trial; he showed, even to the analytical eye of Wordsworth, an unusual depth of kindness for a Frenchman; and not just local or limited kindness, but a vast, boundless, apostolic devotion to helping the poor and the oppressed—a notable fact given that he had all the outward claims of nobility and high status, and, considering any personal stake he had in the struggle, should have aligned himself with the aristocrats. However, there was no trace of selfishness in him; or, if there was, it appeared as a slight hint of vanity; yet, no—it wasn’t vanity, but a radiant empathy in his gaze that reflected an admiring love—his only remnant of the chivalrous devotion once dedicated to serving women. Again, he donned the garb of chivalry; it was the noblest chivalry in the world, opening his heart to the marginalized and the oppressed throughout his disordered country. A more profound zeal for this noble cause had not been seen since the days of Bartholomé de las Casas, who exhibited a similar intensity in another direction. His sublime commitment to a cause that, in his eyes, overshadowed all trivial concerns for himself transformed him into a servant of the national will—“a son of France” in a far deeper and grander sense than any European heraldry could convey—rendered him unresponsive to the call of worldly honor. "Injuries," says Wordsworth—
And so utterly had he submitted his own will or separate interests to the transcendent voice of his country, which, in the main, he believed to be now speaking authentically for the first time since the foundations of Christendom, that, even against the motions of his own heart, he adopted the hatreds of the young republic, growing cruel in his purposes towards the ancient oppressor, out of very excess of love for the oppressed; and, against the voice of his own order, as well as in stern oblivion of many early friendships, he became the champion of democracy in the struggle everywhere commencing with prejudice or feudal privilege. Nay, he went so far upon the line of this new crusade against the evils of the world that he even accepted, with a conscientious defiance of his own quiet homage to the erring spirit of loyalty embarked upon that cause, a commission in the Republican armies preparing to move against La Vendée; and, finally, in that cause, as commander-in-chief, he laid down his life. "He perished," says Wordsworth—
And so completely had he set aside his own will or personal interests for the greater call of his country, which he believed was genuinely speaking for the first time since the beginnings of Christianity, that even against his own feelings, he adopted the animosity of the young republic, growing harsh in his intentions toward the old oppressor, purely out of overwhelming love for the oppressed. And despite the voice of his own social class and in strict disregard for many of his early friendships, he became a supporter of democracy in the struggle against prejudice and feudal privilege that was starting everywhere. He even went so far in this new fight against the world's injustices that he took on a role in the Republican armies preparing to advance against La Vendée, all the while defying his own quiet loyalty to that cause, ultimately giving his life as commander-in-chief for that purpose. "He perished," says Wordsworth—
"On the banks of the troubled Loire."
Homewards fled all the English from a land which now was fast making ready the shambles for its noblest citizens. Thither also came Wordsworth; and there he spent his time for a year and more chiefly in London, overwhelmed with shame and despondency for the disgrace and scandal brought upon Liberty by the atrocities committed in that holy name. Upon this subject he dwells with deep emotion in the poem on his own life; and he records the awful triumph for retribution accomplished which possessed him when crossing the sands of the great Bay of Morecamb from Lancaster to Ulverstone, and hearing from a horseman who passed him, in reply to the question—Was there any news?—"Yes, that Robespierre had perished." Immediately a passion seized him, a transport of almost epileptic fervour, prompting him, as he stood alone upon this perilous[115] waste of sands, to shout aloud anthems of thanksgiving for this great vindication of eternal justice. Still, though justice was done upon one great traitor to the cause, the cause itself was overcast with clouds too heavily to find support and employment for the hopes of a poet who had believed in a golden era ready to open upon the prospects of human nature. It gratified and solaced his heart that the indignation of mankind should have wreaked itself upon the chief monsters that had outraged their nature and their hopes; but for the present he found it necessary to comfort his disappointment by turning away from politics to studies less capable of deceiving his expectations.
Homeward fled all the English from a land that was quickly turning into a slaughterhouse for its noblest citizens. Wordsworth also went there; he spent more than a year, mainly in London, feeling overwhelmed with shame and sadness for the disgrace and scandal that had been brought upon Liberty by the horrors committed in its name. He explores this deeply in the poem about his own life; he recounts the awful sense of triumph that filled him when he crossed the sands of the great Bay of Morecambe from Lancaster to Ulverston, hearing from a passing horseman, in response to the question—Was there any news?—"Yes, that Robespierre has died." Suddenly, a passion took hold of him, an almost epileptic excitement, prompting him, as he stood alone on that treacherous[115] stretch of sand, to shout aloud songs of thanks for this great affirmation of eternal justice. Still, while justice was served on one major traitor to the cause, the cause itself was shrouded in clouds too dark to support the hopes of a poet who had believed in a golden age about to emerge for humanity. It brought him some satisfaction and comfort that humanity’s indignation had struck down the main monsters who had violated their nature and hopes; but for now, he felt the need to soothe his disappointment by turning away from politics to studies less likely to disappoint him.
From this period, therefore—that is, from the year 1794-95—we may date the commencement of Wordsworth's entire self-dedication to poetry as the study and main business of his life. Somewhere about this period also (though, according to my remembrance of what Miss Wordsworth once told me, I think one year or so later) his sister joined him; and they began[116] to keep house together: once at Race Down, in Dorsetshire; once at Clevedon, on the coast of Somersetshire; then amongst the Quantock Hills, in the same county, or in that neighbourhood; particularly at Alfoxton, a beautiful country-house, with a grove and shrubbery attached, belonging to Mr. St. Aubyn, a minor, and let (I believe) on the terms of keeping the house in repair. Whilst resident at this last place it was, as I have generally understood, and in the year 1797 or 1798, that Wordsworth first became acquainted with Coleridge; though possibly in the year I am wrong; for it occurs to me that, in a poem of Coleridge's dated in 1796, there is an allusion to a young writer of the name of Wordsworth as one who had something austere in his style, but otherwise was more original than any other poet of the age; and it is probable that this knowledge of the poetry would be subsequent to a personal knowledge of the author, considering the little circulation which any poetry of a Wordsworthian stamp would be likely to attain at that time.[117]
From this period, specifically from the year 1794-95, we can mark the beginning of Wordsworth's complete commitment to poetry as the central focus of his life. Around this time, also (although from what I remember Miss Wordsworth once told me, it was about a year later), his sister joined him, and they started[116] living together: once at Race Down in Dorsetshire; once at Clevedon on the coast of Somersetshire; then among the Quantock Hills in the same county or nearby; especially at Alfoxton, a lovely country house with a forest and gardens that belonged to Mr. St. Aubyn, a minor, and was leased (I believe) on the condition that the house be kept in good repair. While staying at this last spot, it was, as I generally understand, around the year 1797 or 1798, that Wordsworth first met Coleridge; although I might have the year wrong, because I recall that in a poem by Coleridge dated 1796, there’s a mention of a young writer named Wordsworth who had a somewhat serious style but was otherwise more original than any poet of the time; and it's likely that his awareness of the poetry came after he had met the author personally, considering how little recognition any poetry of a Wordsworthian nature would have had at that point.[117]
It was at Alfoxton that Miss Mary Hutchinson visited her cousins the Wordsworths, and there, or previously in the north of England, at Stockton-upon-Tees and Darlington, that the attachment began between Miss Mary Hutchinson and Wordsworth which terminated in their marriage about the beginning of the present century. The marriage took place in the north; somewhere, I believe, in Yorkshire;[Pg 283] and, immediately after the ceremony, Wordsworth brought his bride to Grasmere; in which most lovely of English valleys he had previously obtained, upon a lease of seven or eight years, the cottage in which I found him living at my first visit to him in November 1807. I have heard that there was a paragraph inserted on this occasion in the "Morning Post" or "Courier"—and I have an indistinct remembrance of having once seen it myself—which described this event of the poet's marriage in the most ludicrous terms of silly pastoral sentimentality; the cottage being described as "the abode of content and all the virtues," the vale itself in the same puerile slang, and the whole event in the style of allegorical trifling about the Muses, &c. The masculine and severe taste of Wordsworth made him peculiarly open to annoyance from such absurd trifling; and, unless his sense of the ludicrous overpowered his graver feelings, he must have been much displeased with the paragraph. But, after all, I have understood that the whole affair was an unseasonable jest of Coleridge's or Lamb's.
It was at Alfoxton that Miss Mary Hutchinson visited her cousins, the Wordsworths, and it was there, or earlier in the north of England, at Stockton-upon-Tees and Darlington, that the connection between Miss Mary Hutchinson and Wordsworth began, leading to their marriage around the start of this century. The wedding took place in the north, somewhere in Yorkshire;[Pg 283] and right after the ceremony, Wordsworth took his bride to Grasmere, where he had previously secured a cottage on a seven or eight-year lease. I found him living there during my first visit in November 1807. I've heard that a paragraph was published about this occasion in the "Morning Post" or "Courier"—and I vaguely remember seeing it myself—which described the poet's marriage in the most ridiculous terms of silly pastoral sentimentality; the cottage was referred to as "the home of happiness and all the virtues," the valley in the same childish language, and the whole event was presented in a style filled with allegorical nonsense about the Muses, etc. Wordsworth’s masculine and serious taste made him particularly sensitive to such absurd trivialities; unless his sense of humor overshadowed his more serious feelings, he must have found the paragraph quite displeasing. But, I’ve understood that the whole thing was an untimely joke from Coleridge or Lamb.
To us who, in after years, were Wordsworth's friends, or, at least, intimate acquaintances—viz., to Professor Wilson and myself—the most interesting circumstance in this marriage, the one which perplexed us exceedingly, was the very possibility that it should ever have been brought to bear. For we could not conceive of Wordsworth as submitting his faculties to the humilities and devotion of courtship. That self-surrender—that prostration of mind by which a man is too happy and proud to express the profundity of his service to the woman of his heart—it seemed a mere impossibility that ever Wordsworth should be brought to feel for a single instant; and what he did not sincerely feel, assuredly he was not the person to profess. Wordsworth, I take it upon myself to say, had not the feelings within him which make this total devotion to a woman possible. There never lived a woman whom he would not have lectured and admonished under circumstances that should have seemed to require it; nor would he have conversed with her in any mood whatever without wearing an air of mild condescension to her understanding. To lie at her feet, to make her his idol, to worship her very caprices, and to adore[Pg 284] the most unreasonable of her frowns—these things were impossible to Wordsworth; and, being so, never could he, in any emphatic sense, have been a lover.
To us, who in later years were Wordsworth's friends, or at least close acquaintances—specifically, Professor Wilson and me—the most intriguing aspect of his marriage, the one that puzzled us greatly, was the sheer possibility that it ever happened. We couldn't picture Wordsworth engaging in the vulnerabilities and devotion that come with courtship. That kind of self-surrender—that mental state where a man is too happy and proud to articulate how deeply he serves the woman he loves—it seemed completely impossible for Wordsworth to experience, even for a moment; and if he didn't genuinely feel it, he certainly wasn't the type to pretend otherwise. I firmly believe that Wordsworth didn’t have the feelings needed for such total devotion to a woman. No woman ever existed whom he wouldn’t have lectured and advised in situations that seemed to call for it; nor would he have spoken to her in any mood without exuding a sense of mild superiority over her understanding. To kneel at her feet, to make her his idol, to worship even her whims, and to adore even her most unreasonable displeasure—these things were simply out of reach for Wordsworth. Therefore, in any significant sense, he could never have been a true lover.
A lover, I repeat, in any passionate sense of the word, Wordsworth could not have been. And, moreover, it is remarkable that a woman who could dispense with that sort of homage in her suitor is not of a nature to inspire such a passion. That same meekness which reconciles her to the tone of superiority and freedom in the manner of her suitor, and which may afterwards in a wife become a sweet domestic grace, strips her of that too charming irritation, captivating at once and tormenting, which lurks in feminine pride. If there be an enchantress's spell yet surviving in this age of ours, it is the haughty grace of maidenly pride—the womanly sense of dignity, even when most in excess, and expressed in the language of scorn—which tortures a man and lacerates his heart, at the same time that it pierces him with admiration:—
A lover, I say again, in any passionate sense of the word, Wordsworth could not have been. And, what's more, it's notable that a woman who could do without that kind of adoration from her suitor isn’t likely to inspire such a passion. That same humility that allows her to accept her suitor’s superior and free manner, which could later become a charming domestic quality in a wife, removes that delightful mix of allure and torment found in feminine pride. If there is any enchantress's spell still left in our time, it's the proud grace of maidenly dignity—the woman's sense of self-respect, even when it's excessive and expressed in a scornful way—which both tortures a man and tears at his heart, while at the same time filling him with admiration:—
In the disdain and fury of her lips!
And she who spares a man the agitations of this thraldom robs him no less of its divinest transports. Wordsworth, however, who never could have laid aside his own nature sufficiently to have played his part in such an impassioned courtship, by suiting himself to this high sexual pride with the humility of a lover, quite as little could have enjoyed the spectacle of such a pride, or have viewed it in any degree as an attraction: it would to him have been a pure vexation. Looking down even upon the lady of his heart, as upon the rest of the world, from the eminence of his own intellectual superiority—viewing her, in fact, as a child—he would be much more disposed to regard any airs of feminine disdain she might assume as the impertinence of girlish levity than as the caprice of womanly pride; and much I fear that, in any case of dispute, he would have called even his mistress, "Child! child!" and perhaps even (but this I do not say with the same certainty) might have bid her hold her tongue.
And she who spares a man the struggles of this enslavement also takes away from him its greatest joys. Wordsworth, however, who could never set aside his own nature enough to play his role in such a passionate courtship—adjusting himself to this high sexual pride with the humility of a lover—would also not have enjoyed witnessing such pride or seen it as any kind of attraction: it would have been a pure annoyance to him. Looking down on the woman he loved, just as he did on everyone else, from the height of his own intellectual superiority—seeing her, in fact, as a child—he would be much more likely to interpret any signs of feminine disdain she showed as the silliness of youthful frivolity rather than the whim of womanly pride; and I fear that, in any argument, he would have addressed even his mistress as "Child! child!" and maybe even (though I can't say this for sure) told her to be quiet.
If, however, no lover, in a proper sense,—though, from[Pg 285] many exquisite passages, one might conceive that at some time of his life he was, as especially from the inimitable stanzas beginning—
If, however, there was no lover in the true sense—although, from[Pg 285] many beautiful passages, one might think that at some point in his life he was, especially from the unique stanzas beginning—
"And like a rose in June,"
or perhaps (but less powerfully so, because here the passion, though profound, is less the peculiar passion of love) from the impassioned lamentation for "the pretty Barbara," beginning—
or maybe (but not as strongly, because here the feeling, although deep, is less the unique passion of love) from the heartfelt mourning for "the pretty Barbara," starting—
And here and there, among unholy ground In the chilly north," &c.,—
yet, if no lover, or (which some of us have sometimes thought) a lover disappointed at some earlier period, by the death of her he loved, or by some other fatal event (for he always preserved a mysterious silence on the subject of that "Lucy," repeatedly alluded to or apostrophized in his poems); at all events he made what for him turned out a happy marriage. Few people have lived on such terms of entire harmony and affection as he lived with the woman of his final choice. Indeed, the sweetness, almost unexampled, of temper, which shed so sunny a radiance over Mrs. Wordsworth's manners, sustained by the happy life she led, the purity of her conscience, and the uniformity of her good health, made it impossible for anybody to have quarrelled with her; and whatever fits of ill-temper Wordsworth might have—for, with all his philosophy, he had such fits—met with no fuel to support them, except in the more irritable temperament of his sister. She was all fire, and an ardour which, like that of the first Lord Shaftesbury,
yet, if there was no lover, or (as some of us have occasionally thought) a lover who was heartbroken at some earlier time, due to the death of the woman he loved, or by some other tragic event (since he always maintained a mysterious silence about that "Lucy," who was frequently mentioned in his poems); in any case, he ended up having a happy marriage. Few people have experienced such complete harmony and affection as he did with the woman he ultimately chose. In fact, the brightness, almost unmatched, of Mrs. Wordsworth’s temperament, which radiated such warmth in her interactions, supported by the joyful life she led, the purity of her conscience, and her consistent good health, made it impossible for anyone to have a conflict with her; and whenever Wordsworth had moments of bad temper—because despite his philosophy, he did have those moments—they found no fuel to sustain them, except in the more irritable nature of his sister. She was all passion, and a fervor that, like that of the first Lord Shaftesbury,
and, as this ardour looked out in every gleam of her wild eyes (those "wild eyes" so finely noticed in the "Tintern Abbey"), as it spoke in every word of her self-baffled utterance, as it gave a trembling movement to her very person and demeanour—easily enough it might happen that any apprehension of an unkind word should with her kindle a dispute. It might have happened; and yet, to[Pg 286] the great honour of both, having such impassioned temperaments, rarely it did happen; and this was the more remarkable, as I have been assured that both were, in childhood, irritable or even ill-tempered, and they were constantly together; for Miss Wordsworth was always ready to walk out—wet or dry, storm or sunshine, night or day; whilst Mrs. Wordsworth was completely dedicated to her maternal duties, and rarely left the house, unless when the weather was tolerable, or, at least, only for short rambles. I should not have noticed this trait in Wordsworth's occasional manners, had it been gathered from domestic or confidential opportunities. But, on the contrary, the first two occasions on which, after months' domestic intercourse with Wordsworth, I became aware of his possible ill-humour and peevishness, were so public, that others, and those strangers, must have been equally made parties to the scene. This scene occurred in Kendal.
and, as this passion shone through every spark in her wild eyes (those "wild eyes" so well described in "Tintern Abbey"), as it revealed itself in every word of her frustrated speech, and as it stirred a trembling movement in her very presence and demeanor—it's easy enough to see how any hint of an unkind word could spark an argument with her. It could have happened; and yet, to[Pg 286] the great credit of both, with such fiery personalities, it rarely did occur; and this was even more surprising, as I've been told that both were, as children, irritable or even quick-tempered, and they spent a lot of time together; because Miss Wordsworth was always eager to go out—rain or shine, storm or sunny, day or night; while Mrs. Wordsworth was fully committed to her maternal responsibilities, hardly leaving the house unless the weather was decent, or at least just for short walks. I wouldn't have noticed this trait in Wordsworth's behavior on occasion, had it been gathered from home or private moments. But actually, the first two times I noticed his potential for bad humor and irritability, after months of domestic interaction with Wordsworth, were so public that others, even strangers, must have been just as much a part of the scene. This took place in Kendal.
Having brought down the history of Wordsworth to the time of his marriage, I am reminded by that event to mention the singular good fortune, in all points of worldly prosperity, which has accompanied him through life. His marriage—the capital event of life—was fortunate, and inaugurated a long succession of other prosperities. He has himself described, in his "Leech-Gatherer,"[118] the fears that at one time, or at least in some occasional moments of his life, haunted him, lest at some period or other he might be reserved for poverty. "Cold, pain, and hunger, and all fleshly ills," occurred to his boding apprehension, and "mighty poets in their misery dead."
Having summarized Wordsworth's history up to the time of his marriage, I'm reminded by that event to mention the remarkable good fortune, in all aspects of material success, that has followed him throughout his life. His marriage—the key event in life—was fortunate and led to a long series of other successes. He himself described, in his "Leech-Gatherer,"[118] the fears that at one time, or at least during some moments of his life, haunted him, worrying that he might face poverty at some point. "Cold, pain, and hunger, and all bodily afflictions," weighed on his anxious mind, along with thoughts of "great poets suffering in their misery."
The restless soul that died in its arrogance; About the one who walked in glory and joy
"Following his plow along the mountain side."
And, at starting on his career of life, certainly no man had plainer reasons for anticipating the worst evils that have ever persecuted poets, excepting only two reasons which might warrant him in hoping better; and these two were—his[Pg 287] great prudence, and the temperance of his daily life. He could not be betrayed into foolish engagements; he could not be betrayed into expensive habits. Profusion and extravagance had no hold over him, by any one passion or taste. He was not luxurious in anything; was not vain or even careful of external appearances (not, at least, since he had left Cambridge, and visited a mighty nation in civil convulsions); was not even in the article of books expensive. Very few books sufficed him; he was careless habitually of all the current literature, or indeed of any literature that could not be considered as enshrining the very ideal, capital, and elementary grandeur of the human intellect. In this extreme limitation of his literary sensibilities he was as much assisted by that accident of his own intellectual condition—viz. extreme, intense, unparalleled onesidedness (einseitigkeit)—as by any peculiar sanity of feeling. Thousands of books that have given rapturous delight to millions of ingenuous minds for Wordsworth were absolutely a dead letter—closed and sealed up from his sensibilities and his powers of appreciation, not less than colours from a blind man's eye. Even the few books which his peculiar mind had made indispensable to him were not in such a sense indispensable as they would have been to a man of more sedentary habits. He lived in the open air, and the enormity of pleasure which both he and his sister drew from the common appearances of nature and their everlasting variety—variety so infinite that, if no one leaf of a tree or shrub ever exactly resembled another in all its filaments and their arrangement, still less did any one day ever repeat another in all its pleasurable elements. This pleasure was to him in the stead of many libraries:—
And as he started his life journey, no one had clearer reasons to expect the worst hardships that poets have ever faced, except for two reasons that might give him hope: his[Pg 287] great wisdom and the moderation of his daily life. He couldn't be lured into foolish commitments; he couldn't be tempted into costly habits. Lavishness and extravagance had no grip on him, no single passion or preference pulled him in that direction. He wasn't extravagant in anything; he wasn't vain or overly concerned with appearances (at least not since he left Cambridge and encountered a great nation in turmoil); he didn't even spend a lot on books. Very few books were enough for him; he usually ignored the popular literature or any books that didn't embody the pure, essential greatness of human thought. This extreme limitation in his literary taste was aided as much by his unique intellectual state—extreme, intense, and unparalleled one-sidedness—as by any peculiar soundness of feeling. Thousands of books that brought joy to millions simply meant nothing to Wordsworth—closed off from his emotions and appreciation like colors to a blind person. Even the few books he considered essential weren't indispensable in the way they would be for someone with a more sedentary lifestyle. He lived outdoors, and the immense joy he and his sister experienced from the ordinary sights of nature and its endless variety—so vast that no single leaf on a tree or shrub ever looked exactly like another in all its details, and certainly no day ever repeated another in all its delightful aspects—was more than enough for him, serving as a substitute for many libraries.
Could teach him more about humanity,
About moral evil and good,
Than all the sages could.
And he, we may be sure, who could draw,
And he, we can be sure, who could draw,
"Thoughts that are often too deep for tears,"—
to whom the mere daisy, the pansy, the primrose, could[Pg 288] furnish pleasures—not the puerile ones which his most puerile and worldly insulters imagined, but pleasures drawn from depths of reverie and meditative tenderness far beyond all power of their hearts to conceive: that man would hardly need any large variety of books. In fact, there were only two provinces of literature in which Wordsworth could be looked upon as decently well read—Poetry and Ancient History. Nor do I believe that he would much have lamented, on his own account, if all books had perished, excepting the entire body of English Poetry, and, perhaps, "Plutarch's Lives."[119]
to whom a simple daisy, a pansy, or a primrose could[Pg 288] provide enjoyment—not the childish ones that his most childish and worldly critics imagined, but pleasures that came from deep thought and caring reflection far beyond what their hearts could understand: that man wouldn’t really need a wide variety of books. In fact, there were only two areas of literature where Wordsworth could be considered reasonably well-read—Poetry and Ancient History. I also don’t think he would have been too upset, for his own sake, if all books had disappeared except for the complete works of English Poetry, and maybe "Plutarch's Lives."[119]
With these simple or rather austere tastes, Wordsworth (it might seem) had little reason to fear poverty, supposing him in possession of any moderate income; but meantime he had none. About the time when he left college, I have good grounds for believing that his whole regular income was precisely = 0. Some fragments must have survived from the funds devoted to his education; and with these, no doubt, he supported the expenses of his Continental tours, and his year's residence in France. But, at length, "cold, pain, and hunger, and all fleshly ills," must have stared him in the face pretty earnestly. And hope of longer evading an unpleasant destiny of daily toil, in some form or other, there seemed absolutely none. "For," as he himself expostulates with himself—
With these simple or rather austere tastes, Wordsworth (it might seem) had little reason to fear poverty, assuming he had any moderate income; but in reality, he had none. Around the time he left college, I have good reason to believe that his entire regular income was exactly 0. Some funds must have remained from the money allocated for his education; and with these, no doubt, he covered the costs of his trips to the Continent and his year in France. But eventually, "cold, pain, and hunger, and all fleshly ills," must have confronted him pretty seriously. And there seemed to be absolutely no hope of escaping an unpleasant fate of daily labor in some form or another. "For," as he himself argues with himself—
Sow for him, build for him, and, when he calls,
"Love him, who doesn’t think about himself at all?"
In this dilemma, he had all but resolved, as Miss Wordsworth once told me, to take pupils; and perhaps that, though odious enough, was the sole resource he had; for Wordsworth never acquired any popular talent of writing for the current press; and, at that period of his life, he was gloomily unfitted for bending to such a yoke. In this crisis of his fate it was that Wordsworth, for once, and once[Pg 289] only, became a martyr to some nervous affection. That raised pity; but I could not forbear smiling at the remedy, or palliation, which his few friends adopted. Every night they played at cards with him, as the best mode of beguiling his sense of distress, whatever that might be: cards, which, in any part of the thirty-and-one years since I have known Wordsworth, could have had as little power to interest him, or to cheat him of sorrow, as marbles or a top. However, so it was; for my information could not be questioned: it came from Miss Wordsworth.
In this situation, he had nearly decided, as Miss Wordsworth once told me, to take on students; and maybe that, while quite unpleasant, was the only option he had. Wordsworth never developed any mainstream writing skills for the press, and at that time in his life, he felt too gloomy to submit to such demands. In this turning point of his life, Wordsworth, for once, and only once[Pg 289], became a martyr to some nervous condition. That evoked pity, but I couldn't help but smile at the solution, or comfort, his few friends came up with. Every night they played cards with him, thinking it the best way to distract him from his distress, whatever that might be: cards, which, during the thirty-one years I've known Wordsworth, had as little ability to engage him or lift his sadness as marbles or a top. Nevertheless, that was the case; for I couldn't doubt my source of information: it came from Miss Wordsworth.
The crisis, as I have said, had arrived for determining the future colour of his life. Memorable it is, that exactly in those critical moments when some decisive step had first become necessary, there happened the first instance of Wordsworth's good luck; and equally memorable that, at measured intervals throughout the long sequel of his life since then, a regular succession of similar but superior windfalls have fallen in, to sustain his expenditure, in exact concurrence with the growing claims upon his purse. A more fortunate man, I believe, does not exist than Wordsworth. The aid which now dropped from heaven, as it were, to enable him to range at will in paths of his own choosing, and
The crisis, as I mentioned, was here to shape the future direction of his life. It's noteworthy that right in those critical moments when a decisive action became necessary, Wordsworth experienced his first stroke of good luck; and just as remarkable, at regular intervals throughout the long course of his life since then, he encountered a consistent series of similar but even better opportunities that helped cover his expenses, perfectly aligning with the increasing demands on his finances. I believe there is no luckier person than Wordsworth. The support that seemingly came from above allowed him to freely pursue his own paths, and
came in the shape of a bequest from Raisley Calvert, a young man of good family in Cumberland, who died about this time of pulmonary consumption. A very remarkable young man he must have been, this Raisley Calvert, to have discerned, at this early period, that future superiority in Wordsworth which so few people suspected. He was the brother of a Cumberland gentleman, whom slightly I know; a generous man, doubtless; for he made no sort of objections (though legally, I have heard, he might) to his brother's farewell memorial of regard; a good man to all his dependants, as I have generally understood, in the neighbourhood of Windy Brow, his mansion, near Keswick; and, as Southey always said (who must know better than I could do), a man of strong natural endowments; else, as his talk was of oxen, I might have made the mistake of supposing him to be, in[Pg 290] heart and soul, what he was in profession—a mere farming country gentleman, whose ambition was chiefly directed to the turning up of mighty turnips. The sum left by Raisley Calvert was £900; and it was laid out in an annuity. This was the basis of Wordsworth's prosperity in life; and upon this he has built up, by a series of accessions, in which each step, taken separately for itself, seems perfectly natural, whilst the total result has undoubtedly something wonderful about it, the present goodly edifice of his fortunes. Next in the series came the present Lord Lonsdale's repayment of his predecessor's debt. Upon that, probably, it was that Wordsworth felt himself entitled to marry. Then, I believe, came some fortune with Miss Hutchinson; then—that is, fourthly—some worthy uncle of the same lady was pleased to betake himself to a better world, leaving to various nieces, and especially to Mrs. Wordsworth, something or other—I forget what, but it was expressed by thousands of pounds. At this moment, Wordsworth's family had begun to increase; and the worthy old uncle, like everybody else in Wordsworth's case, finding his property very clearly "wanted," and, as people would tell him, "bespoke," felt how very indelicate it would look for him to stay any longer in this world; and so off he moved. But Wordsworth's family, and the wants of that family, still continued to increase; and the next person—viz., the fifth—who stood in the way, and must, therefore, have considered himself rapidly growing into a nuisance, was the stamp-distributor for the county of Westmoreland. About March 1814, I think it was, that his very comfortable situation was wanted. Probably it took a month for the news to reach him; because in April, and not before, feeling that he had received a proper notice to quit, he, good man (this stamp-distributor), like all the rest, distributed himself and his office into two different places—the latter falling, of course, into the hands of Wordsworth.
came in the form of an inheritance from Raisley Calvert, a young man from a good family in Cumberland, who passed away around this time from tuberculosis. Raisley Calvert must have been quite remarkable to recognize, at such an early stage, the future greatness of Wordsworth, which so few others anticipated. He was the brother of a gentleman from Cumberland whom I know slightly; a generous man, no doubt, as he raised no objections (though I’ve heard he could have, legally) to his brother’s farewell gift of affection; a good man to all those dependent on him, as I’ve generally understood, in the area around Windy Brow, his home near Keswick; and, as Southey always said (who must know better than I do), a man of strong natural talents; otherwise, since he often talked about farming, I might have mistakenly thought he was, in heart and soul, what he appeared to be—a simple country gentleman whose main ambition was growing big turnips. The amount Raisley Calvert left was £900, which was invested in an annuity. This was the foundation of Wordsworth's success in life, and from this, he built a series of further advancements, where each step seemed perfectly reasonable on its own, while the overall outcome is undeniably impressive, representing the current solid structure of his fortunes. Next in line was the repayment of a debt from the current Lord Lonsdale’s predecessor. On that basis, Wordsworth likely felt ready to marry. After that, I believe some fortune came with Miss Hutchinson; then—fourth—some generous uncle of hers passed away, leaving various nieces, particularly Mrs. Wordsworth, something substantial—I can’t recall exactly what, but it totaled thousands of pounds. At that time, Wordsworth's family was starting to grow; and that kind old uncle, like everyone else in Wordsworth's situation, realizing that his property was clearly “needed,” and as people told him, “spoken for,” felt it would be quite rude for him to stick around any longer; so he moved on. However, Wordsworth's family and their needs continued to increase; and the next person involved—namely, the fifth—who must have considered himself quickly becoming a burden, was the stamp-distributor for Westmoreland county. It was around March 1814, I believe, that his rather comfortable position was required. It probably took about a month for the news to reach him; because in April, and not before, feeling that he’d received proper notice to leave, he, the good man (this stamp-distributor), like all the others, separated himself and his position into two parts—the latter naturally going to Wordsworth.
This office, which it was Wordsworth's pleasure to speak of as "a little one," yielded, I believe, somewhere about £500 a year. Gradually, even that, with all former sources of income, became insufficient; which ought not to surprise anybody; for a son at Oxford, as a gentleman commoner, would spend, at the least, £300 per annum; and there were[Pg 291] other children. Still, it is wrong to say that it had become insufficient; as usual, it had not come to that; but, on the first symptoms arising that it soon would come to that, somebody, of course, had notice to consider himself a sort of nuisance-elect;—in this case, it was the distributor of stamps for the county of Cumberland. His district was absurdly large; and what so reasonable as that he should submit to a Polish partition of his profits—no, not Polish; for, on reflection, such a partition neither was nor could be attempted with regard to an actual incumbent. But then, since people had such consideration for him as not to remodel the office so long as he lived, on the other hand, the least he could do for "people" in return—so as to show his sense of this consideration—was not to trespass on so much goodness longer than necessary. Accordingly, here, as in all cases before, the Deus ex machinâ who invariably interfered when any nodus arose in Wordsworth's affairs, such as could be considered vindice dignus, caused the distributor to begone into a region where no stamps are wanted, about the very month, or so, when an additional £400 per annum became desirable. This, or perhaps more, was understood to have been added, by the new arrangement, to the Westmoreland distributorship; the small towns of Keswick and Cockermouth, together with the important one of Whitehaven, being severed, under this remodelling, from their old dependency on Cumberland (to which geographically they belonged), and transferred to the small territory of rocky Westmoreland, the sum total of whose inhabitants was at that time not much above 50,000; of which number, one-third, or nearly so, was collected into the only important town of Kendal; but, of the other two-thirds, a larger proportion was a simple agricultural or pastoral population than anywhere else in England. In Westmoreland, therefore, it may be supposed that the stamp demand could not have been so great, not perhaps by three-quarters, as in Cumberland; which, besides having a population at least three times as large, had more and larger towns. The result of this new distribution was something that approached to an equalization of the districts—giving to each, as was said, in round terms, a thousand a year.
This office, which Wordsworth liked to refer to as "a little one," brought in about £500 a year. Gradually, even that, along with all previous income sources, fell short, which shouldn’t surprise anyone; a son at Oxford, as a gentleman commoner, would likely spend at least £300 a year, and there were other children to consider. Still, it’s misleading to say it had become insufficient; it hadn’t reached that point yet. However, at the first signs that it soon would, someone was obviously prompted to feel like a burden— in this case, the stamp distributor for Cumberland. His district was ridiculously large; and what could be more reasonable than for him to split his profits—no, not split; on reflection, such a division couldn't be attempted with an actual incumbent. But since people were considerate enough not to overhaul the office while he was alive, the least he could do in return—to show his appreciation for this consideration—was not to overstay his welcome longer than necessary. So, as had happened in previous situations, the Deus ex machinâ who always intervened when any issue arose in Wordsworth’s affairs, one deserving of some redress, made sure the distributor left for a place where no stamps were needed, around the same time an additional £400 a year became sought after. This, or perhaps more, was believed to have been added to the Westmoreland distributorship; the small towns of Keswick and Cockermouth, along with the important one of Whitehaven, were detached from their previous ties to Cumberland (to which they geographically belonged) and moved to the smaller area of rocky Westmoreland, which then had a population of just over 50,000; about one-third of whom lived in the only significant town, Kendal. Meanwhile, of the other two-thirds, a larger portion were agricultural or pastoral workers than in any other area of England. Therefore, it could be assumed that the demand for stamps in Westmoreland wasn’t as high, possibly three-quarters less than in Cumberland; which, apart from having a population at least three times larger, had more and bigger towns. The result of this new distribution approximated a balance of the districts—assigning each, as was said, roughly a thousand a year.
Thus I have traced Wordsworth's ascent through its several steps and stages, to what, for his moderate desires and habits so philosophic, may be fairly considered opulence. And it must rejoice every man who joins in the public homage now rendered to his powers (and what man is to be found that, more or less, does not?) to hear, with respect to one so lavishly endowed by nature, that he has not been neglected by fortune; that he has never had the finer edge of his sensibilities dulled by the sad anxieties, the degrading fears, the miserable dependencies of debt; that he has been blessed with competency even when poorest; has had hope and cheerful prospects in reversion through every stage of his life; that at all times he has been liberated from reasonable anxieties about the final interests of his children; that at all times he has been blessed with leisure, the very amplest that ever man enjoyed, for intellectual pursuits the most delightful; yes, that, even as regards those delicate and coy pursuits, he has possessed, in combination, all the conditions for their most perfect culture—the leisure, the ease, the solitude, the society, the domestic peace, the local scenery—Paradise for his eye, in Miltonic beauty, lying outside his windows, Paradise for his heart, in the perpetual happiness of his own fireside; and, finally, when increasing years might be supposed to demand something more of modern luxuries, and expanding intercourse with society something more of refined elegancies, that his means, still keeping pace in almost arithmetical ratio with his wants, had shed the graces of art upon the failing powers of nature, had stripped infirmity of discomfort, and (so far as the necessities of things will allow) had placed the final stages of life, by means of many compensations, by universal praise, by plaudits reverberated from senates, benedictions wherever his poems have penetrated, honour, troops of friends—in short, by all that miraculous prosperity can do to evade the primal decrees of nature, had placed the final stages upon a level with the first.
I have outlined Wordsworth's journey through its various steps and stages to what can, given his modest desires and philosophical habits, be considered wealth. It must be a joy for everyone who honors him publicly now (and who doesn’t, to some extent?) to hear that someone so richly gifted by nature has not been overlooked by fortune; that he has never had the sharpness of his sensitivities dulled by the depressing worries, degrading fears, or miserable dependencies of debt; that he has been fortunate with enough even in his toughest times; has held onto hope and cheerful prospects throughout his life; that he has always been free from reasonable worries about his children's future; that he has consistently enjoyed ample leisure, perhaps more than anyone else ever has, for the most enjoyable intellectual pursuits; yes, that he has had, even in those delicate and subtle pursuits, all the conditions for their perfect development—the leisure, comfort, solitude, community, domestic peace, and beautiful scenery—Paradise for his eyes in stunning Miltonic beauty right outside his windows, Paradise for his heart in the constant joy of his own home; and finally, as he aged and might have needed more modern luxuries, and as his growing social interactions might have called for more refined touches, his means, keeping pace almost perfectly with his needs, had brought the beauty of art to the fading powers of nature, removed the discomfort of weakness, and (as much as circumstances allow) made the later stages of life, through many compensations, praise from all around, accolades echoing from senates, blessings wherever his poems have reached, honor, and groups of friends—in short, by all that incredible prosperity can do to postpone the harsh realities of nature, had made the later stages comparable to the earlier ones.
But now, reverting to the subject of Wordsworth's prosperity, I have numbered up six separate stages of good luck—six instances of pecuniary showers emptying themselves into his very bosom, at the very moments when they began[Pg 293] to be needed, on the first symptoms that they might be wanted—accesses of fortune stationed upon his road like repeating frigates, connecting, to all appearance, some preconcerted line of operations, and, amidst the tumults of chance, wearing as much the air of purpose and design as if they supported a human plan. I have come down to the sixth case. Whether there were any seventh, I do not know: but confident I feel that, had a seventh been required by circumstances, a seventh would have happened. So true it is that still, as Wordsworth needed a place or a fortune, the holder of that place or fortune was immediately served with a summons to surrender it: so certainly was this impressed upon my belief, as one of the blind necessities making up the prosperity and fixed destiny of Wordsworth, that, for myself, had I happened to know of any peculiar adaptation in an estate or office of mine to an existing need of Wordsworth's, forthwith, and with the speed of a man running for his life, I would have laid it down at his feet. "Take it," I should have said; "take it, or in three weeks I shall be a dead man."
But now, getting back to the topic of Wordsworth's success, I have identified six distinct moments of good fortune—six instances of financial blessings pouring into his lap right when they were needed the most, at the first signs that they might be wanted—windfalls appearing on his path like ships ready to engage, seemingly connecting some prearranged plan of action, and amidst the chaos of chance, giving the impression of intention and design as if they were backing a human strategy. I've reached the sixth case. Whether there was a seventh, I can't say: but I firmly believe that if a seventh had been needed, it would have occurred. It's so true that whenever Wordsworth required a position or wealth, the person holding that position or wealth was instantly summoned to give it up: this was so deeply ingrained in my belief, as one of the inevitable forces contributing to Wordsworth's prosperity and fixed fate, that if I had known of any specific suitability in one of my estates or offices to fulfill a current need of Wordsworth's, I would have promptly laid it at his feet, running as if my life depended on it. "Take it," I would have said; "take it, or within three weeks, I’ll be dead."
Well, let me pause: I think the reader is likely by this time to have a slight notion of my notion of Wordsworth's inevitable prosperity, and the sort of lien that he had upon the incomes of other men who happened to stand in his way. The same prosperity attended the other branches of the family, with the single exception of John, the brother who perished in the Abergavenny: and even he was prosperous up to the moment of his fatal accident. As to Miss Wordsworth, who will, by some people, be classed amongst the non-prosperous, I rank her amongst the most fortunate of women; or, at least, if regard be had to that period of life which is most capable of happiness. Her fortune, after its repayment by Lord Lonsdale, was, much of it, confided, with a sisterly affection, to the use of her brother John; and part of it, I have heard, perished in his ship. How much, I never felt myself entitled to ask; but certainly a part was on that occasion understood to have been lost irretrievably. Either it was that only a partial insurance had been effected; or else the nature of the accident, being in home waters (off the coast of Dorsetshire), might, by the nature of the contract,[Pg 294] have taken the case out of the benefit of the policy. This loss, however, had it even been total, for a single sister amongst a family of flourishing brothers, could not be of any lasting importance. A much larger number of voices would proclaim her to have been unfortunate in life because she made no marriage connexion; and certainly, the insipid as well as unfeeling ridicule which descends so plentifully upon those women who, perhaps from strength of character, have refused to make such a connexion where it promised little of elevated happiness, does make the state of singleness somewhat of a trial to the patience of many; and to many the vexation of this trial has proved a snare for beguiling them of their honourable resolutions. Meantime, as the opportunities are rare in which all the conditions concur for happy marriage connexions, how important it is that the dignity of high-minded women should be upheld by society in the honourable election they make of a self-dependent virgin seclusion, by preference to a heartless marriage! Such women, as Mrs. Trollope justly remarks, fill a place in society which in their default would not be filled, and are available for duties requiring a tenderness and a punctuality that could not be looked for from women preoccupied with household or maternal claims. If there were no regular fund (so to speak) of women free from conjugal and maternal duties, upon what body could we draw for our "sisters of mercy," &c.? In another point Mrs. Trollope is probably right: few women live unmarried from necessity. Miss Wordsworth had several offers; amongst them, to my knowledge, one from Hazlitt; all of them she rejected decisively. And she did right. A happier life, by far, was hers in youth, coming as near as difference of scenery and difference of relations would permit to that which was promised to Ruth—the Ruth of her brother's creation[120]—by the youth[Pg 295] who came from Georgia's shore; for, though not upon American savannah, or Canadian lakes,
Well, let me take a moment: I think by now the reader has a bit of an idea about my thoughts on Wordsworth's inevitable success and the sort of claim he had on the incomes of other people who happened to be in his way. The same success was seen in the other branches of the family, except for John, the brother who died in the Abergavenny: and even he was doing well right up until his tragic accident. As for Miss Wordsworth, who some people might consider unfortunate, I see her as one of the luckiest women; or at least, if you take into account that stage of life that’s most likely to bring happiness. After her fortune was paid back by Lord Lonsdale, much of it was, with sisterly love, entrusted for use by her brother John; and I’ve heard part of it was lost with his ship. I never felt I had the right to inquire how much, but it was certainly understood at the time that some was lost for good. Either there was only partial insurance, or perhaps because of the nature of the accident, which happened in home waters (off the coast of Dorset), the terms of the contract might have excluded it from being covered by the policy.[Pg 294] This loss, however, even if it had been complete, for a single sister among a family of successful brothers, couldn’t have much lasting significance. A lot of voices would declare her life unfortunate simply because she didn’t marry; and certainly, the dull and uncaring mockery that often targets women who, perhaps out of strength of character, choose not to marry when it offers little promise of real happiness, does make being single a challenge for many to endure, and for some, the frustration of this situation has led them to abandon their noble intentions. Meanwhile, since opportunities for happy marriages are rare, how essential it is that society upholds the dignity of high-minded women who choose the respectable path of remaining self-reliant rather than entering into a heartless marriage! As Mrs. Trollope rightly points out, such women occupy a role in society that wouldn’t be filled without them, and they are fit for responsibilities that require a kind of care and punctuality not to be expected from those focused on household or parenting duties. If there wasn’t a consistent group (so to speak) of women free from marital and maternal obligations, who could we rely on for our "sisters of mercy," etc.? In another respect, Mrs. Trollope is probably correct: few women remain unmarried out of necessity. Miss Wordsworth had several proposals; among them, to my knowledge, one from Hazlitt; she turned them all down without hesitation. And she was right to do so. Her life in her youth was much happier, coming as close as differences in scenery and relationships allowed to what was promised to Ruth—the Ruth of her brother's creation[120]—by the young man who came from Georgia’s shore; for although it wasn't in the American savannah, or the Canadian lakes,
Of islands that are connected As quietly as patches of sky Among the evening clouds,
yet, amongst the loveliest scenes of sylvan England, and (at intervals) of sylvan Germany—amongst lakes, too, far better fitted to give the sense of their own character than the vast inland seas of America, and amongst mountains more romantic than many of the chief ranges in that country—her time fleeted away like some golden age, or like the life of primeval man; and she, like Ruth, was for years allowed
yet, among the most beautiful scenes of wooded England, and (at times) of wooded Germany—among lakes that are much better suited to convey their own essence than the vast inland seas of America, and among mountains more romantic than many of the main ranges in that country—her time passed by like a golden age, or like the life of early humanity; and she, like Ruth, was for years allowed
A forest huntress, by the side
of him to whom she, like Ruth, had dedicated her days, and to whose children, afterwards, she dedicated a love like that of mothers. Dear Miss Wordsworth! How noble a creature did she seem when I first knew her!—and when, on the very first night which I passed in her brother's company, he read to me, in illustration of something he was saying, a passage from Fairfax's "Tasso," ending pretty nearly with these words,
of him to whom she, like Ruth, had dedicated her days, and to whose children, afterwards, she dedicated a love like that of mothers. Dear Miss Wordsworth! How noble a person did she seem when I first met her!—and when, on the very first night I spent in her brother's company, he read to me, to illustrate something he was saying, a passage from Fairfax's "Tasso," ending almost exactly with these words,
The noblewoman maintained her virginity,
I thought that, possibly, he had his sister in his thoughts. Yet "lofty" was hardly the right word. Miss Wordsworth was too ardent and fiery a creature to maintain the reserve essential to dignity; and dignity was the last thing one thought of in the presence of one so natural, so fervent in her feelings, and so embarrassed in their utterance—sometimes, also, in the attempt to check them. It must not, however, be supposed that there was any silliness or weakness of enthusiasm about her. She was under the continual restraint of severe good sense, though liberated from that false shame which, in so many persons, accompanies all expressions of natural emotion; and she had too long enjoyed[Pg 296] the ennobling conversation of her brother, and his admirable comments on the poets, which they read in common, to fail in any essential point of logic or propriety of thought. Accordingly, her letters, though the most careless and un-elaborate—nay, the most hurried that can be imagined—are models of good sense and just feeling. In short, beyond any person I have known in this world, Miss Wordsworth was the creature of impulse; but, as a woman most thoroughly virtuous and well-principled, as one who could not fail to be kept right by her own excellent heart, and as an intellectual creature from her cradle, with much of her illustrious brother's peculiarity of mind—finally, as one who had been, in effect, educated and trained by that very brother—she won the sympathy and the respectful regard of every man worthy to approach her. Properly, and in a spirit of prophecy, was she named Dorothy; in its Greek meaning,[121] gift of God, well did this name prefigure the relation in which she stood to Wordsworth, the mission with which she was charged—to wait upon him as the tenderest and most faithful of domestics; to love him as a sister; to sympathize with him as a confidante; to counsel him; to cheer him and sustain him by the natural expression of her feelings—so quick, so ardent, so unaffected—upon the probable effect of whatever thoughts or images he might conceive; finally, and above all other ministrations, to ingraft, by her sexual sense of beauty, upon his masculine austerity that delicacy and those graces which else (according to the grateful acknowledgments of his own maturest retrospect) it never could have had:—
I thought that maybe he was thinking of his sister. But "lofty" wasn't quite right. Miss Wordsworth was too passionate and fiery to keep the restraint that dignity requires; and dignity was the last thing on your mind when you were around someone so genuine, so intense in her feelings, and sometimes struggling to express them—sometimes even trying to hold them back. However, it shouldn't be assumed that she was silly or weak in her enthusiasm. She was always held back by a strong sense of good judgment, but free from the false shame that many people feel when showing natural emotions; and she had enjoyed for so long the enriching conversations with her brother and his insightful comments on the poets they read together that she never lacked logic or propriety in her thoughts. Therefore, her letters, even though they were the most casual and unrefined—indeed, the most rushed you could imagine—are examples of good sense and genuine feeling. In short, more than anyone else I've known, Miss Wordsworth acted on her impulses; but as a woman with strong morals and principles, who couldn't help but be guided by her excellent heart, and as someone who had been intellectually engaged from a young age, sharing much of her brother's unique way of thinking—and finally, as someone who had effectively been educated and shaped by that same brother—she earned the sympathy and respect of every man worthy of being around her. In a prophetic way, she was aptly named Dorothy; in its Greek meaning, gift of God, this name perfectly represented her relationship with Wordsworth and the role she was meant to play—to support him as the most caring and dedicated of companions; to love him as a sister; to resonate with him as a confidante; to advise him; to uplift and support him through the genuine expression of her feelings—so quick, so passionate, so unpretentious—impacting whatever thoughts or images he might create; and above all else, to infuse, through her innate sense of beauty, his masculine seriousness with the delicacy and grace that, as he later acknowledged with gratitude, it could never have had otherwise:—
with me when I was a kid:
She gave me hope, she gave me fears,
A heart, the source of sweet tears, I'm sorry, but it seems you've provided an incomplete request. Please provide the specific text you would like me to modernize, and I'll be happy to assist! "And love, and thought, and joy."
And elsewhere he describes her, in a philosophic poem, still in MS.,[122] as one who planted flowers and blossoms with her feminine hand upon what might else have been an arid rock—massy, indeed, and grand, but repulsive from the severity of its features. I may sum up in one brief abstract the amount of Miss Wordsworth's character, as a companion, by saying, that she was the very wildest (in the sense of the most natural) person I have ever known; and also the truest, most inevitable, and at the same time the quickest and readiest in her sympathy with either joy or sorrow, with laughter or with tears, with the realities of life or the larger realities of the poets!
And elsewhere he describes her, in a philosophical poem, still in MS.,[122] as someone who planted flowers and blossoms with her gentle touch on what could have been a barren rock—imposing, yes, and majestic, but uninviting because of its harsh features. I can sum up Miss Wordsworth's character as a companion in one short statement: she was the wildest (in the sense of the most natural) person I have ever known; and at the same time, she was the truest, most genuine, and also the quickest and most responsive in her sympathy with either joy or sorrow, laughter or tears, the realities of life or the deeper truths of poetry!
Meantime, amidst all this fascinating furniture of her mind, won from nature, from solitude, from enlightened companionship, Miss Wordsworth was as thoroughly deficient (some would say painfully deficient—I say charmingly deficient) in ordinary female accomplishments as "Cousin Mary" in dear Miss Mitford's delightful sketch. Of French, she might have barely enough to read a plain modern page of narrative; Italian, I question whether any; German, just enough to insult the German literati, by showing how little she had found them or their writings necessary to her heart. The "Luise" of Voss, the "Hermann und Dorothea" of Goethe she had begun to translate, as young ladies do "Télémaque"; but, like them, had chiefly cultivated the first two pages[123]; with the third she had a slender acquaintance, and with the fourth she meditated an intimacy at some future day. Music, in her solitary and out-of-doors life, she could have little reason for cultivating; nor is it possible that any woman can draw the enormous energy requisite for this attainment, upon a modern scale of perfection,[Pg 298] out of any other principle than that of vanity (at least of great value for social applause) or else of deep musical sensibility; neither of which belonged to Miss Wordsworth's constitution of mind. But, as everybody agrees in our days to think this accomplishment of no value whatever, and, in fact, unproduceable, unless existing in an exquisite state of culture, no complaint could be made on that score, nor any surprise felt. But the case in which the irregularity of Miss Wordsworth's education did astonish one was in that part which respected her literary knowledge. In whatever she read, or neglected to read, she had obeyed the single impulse of her own heart; where that led her, there she followed: where that was mute or indifferent, not a thought had she to bestow upon a writer's high reputation, or the call for some acquaintance with his works to meet the demands of society. And thus the strange anomaly arose, of a woman deeply acquainted with some great authors, whose works lie pretty much out of the fashionable beat; able, moreover, in her own person, to produce brilliant effects; able on some subjects to write delightfully, and with the impress of originality upon all she uttered; and yet ignorant of great classical works in her own mother tongue, and careless of literary history in a degree which at once exiled her from the rank and privileges of bluestockingism.
In the midst of all the captivating ideas she had gathered from nature, solitude, and meaningful friendships, Miss Wordsworth was as much lacking (some might say painfully lacking—I say charmingly lacking) in typical feminine skills as "Cousin Mary" in dear Miss Mitford's delightful sketch. Her French was barely enough to read a straightforward modern narrative; as for Italian, I doubt she knew any; and her German was just enough to offend the German literati by showing how little she found their works necessary to her heart. She had started to translate Voss's "Luise" and Goethe's "Hermann und Dorothea", much like young ladies begin with "Télémaque"; but, like them, she mainly focused on the first two pages[123]; she had only a slight familiarity with the third and planned to get to know the fourth someday. In her solitary and outdoor life, she had little incentive to pursue music; it's hard for any woman to muster the immense energy needed to achieve this on a modern level of perfection, unless driven by vanity (which offers social approval) or genuine musical sensitivity—neither of which defined Miss Wordsworth's mindset. However, since most people today view this skill as having no real value unless highly cultivated, there was no complaint on that front, nor any surprise. The area where Miss Wordsworth's unconventional education truly astonished people was her literary knowledge. Regardless of what she read or ignored, she followed only the impulse of her own heart; wherever that led her, that’s where she went: if it was silent or indifferent, she didn’t give a thought to a writer’s reputation or the societal need to be familiar with their works. Thus, a curious contradiction emerged: a woman deeply knowledgeable about some great authors whose works are largely outside the mainstream; moreover, she could create impressive effects herself, write beautifully on certain subjects, and convey originality in everything she expressed; yet, she was unaware of major classical works in her own language and had a casual attitude toward literary history, which effectively excluded her from the ranks and privileges of bluestockingism.
The reader may, perhaps, have objected silently to the illustration drawn from Miss Mitford, that "Cousin Mary" does not effect her fascinations out of pure negations. Such negations, from the mere startling effect of their oddity in this present age, might fall in with the general current of her attractions; but Cousin Mary's undoubtedly lay in the positive witcheries of a manner and a character transcending, by force of irresistible nature (as in a similar case recorded by Wordsworth in "The Excursion") all the pomp of nature and art united as seen in ordinary creatures. Now, in Miss Wordsworth, there were certainly no "Cousin Mary" fascinations of manner and deportment, that snatch a grace beyond the reach of art: there she was, indeed, painfully deficient; for hurry mars and defeats even the most ordinary expression of the feminine character—viz. its gentleness: abruptness and trepidation leave often a joint impression[Pg 299] of what seems for an instant both rudeness and ungracefulness: and the least painful impression was that of unsexual awkwardness. But the point in which Miss Wordsworth made the most ample amends for all that she wanted of more customary accomplishments, was this very originality and native freshness of intellect, which settled with so bewitching an effect upon some of her writings, and upon many a sudden remark or ejaculation, extorted by something or other that struck her eye, in the clouds, or in colouring, or in accidents of light and shade, of form or combination of form. To talk of her "writings" is too pompous an expression, or at least far beyond any pretensions that she ever made for herself. Of poetry she has written little indeed; and that little not, in my opinion, of much merit. The verses published by her brother, and beginning, "Which way does the wind come?", meant only as nursery lines, are certainly wild and pretty; but the other specimen is likely to strike most readers as feeble and trivial in the sentiment. Meantime, the book which is in very deed a monument to her power of catching and expressing all the hidden beauties of natural scenery, with a felicity of diction, a truth and strength, that far transcend Gilpin, or professional writers on those subjects, is her record of a first tour in Scotland, made about the year 1802. This MS. book (unless my recollection of it, from a period now gone by for thirty years, has deceived me greatly) is absolutely unique in its class; and, though it never could be very popular, from the minuteness of its details, intelligible only to the eye, and the luxuriation of its descriptions, yet I believe no person has ever been favoured with a sight of it that has not yearned for its publication. Its own extraordinary merit, apart from the interest which now invests the name of Wordsworth, could not fail to procure purchasers for one edition on its first appearance.[124]
The reader might have silently disagreed with the example drawn from Miss Mitford that "Cousin Mary" doesn’t create her charm from simple negations. Such negations, with their surprising oddness in today’s world, could align with her overall appeal, but Cousin Mary’s allure definitely came from the **positive** magic of her manner and personality, which transcended, by the power of irresistible nature (like a similar instance noted by Wordsworth in "The Excursion"), all the splendor of nature and art combined as seen in ordinary people. Now, in Miss Wordsworth, there were certainly no "Cousin Mary" charms of manner and behavior, which grasp a grace beyond art's reach: **there** she was, indeed, painfully lacking; for haste spoils and diminishes even the most basic expression of femininity—namely, its gentleness: abruptness and anxiety often leave a dual impression of what seems, for a moment, both rudeness and awkwardness: and the least uncomfortable impression was one of ungraceful clumsiness. However, the area where Miss Wordsworth significantly compensated for her lack of more conventional skills was in her originality and natural freshness of intellect, which had such an enchanting effect on some of her writings and on many spontaneous remarks or outbursts sparked by something that caught her eye, whether in the clouds, colors, or play of light and shade, or form. To speak of her "writings" is too grand a term, or at least well beyond any claims she ever made for herself. She has written little poetry, and that little, in my view, lacks much merit. The verses published by her brother, starting with "Which way does the wind come?", intended as nursery lines, are certainly whimsical and pretty; but the other example is likely to seem weak and trivial in sentiment to most readers. Meanwhile, the book that truly stands as a testament to her ability to capture and express all the hidden beauties of nature, with a finesse of language, truth, and strength that far surpass Gilpin or professional writers on the subject, is her account of a **first** tour in Scotland, taken around 1802. This manuscript (unless I have been greatly mistaken in my recollection from a time now thirty years past) is absolutely one of a kind; and although it could never be very popular due to its detailed observations, which are only comprehensible to the eye, and the lushness of its descriptions, I believe no one who has seen it hasn’t wished for its publication. Its extraordinary quality, apart from the interest that **now** surrounds the name of Wordsworth, would surely have attracted buyers for its first edition.
Coleridge was of the party at first; but afterwards, under some attack of rheumatism, found or thought it necessary to leave them. Melancholy it would be at this time, thirty-six[Pg 300] years and more from the era of that tour, to read it under the afflicting remembrances of all which has been suffered in the interval by two at least out of the three who composed the travelling party; for I fear that Miss Wordsworth has suffered not much less than Coleridge, and, in any general expression of it, from the same cause, viz. an excess of pleasurable excitement and luxurious sensibility, sustained in youth by a constitutional glow from animal causes, but drooping as soon as that was withdrawn. It is painful to point a moral from any story connected with those whom one loves or has loved; painful to look for one moment towards any "improvement" of such a case, especially where there is no reason to tax the parties with any criminal contribution to their own sufferings, except through that relaxation of the will and its potential energies through which most of us, at some time or other—I myself too deeply and sorrowfully—stand accountable to our own consciences. Not, therefore, with any intention of speaking in a monitorial or censorial character, do I here notice a defect in Miss Wordsworth's self-education of something that might have mitigated the sort of suffering which, more or less, ever since the period of her too genial, too radiant youth, I suppose her to have struggled with. I have mentioned the narrow basis on which her literary interests had been made to rest—the exclusive character of her reading, and the utter want of pretension, and of all that looks like bluestockingism, in the style of her habitual conversation and mode of dealing with literature. Now, to me it appears, upon reflection, that it would have been far better had Miss Wordsworth condescended a little to the ordinary mode of pursuing literature; better for her own happiness if she had been a bluestocking; or, at least, if she had been, in good earnest, a writer for the press, with the pleasant cares and solicitudes of one who has some little ventures, as it were, on that vast ocean.
Coleridge was part of the group at first, but later, due to some issues with rheumatism, he found it necessary to leave them. It is sad to think that, thirty-six[Pg 300] years since that trip, we remember it under the painful memories of all that has happened to at least two of the three travelers; I fear Miss Wordsworth has suffered nearly as much as Coleridge, and, in a general sense, for the same reason: an excess of joyful excitement and heightened sensitivity, which in her youth was sustained by a natural, energetic spirit but faded as that influence disappeared. It hurts to draw a lesson from the stories of those we care about; it's painful to seek improvements in such situations, especially when there's no reason to blame them for their own suffering, except through that weakening of will and potential energy that most of us—myself included—have faced at some point, often with deep regret. So, I don’t intend to sound preachy or judgmental when I point out a flaw in Miss Wordsworth’s self-education that might have eased some of the suffering I believe she has dealt with since her overly vibrant youth. I’ve mentioned how her literary interests were limited—the narrow focus of her reading and her complete lack of pretension or anything resembling bluestockingism in her typical conversations and approach to literature. Now, upon reflection, I think it would have been much better if Miss Wordsworth had embraced a more conventional way of engaging with literature; it would have been better for her own happiness if she had been a bluestocking, or at least genuinely pursued writing for publication, with the enjoyable challenges and concerns of someone who has a few small projects on that vast ocean.
We all know with how womanly and serene a temper literature has been pursued by Joanna Baillie, by Miss Mitford, and other women of admirable genius—with how absolutely no sacrifice or loss of feminine dignity they have cultivated the profession of authorship; and, if we could[Pg 301] hear their report, I have no doubt that the little cares of correcting proofs, and the forward-looking solicitudes connected with the mere business arrangements of new publications, would be numbered amongst the minor pleasures of life; whilst the more elevated cares connected with the intellectual business of such projects must inevitably have done much to solace the troubles which, as human beings, they cannot but have experienced, and even to scatter flowers upon their path. Mrs. Johnstone of Edinburgh has pursued the profession of literature—the noblest of professions, and the only one open to both sexes alike—with even more assiduity, and as a daily occupation; and, I have every reason to believe, with as much benefit to her own happiness as to the instruction and amusement of her readers; for the petty cares of authorship are agreeable, and its serious cares are ennobling.[125] More especially is such an occupation useful to a woman without children, and without any prospective resources—resources in objects that involve hopes growing and unfulfilled. It is too much to expect of any woman (or man either) that her mind should support itself in a pleasurable activity, under the drooping energies of life, by resting on the past or on the present; some interest in reversion, some subject of hope from day to day, must be called in to reinforce the animal fountains of good spirits. Had that been opened for Miss Wordsworth, I am satisfied that she would have passed a more cheerful middle-age, and would not, at any period, have yielded to that nervous depression (or is it, perhaps, nervous irritation?) which, I grieve to hear, has clouded her latter days. Nephews and nieces, whilst young and innocent, are as good almost as sons and daughters to a fervid and loving heart that has carried them in her arms from the hour they were born. But, after a nephew has grown into a huge hulk of a man, six feet high, and as stout as a bullock; after he has come to have children of his own, lives at a distance, and finds occasion to talk much of oxen and turnips—no offence to him!—he ceases to be an object of any very profound[Pg 302] sentiment. There is nothing in such a subject to rouse the flagging pulses of the heart, and to sustain a fervid spirit, to whom, at the very best, human life offers little of an adequate or sufficing interest, unless when idealized by the magic of the mighty poets. Farewell, Miss Wordsworth! farewell, impassioned Dorothy! I have not seen you for many a day—shall, too probably, never see you again; but shall attend your steps with tender interest so long as I hear of you living: so will Professor Wilson; and, from two hearts at least, that knew and admired you in your fervid prime, it may sometimes cheer the gloom of your depression to be assured of never-failing remembrance, full of love and respectful pity.[126]
We all know how gracefully and peacefully literature has been pursued by Joanna Baillie, Miss Mitford, and other women of remarkable talent—how they have cultivated the profession of authorship without sacrificing their feminine dignity at all; and if we could[Pg 301] hear their thoughts, I’m sure the small tasks of proofreading and the forward-looking concerns related to the business side of new publications would be counted among life’s minor joys; while the deeper concerns associated with the intellectual aspects of such projects must have greatly helped to ease the troubles that, as human beings, they inevitably faced, and even to bring some joy into their lives. Mrs. Johnstone of Edinburgh has engaged in literature—the noblest profession, open to both men and women—with even more dedication, treating it as a daily task; and I believe it has brought her as much happiness as it has to her readers in terms of instruction and entertainment; for the minor worries of being an author are pleasant, and the serious ones are uplifting.[125] This kind of work is especially beneficial for a woman without children and without any prospective resources—hopes that remain unfulfilled. It's unrealistic to expect anyone, man or woman, to keep their mind engaged in enjoyable activities amidst life’s challenges by solely relying on the past or present; some interest in the future, some daily source of hope, is necessary to boost the spirits. Had that been available to Miss Wordsworth, I believe she would have experienced a more joyful middle age, and would not have succumbed, at any point, to that nervous depression (or possibly, nervous irritation?) which, sadly, I hear has overshadowed her later years. Nieces and nephews, when they are young and innocent, can be just as dear as sons and daughters to a passionate and loving heart that has held them since birth. However, once a nephew grows into a giant of a man, towering at six feet tall and as solid as a bull; once he has children of his own, lives far away, and talks a lot about farming—no offense intended!—he stops being an object of deep emotional significance. There’s nothing in such a situation to revive the fading excitement in one’s heart and sustain a passionate spirit, especially when, at the best of times, human life offers little that feels genuinely engaging, unless it’s idealized by the magic of great poets. Farewell, Miss Wordsworth! farewell, passionate Dorothy! I haven’t seen you in many days—likely, I will never see you again; but I will follow your journey with warm interest as long as I hear you’re still living: so will Professor Wilson; and from at least two hearts that knew and admired you in your vibrant youth, it may sometimes bring a bit of comfort to your sadness to know that you are cherished in our memories, filled with love and respectful sympathy.[126]
CHAPTER IV
THE LAKE POETS: WILLIAM WORDSWORTH AND ROBERT SOUTHEY[127]
That night—the first of my personal intercourse with Wordsworth—the first in which I saw him face to face—was (it is little, indeed, to say) memorable: it was marked by a change even in the physical condition of my nervous system. Long disappointment—hope for ever baffled (and why should it be less painful because self-baffled?)—vexation and self-blame, almost self-contempt, at my own want of courage to face the man whom of all since the Flood I most yearned to behold:—these feelings had impressed upon my nervous sensibilities a character of irritation—agitation—restlessness—eternal self-dissatisfaction—which were gradually gathering into a distinct, well-defined type, that would, but for youth—almighty youth, and the spirit of youth—have shaped itself into some nervous complaint, wearing symptoms sui generis (for most nervous complaints, in minds that are at all eccentric, will be sui generis); and, perhaps, finally, have been immortalized in some medical journal as the anomalous malady of an interesting young gentleman, aged twenty-two, who was supposed to have studied too severely, and to have perplexed his brain with German metaphysics. To this result things tended; but, in one hour, all passed away. It was gone, never to return. The spiritual being whom I had anticipated—for, like Eloisa,
That night—the first time I personally interacted with Wordsworth—the first time I saw him face to face—was truly unforgettable. It brought a shift in my nervous system’s state. Long-standing disappointment—hopes continually dashed (and why should that hurt less just because I was the one holding myself back?)—frustration and self-blame, nearly self-contempt, for not having the courage to confront the person I had wanted to see more than anyone else since the Flood: these emotions had left a mark of irritation, agitation, and restlessness on my nerves—an ongoing self-discontent—that was slowly forming into a distinct, recognizable pattern. If it weren't for youth—powerful youth, and the spirit of youth—it might have evolved into some kind of nervous issue, showing symptoms unique to me (since most nervous conditions in somewhat eccentric minds tend to be unique); and perhaps it would have ended up noted in some medical journal as the unusual ailment of an intriguing young man, aged twenty-two, who was thought to have studied too hard and confused his mind with German metaphysics. That’s where things were headed; but within an hour, it all vanished. It was gone, never to come back. The spiritual presence I had braced myself for—because, like Eloisa,
Some expression of the all-beautiful mind"—
this ideal creature had at length been seen—seen "in the flesh"—seen with fleshly eyes; and now, though he did not cease for years to wear something of the glory and the aureola which, in Popish legends, invests the head of superhuman beings, yet it was no longer as a being to be feared: it was as Raphael, the "affable" angel, who conversed on the terms of man with man, that I now regarded him.
this ideal creature had finally been seen—seen "in the flesh"—seen with real eyes; and now, although he continued for years to carry some of the glory and the aureola that, in Catholic legends, surrounds the heads of superhuman beings, it was no longer as a figure to be feared: it was as Raphael, the "friendly" angel, who talked on equal terms with humans, that I now viewed him.
It was four o'clock, perhaps, when we arrived. At that hour in November the daylight soon declined; and, in an hour and a half, we were all collected about the tea-table. This, with the Wordsworths, under the simple rustic system of habits which they cherished then, and for twenty years after, was the most delightful meal in the day; just as dinner is in great cities, and for the same reason—because it was prolonged into a meal of leisure and conversation. And the reason why any meal favours and encourages conversation is pretty much the same as that which accounts for the breaking down of so many lawyers, and generally their ill-success in the House of Commons. In the courts of law, when a man is haranguing upon general and abstract topics, if at any moment he feels getting beyond his depth, if he finds his anchor driving, he can always bring up, and drop his anchor anew upon the terra firma of his case: the facts of this, as furnished by his brief, always assure him of a retreat as soon as he finds his more general thoughts failing him; and the consciousness of this retreat, by inspiring confidence, makes it much less probable that they should fail. But, in Parliament, where the advantage of a case with given facts and circumstances, or the details of a statistical report, does not offer itself once in a dozen times that a member has occasion to speak—where he has to seek unpremeditated arguments and reasonings of a general nature, from the impossibility of wholly evading the previous speeches that may have made an impression upon the House;—this necessity, at any rate a trying one to most people, is doubly so to one who has always walked in the leading-strings of a case—always swum with the help of bladders, in the conscious resource of his facts. The reason, therefore, why a lawyer succeeds ill as a senator[Pg 305] is to be found in the sudden removal of an artificial aid. Now, just such an artificial aid is furnished to timid or to unready men by a dinner-table, and the miscellaneous attentions, courtesies, or occupations which it enjoins or permits, as by the fixed memoranda of a brief. If a man finds the ground slipping from beneath him in a discussion—if, in a tide of illustration, he suddenly comes to a pause for want of matter—he can make a graceful close, a self-interruption, that shall wear the interpretation of forbearance, or even win the rhetorical credit of an aposiopesis (according to circumstances), by stopping to perform a duty of the occasion: pressed into a dilemma by some political partisan, one may evade it by pressing him to take a little of the dish before one; or, plagued for a reason which is not forthcoming, one may deprecate this logical rigour by inviting one's tormentor to wine. In short, what I mean to say is, that a dinner party, or any meal which is made the meal for intellectual relaxation, must for ever offer the advantages of a palæstra in which the weapons are foils and the wounds not mortal: in which, whilst the interest is that of a real, the danger is that of a sham fight: in which whilst there is always an opportunity for swimming into deep waters, there is always a retreat into shallow ones. And it may be laid down as a maxim, that no nation is civilized to the height of its capacity until it has one such meal. With our ancestors of sixty years back, this meal was supper: with the Athenians and Greeks it was dinner[128] (cœna δειπνον (deipnon), as with ourselves; only that the hour was a very early one, in consequence, partly, of the early bedtime of these nations (which again was occasioned by the dearness of candle-light to the mass of those who had political rights, on whose account the forensic meetings, the visits of clients to their patrons, &c., opened the political day by four hours earlier than with us), and[Pg 306] partly in consequence of the uncommercial habits of the ancients—commerce having at no time created an aristocracy of its own, and, therefore, having at no time and in no city (no, not Alexandria nor Carthage) dictated the household and social arrangements, or the distribution of its hours.
It was around four o'clock when we arrived. At that time of year in November, daylight quickly faded; and in an hour and a half, we were all gathered around the tea table. For the Wordsworths, under the simple and rustic lifestyle they embraced then and for the twenty years that followed, this was the most enjoyable meal of the day—similar to dinner in big cities, and for the same reason—because it turned into a leisurely occasion for conversation. The reason any meal promotes conversation is pretty much the same as what explains why many lawyers struggle and often fail in the House of Commons. In court, when someone is speaking on general and abstract subjects, if at any point they feel lost or out of their depth, they can always refer back to the solid ground of their case. The facts provided by their brief guarantee them a way out as soon as their broader thoughts start to falter; and knowing they have that escape route instills confidence, making it less likely for them to fail. However, in Parliament, the benefit of a case with specific facts and circumstances, or the details of a statistical report, doesn’t show up nearly as often as a member has the chance to speak—where they need to come up with unprepared arguments and general reasoning, often influenced by prior speeches that may have impacted the House. This challenge is particularly tough for someone who has always relied on a case—who has always had support from their facts. Therefore, the reason a lawyer doesn’t do well as a senator is due to the sudden loss of that artificial support. Just like that support, a dinner table provides an artificial crutch to timid or unprepared individuals, through the various attentions, niceties, or activities it encourages or allows, similar to the fixed notes in a brief. If someone feels a discussion slipping away from them—if, caught in a wave of examples, they suddenly run out of things to say—they can gracefully wrap things up, interrupt themselves, and present that as an act of patience or even gain rhetorical points by pausing for a moment to attend to some obligation. If pressed with a hard question by a political opponent, one might deflect it by asking them to try some food from the table; or, if caught off guard for an unexplained reason, one might lighten the situation by inviting their interrogator to share a drink. In short, what I’m saying is that a dinner party, or any meal meant for intellectual relaxation, must always present the advantages of a training ground where the engagement is friendly and the stakes are low: where, while the interest is genuine, the danger is an illusion; and where there is always a chance to dive into deep waters, but also the option to retreat to shallower ones. It can be stated as a rule that no nation has reached its full civilization until it has one such meal. For our ancestors sixty years ago, that meal was supper; for the Athenians and Greeks, it was dinner (cœna, deipnon), like it is for us; although they had their meal much earlier due to their early bedtimes, partly because of the high cost of candlelight for the majority who had political rights, leading to forensic meetings, client visits to patrons, etc., beginning their political day four hours earlier than ours, and partly due to the uncommercial lifestyles of the ancients—since commerce never established its own aristocracy and never dictated the household, social arrangements, or the distribution of time in any city, not even Alexandria or Carthage.
I have been led insensibly into this digression. I now resume the thread of my narrative. That night, after hearing conversation superior by much, in its tone and subject, to any which I had ever heard before—one exception only being made in favour of Coleridge, whose style differed from Wordsworth's in this, that, being far more agile and more comprehensive, consequently more showy and surprising, it was less impressive and weighty; for Wordsworth's was slow in its movement, solemn, majestic. After a luxury so rare as this, I found myself, about eleven at night, in a pretty bedroom, about fourteen feet by twelve. Much I feared that this might turn out the best room in the house; and it illustrates the hospitality of my new friends to mention that it was. Early in the morning, I was awoke by a little voice, issuing from a little cottage bed in an opposite corner, soliloquizing in a low tone. I soon recognized the words—"Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried"; and the voice I easily conjectured to be that of the eldest amongst Wordsworth's children, a son, and at that time about three years old. He was a remarkably fine boy in strength and size, promising (which has in fact been realized) a much more powerful person, physically, than that of his father. Miss Wordsworth I found making breakfast in the little sitting-room. No urn was there; no glittering breakfast service; a kettle boiled upon the fire, and everything was in harmony with these unpretending arrangements. I, the son of a merchant, and naturally, therefore, in the midst of luxurious (though not ostentatious) display from my childhood, had never seen so humble a ménage: and, contrasting the dignity of the man with this honourable poverty, and this courageous avowal of it, his utter absence of all effort to disguise the simple truth of the case, I felt my admiration increase to the uttermost by all I saw. This, thought I to myself, is, indeed, in his own words—
I've unintentionally gone off on a tangent. Now, let’s get back to my story. That night, after hearing a conversation that was far superior in both tone and subject to anything I had ever experienced before—except for one instance involving Coleridge, whose style was different from Wordsworth's in that it was much more agile and comprehensive, and therefore flashier and more surprising, but less solid and profound; whereas Wordsworth's style was slow, solemn, and majestic. After such a rare experience, I found myself around eleven at night in a nice bedroom, about fourteen feet by twelve. I worried that this might be the best room in the house, and it's a testament to my new friends' hospitality that it indeed was. Early in the morning, I was awakened by a little voice coming from a small bed in the opposite corner, softly talking to itself. I quickly recognized the words: "Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried," and I guessed the voice belonged to the oldest of Wordsworth's children, a son who was about three years old at the time. He was a remarkably strong and large boy, promising (which has indeed come true) to be physically much more powerful than his father. I found Miss Wordsworth preparing breakfast in the small sitting room. There was no urn; no shiny breakfast service; just a kettle boiling on the fire, everything in sync with these unpretentious arrangements. As the son of a merchant, I had always experienced a luxurious (though not showy) lifestyle, and I had never seen such a humble setup: and, contrasting the dignity of the man with this honorable poverty and his brave acceptance of it, along with his complete lack of effort to disguise the simple truth, my admiration grew immensely for all I observed. This, I thought to myself, truly is, in his own words—
This is indeed to reserve the humility and the parsimonies of life for its bodily enjoyments, and to apply its lavishness and its luxury to its enjoyments of the intellect. So might Milton have lived; so Marvell. Throughout the day—which was rainy—the same style of modest hospitality prevailed. Wordsworth and his sister—myself being of the party—walked out in spite of the rain, and made the circuit of the two lakes, Grasmere and its dependency Rydal—a walk of about six miles. On the third day, Mrs. Coleridge having now pursued her journey northward to Keswick, and having, at her departure, invited me, in her own name as well as Southey's, to come and see them, Wordsworth proposed that we should go thither in company, but not by the direct route—a distance of only thirteen miles: this we were to take in our road homeward; our outward-bound journey was to be by way of Ulleswater—a circuit of forty-three miles.
This is about keeping the humility and simplicity of life for its physical pleasures, while using its abundance and luxury for intellectual enjoyment. That's how Milton might have lived; so might Marvell. Throughout the rainy day, this same kind of modest hospitality continued. Wordsworth and his sister—along with me—went out despite the rain and walked around the two lakes, Grasmere and its smaller neighbor Rydal—a walk of about six miles. On the third day, after Mrs. Coleridge had headed north to Keswick, and had invited me, on behalf of herself and Southey, to come visit them, Wordsworth suggested that we should go there together, but not by the direct route—a distance of only thirteen miles: we would take that route on our way home; our outward journey would be around Ulleswater—a loop of forty-three miles.
On the third morning after my arrival in Grasmere, I found the whole family, except the two children, prepared for the expedition across the mountains. I had heard of no horses, and took it for granted that we were to walk; however, at the moment of starting, a cart—the common farmers' cart of the country—made its appearance; and the driver was a bonny young woman of the vale. Such a vehicle I had never in my life seen used for such a purpose; but what was good enough for the Wordsworths was good enough for me; and, accordingly, we were all carted along to the little town, or large village, of Ambleside—three and a half miles distant. Our style of travelling occasioned no astonishment; on the contrary, we met a smiling salutation wherever we appeared—Miss Wordsworth being, as I observed, the person most familiarly known of our party, and the one who took upon herself the whole expenses of the flying colloquies exchanged with stragglers on the road. What struck me with most astonishment, however, was the liberal manner of our fair driver, who made no scruple of taking a leap, with the reins in her hand, and seating herself dexterously upon the shafts (or, in Westmoreland phrase, the trams) of the cart. From Ambleside—and without one foot of intervening flat ground—begins to rise the famous ascent of Kirkstone;[Pg 308] after which, for three long miles, all riding in a cart drawn by one horse becomes impossible. The ascent is computed at three miles, but is, probably, a little more. In some parts it is almost frightfully steep; for the road, being only the original mountain track of shepherds, gradually widened and improved from age to age (especially since the era of tourists began), is carried over ground which no engineer, even in alpine countries, would have viewed as practicable. In ascending, this is felt chiefly as an obstruction and not as a peril, unless where there is a risk of the horses backing; but in the reverse order, some of these precipitous descents are terrific: and yet once, in utter darkness, after midnight, and the darkness irradiated only by continual streams of lightning, I was driven down this whole descent, at a full gallop, by a young woman—the carriage being a light one, the horses frightened, and the descents, at some critical parts of the road, so literally like the sides of a house, that it was difficult to keep the fore wheels from pressing upon the hind legs of the horses. Indeed, this is only according to the custom of the country, as I have before mentioned. The innkeeper of Ambleside, or Lowwood, will not mount this formidable hill without four horses. The leaders you are not required to take beyond the first three miles; but, of course, they are glad if you will take them on the whole stage of nine miles, to Patterdale; and, in that case, there is a real luxury at hand for those who enjoy velocity of motion. The descent into Patterdale is much above two miles; but such is the propensity for flying down hills in Westmoreland that I have found the descent accomplished in about six minutes, which is at the rate of eighteen miles an hour; the various turnings of the road making the speed much more sensible to the traveller. The pass, at the summit of this ascent, is nothing to be compared in sublimity with the pass under Great Gavil from Wastdalehead; but it is solemn, and profoundly impressive. At a height so awful as this, it may be easily supposed that all human dwellings have been long left behind: no sound of human life, no bells of churches or chapels ever ascend so far. And, as is noticed in Wordsworth's fine stanzas upon this memorable pass, the only sound that, even in noonday, disturbs the sleep of the weary[Pg 309] pedestrian, is that of the bee murmuring amongst the mountain flowers—a sound as ancient
On the third morning after I arrived in Grasmere, I found the whole family, except for the two kids, ready for the journey across the mountains. I hadn't heard about any horses, so I assumed we were walking; however, just as we were about to start, a cart—the typical farmers' cart of the area—showed up, driven by a cheerful young woman from the valley. I had never seen such a vehicle used for this purpose before, but if it was good enough for the Wordsworths, it was good enough for me. So, we all hopped in and were taken to the little town, or large village, of Ambleside—three and a half miles away. Our way of traveling didn’t surprise anyone; on the contrary, we received friendly greetings wherever we went, with Miss Wordsworth being the person most recognized in our group, and she took care of the costs for all the casual chats we had with people we met along the road. What amazed me the most was how effortlessly our lovely driver jumped onto the cart's shafts (or, as they say in Westmoreland, the trams) with the reins in her hands. From Ambleside—and with no flat ground in between—begins the famous climb up Kirkstone; after that, for three long miles, riding in a cart pulled by one horse becomes impossible. The climb is said to be three miles, but it’s probably a bit longer. In some places, it's almost terrifyingly steep; the road, originally just a mountain path for shepherds that has been gradually widened and improved over the years (especially since tourists started arriving), goes over terrain that no engineer, even in snowy regions, would consider feasible. While climbing, you mostly feel it as an inconvenience rather than a danger, unless there’s a chance of the horses backing up; but going down, some of those steep drops can be really scary: yet, once, in complete darkness after midnight, illuminated only by constant lightning strikes, I was taken down this entire slope at a full gallop by a young woman—the carriage was light, the horses were spooked, and the slopes at some critical points were so steep that it was tough to keep the front wheels from hitting the horses' back legs. This is just how things are done in the area, as I've mentioned before. The innkeeper at Ambleside, or Lowwood, won't tackle this daunting hill without four horses. You don't need to take the lead horses beyond the first three miles; however, they’re happy if you take them for the entire nine-mile stretch to Patterdale, and in that case, there's a real thrill for those who enjoy speed. The drop into Patterdale is over two miles, but because people in Westmoreland love racing down hills, I’ve experienced the descent in about six minutes, which is about eighteen miles an hour; the twists in the road make the speed feel even more intense to the traveler. The pass at the top of this climb doesn't compare in grandeur to the pass under Great Gavil from Wastdalehead, but it's solemn and deeply moving. At such a daunting height, it’s easy to imagine that all human habitation is far behind: no sounds of human life, no church or chapel bells ever reach this high. As noted in Wordsworth's beautiful lines about this memorable pass, the only sound that disturbs the slumber of the tired traveler, even during the day, is the buzzing of a bee among the mountain flowers—a sound as ancient.
This way, and (which, to the sentiment of the case, is an important point) this way of necessity and inevitably, passed the Roman legions; for it is a mathematic impossibility that any other route could be found for an army nearer to the eastward of this pass than by way of Kendal and Shap; nearer to the westward, than by way of Legbesthwaite and St. John's Vale (and so by Threlkeld to Penrith). Now, these two roads are exactly twenty-five miles apart; and, since a Roman cohort was stationed at Ambleside (Amboglane), it is pretty evident that this cohort would not correspond with the more northerly stations by either of these remote routes—having immediately before it this direct though difficult pass to Kirkstone. On the solitary area of tableland which you find at the summit—though, Heaven knows, you might almost cover it with a drawing-room carpet, so suddenly does the mountain take to its old trick of precipitous descent, on both sides alike—there are only two objects to remind you of man and his workmanship. One is a guide-post—always a picturesque and interesting object, because it expresses a wild country and a labyrinth of roads, and often made much more interesting (as in this case) by the lichens which cover it, and which record the generations of men to whom it has done its office; as also by the crucifix form, which inevitably recalls, in all mountainous regions, the crosses of Catholic lands, raised to the memory of wayfaring men who have perished by the hand of the assassin. The other memorial of man is even more interesting:—Amongst the fragments of rock which lie in the confusion of a ruin on each side of the road, one there is which exceeds the rest in height, and which, in shape, presents a very close resemblance to a church. This lies to the left of the road as you are going from Ambleside; and from its name, Churchstone (Kirkstone), is derived the name of the pass, and from the pass the name of the mountain. The guide-post—which was really the work of man—tells those going southwards (for to those who go northwards it is useless, since, in that[Pg 310] direction, there is no choice of roads) that the left hand track conducts you to Troutbeck, and Bowness, and Kendal, the right hand to Ambleside, and Hawkshead, and Ulverstone. The church—which is but a phantom of man's handiwork—might, however, really be mistaken for such, were it not that the rude and almost inaccessible state of the adjacent ground proclaims the truth. As to size, that is remarkably difficult to estimate upon wild heaths or mountain solitudes, where there are no leadings through gradations of distance, nor any artificial standards, from which height or breadth can be properly deduced. This mimic church, however, has a peculiarly fine effect in this wild situation, which leaves so far below the tumults of this world: the phantom church, by suggesting the phantom and evanescent image of a congregation, where never congregation met; of the pealing organ, where never sound was heard except of wild natural notes, or else of the wind rushing through these mighty gates of everlasting rock—in this way, the fanciful image that accompanies the traveller on his road, for half a mile or more, serves to bring out the antagonist feeling of intense and awful solitude, which is the natural and presiding sentiment—the religio loci—that broods for ever over the romantic pass.
This way, and (which is an important point for understanding the situation) this way of necessity and inevitably, passed the Roman legions; because it's a mathematical impossibility that any other route could be found for an army closer to the east of this pass than by way of Kendal and Shap; or closer to the west than by way of Legbesthwaite and St. John's Vale (and then through Threlkeld to Penrith). Now, these two roads are exactly twenty-five miles apart; and since a Roman cohort was stationed at Ambleside (Amboglane), it’s pretty clear that this cohort wouldn’t connect with the more northern stations via these distant routes—having right in front of it this direct but challenging pass to Kirkstone. On the lonely stretch of flat land you find at the summit—though, honestly, you could almost cover it with a living room carpet, since the mountain suddenly drops steeply on both sides—there are only two reminders of humans and their work. One is a guide post—always a picturesque and interesting sight, because it indicates a wild area and a maze of roads, often made even more interesting (like in this case) by the lichens covering it, which tell the story of the generations of people who have relied on it; along with its crucifix shape, which inevitably brings to mind, in all mountainous regions, the crosses of Catholic countries, honoring travelers who have fallen victim to violence. The other human reminder is even more fascinating: Among the rocks scattered chaotically on either side of the road, one stands taller and resembles a church. This lies to the left of the road as you head from Ambleside; and from its name, Churchstone (Kirkstone), comes the name of the pass, and from the pass the name of the mountain. The guide post—which is genuinely a human creation—directs those going south (since it’s useless for those heading north, as there's no choice of roads in that direction) that the left path leads to Troutbeck, Bowness, and Kendal, while the right directs to Ambleside, Hawkshead, and Ulverstone. The church—which is merely an illusion of human craftsmanship—might actually be mistaken for a real one, were it not for the rough and nearly inaccessible terrain surrounding it that reveals the truth. As for size, that is particularly hard to gauge in wild heathlands or mountain solitude, where there are no points of reference through gradients of distance, or any artificial standards from which height or width can be accurately judged. This mimic church, however, holds a uniquely impressive presence in this wild location, which is so far removed from the chaos of the world: the phantom church evokes the fleeting image of a congregation that never gathered; of the sound of an organ that has never been heard except for the wild natural notes or the wind rushing through these towering gates of eternal rock—in this way, the imaginative image that follows the traveler for half a mile or more enhances the intense and overwhelming feeling of solitude, which is the natural and dominant emotion—the religio loci—that perpetually envelops the romantic pass.
Having walked up Kirkstone, we ascended our cart again; then rapidly descended to Brothers' Water—a lake which lies immediately below; and, about three miles further, through endless woods and under the shade of mighty fells, immediate dependencies and processes of the still more mighty Helvellyn, we approached the vale of Patterdale, when, by moonlight, we reached the inn. Here we found horses—by whom furnished I never asked nor heard; perhaps I owe somebody for a horse to this day. All I remember is—that through those most romantic woods and rocks of Stybarren—through those silent glens of Glencoin and Glenridding—through that most romantic of parks then belonging to the Duke of Norfolk, viz. Gobarrow Park—we saw alternately, for four miles, the most grotesque and the most awful spectacles—
Having walked up Kirkstone, we got back in our cart; then quickly descended to Brothers' Water—a lake that sits right below us; and, about three miles later, through endless woods and under the shade of towering hills, direct extensions and processes of the even more massive Helvellyn, we approached the vale of Patterdale. By moonlight, we arrived at the inn. Here we found horses—who provided them I never asked or heard; maybe I still owe someone for a horse to this day. All I remember is that through those incredibly scenic woods and rocks of Stybarren—through those quiet glens of Glencoin and Glenridding—through that most picturesque of parks then owned by the Duke of Norfolk, known as Gobarrow Park—we alternated, for four miles, between the most bizarre and the most terrifying sights—
all fantastic, all as unreal and shadowy as the moonlight which created them; whilst, at every angle of the road, broad gleams came upwards of Ulleswater, stretching for nine miles northward, but, fortunately for its effect, broken into three watery chambers of almost equal length, and rarely visible at once. At the foot of the lake, in a house called Ewsmere, we passed the night, having accomplished about twenty-two miles only in our day's walking and riding.
all fantastic, all as unreal and shadowy as the moonlight that created them; meanwhile, at every turn of the road, broad reflections of Ulleswater appeared, stretching nine miles northward, but, luckily for its beauty, divided into three watery sections of almost equal length, and rarely seen all at once. At the foot of the lake, in a house called Ewsmere, we spent the night, having covered only about twenty-two miles in our day's walking and riding.
The next day Wordsworth and I, leaving at Ewsmere the rest of our party, spent the morning in roaming through the woods of Lowther, and, towards evening, we dined together at Emont Bridge, one mile short of Penrith. Afterwards, we walked into Penrith. There Wordsworth left me in excellent quarters—the house of Captain Wordsworth, from which the family happened to be absent. Whither he himself adjourned, I know not, nor on what business; however, it occupied him throughout the next day; and, therefore, I employed myself in sauntering along the road, about seventeen miles, to Keswick. There I had been directed to ask for Greta Hall, which, with some little difficulty, I found; for it stands out of the town a few hundred yards, upon a little eminence overhanging the river Greta. It was about seven o'clock when I reached Southey's door; for I had stopped to dine at a little public house in Threlkeld, and had walked slowly for the last two hours in the dark. The arrival of a stranger occasioned a little sensation in the house; and, by the time the front door could be opened, I saw Mrs. Coleridge, and a gentleman whom I could not doubt to be Southey, standing, very hospitably, to greet my entrance. Southey was, in person, somewhat taller than Wordsworth, being about five feet eleven in height, or a trifle more, whilst Wordsworth was about five feet ten; and, partly from having slender limbs, partly from being more symmetrically formed about the shoulders than Wordsworth, he struck one as a better and lighter figure, to the effect of which his dress contributed; for he wore pretty constantly a short jacket and pantaloons, and had much the air of a Tyrolese mountaineer.
The next day, Wordsworth and I, leaving the rest of our group at Ewsmere, spent the morning wandering through the woods of Lowther, and in the evening, we had dinner together at Emont Bridge, just a mile short of Penrith. Afterward, we walked into Penrith. There, Wordsworth left me in great accommodations—the house of Captain Wordsworth, which the family happened to be away from. I don't know where he went or what he was up to; it occupied him all the next day. So, I decided to stroll along the road for about seventeen miles to Keswick. I had been told to look for Greta Hall, which I found with a bit of difficulty; it sits just outside town a few hundred yards on a small hill overlooking the river Greta. I reached Southey's door around seven o'clock since I had stopped for dinner at a small pub in Threlkeld and walked slowly for the last two hours in the dark. The arrival of a stranger created a bit of a stir in the house; by the time the front door was opened, I saw Mrs. Coleridge and a gentleman I was sure was Southey, standing very welcomingly to greet me. Southey was slightly taller than Wordsworth, about five feet eleven or a little more, while Wordsworth was around five feet ten. Partly due to his slender build and somewhat more symmetrical shoulders than Wordsworth, he presented a better and lighter figure, enhanced by his clothing; he often wore a short jacket and pantaloons, giving him the look of a Tyrolese mountaineer.
On the next day arrived Wordsworth. I could read at once, in the manner of the two authors, that they were not[Pg 312] on particularly friendly, or rather, I should say, confidential terms. It seemed to me as if both had silently said—"We are too much men of sense to quarrel because we do not happen particularly to like each other's writings: we are neighbours, or what passes for such in the country. Let us show each other the courtesies which are becoming to men of letters; and, for any closer connexion, our distance of thirteen miles may be always sufficient to keep us from that." In after life, it is true—fifteen years, perhaps, from this time—many circumstances combined to bring Southey and Wordsworth into more intimate terms of friendship: agreement in politics, sorrows which had happened to both alike in their domestic relations, and the sort of tolerance for different opinions in literature, or, indeed, in anything else, which advancing years and experience are sure to bring with them. But at this period, Southey and Wordsworth entertained a mutual esteem, but did not cordially like each other. Indeed, it would have been odd if they had. Wordsworth lived in the open air: Southey in his library, which Coleridge used to call his wife. Southey had particularly elegant habits (Wordsworth called them finical) in the use of books. Wordsworth, on the other hand, was so negligent, and so self-indulgent in the same case, that, as Southey, laughing, expressed it to me some years afterwards, when I was staying at Greta Hall on a visit—"To introduce Wordsworth into one's library is like letting a bear into a tulip garden." What I mean by self-indulgent is this: generally it happens that new books baffle and mock one's curiosity by their uncut leaves; and the trial is pretty much the same as when, in some town where you are utterly unknown, you meet the postman at a distance from your inn, with some letter for yourself from a dear, dear friend in foreign regions, without money to pay the postage. How is it with you, dear reader, in such a case? Are you not tempted (I am grievously) to snatch the letter from his tantalizing hand, spite of the roar which you anticipate of "Stop thief!" and make off as fast as you can for some solitary street in the suburbs, where you may instantly effect an entrance upon your new estate before the purchase money is paid down? Such were Wordsworth's feelings in regard to new books; of which the first exemplification[Pg 313] I had was early in my acquaintance with him, and on occasion of a book which (if any could) justified the too summary style of his advances in rifling its charms. On a level with the eye, when sitting at the tea-table in my little cottage at Grasmere, stood the collective works of Edmund Burke. The book was to me an eye-sore and an ear-sore for many a year, in consequence of the cacophonous title lettered by the bookseller upon the back—"Burke's Works." I have heard it said, by the way, that Donne's intolerable defect of ear grew out of his own baptismal name, when harnessed to his own surname—John Donne. No man, it was said, who had listened to this hideous jingle from childish years, could fail to have his genius for discord, and the abominable in sound, improved to the utmost. Not less dreadful than John Donne was "Burke's Works"; which, however, on the old principle, that every day's work is no day's work, continued to annoy me for twenty-one years. Wordsworth took down the volume; unfortunately it was uncut; fortunately, and by a special Providence as to him, it seemed, tea was proceeding at the time. Dry toast required butter; butter required knives; and knives then lay on the table; but sad it was for the virgin purity of Mr. Burke's as yet unsunned pages, that every knife bore upon its blade testimonies of the service it had rendered. Did that stop Wordsworth? Did that cause him to call for another knife? Not at all; he
On the next day, Wordsworth arrived. I could immediately tell from the demeanor of the two authors that they were not[Pg 312] on particularly friendly or, to be more accurate, confidential terms. It seemed to me as if they both silently conveyed—“We’re too sensible to argue just because we don’t particularly enjoy each other’s writing: we’re neighbors, or at least what passes for neighbors in the countryside. Let’s show each other the politeness that’s appropriate between men of letters; and as for any closer relationship, our thirteen-mile distance can always keep us from that.” It’s true that later in life—perhaps fifteen years from this moment—many circumstances brought Southey and Wordsworth into a closer friendship: shared political beliefs, mutual sorrows in their personal lives, and a kind of acceptance of differing opinions in literature or anything else that age and experience tend to bring. But at this point, Southey and Wordsworth had mutual respect, though they didn’t genuinely like each other. It would have been odd if they did. Wordsworth thrived in the outdoors while Southey was often found in his library, which Coleridge jokingly referred to as his wife. Southey had particularly refined habits (which Wordsworth considered fussy) when it came to handling books. In contrast, Wordsworth was so careless and indulgent with books that, as Southey humorously mentioned to me years later while I was visiting Greta Hall, “Having Wordsworth in your library is like letting a bear into a tulip garden.” What I mean by indulgent is this: it often happens that new books frustrate and taunt one’s curiosity with their uncut pages; the experience is somewhat akin to meeting the postman while you are completely unknown in some town, with a letter for you from a dearly beloved friend overseas, but lacking the money to pay for the postage. How would you feel in such a situation, dear reader? Are you not tempted (I certainly am very much so) to snatch the letter from his teasing hand, despite the expected shout of "Stop thief!" and dash off as quickly as possible to some quiet street in the suburbs, where you can open your new treasure before the payment is made? Those were Wordsworth's feelings about new books; the first example[Pg 313] I encountered early in my acquaintance with him involved a book that (if any could) justified his hasty approach to unearthing its delights. At eye level, while sitting at the tea table in my little cottage at Grasmere, stood the collected works of Edmund Burke. The book was an eyesore and an earsore to me for many years, largely because of the jarring title printed by the bookseller on the spine—“Burke’s Works.” I’ve heard it suggested that Donne’s terrible sense of rhythm came from his first name paired with his last name—John Donne. It was said that no one who had to endure that dreadful combination from childhood could help but develop a genius for discord and unpleasant sounds. No less awful than John Donne was “Burke’s Works,” which, however, followed the old adage that if you don’t get anything done today, you won’t get anything done at all, continuing to annoy me for twenty-one years. Wordsworth took down the volume; unfortunately, it was uncut; fortunately, and perhaps due to divine intervention for him, tea was being served at the time. Dry toast needed butter; butter needed knives; and the knives were conveniently sitting on the table; but sadly for Mr. Burke's pristine, unopened pages, each knife bore evidence of its previous use. Did that deter Wordsworth? Did he ask for another knife? Not at all; he
And looked and sighed, then looked and sighed again;
and then, after this momentary tribute to regret, he tore his way into the heart of the volume with this knife, that left its greasy honours behind it upon every page: and are they not there to this day? This personal experience first brought me acquainted with Wordsworth's habits in that particular especially, with his intense impatience for one minute's delay which would have brought a remedy; and yet the reader may believe that it is no affectation in me to say that fifty such cases could have given me but little pain, when I explain that whatever could be made good by money, at that time, I did not regard. Had the book been an old black-letter book, having a value from its rarity, I should have been[Pg 314] disturbed in an indescribable degree; but simply with reference to the utter impossibility of reproducing that mode of value. As to the Burke, it was a common book; I had bought the book, with many others, at the sale of Sir Cecil Wray's library, for about two-thirds of the selling price: I could easily replace it; and I mention the case at all, only to illustrate the excess of Wordsworth's outrages on books, which made him, in Southey's eyes, a mere monster; for Southey's beautiful library was his estate; and this difference of habits would alone have sufficed to alienate him from Wordsworth. And so I argued in other cases of the same nature. Meantime, had Wordsworth done as Coleridge did, how cheerfully should I have acquiesced in his destruction (such as it was, in a pecuniary sense) of books, as the very highest obligation he could confer. Coleridge often spoiled a book; but, in the course of doing this, he enriched that book with so many and so valuable notes, tossing about him, with such lavish profusion, from such a cornucopia of discursive reading, and such a fusing intellect, commentaries so many-angled and so many-coloured that I have envied many a man whose luck has placed him in the way of such injuries; and that man must have been a churl (though, God knows! too often this churl has existed) who could have found in his heart to complain. But Wordsworth rarely, indeed, wrote on the margin of books; and, when he did, nothing could less illustrate his intellectual superiority. The comments were such as might have been made by anybody. Once, I remember, before I had ever seen Wordsworth—probably a year before—I met a person who had once enjoyed the signal honour of travelling with him to London. It was in a stage-coach. But the person in question well knew who it was that had been his compagnon de voyage. Immediately he was glorified in my eyes. "And," said I, to this glorified gentleman (who, par parenthése, was also a donkey), "Now, as you travelled nearly three hundred miles in the company of Mr. Wordsworth, consequently (for this was in 1805) during two nights and two days, doubtless you must have heard many profound remarks that would inevitably fall from his lips." Nay, Coleridge had also been of the party; and, if Wordsworth solus could have been dull, was it within human possibilities that these gemini should have[Pg 315] been so? "Was it possible?" I said; and perhaps my donkey, who looked like one that had been immoderately threatened, at last took courage; his eye brightened; and he intimated that he did remember something that Wordsworth had said—an "observe," as the Scotch call it.
and then, after this brief moment of regret, he plunged into the heart of the book with this knife, leaving its greasy marks on every page: and aren’t they still there today? This personal experience first made me aware of Wordsworth's habits, particularly his intense impatience for even a minute's delay that could have provided a solution; and yet, believe me when I say that fifty such incidents would have caused me little pain, as I didn’t consider anything that could be fixed with money at that time. Had the book been an old black-letter volume, valuable because of its rarity, I would have been deeply disturbed; but it was simply because of the utter impossibility of recreating that kind of value. As for the Burke, it was a common book; I had purchased it, along with many others, at the sale of Sir Cecil Wray's library, for about two-thirds of the sale price: I could easily replace it; and I only bring it up to illustrate the extent of Wordsworth's treatment of books, which made him seem, in Southey's eyes, a mere monster; for Southey's beautiful library was his treasure; and this difference in habits alone would have been enough to separate him from Wordsworth. And so I reasoned with other similar cases. Meanwhile, had Wordsworth behaved like Coleridge, how gladly would I have accepted his destruction (as minor as it was, in a monetary sense) of books, as the highest favor he could confer. Coleridge often spoiled a book; but in the process, he enriched it with so many valuable notes, sharing them so generously, from such a wealth of reading and a brilliant mind, with commentaries so diverse and colorful that I have envied many a person fortunate enough to encounter such "injuries"; and that person must have been a curmudgeon (though, God knows, too often such a curmudgeon has existed) who could find it in his heart to complain. But Wordsworth rarely wrote in the margins of books; and when he did, it didn’t demonstrate any intellectual superiority. The comments were the kind anyone could make. Once, I remember, before I had ever met Wordsworth—probably a year before—I met someone who had had the notable honor of traveling with him to London. It was in a stagecoach. But this individual knew exactly who his travel companion was. Immediately, he was elevated in my eyes. "And," I said to this exalted gentleman (who, by the way, was also a donkey), "Now, since you traveled nearly three hundred miles with Mr. Wordsworth, consequently (this was in 1805) over two nights and two days, you must have heard many profound remarks that surely fell from his lips." Indeed, Coleridge had also been part of the trip; and if Wordsworth alone could have been dull, could it be conceivable that these two should have been so? "Was it possible?" I asked; and perhaps my donkey, who looked like someone who had been excessively threatened, finally found some courage; his eye brightened; and he indicated that he did remember something Wordsworth had said—a "remark," as the Scots call it.
"Ay, indeed; and what was it now? What did the great man say?"
"Ay, indeed; and what was it now? What did the important person say?"
"Why, sir, in fact, and to make a long story short, on coming near to London, we breakfasted at Baldock—you know Baldock? It's in Hertfordshire. Well, now, sir, would you believe it, though we were quite in regular time, the breakfast was precisely good for nothing?"
"Why, sir, to cut a long story short, when we got close to London, we had breakfast at Baldock—you know Baldock? It’s in Hertfordshire. Well, would you believe it, even though we were right on time, the breakfast was absolutely terrible?"
"And Wordsworth?"
"And Wordsworth?"
"He observed——"
"He watched——"
"What did he observe?"
"What did he notice?"
"That the buttered toast looked, for all the world, as if it had been soaked in hot water."
"That the buttered toast looked, to everyone, like it had been soaked in hot water."
Ye heavens! "buttered toast!" And was it this I waited for? Now, thought I, had Henry Mackenzie been breakfasting with Wordsworth at Baldock (and, strange enough! in years to come I did breakfast with Henry Mackenzie, for the solitary time I ever met him, and at Wordsworth's house in Rydal), he would have carried off one sole reminiscence from the meeting—namely, a confirmation of his creed, that we English are all dedicated, from our very cradle, to the luxuries of the palate, and peculiarly to this.[129] Proh pudor! Yet, in sad sincerity, Wordsworth's pencil-notices in books were quite as disappointing. In "Roderick Random," for example, I found a note upon a certain luscious description, to the effect that "such things should be left to the imagination[Pg 316] of the reader—not expressed." In another place, that it was "improper"; and, in a third, that "the principle laid down was doubtful," or, as Sir Roger de Coverley observes, "that much might be said on both sides." All this, however, indicates nothing more than that different men require to be roused by different stimulants. Wordsworth, in his marginal notes, thought of nothing but delivering himself of a strong feeling, with which he wished to challenge the reader's sympathy. Coleridge imagined an audience before him; and, however doubtful that consummation might seem, I am satisfied that he never wrote a line for which he did not feel the momentary inspiration of sympathy and applause, under the confidence, that, sooner or later, all which he had committed to the chance margins of books would converge and assemble in some common reservoir of reception. Bread scattered upon the water will be gathered after many days. This, perhaps, was the consolation that supported him; and the prospect that, for a time, his Arethusa of truth would flow underground, did not, perhaps, disturb, but rather cheered and elevated, the sublime old somnambulist.[130] Meantime, Wordsworth's habits of using books—which, I am satisfied, would, in those days, alone have kept him at a distance from most men with fine libraries—were not vulgar; not the habits of those who turn over the page by means of a wet finger (though even this abomination I have seen perpetrated by a Cambridge tutor and fellow of a college; but then he had been bred up as a ploughman, and the son of a ploughman): no; but his habits were more properly barbarous and licentious, and in the spirit of audacity belonging de jure to no man but him who could plead an income of four or five hundred thousand per annum, and to whom the Bodleian or the Vatican would be a three years' purchase. Gross, meantime, was his delusion upon this subject. Himself he regarded as the golden mean between the too little and the[Pg 317] too much of care for books; and, as it happened that every one of his friends far exceeded him in this point, curiously felicitous was the explanation which he gave of this superfluous care, so as to bring it within the natural operation of some known fact in the man's peculiar situation. Southey (he was by nature something of an old bachelor) had his house filled with pretty articles—bijouterie, and so forth; and, naturally, he wished his books to be kept up to the same level—burnished and bright for show. Sir George Beaumont—this peculiarly elegant and accomplished man—was an old and most affectionate friend of Wordsworth's. Sir George Beaumont never had any children; if he had been so blessed, they, by familiarizing him with the spectacle of books ill used—stained, torn, mutilated, &c.—would have lowered the standard of his requisitions. The short solution of the whole case was—and it illustrated the nature of his education—he had never lived in a regular family at a time when habits are moulded. From boyhood to manhood he had been sui juris.
Good heavens! "buttered toast!" Is this what I was waiting for? Now, I thought, if Henry Mackenzie had been having breakfast with Wordsworth at Baldock (and oddly enough, I did end up having breakfast with Henry Mackenzie, the only time I ever met him, at Wordsworth's house in Rydal), he would have taken away one lasting memory from that meeting—namely, proof of his belief that we English are all dedicated, from our very beginnings, to the pleasures of good food, especially this one.[129] Proh pudor! Still, honestly, Wordsworth's notes in the margins of books were just as disappointing. In "Roderick Random," for example, I found a comment on a particularly tempting description, stating that "such things should be left to the imagination[Pg 316] of the reader—not written out." In another note, he said it was "improper"; and in a third, he remarked that "the principle stated was questionable," or, as Sir Roger de Coverley would say, "there's an argument to be made on both sides." All of this indicates nothing more than that different people need different kinds of stimulation. Wordsworth, in his marginal notes, was only focused on expressing a strong feeling, which he wanted to stir in the reader. Coleridge envisioned an audience before him; and, no matter how unlikely that might seem, I believe he never wrote a line without the momentary thrill of sympathy and applause, confident that eventually, everything he jotted in the margins of books would find its way to a shared appreciation. Bread thrown on the water will eventually be gathered after some time. Perhaps this was the comfort that supported him; and the thought that for a while, his Arethusa of truth would flow underground, likely did not disturb him but instead lifted the spirit of the great old dreamer.[130] Meanwhile, Wordsworth's approach to books—which I’m sure would have kept him at a distance from most people with fine libraries back then—was not crude; it wasn't the behavior of someone who turns pages with a wet finger (though I've witnessed this disgraceful act from a Cambridge tutor and college fellow; but he had grown up as a plowman, and the son of a plowman): no, his habits were more accurately barbaric and reckless, with a boldness that only someone with an income of four or five hundred thousand per year could claim, to whom the Bodleian or the Vatican would be just a three years' purchase. Meanwhile, he was greatly deluded about this. He saw himself as the perfect balance between too little and too much care for books; and since every one of his friends was far more fastidious, he cleverly justified this extra care by connecting it to some well-known fact about their individual circumstances. Southey (who by nature was a bit of an old bachelor) filled his house with lovely items—bijouterie, and so forth; and naturally, he wanted his books to match that standard—polished and bright for display. Sir George Beaumont—this particularly elegant and cultured man—was a long-time and very dear friend of Wordsworth. Sir George Beaumont had no children; had he been so fortunate, they, by showing him the sight of abused books—stained, torn, mutilated, etc.—would have lowered his standards. The simple explanation for all of this—and it highlighted the nature of his upbringing—was that he had never lived in a structured family at a time when habits are shaped. From childhood to adulthood, he had been sui juris.
Returning to Southey and Greta Hall, both the house and the master may deserve a few words more of description. For the master, I have already sketched his person; and his face I profess myself unable to describe accurately. His hair was black, and yet his complexion was fair; his eyes I believe to be hazel and large; but I will not vouch for that fact: his nose aquiline; and he has a remarkable habit of looking up into the air, as if looking at abstractions. The expression of his face was that of a very acute and aspiring man. So far, it was even noble, as it conveyed a feeling of a serene and gentle pride, habitually familiar with elevating subjects of contemplation. And yet it was impossible that this pride could have been offensive to anybody, chastened as it was by the most unaffected modesty; and this modesty made evident and prominent by the constant expression of reverence for the great men of the age (when he happened to esteem them such), and for all the great patriarchs of our literature. The point in which Southey's manner failed the most in conciliating regard was in all which related to the external expressions of friendliness. No man could be more[Pg 318] sincerely hospitable—no man more essentially disposed to give up even his time (the possession which he most valued) to the service of his friends. But there was an air of reserve and distance about him—the reserve of a lofty, self-respecting mind, but, perhaps, a little too freezing—in his treatment of all persons who were not among the corps of his ancient fireside friends. Still, even towards the veriest strangers, it is but justice to notice his extreme courtesy in sacrificing his literary employments for the day, whatever they might be, to the duty (for such he made it) of doing the honours of the lake and the adjacent mountains.
Returning to Southey and Greta Hall, both the house and the owner deserve a little more description. I've already touched on his appearance, but I can't accurately describe his face. His hair was black, and yet he had a fair complexion; his eyes were likely hazel and large, but I can't guarantee that. He had an aquiline nose and a notable habit of looking up into the air, as if pondering abstract ideas. The expression on his face suggested a highly intelligent and ambitious person. In some ways, it even had a noble quality, conveying a sense of serene and gentle pride, always familiar with lofty subjects of thought. Yet this pride was not off-putting to anyone, as it was tempered by genuine modesty; this modesty was evident in his constant reverence for the great figures of his time (when he considered them worthy) and for all the literary giants of our history. The area where Southey's demeanor struggled the most to win affection was in how he expressed friendliness outwardly. No one could be more genuinely hospitable—no one more willing to sacrifice his time (the thing he valued most) for the benefit of his friends. However, there was a sense of reserve and distance about him—stemming from a proud, self-respecting nature, but perhaps a little too chilly—when it came to anyone who wasn’t part of his circle of long-time friends. Still, even towards complete strangers, it’s only fair to acknowledge his extreme courtesy in putting aside his writing or any tasks for the day to fulfill his duty (as he saw it) of showcasing the beauty of the lake and the nearby mountains.
Southey was at that time (1807), and has continued ever since, the most industrious of all literary men on record. A certain task he prescribed to himself every morning before breakfast. This could not be a very long one, for he breakfasted at nine, or soon after, and never rose before eight, though he went to bed duly at half-past ten; but, as I have many times heard him say, less than nine hours' sleep he found insufficient. From breakfast to a latish dinner (about half after five or six) was his main period of literary toil. After dinner, according to the accident of having or not having visitors in the house, he sat over his wine, or he retired to his library again, from which, about eight, he was summoned to tea. But, generally speaking, he closed his literary toils at dinner; the whole of the hours after that meal being dedicated to his correspondence. This, it may be supposed, was unusually large, to occupy so much of his time, for his letters rarely extended to any length. At that period, the post, by way of Penrith, reached Keswick about six or seven in the evening. And so pointedly regular was Southey in all his habits that, short as the time was, all letters were answered on the same evening which brought them. At tea, he read the London papers. It was perfectly astonishing to men of less methodical habits to find how much he got through of elaborate business by his unvarying system of arrangement in the distribution of his time. We often hear it said, in accounts of pattern ladies and gentlemen (what Coleridge used contemptuously to style goody people), that they found time for everything; that business never interrupted pleasure; that labours of love and charity[Pg 319] never stood in the way of courtesy and personal enjoyment. This is easy to say—easy to put down as one feature of an imaginary portrait: but I must say that in actual life I have seen few such cases. Southey, however, did find time for everything. It moved the sneers of some people, that even his poetry was composed according to a predetermined rule; that so many lines should be produced, by contract, as it were, before breakfast; so many at such another definite interval. And I acknowledge that so far I went along with the sneerers as to marvel exceedingly how that could be possible. But, if a priori one laughed and expected to see verses corresponding to this mechanic rule of construction, a posteriori one was bound to judge of the verses as one found them. Supposing them good, they were entitled to honour, no matter for the previous reasons which made it possible that they would not be good. And generally, however undoubtedly they ought to have been bad, the world has pronounced them good. In fact, they are good; and the sole objection to them is, that they are too intensely objective—too much reflect the mind, as spreading itself out upon external things—too little exhibit the mind as introverting itself upon its own thoughts and feelings. This, however, is an objection which only seems to limit the range of the poetry—and all poetry is limited in its range: none comprehends more than a section of the human power.
Southey was, at that time (1807), and has remained since, the most hardworking literary figure ever recorded. Every morning before breakfast, he set himself a specific task. It couldn’t have been very long since he had breakfast around nine or shortly after and never got up before eight, even though he consistently went to bed at half-past ten; as he often said, he needed at least nine hours of sleep. His main period for writing stretched from breakfast until a late dinner (around half-past five or six). After dinner, depending on whether he had visitors, he would either enjoy his wine or retreat to his library again, only to be called for tea around eight. Generally, he wrapped up his literary work at dinner, dedicating the hours afterward to correspondence. This was presumably quite substantial to consume so much of his time, even though his letters were typically brief. Back then, the post, coming through Penrith, arrived in Keswick around six or seven in the evening. Southey was so exceptionally consistent in all his routines that, despite the short timeframe, he managed to answer all letters on the same evening they arrived. At tea, he read the London newspapers. It was truly remarkable to those with less organized habits to see how much he accomplished through his unchanging system of time management. We often hear about so-called perfect ladies and gentlemen (what Coleridge dismissively referred to as goody people) who claim to find time for everything; that business never interfered with pleasure; that acts of love and charity[Pg 319] never got in the way of kindness and personal enjoyment. It’s easy to say—simple to note down as a characteristic of an imagined portrait: but I have to say that in real life, I've seen few such examples. However, Southey did manage to make time for everything. It drew mockery from some that even his poetry was created following a predetermined plan; that a specific number of lines should be completed, in essence, by contract, before breakfast; and another set at a defined interval. I admit that I, too, marveled at how that could be possible. But, while a priori one might laugh and expect to see verses that fit this mechanical structure, a posteriori one had to evaluate the verses as they were. If they were good, they deserved recognition, regardless of the prior reasons suggesting they would not be good. And generally, no matter how much they ought to have been bad, the world deemed them good. In fact, they are good; and the only critique of them is that they are too intensely objective—too focused on the external world rather than exploring the mind's own thoughts and feelings. This, however, is a criticism that only seems to narrow the scope of poetry—and all poetry is limited in scope: none encompass more than a segment of human capability.
Meantime, the prose of Southey was that by which he lived. The Quarterly Review it was by which, as he expressed it to myself in 1810, he "made the pot boil."[131] About the same time, possibly as early as 1808 (for I think that I remember in that Journal an account of the Battle of Vimiera), Southey was engaged by an Edinburgh publisher (Constable, was it not?) to write the entire historical part of the Edinburgh Annual Register, at a salary of £400 per annum. Afterwards, the publisher, who was intensely national, and, doubtless, never from the first cordially[Pg 320] relished the notion of importing English aid into a city teeming with briefless barristers and variety of talent, threw out a hint that perhaps he might reduce the salary to £300. Just about this time I happened to see Southey, who said laughingly—"If the man of Edinburgh does this, I shall strike for an advance of wages." I presume that he did strike, and, like many other "operatives," without effect. Those who work for lower wages during a strike are called snobs,[132] the men who stand out being nobs. Southey became a resolute nob; but some snob was found in Edinburgh, some youthful advocate, who accepted £300 per annum, and thenceforward Southey lost this part of his income. I once possessed the whole work: and in one part, viz. the Domestic Chronicle, I know that it is executed with a most culpable carelessness—the beginnings of cases being given without the ends, the ends without the beginnings—a defect but too common in public journals. The credit of the work, however, was staked upon its treatment of the current public history of Europe, and the tone of its politics in times so full of agitation, and teeming with new births in every year, some fated to prove abortive, but others bearing golden promises for the human race. Now, whatever might be the talent with which Southey's successor performed his duty, there was a loss in one point for which no talent of mere execution could make amends. The very prejudices of Southey tended to unity of feeling: they were in harmony with each other, and grew out of a strong moral feeling, which is the one sole secret for giving interest to an historical narration, fusing the incoherent details into one body, and carrying the reader fluently along the else monotonous recurrences and unmeaning details of military movements.
Meanwhile, Southey's writing was what kept him going. It was through the Quarterly Review that he said, in 1810, he "made the pot boil."[131] Around that same time, probably as early as 1808 (I think I remember reading about the Battle of Vimiera in that Journal), Southey was hired by an Edinburgh publisher (was it Constable?) to write the entire historical section of the Edinburgh Annual Register, at a salary of £400 a year. Later on, the publisher, who was fiercely nationalistic and likely never entirely comfortable with the idea of bringing in English help to a city full of briefless barristers and a variety of talents, hinted that he might cut the salary to £300. Around this time, I happened to see Southey, who said jokingly, "If the man from Edinburgh does this, I will strike for a pay raise." I assume he did strike, and like many other "workers," it probably had no effect. Those who accept lower wages during a strike are called snobs,[132] while those who stand firm for their rights are nobs. Southey became a determined nob; however, a snob was found in Edinburgh, a young advocate who took the £300 a year, and from then on, Southey lost that part of his income. I once had the complete work, and in one section, specifically the Domestic Chronicle, I know it was done with a regrettable carelessness—the beginnings of stories given without their conclusions, and the conclusions without their beginnings—a common flaw in public journals. The credibility of the work relied on how well it covered the current public history of Europe and its political tone during such turbulent times, full of change, with some outcomes destined to fail but others holding great promise for humanity. Now, regardless of the skill of Southey's successor, there was a loss in one area that no mere execution could compensate for. Southey's own biases contributed to a sense of unity: they were consistent with each other and stemmed from a strong moral conviction, which is the key to making historical narratives engaging, weaving together scattered details into a cohesive whole, and smoothly guiding the reader through otherwise repetitive and meaningless accounts of military actions.
Well or ill directed, a strong moral feeling, and a profound sympathy with elementary justice, is that which creates a soul under what else may well be denominated, Miltonically, "the ribs of death." Now this, and a mind already made up even to obstinacy upon all public questions, were the peculiar qualifications which Southey brought to the task—qualifications not to be bought in any market, not to be[Pg 321] compensated by any amount of mere intellectual talent, and almost impossible as the qualifications of a much younger man.[133]
Whether well or poorly directed, a strong moral sense and a deep empathy for basic justice are what give life to a spirit in what could easily be called, in Milton's words, "the ribs of death." These qualities, along with a mind that is already firmly set—even stubborn—on all public issues, were the unique strengths that Southey brought to the job—qualities that can't be purchased in any marketplace, can't be matched by mere intellectual ability, and are nearly impossible for someone significantly younger to possess.[Pg 321]
As a pecuniary loss, though considerable, Southey was not unable to support it; for he had a pension from Government before this time, and under the following circumstances:—Charles Wynne, the brother of Sir Watkin, the great autocrat of North Wales—that C. W. who is almost equally well known for his knowledge of Parliamentary usage, which pointed him out to the notice of the House as an eligible person to fill the office of Speaker, and for his unfortunately shrill voice, which chiefly it was that defeated his claim[134]—(in fact, as is universally known, his brother and he, for different defects of voice and utterance, are called Bubble and Squeak)—this C. W. had believed himself to have been deeply indebted to Southey's high-toned moral example, and to his wise counsels, during the time when both were students at Oxford, for the fortunate direction given to his own wavering impulses. This sense of obligation he endeavoured to express by settling a pension upon Southey from his own funds. At length, upon the death of Mr. Pitt, early in 1806, an opening was made for the Fox and Grenville parties to come into office. Charles Wynne, as a person connected by marriage with the house of Grenville, and united with them in political opinions, shared in the golden shower; he also received a place; and, upon the strength of his improving prospects, he married: upon which it occurred to Southey, that it was no longer right to tax the funds of one who was now called upon to support an establishment becoming his rank. Under that impression he threw up his pension; and upon their part, to express their sense of what they considered a delicate and honourable sacrifice, the Grenvilles placed Southey upon the national pension list.
As a financial loss, though significant, Southey was able to manage it; he had a government pension before this time, and under the following circumstances:—Charles Wynne, the brother of Sir Watkin, the powerful leader of North Wales—that C. W. who is almost equally known for his understanding of Parliamentary procedures, which made him a suitable candidate for the role of Speaker, and for his unfortunately high-pitched voice, which was mainly what thwarted his ambitions—(in fact, as everyone knows, he and his brother, due to their different vocal quirks, are referred to as Bubble and Squeak)—this C. W. felt he owed a great deal to Southey's high moral standards and wise advice during their time as students at Oxford, which helped guide his own uncertain motivations. To show his appreciation, he tried to provide Southey with a pension from his own resources. Eventually, after the death of Mr. Pitt in early 1806, an opportunity arose for the Fox and Grenville factions to take office. Charles Wynne, connected by marriage to the Grenville family and aligned with them in political beliefs, benefited from this change; he also got a position, and with his improving situation, he got married: at that point, Southey realized that it wasn't fair to continue drawing from the funds of someone who now needed to support a household fitting his status. With that understanding, he gave up his pension; and to acknowledge what they considered a gracious and honorable sacrifice, the Grenvilles placed Southey on the national pension list.
What might be the exact colour of Southey's political[Pg 322] creed in this year, 1807, it is difficult to say. The great revolution, in his way of thinking upon such subjects, with which he has been so often upbraided as something equal in delinquency to a deliberate tergiversation or moral apostasy, could not have then taken place; and of this I am sure, from the following little anecdote connected with this visit:—On the day after my own arrival at Greta Hall, came Wordsworth following upon my steps from Penrith. We dined and passed that evening with Mr. Southey. The next morning, after breakfast, previously to leaving Keswick, we were sitting in Southey's library; and he was discussing with Wordsworth the aspect of public affairs: for my part, I was far too diffident to take any part in such a conversation, for I had no opinions at all upon politics, nor any interest in public affairs, further than that I had a keen sympathy with the national honour, gloried in the name of Englishman, and had been bred up in a frenzied horror of jacobinism. Not having been old enough, at the first outbreak of the French Revolution, to participate (as else, undoubtedly, I should have done) in the golden hopes of its early dawn, my first youthful introduction to foreign politics had been in seasons and circumstances that taught me to approve of all I heard in abhorrence of French excesses, and to worship the name of Pitt; otherwise my whole heart had been so steadily fixed on a different world from the world of our daily experience, that, for some years, I had never looked into a newspaper; nor, if I cared something for the movement made by nations from year to year, did I care one iota for their movement from week to week. Still, careless as I was on these subjects, it sounded as a novelty to me, and one which I had not dreamed of as a possibility, to hear men of education and liberal pursuits—men, besides, whom I regarded as so elevated in mind, and one of them as a person charmed and consecrated from error—giving utterance to sentiments which seemed absolutely disloyal. Yet now did I hear—and I heard with an emotion of sorrow, but a sorrow that instantly gave way to a conviction that it was myself who lay under a delusion, and simply because
What exactly was Southey's political[Pg 322] belief in 1807? It's hard to say. The major shift in his thinking, for which he has often been criticized as if it were a serious betrayal or moral failing, hadn't occurred yet; I know this because of a little story connected to this visit: The day after I arrived at Greta Hall, Wordsworth came after me from Penrith. We had dinner and spent that evening with Mr. Southey. The next morning, before leaving Keswick, we were sitting in Southey's library, and he was discussing public affairs with Wordsworth. I was too shy to join such a conversation since I had no political opinions or interest in public matters, except for having a strong sense of national pride, taking pride in being English, and growing up with a deep fear of Jacobinism. Not being old enough to engage with the early hopes during the French Revolution, my first exposure to foreign politics came during times that led me to disapprove of French excesses and to admire Pitt's name. My focus had been so consistently on a different world than our everyday life that I hadn't looked at a newspaper for years; even though I was somewhat interested in global movements from year to year, I didn't care at all about what happened week to week. Still, despite my indifference to these issues, it struck me as new—and something I never imagined could be possible—to hear educated and open-minded individuals—who I saw as intellectually superior, and one of whom I regarded as a person protected from error—expressing ideas that sounded completely disloyal. Yet now I was hearing—and it filled me with a mix of sadness, quickly replaced by a realization that I was the one who was mistaken, simply because
opinions avowed most hostile to the reigning family; not personally to them, but generally to a monarchical form of government. And that I could not be mistaken in my impression, that my memory cannot have played me false, is evident, from one relic of the conversation which rested upon my ear, and has survived to this day [1839]—thirty and two years from the time. It had been agreed, that no good was to be hoped for, as respected England, until the royal family should be expatriated; and Southey, jestingly considering to what country they could be exiled, with mutual benefit for that country and themselves, had supposed the case—that, with a large allowance of money, such as might stimulate beneficially the industry of a rising colony, they should be transported to New South Wales; which project, amusing his fancy, he had, with the readiness and facility that characterizes his mind, thrown extempore into verse; speaking off, as an improvisatore, about eight or ten lines, of which the three last I perfectly remember, and they were these (by the way I should have mentioned that they took the form of a petition addressed to the King):—
opinions expressed were very critical of the royal family; not personally against them, but generally against the idea of a monarchy. And I am sure that I can’t be mistaken in my memory, as it hasn’t let me down, which is clear from one part of the conversation that stuck with me and has lasted until today [1839]—thirty-two years later. We had agreed that nothing good was going to come for England until the royal family was sent away; and Southey, joking about where they could be sent for both their benefit and that of the new country, suggested that with a substantial amount of money—enough to effectively boost the industry of a developing colony—they should be moved to New South Wales. This idea, amusing him, he quickly turned into verse, like an improviser, creating about eight or ten lines on the spot, of which I remember the last three perfectly, and they were these (by the way, I should mention that they were framed as a petition addressed to the King):—
Immediately extend your influence over them. Over the great Botanic Bay.
The sole doubt I have about the exact words regards the second line, which might have been (according to a various reading which equally clings to my ear)—
The only doubt I have about the exact words concerns the second line, which might have been (according to a different reading that also sticks in my mind)—
But about the last I cannot be wrong; for I remember laughing with a sense of something peculiarly droll in the substitution of the stilted phrase—"the great Botanic Bay," for our ordinary week-day name Botany Bay, so redolent of thieves and pickpockets.
But I can't be mistaken about the last part; I vividly recall laughing at the oddly amusing switch of the formal phrase—"the great Botanic Bay" for our everyday name Botany Bay, which is so associated with thieves and pickpockets.
Southey walked with us that morning for about five miles on our road towards Grasmere, which brought us to the southern side of Shoulthwaite Moss, and into the sweet solitary little vale of Legbesthwaite. And, by the way, he took leave of us at the gate of a house, one amongst the very few (five or six in all) just serving to redeem that valley from[Pg 324] absolute solitude, which some years afterwards became, in a slight degree, remarkable to me from two little incidents by which it connected itself with my personal experiences. One was, perhaps, scarcely worth recording. It was simply this—that Wordsworth and myself having, through a long day's rambling, alternately walked and rode with a friend of his who happened to have a travelling carriage with him, and who was on his way to Keswick, agreed to wait hereabouts until Wordsworth's friend, in his abundant kindness, should send back his carriage to take us, on our return to Grasmere, distant about eight miles. It was a lovely summer evening; but, as it happened that we ate our breakfast early, and had eaten nothing at all throughout a long summer's day, we agreed to "sorn" upon the goodman of the house, whoever he might happen to be, Catholic or Protestant, Jew, Gentile, or Mahometan, and to take any bone that he would be pleased to toss to such hungry dogs as ourselves. Accordingly we repaired to his gate; we knocked, and, forthwith it was opened to us by a man-mountain, who listened benignantly to our humble request, and ushered us into a comfortable parlour. All sorts of refreshments he continued to shower upon us for a space of two hours: it became evident that our introducer was the master of the house: we adored him in our thoughts as an earthly providence to hungry wayfarers; and we longed to make his acquaintance. But, for some inexplicable reason, that must continue to puzzle all future commentators on Wordsworth and his history, he never made his appearance. Could it be, we thought, that, without the formality of a sign, he, in so solitary a region, more than twentyfive miles distant from Kendal (the only town worthy of the name throughout the adjacent country), exercised the functions of a landlord, and that we ought to pay him for his most liberal hospitality? Never was such a dilemma from the foundation of Legbesthwaite. To err, in either direction, was damnable: to go off without paying, if he were an innkeeper, made us swindlers; to offer payment if he were not, and supposing that he had been inundating us with his hospitable bounties simply in the character of a natural-born gentleman, made us the most unfeeling of mercenary ruffians. In the latter case we might expect a duel; in the former, of[Pg 325] course, the treadmill. We were deliberating on this sad alternative, and I, for my part was voting in favour of the treadmill, when the sound of wheels was heard, and, in one minute, the carriage of his friend drew up to the farmer's gate; the crisis had now arrived, and we perspired considerably; when in came the frank Cumberland lass who had been our attendant. To her we propounded our difficulty—and lucky it was we did so, for she assured us that her master was an awful man, and would have "brained" us both if we had insulted him with the offer of money. She, however, honoured us by accepting the price of some female ornament.
Southey walked with us that morning for about five miles on our way to Grasmere, which took us to the southern side of Shoulthwaite Moss and into the charming little valley of Legbesthwaite. He said goodbye to us at the gate of a house, one of the very few (about five or six in total) that kept the valley from complete isolation. A few years later, this place became memorable to me due to two little incidents that tied it to my personal experiences. One was probably not worth mentioning. It was simply this—that Wordsworth and I, after a long day of hiking, occasionally walked and rode with a friend of his who happened to have a traveling carriage and was heading to Keswick. We decided to wait around until Wordsworth's friend, out of his generosity, sent back his carriage to take us on our return to Grasmere, which was about eight miles away. It was a beautiful summer evening; however, since we had breakfast early and hadn’t eaten all day, we decided to "sorn" on whoever lived in the house, whether they were Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Gentile, or Muslim, and to take whatever scraps they could give us hungry travelers. So, we went to the gate, knocked, and it was opened by a giant of a man, who kindly listened to our humble request and led us into a cozy parlor. He continued to bring us all sorts of refreshments for about two hours: it became clear that our host was the owner of the house; we thought of him as a benevolent figure for hungry wanderers, and we wanted to get to know him. But, for some unknown reason, which will likely continue puzzling anyone who examines Wordsworth and his story, he never appeared. We wondered if, without a sign, he, in such a remote area—over twenty-five miles from Kendal (the only town around that really mattered)—was acting as a landlord and if we needed to pay him for his generous hospitality. It was quite the dilemma for Legbesthwaite. To make an error in either direction seemed wrong: leaving without paying, if he was an innkeeper, would make us thieves; offering payment if he wasn’t and he had been generously treating us as a true gentleman would make us feel like heartless, money-grubbing thugs. In the former case, we could expect a duel; in the latter, of course, the treadmill. As we pondered this sad choice, I, for one, was leaning toward the treadmill when we heard wheels approaching, and, in a minute, his friend’s carriage arrived at the farmer’s gate; the moment of truth had come, and we were sweating a lot. In walked the friendly Cumberland girl who had been with us. We shared our dilemma with her—and how fortunate we did, as she told us her master was a terrible man and would have "brained" us both if we had offended him with an offer of money. However, she kindly accepted payment for a piece of female jewelry.
I made a memorandum at the time, to ascertain the peculiar taste of this worthy Cumberland farmer, in order that I might, at some future opportunity, express my thanks to him for his courtesy; but, alas! for human resolutions, I have not done so to this moment; and is it likely that he, perhaps sixty years old at that time (1813), is alive at present, twenty-five years removed? Well, he may be; though I think that exceedingly doubtful, considering the next anecdote relating to the same house:—Two, or, it may be, three years after this time, I was walking to Keswick, from my own cottage in Grasmere. The distance was thirteen miles; the time just nine o'clock; the night a cloudy moonlight, and intensely cold. I took the very greatest delight in these nocturnal walks through the silent valleys of Cumberland and Westmoreland; and often at hours far later than the present. What I liked in this solitary rambling was, to trace the course of the evening through its household hieroglyphics from the windows which I passed or saw: to see the blazing fires shining through the windows of houses, lurking in nooks far apart from neighbours; sometimes, in solitudes that seemed abandoned to the owl, to catch the sounds of household mirth; then, some miles further, to perceive the time of going to bed; then the gradual sinking to silence of the house; then the drowsy reign of the cricket; at intervals, to hear church-clocks or a little solitary chapel-bell, under the brows of mighty hills, proclaiming the hours of the night, and flinging out their sullen knells over the graves where "the rude forefathers of the hamlet slept"—where the strength and the loveliness of Elizabeth's time, or Cromwell's,[Pg 326] and through so many fleeting generations that have succeeded, had long ago sunk to rest. Such was the sort of pleasure which I reaped in my nightly walks—of which, however, considering the suspicions of lunacy which it has sometimes awoke, the less I say, perhaps, the better. Nine o'clock it was—and deadly cold as ever March night was made by the keenest of black frosts, and by the bitterest of north winds—when I drew towards the gate of our huge and hospitable friend. A little garden there was before the house; and in the centre of this garden was placed an arm-chair, upon which arm-chair was sitting composedly—but I rubbed my eyes, doubting the very evidence of my own eyesight—a or the huge man in his shirt-sleeves; yes, positively not sunning but mooning himself—apricating himself in the occasional moonbeams; and, as if simple star-gazing from a sedentary station were not sufficient on such a night, absolutely pursuing his astrological studies, I repeat, in his shirt-sleeves! Could this be our hospitable friend, the man-mountain? Secondly, was it any man at all? Might it not be a scarecrow dressed up to frighten the birds? But from what—to frighten them from what at that season of the year? Yet, again, it might be an ancient scarecrow—a superannuated scarecrow, far advanced in years. But, still, why should a scarecrow, young or old, sit in an arm-chair? Suppose I were to ask. Yet, where was the use of asking a scarecrow? And, if not a scarecrow, where was the safety of speaking too inquisitively, on his own premises, to a man-mountain? The old dilemma of the duel or the treadmill, if I should intrude upon his grounds at night, occurred to me; and I watched the anomalous object in silence for some minutes. At length the monster (for such at any rate it was, scarecrow or not scarecrow) solemnly raised his hand to his face, perhaps taking a pinch of snuff, and thereby settled one question. But that settled only irritated my curiosity the more upon a second: what hallucination of the brain was it that could induce a living man to adopt so very absurd a line of conduct? Once I thought of addressing him thus:—Might I presume so far upon your known courtesy to wayfaring strangers as to ask—Is it the Devil who prompts you to sit in your shirt-sleeves, as if meditating a camisade, or to woo[Pg 327] al fresco pleasures on such a night as this? But, as Dr. Y., on complaining that, whenever he looked out of the window, he was sure to see Mr. X. lounging about the quadrangle, was effectually parried by Mr. X. retorting that, whenever he lounged in the quadrangle, he was sure to see the Doctor looking out of the window, so did I anticipate a puzzling rejoinder from the former, with regard to my own motives for haunting the roads as a nocturnal tramper, without a rational object that I could make intelligible. I thought, also, of the fate which attended the Calendars, and so many other notorious characters in the "Arabian Nights," for unseasonable questions, or curiosity too vivacious. And, upon the whole, I judged it advisable to pursue my journey in silence, considering the time of night, the solitary place, and the fancy of our enormous friend for "braining" those whom he regarded as ugly customers. And thus it came about that this one house has been loaded in my memory with a double mystery, that too probably never can be explained: and another torment had been prepared for the curious of future ages.
I made a note back then to figure out the unique tastes of this good Cumberland farmer so that I could thank him for his kindness later. But, unfortunately, despite my good intentions, I haven't done that to this day; and is it likely that he, probably about sixty years old back in 1813, is still alive now, twenty-five years later? He might be, but I seriously doubt it, especially considering the next story about the same house: A couple of years later, I was walking to Keswick from my cottage in Grasmere. It was thirteen miles away; the time was just nine o'clock; the night was cloudy with moonlight and freezing cold. I greatly enjoyed these late-night walks through the quiet valleys of Cumberland and Westmoreland, often walking much later than this. What I loved about this solitary wandering was tracing the evening through the glimpses of life I could see from the windows as I passed by: seeing the bright fires glowing through the windows of homes that were tucked away from each other, sometimes in places that felt completely deserted except for owls; catching the sounds of family laughter; then, a few miles later, sensing when it was time for bed; then the house fading into silence; then the sleepy chirping of crickets; occasionally hearing church bells or the bell from a small chapel under the shadow of mighty hills announcing the hours of the night and sending out their somber tolls over the graves where "the rude forefathers of the hamlet slept"—where the strength and beauty of Elizabeth's era or Cromwell's,[Pg 326] along with so many generations that followed, had long ago found rest. This was the kind of pleasure I experienced on my nightly walks—though considering the suspicions of madness it sometimes sparked, it might be better if I said less about it. It was nine o'clock—and just as cold as a March night can be, with the harshest black frost and the most bitter north wind—when I approached the gate of our big and generous friend. There was a small garden in front of the house, and in the center of the garden sat an armchair, where a huge man in his shirt-sleeves sat comfortably—but I rubbed my eyes, doubting the evidence of my own sight—a or the huge man in his shirt-sleeves; yes, definitely not sunning himself but moonbathing—enjoying the occasional moonlight; and as if simply stargazing from his seat wasn't enough for such a night, he was seriously pursuing his astrology studies, I repeat, in his shirt-sleeves! Could this really be our generous friend, the man-mountain? Or was it even a man at all? Could it be a scarecrow dressed up to scare off the birds? But what was it meant to scare them from at this time of year? Yet again, it might be an ancient scarecrow—an old scarecrow, well past its prime. But still, why would a scarecrow, young or old, sit in an armchair? What if I were to ask? But then, what’s the point in asking a scarecrow? And if it wasn't a scarecrow, was it safe to ask too many questions on his property to a man-mountain? The old dilemma of a duel or sentencing to the treadmill, if I were to intrude on his land at night, crossed my mind, and I silently observed the strange figure for a few minutes. Finally, the figure (for it was definitely a figure, scarecrow or not) solemnly raised its hand to its face, perhaps taking a pinch of snuff, and that settled one question. But that only sparked my curiosity more about a second one: what kind of brain-induced hallucination would lead a living man to act so absurdly? I almost thought of addressing him like this:—Might I be so bold to ask, given your known kindness to wandering strangers—Is it the Devil who encourages you to sit in your shirt-sleeves, as if preparing for a camisade, or to seek[Pg 327] al fresco pleasures on a night like this? But, as Dr. Y. found out when he complained that every time he looked out the window, he would see Mr. X. lounging in the courtyard, Mr. X. cleverly turned it around, saying that whenever he lounged in the courtyard, he would see the Doctor looking out the window, so I expected a puzzling response from him regarding my own reasons for roaming the roads as a nighttime wanderer without a clear purpose to explain. I also thought about the fate of the Calendars and many other notorious figures in the "Arabian Nights," who faced consequences for asking questions at the wrong time or being overly curious. Overall, I decided it was wiser to continue my journey in silence, given the late hour, the lonely spot, and the massive friend’s habit of "brain-injury" for those he deemed unpleasant. This is how this particular house has lived in my memory, shrouded in a double mystery that probably never can be unraveled; another trial has been set for the curious in future generations.
Of Southey, meantime, I had learned, upon this brief and hurried visit, so much in confirmation or in extension of my tolerably just preconceptions with regard to his character and manners, as left me not a very great deal to add, and nothing at all to alter, through the many years which followed of occasional intercourse with his family, and domestic knowledge of his habits. A man of more serene and even temper could not be imagined; nor more uniformly cheerful in his tone of spirits; nor more unaffectedly polite and courteous in his demeanour to strangers; nor more hospitable in his own wrong—I mean by the painful sacrifices which hospitality entailed upon him of time so exceedingly precious that, during his winter and spring months of solitude, or whenever he was left absolute master of its distribution, every half hour in the day had its peculiar duty. In the still "weightier matters of the law," in cases that involved appeals to conscience and high moral principle, I believe Southey to be as exemplary a man as can ever have lived. Were it to his own instant ruin, I am satisfied that he would do justice and fulfil his duty under any possible difficulties, and through the very strongest temptations to do otherwise.[Pg 328] For honour the most delicate, for integrity the firmest, and for generosity within the limits of prudence, Southey cannot well have a superior; and, in the lesser moralities—those which govern the daily habits, and transpire through the manners—he is certainly a better man—that is (with reference to the minor principle concerned), a more amiable man—than Wordsworth. He is less capable, for instance, of usurping an undue share of the conversation; he is more uniformly disposed to be charitable in his transient colloquial judgments upon doubtful actions of his neighbours; more gentle and winning in his condescensions to inferior knowledge or powers of mind; more willing to suppose it possible that he himself may have fallen into an error; more tolerant of avowed indifference towards his own writings (though, by the way, I shall have something to offer in justification of Wordsworth, upon this charge); and, finally, if the reader will pardon a violent instance of anti-climax, much more ready to volunteer his assistance in carrying a lady's reticule or parasol.
During this quick and hectic visit, I learned quite a bit about Southey that confirmed or expanded my fairly accurate assumptions about his character and demeanor. This left me with not much to add and nothing to change over the many years I had occasional interactions with his family and personal insight into his habits. You couldn't imagine a man with a more calm and steady temperament, nor one more consistently cheerful, or more genuinely polite and courteous to strangers. He was exceptionally hospitable, even at his own expense—by that, I mean the challenging sacrifices hospitality required of him, taking up time that was extremely valuable. During his winter and spring months of solitude, or whenever he had complete control over how to spend his time, each half hour of the day had its specific purpose. In the "weightier matters of the law," particularly in cases that involved moral conscience and high principles, I believe Southey was as exemplary a man as you could ever find. I'm sure he would strive to do what's right and fulfill his duties even at the cost of his own immediate ruin, regardless of any challenges or strong temptations to do otherwise. Southey embodies the most delicate sense of honor, unwavering integrity, and generosity within reasonable limits; he likely has no equal. In everyday morals—those that influence daily behavior and come through in manners—he is certainly a better man—meaning, in reference to the lesser principles involved—a more amiable man than Wordsworth. For example, he is less likely to dominate the conversation, more inclined to be charitable in his quick judgments about his neighbors' questionable actions, gentler and more approachable in responding to those with less knowledge or mental capacity, more willing to consider that he might be wrong, and more tolerant of indifference to his own writings (though I’ll have a defense for Wordsworth regarding that point). Lastly, if you will forgive a sudden drop in grandeur, he is much more eager to help carry a lady's handbag or parasol.[Pg 328]
As a more amiable man (taking that word partly in the French sense, partly also in the loftier English sense), it might be imagined that Southey would be a more eligible companion than Wordsworth. But this is not so; and chiefly for three reasons which more than counterbalance Southey's greater amiability: first, because the natural reserve of Southey, which I have mentioned before, makes it peculiarly difficult to place yourself on terms of intimacy with him; secondly, because the range of his conversation is more limited than that of Wordsworth—dealing less with life and the interests of life—more exclusively with books; thirdly, because the style of his conversation is less flowing and diffusive—less expansive—more apt to clothe itself in a keen, sparkling, aphoristic form—consequently much sooner and more frequently coming to an abrupt close. A sententious, epigrammatic form of delivering opinions has a certain effect of clenching a subject, which makes it difficult to pursue it without a corresponding smartness of expression, and something of the same antithetic point and equilibration of clauses. Not that the reader is to suppose in Southey a showy master of rhetoric and colloquial sword-play, seeking to strike and to dazzle by his brilliant hits or adroit evasions. The very[Pg 329] opposite is the truth. He seeks, indeed, to be effective, not for the sake of display, but as the readiest means of retreating from display, and the necessity for display: feeling that his station in literature and his laurelled honours make him a mark for the curiosity and interest of the company—that a standing appeal is constantly turning to him for his opinion—a latent call always going on for his voice on the question of the moment—he is anxious to comply with this requisition at as slight a cost as may be of thought and time. His heart is continually reverting to his wife, viz. his library; and, that he may waste as little effort as possible upon his conversational exercises—that the little he wishes to say may appear pregnant with much meaning—he finds it advantageous, and, moreover, the style of his mind naturally prompts him, to adopt a trenchant, pungent, aculeated form of terse, glittering, stenographic sentences—sayings which have the air of laying down the law without any locus penitentiæ or privilege of appeal, but are not meant to do so; in short, aiming at brevity for the company as well as for himself, by cutting off all opening for discussion and desultory talk through the sudden winding up that belongs to a sententious aphorism. The hearer feels that "the record is closed"; and he has a sense of this result as having been accomplished by something like an oracular laying down of the law ex cathedra: but this is an indirect collateral impression from Southey's manner, and far from the one he meditates or wishes. An oracular manner he does certainly affect in certain dilemmas of a languishing or loitering conversation; not the peremptoriness, meantime, not the imperiousness of the oracle is what he seeks for, but its brevity, its dispatch, its conclusiveness.
As a friendlier person (taking that word partly in the French way and partly in the more sophisticated English sense), you might think Southey would be a better companion than Wordsworth. But that's not true, mainly for three reasons that outweigh Southey's greater friendliness: first, Southey's natural reserved nature, which I mentioned earlier, makes it particularly hard to get close to him; secondly, his conversational range is narrower than Wordsworth's—focused less on life and its interests and more on books; thirdly, his way of speaking is less flowing and expansive, leaning more towards sharp, witty remarks, which leads to conversations ending suddenly and frequently. A concise, epigrammatic way of expressing opinions tends to wrap up a topic in a way that makes it hard to continue without matching that cleverness and balance in words. But don't think that Southey is a flashy master of rhetoric or conversation, trying to impress with clever comments or clever dodges. The exact opposite is true. He does try to be effective, not to show off, but as the quickest way to avoid showing off and the need to do so. He feels that his standing in literature and his accolades make him a target of curiosity and interest, with people often turning to him for his opinion, so there's a constant underlying demand for his voice on current matters. He wants to respond to that request without spending much thought and time. His mind keeps returning to his true love, his library; and to avoid wasting too much energy on conversation—so that whatever little he does say feels rich in meaning—he finds it beneficial and also feels naturally inclined to adopt a sharp, pointed style of concise, sparkling sentences—remarks that seem final and authoritative without leaving room for further discussion or appeals, though that’s not his intention. In short, he aims for brevity both for the audience and himself by cutting off any chance for lengthy discussions through the abrupt close typical of a wise saying. The listener feels that "the record is closed," sensing that this conclusion was delivered with an air of oracle-like authority ex cathedra: but this is just an indirect impression from Southey's manner, far from what he intends. He does try to adopt an oracular style in certain slow or dragging conversations; however, he isn't looking for the assertiveness or dominance of an oracle, but rather its brevity, efficiency, and decisiveness.
Finally, as a fourth reason why Southey is less fitted for a genial companion than Wordsworth, his spirits have been, of late years, in a lower key than those of the latter. The tone of Southey's animal spirits was never at any time raised beyond the standard of an ordinary sympathy; there was in him no tumult, no agitation of passion; his organic and constitutional sensibilities were healthy, sound, perhaps strong—but not profound, not excessive. Cheerful he was, and animated at all times; but he levied no tributes on the spirits or the feelings beyond what all people could furnish.[Pg 330] One reason why his bodily temperament never, like that of Wordsworth, threw him into a state of tumultuous excitement which required intense and elaborate conversation to work off the excessive fervour, was, that, over and above his far less fervid constitution of mind and body, Southey rarely took any exercise; he led a life as sedentary, except for the occasional excursions in summer (extorted from his sense of kindness and hospitality), as that of a city tailor. And it was surprising to many people, who did not know by experience the prodigious effect upon the mere bodily health of regular and congenial mental labour, that Southey should be able to maintain health so regular, and cheerfulness so uniformly serene. Cheerful, however, he was, in those early years of my acquaintance with him; but it was manifest to a thoughtful observer that his golden equanimity was bound up in a threefold chain,—in a conscience clear of all offence, in the recurring enjoyments from his honourable industry, and in the gratification of his parental affections. If any one cord should give way, there (it seemed) would be an end to Southey's tranquillity. He had a son at that time, Herbert[135] Southey, a child in petticoats when I first knew him, very interesting even then, but annually putting forth fresh blossoms of unusual promise, that made even indifferent people fear for the safety of one so finely organized, so delicate in his sensibilities, and so prematurely accomplished. As to his father, it became evident that he lived almost in the light of young Herbert's smiles, and that the very pulses of his heart played in unison to the sound of his son's laughter. There was in his manner towards this child, and towards[Pg 331] this only, something that marked an excess of delirious doating, perfectly unlike the ordinary chastened movements of Southey's affections; and something also which indicated a vague fear about him; a premature unhappiness, as if already the inaudible tread of calamity could be perceived, as if already he had lost him; which, for the latter years of the boy's life, seemed to poison the blessing of his presence.
Finally, one reason Southey isn’t as good a companion as Wordsworth is that his spirits have been, in recent years, lower than those of the latter. Southey’s energy never really exceeded ordinary levels of sympathy; he didn’t have any wild emotions or turmoil. His physical and mental sensibilities were healthy and probably strong, but they weren’t deep or excessive. He was cheerful and lively at all times, but he didn’t draw on the spirits or feelings of others beyond what anyone could offer.[Pg 330] One reason his physical temperament didn’t leave him in a state of turbulent excitement, like Wordsworth’s, which required long and intense conversations to release the excess energy, was that, besides his much less intense nature, Southey rarely exercised. He lived a mostly sedentary life, except for the occasional summer outings he did out of kindness and hospitality, much like a city tailor. Many people who didn’t understand how regular and enjoyable mental work profoundly impacts basic physical health were surprised that Southey could maintain such consistent health and steady cheerfulness. However, he was cheerful in those early years when I knew him; yet it was clear to a thoughtful observer that his joyful calm was tied to three main things—a clear conscience, the ongoing satisfaction from his respectable work, and the fulfillment of his parental affections. If any one of those things were to falter, it seemed that Southey’s peace of mind would vanish. He had a son at that time, Herbert[135], a young child when I first met him, who was already very interesting and continued to show new signs of exceptional promise every year. This made even indifferent people worry about the well-being of someone so finely tuned, so sensitive, and so precociously gifted. As for his father, it was clear he lived almost entirely for the joy of young Herbert’s smiles, and the rhythms of his heart seemed to synchronize with the sound of his son's laughter. There was in Southey’s manner towards this child something that showed an excess of affectionate adoration, completely different from the usual restrained expressions of his feelings; and also something that suggested a vague worry for him—a premature sense of sorrow, as if he could already sense the silent approach of misfortune, as if he had already lost him. This feeling seemed to sour the joy of his presence in the later years of the boy's life.
A stronger evidence I cannot give of Southey's trembling apprehensiveness about this child than that the only rude thing I ever knew him to do, the only discourteous thing, was done on his account. A party of us, chiefly composed of Southey's family and his visitors, were in a sailboat upon the lake. Herbert was one of this party; and at that time not above five or six years old. In landing upon one of the islands, most of the gentlemen were occupied in assisting the ladies over the thwarts of the boat; and one gentleman, merely a stranger, observing this, good-naturedly took up Herbert in his arms, and was stepping with him most carefully from thwart to thwart, when Southey, in a perfect frenzy of anxiety for his boy, his "moon" as he used to call him (I suppose from some pun of his own, or some mistake of the child's upon the equivocal word sun), rushed forward, and tore him out of the arms of the stranger without one word of apology; nor, in fact, under the engrossing panic of the moment, lest an unsteady movement along with the rocking and undulating of the boat should throw his little boy overboard into the somewhat stormy waters of the lake, did Southey become aware of his own exceedingly discourteous action: fear for his boy quelled his very power of perception. That the stranger, on reflection, understood; a race of emotions travelled over his countenance. I saw the whole, a silent observer from the shore. First a hasty blush of resentment mingled with astonishment: then a good-natured smile of indulgence to the naïveté of the paternal feeling as displaying itself in the act, and the accompanying gestures of frenzied impatience; finally, a considerate, grave expression of acquiescence in the whole act; but with a pitying look towards father and son, as too probably destined under such agony of affection to trials perhaps insupportable.[Pg 332] If I interpreted aright the stranger's feelings, he did not read their destinies amiss. Herbert became, with his growing years, a child of more and more hope; but, therefore, the object of more and more fearful solicitude. He read, and read; and he became at last
A stronger piece of evidence of Southey's intense worry for his child is the fact that the only rude thing I ever saw him do was because of this concern. A group of us, mainly made up of Southey's family and guests, were out on a sailboat on the lake. Herbert was part of this group and was only about five or six years old at the time. When we landed on one of the islands, most of the men were busy helping the women get out of the boat. One guy, just a stranger, noticed this and kindly picked up Herbert, carefully moving him from seat to seat. But Southey, overwhelmed with anxiety for his son—whom he affectionately called his "moon," probably due to some joke of his own or a misunderstanding by the child with the word sun—rushed forward and yanked Herbert from the stranger's arms without saying a word of apology. In fact, in his panic that his little boy might fall overboard into the somewhat choppy lake waters, Southey didn’t even realize how rude he was being; fear for his son clouded his ability to think clearly. The stranger, upon reflecting, understood this; a mix of emotions crossed his face. I watched the whole thing unfold from the shore, silently. First, I noticed a quick blush of anger and surprise; then a warm smile acknowledging the innocence of the father’s feelings as he displayed them through his frantic actions; finally, a thoughtful, serious look of acceptance of the entire situation, mixed with a sympathetic gaze towards the father and son, who seemed likely to face unbearable trials under such overwhelming love.[Pg 332] If I interpreted the stranger's feelings accurately, he didn’t misjudge their future. As Herbert grew, he became a child filled with more hope, but consequently, also the focus of more and more anxious concern. He read and read, and eventually became
to borrow a line from his uncle's beautiful poem on the wild boy who fell into a heresy whilst living under the patronage of a Spanish grandee, and finally escaped from a probable martyrdom by sailing up a great American river, wide as any sea, after which he was never heard of again. The learned youth of the river Greta had an earlier and more sorrowful close to his career. Possibly from want of exercise, combined with inordinate exercise of the cerebral organs, a disease gradually developed itself in the heart. It was not a mere disorder in the functions, it was a disease in the structure of the organ, and admitted of no permanent relief, consequently of no final hope. He died[136]; and with him died for ever the golden hopes, the radiant felicity, and the internal serenity, of the unhappy father. It was from Southey himself, speaking without external signs of agitation, calmly, dispassionately, almost coldly, but with the coldness of a settled despondency, that I heard, whilst accompanying him through Grasmere on his road homewards to Keswick from some visit he had been paying to Wordsworth at Rydal Mount, his settled feelings and convictions as connected with that loss. For him, in this world, he said, happiness there could be none; for his tenderest affections, the very deepest by many degrees which he had ever known, were now buried in the grave with his youthful and too brilliant Herbert!
to borrow a line from his uncle's beautiful poem about the wild boy who fell into a heresy while living under the patronage of a Spanish nobleman, and ultimately escaped a likely martyrdom by sailing up a vast American river, as wide as any ocean, after which he was never heard from again. The educated young man from the river Greta had an earlier and more tragic end to his life. Possibly due to a lack of physical activity, combined with excessive mental exertion, a disease gradually developed in his heart. It wasn’t just a malfunction; it was a structural disease of the organ and offered no chance of permanent relief, therefore no hope for recovery. He died[136]; and with him died forever the golden hopes, the radiant happiness, and the inner peace of his unfortunate father. It was from Southey himself, speaking without any outward signs of distress, calmly, dispassionately, almost coldly, but with the chill of a deep-set despair, that I heard, while walking with him through Grasmere on his way home to Keswick after visiting Wordsworth at Rydal Mount, about his lasting feelings and beliefs connected to that loss. For him, in this world, he said, happiness was unattainable; because his most tender affections, the very deepest he had ever experienced, were now buried in the grave with his youthful and far too brilliant Herbert!
SOUTHEY AND THE EDINBURGH ANNUAL REGISTER
De Quincey's recollection of the Edinburgh Annual Register in connexion with Southey is altogether erroneous. Though there had been a project of some periodical of the kind by the Constable publishing house as early as 1807, the enterprise was not started till 1809, and then not by Constable at all, but actually in opposition to Constable by the new Edinburgh publishing house of John Ballantyne,—or rather, one might say, of Scott and Ballantyne, for Scott (secretly Ballantyne's partner already for a long while in his printing business) was Ballantyne's real backer and principal in the whole of this new concern. In a letter of Scott's to his friend Merritt, of date 14th January 1809, after announcing the great fact that a Quarterly Review was forthcoming to counteract the Edinburgh, he adds:—"Then, sir, to turn the flank of Messrs. Constable and Co., and to avenge myself of certain impertinences which, in the vehemence of their Whiggery, they have dared to indulge in towards me, I have prepared to start against them at Whitsunday first the celebrated printer Ballantyne, with a long purse ['the purse was, alas! Scott's own,' Lockhart notes at this point] and a sound political creed, not to mention an alliance offensive and defensive with young John Murray of Fleet Street, the most enlightened and active of the London trade. By this means I hope to counterbalance the predominating influence of Constable and Co., who at present have it in their power and inclination to forward or suppress any book as they approve or dislike its political tendency. Lastly, I have caused the said Ballantyne to venture upon an Edinburgh Annual Register, of which I send you a prospectus. I intend to help him myself as far as time will admit, and hope to procure him many respectable coadjutors." In another letter, written just a fortnight previously, Scott had broached the subject of the new Annual Register to his friend Kirkpatrick Sharpe, intimating that, though Ballantyne would be the managing editor, with himself for the real editor in the background, all the more important contributions would be from selected hands, and that, as the historical department was the most important,—a luminous picture of the current events of the world from year to year[Pg 334] being "a task for a man of genius,"—they proposed to give their "historian" £300 a year,—"no deaf nuts," adds Scott, in comment on the sum. A certain eminent person had already been offered the post, Scott proceeds; but, should "the great man" decline, would Kirkpatrick Sharpe himself accept it? The "great man" was Southey; he did accept; and for some years he had the accredited charge of the historical department of the Register. From the first, however, the venture did not pay; and, the loss upon it having gone on for some time at the rate of £1000 a year, Scott,—who had been tending to a reconciliation with Constable on other grounds,—was glad when, in 1813, Constable took a portion of the burden of the concern off his hands. It is possible that this accession of Constable to a share in the management, and some consequent retrenchment of expenses, may have had something to do with Southey's resignation of his connexion with the Register. Not, however, till 1815, if we may trust Lockhart's dating, did that resignation take place,—for, in Lockhart's narrative for the following year, 1816, where he notes that Scott had stepped in for the rescue of the Register by himself undertaking to do its arrears in the historical department, he gives the reasons thus:—"Mr. Southey had, for reasons on which I do not enter, discontinued his services to that work; and it was now doubly necessary, after trying for one year a less eminent hand, that, if the work were not to be dropped altogether, some strenuous exertion should be made to sustain its character."—From all this it will be seen that De Quincey is wrong in his fancy that the proposal to reduce Southey's salary (from £400 to £300, he says, but was it not £300 from the first?) was a mere device for getting rid of him because he was an Englishman, and because a Scottish "snob" of the Parliament House could be got to do the work at a cheaper rate; or, at all events, that he is wrong in attributing the shabbiness to Constable and the Whigs in Edinburgh. Southey's own fellow-Tory Scott was still supreme in the conduct of the Register, though he might take Constable's advice in all matters of its financial administration; and, if Constable advised, among other things, a reduction of Southey's salary in the historical department, that was but natural in the circumstances, and Scott probably acquiesced.—In fact, by this time the contributorship to the Edinburgh Annual Register, always a drudgery, must have been of less consequence to Southey than it had been. In November 1813 he had been appointed to the office of Poet-Laureate, then vacant by the death of Henry James Pye; and the salary attached to that sinecure, though small, was something. On the 13th of that month Scott, who had declined the office for himself and had strongly recommended Southey, and who was then still virtually Southey's paymaster for his services in the Edinburgh Annual Register, had written his congratulations to Southey, with his regrets that the Laureateship was not better worth his while.—D. M.
De Quincey's memory of the Edinburgh Annual Register in connection with Southey is completely mistaken. Although there was talk of starting such a periodical by the Constable publishing house as early as 1807, the project didn't actually launch until 1809, and it wasn't initiated by Constable at all, but rather as a direct challenge to Constable by the new Edinburgh publishing house of John Ballantyne—or, more accurately, by Scott and Ballantyne, since Scott had secretly been Ballantyne's partner in his printing business for quite some time and was the real supporter and main figure behind this new venture. In a letter dated January 14, 1809, Scott informed his friend Merritt about the exciting news that a Quarterly Review would be starting to compete with the Edinburgh, and he added: "Then, sir, to flank Messrs. Constable and Co., and to get back at them for certain rude comments they’ve made towards me in their fervor of Whiggery, I’m preparing to launch against them at Whitsunday the well-known printer Ballantyne, who has a deep pocket ['the purse was, alas! Scott's own,' Lockhart notes here] and a solid political agenda, not to mention an offensive and defensive alliance with young John Murray of Fleet Street, the brightest and most energetic in the London publishing scene. This way, I hope to balance out the dominant influence of Constable and Co., who currently have the power and desire to promote or suppress any book based on its political stance. Lastly, I’ve encouraged Ballantyne to take on an Edinburgh Annual Register, for which I’m sending you a prospectus. I plan to assist him as much as time allows and I hope to bring in many respectable collaborators." In another letter, written just a couple of weeks earlier, Scott had introduced the topic of the new Annual Register to his friend Kirkpatrick Sharpe, hinting that while Ballantyne would be the managing editor, Scott would be the real editor behind the scenes, and that the more significant contributions would come from chosen writers. Scott added that since the historical section was the most critical—a detailed account of current events globally year by year[Pg 334] being "a job for a man of genius"—they aimed to pay their "historian" £300 a year—"not peanuts," Scott quipped about the amount. An important individual had already been offered the role, Scott continued, but if "the great man" declined, would Kirkpatrick Sharpe consider accepting it? The "great man" was Southey; he accepted; and for several years, he was officially responsible for the historical section of the Register. However, from the start, the project was not profitable; as losses continued for some time at about £1000 a year, Scott—who had been seeking a reconciliation with Constable for other reasons—was relieved when, in 1813, Constable assumed some of the burden from him. It’s possible that Constable’s involvement in the management and some subsequent cost-cutting influenced Southey's decision to resign from the Register. However, according to Lockhart’s timeline, it wasn’t until 1815 that this resignation occurred—because in Lockhart’s account for the following year, 1816, he noted that Scott stepped in to rescue the Register by taking on its overdue historical section himself, explaining: "Mr. Southey had, for reasons I won't go into, stopped his contributions to that work; and it was now essential, after trying a less prominent figure for a year, that some significant effort be made to maintain its reputation."—From all this, it is clear that De Quincey is mistaken in thinking that the suggestion to cut Southey's salary (from £400 to £300, he claims, but wasn't it £300 from the start?) was simply a scheme to dismiss him because he was English, and that a Scottish "snob" from the Parliament House could be found to do the work for a lower price; or, at the very least, he is incorrect in blaming Constable and the Whigs in Edinburgh for the unkindness. Southey's fellow Tory Scott was still firmly in charge of the Register, although he might follow Constable's advice on its financial matters; and if Constable suggested, among other things, reducing Southey’s salary in the historical section, that was reasonable given the situation, and Scott probably agreed.—In fact, by this time, contributing to the Edinburgh Annual Register, which had always been a tedious job, likely mattered less to Southey than before. In November 1813, he was appointed Poet-Laureate, a position that had recently become vacant due to the death of Henry James Pye; and while the salary for this role, though modest, was still something. On the 13th of that month, Scott, who had turned down the position for himself and had strongly recommended Southey, while still effectively being Southey's paymaster for his contributions to the Edinburgh Annual Register, wrote to congratulate Southey, expressing his regrets that the Laureateship wasn’t worth more to him.—D. M.
CHAPTER V
THE LAKE POETS: SOUTHEY, WORDSWORTH, AND COLERIDGE[137]
A circumstance which, as much as anything, expounded to every eye the characteristic distinctions between Wordsworth and Southey, and would not suffer a stranger to forget it for a moment, was the insignificant place and consideration allowed to the small book-collection of the former, contrasted with the splendid library of the latter. The two or three hundred volumes of Wordsworth occupied a little, homely, painted book-case, fixed into one of two shallow recesses, formed on each side of the fireplace by the projection of the chimney in the little sitting-room up stairs which he had already described as his half kitchen and half parlour. They were ill bound, or not bound at all—in boards, sometimes in tatters; many were imperfect as to the number of volumes, mutilated as to the number of pages; sometimes, where it seemed worth while, the defects being supplied by manuscript; sometimes not: in short, everything showed that the books were for use, and not for show; and their limited amount showed that their possessor must have independent sources of enjoyment to fill up the major part of his time. In reality, when the weather was tolerable, I believe that Wordsworth rarely resorted to his books (unless, perhaps, to some little pocket edition of a poet which accompanied him in his rambles) except in the evenings, or after he had tired himself by walking. On the other hand, Southey's collection[Pg 336] occupied a separate room, the largest, and every way the most agreeable in the house; and this room was styled, and not ostentatiously (for it really merited that name), the Library. The house itself, Greta Hall, stood upon a little eminence (as I have before mentioned), overhanging the river Greta. There was nothing remarkable in its internal arrangements. In all respects it was a very plain, unadorned family dwelling: large enough, by a little contrivance, to accommodate two, or, in some sense, three families, viz. Mr. Southey and his family, Mr. Coleridge and his, together with Mrs. Lovell, who, when her son was with her, might be said to compose a third. Mrs. Coleridge, Mrs. Southey, and Mrs. Lovell were sisters; all having come originally from Bristol; and, as the different sets of children in this one house had each three several aunts, all the ladies, by turns, assuming that relation twice over, it was one of Southey's many amusing jests, to call the hill on which Greta Hall was placed the ant-hill. Mrs. Lovell was the widow of Mr. Robert Lovell, who had published a volume of poems, in conjunction with Southey, somewhere about the year 1797, under the signatures of Bion and Moschus. This lady, having only one son, did not require any large suite of rooms; and the less so, as her son quitted her at an early age, to pursue a professional education. The house had, therefore, been divided (not by absolute partition into two distinct[138] apartments, but by an amicable distribution of rooms) between the two families of Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Southey; Mr. Coleridge had a separate study, which was distinguished by nothing except by an organ amongst its furniture, and by a magnificent view from its window (or windows), if that could be considered a distinction in a situation whose local necessities presented you with magnificent objects in whatever direction you might happen to turn your eyes.
A situation that clearly highlighted the differences between Wordsworth and Southey, making it impossible for anyone to forget it for a second, was the small and unremarkable collection of books belonging to Wordsworth, compared to the impressive library owned by Southey. The few hundred books Wordsworth had were crammed into a simple, painted bookcase in one of the shallow alcoves created by the chimney in his little upstairs sitting room, which he had described as part kitchen and part parlor. The books were poorly bound, or sometimes not bound at all, in tattered covers; many were incomplete in terms of volumes and had missing pages; sometimes the missing parts were filled in by hand, and sometimes they weren’t. In short, everything indicated that the books were meant for reading, not for display, and their small quantity showed that Wordsworth likely had other sources of joy to occupy most of his time. In fact, when the weather was nice, I believe Wordsworth rarely turned to his books—unless he had a small pocket edition of a poet with him during his walks—except in the evenings or after he had worn himself out from walking. In contrast, Southey's collection[Pg 336] filled a dedicated room, the largest and most appealing in the house, which was aptly named the Library. Greta Hall, the house itself, sat on a small rise (as I mentioned before), overlooking the river Greta. There was nothing extraordinary about its interior layout. It was a simple, unembellished family home: spacious enough to comfortably house two, or arguably three families, namely, Mr. Southey and his family, Mr. Coleridge and his, plus Mrs. Lovell, who, when her son was visiting, could be seen as a third family. Mrs. Coleridge, Mrs. Southey, and Mrs. Lovell were sisters, all originally from Bristol; and since each set of children in the house had three aunts, the ladies often playfully referred to the hill where Greta Hall stood as the "ant-hill." Mrs. Lovell was the widow of Mr. Robert Lovell, who had published a book of poems with Southey around 1797 under the names Bion and Moschus. Since she had only one son, she didn't need many rooms, especially since her son left home at a young age to pursue a professional education. Therefore, the house was divided (not into fully separate apartments, but through a friendly sharing of spaces) between the families of Mr. Coleridge and Mr. Southey; Mr. Coleridge had his own study, which was notable only for having an organ among its furnishings and for its stunning view from the windows—if that could be considered a distinction, given that the location offered beautiful sights in every direction you looked.
In the morning, the two families might live apart; but[Pg 337] they met at dinner, and in a common drawing-room; and Southey's library, in both senses of the word, was placed at the service of all the ladies alike. However, they did not intrude upon him, except in cases where they wished for a larger reception room, or a more interesting place for suggesting the topics of conversation. Interesting this room was, indeed, and in a degree not often rivalled. The library—the collection of books, I mean, which formed the most conspicuous part of its furniture within—was in all senses a good one. The books were chiefly English, Spanish, and Portuguese; well selected, being the great cardinal classics of the three literatures; fine copies, and decorated externally with a reasonable elegance, so as to make them in harmony with the other embellishments of the room. This effect was aided by the horizontal arrangement upon brackets of many rare manuscripts—Spanish or Portuguese. Made thus gay within, this room stood in little need of attractions from without. Yet, even upon the gloomiest day of winter, the landscape from the different windows was too permanently commanding in its grandeur, too essentially independent of the seasons or the pomp of woods, to fail in fascinating the gaze of the coldest and dullest of spectators. The lake of Derwent Water in one direction, with its lovely islands—a lake about ten miles in circuit, and shaped pretty much like a boy's kite; the lake of Bassinthwaite in another; the mountains of Newlands, arranging themselves like pavilions; the gorgeous confusion of Borrowdale just revealing its sublime chaos through the narrow vista of its gorge: all these objects lay in different angles to the front; whilst the sullen rear, not fully visible on this side of the house, was closed for many a league by the vast and towering masses of Skiddaw and Blencathara—mountains which are rather to be considered as frontier barriers, and chains of hilly ground, cutting the county of Cumberland into great chambers and different climates, than as insulated eminences, so vast is the area which they occupy; though there are also such separate and insulated heights, and nearly amongst the highest in the country. Southey's lot had therefore fallen, locally considered, into a goodly heritage. This grand panorama of mountain scenery, so varied, so expansive, and yet having the delightful[Pg 338] feeling about it of a deep seclusion and dell-like sequestration from the world—a feeling which, in the midst of so expansive an area spread out below his windows, could not have been sustained by any barriers less elevated than Glaramara, Skiddaw, or (which could be also descried) "the mighty Helvellyn and Catchedicam,"—this congregation of hill and lake, so wide, and yet so prison-like in its separation from all beyond it, lay for ever under the eyes of Southey. His position locally, and, in some respects, intellectually, reminded one of Gibbon: but with great advantage in the comparison to Southey. The little town of Keswick and its adjacent lake bore something of the same relation to mighty London that Geneva and its lake may be thought to bear towards brilliant Paris. Southey, like Gibbon, was a miscellaneous scholar; he, like Gibbon, of vast historical research; he, like Gibbon, signally industrious, and patient, and elaborate in collecting the materials for his historical works. Like Gibbon, he had dedicated a life of competent ease, in a pecuniary sense, to literature; like Gibbon, he had gathered to the shores of a beautiful lake, remote from great capitals, a large, or, at least, sufficient library (in each case, I believe, the library ranged, as to numerical amount, between seven and ten thousand); and, like Gibbon, he was the most accomplished littérateur amongst the erudite scholars of his time, and the most of an erudite scholar amongst the accomplished littérateurs. After all these points of agreement known, it remains as a pure advantage on the side of Southey—a mere lucro ponatur—that he was a poet; and, by all men's confession, a respectable poet, brilliant in his descriptive powers, and fascinating in his narration, however much he might want of
In the morning, the two families might live separately; but[Pg 337] they came together for dinner and in a shared living room. Southey's library, in both senses of the word, was available to all the ladies. However, they didn't bother him unless they needed a bigger reception room or a more interesting place to suggest conversation topics. This room was indeed interesting, and not often rivaled. The library—the collection of books, which was the most noticeable part of its furnishings—was a good one in every sense. The books were mainly in English, Spanish, and Portuguese; well-chosen, consisting of the great classic works of the three literatures; fine copies, and elegantly decorated to match the room's other embellishments. This effect was enhanced by the horizontal arrangement of many rare manuscripts—Spanish or Portuguese—on brackets. Brightened up inside, the room needed little attraction from outside. Yet, even on the bleakest winter day, the landscape from the various windows was too commanding in its grandeur, too independent of the seasons or the beauty of the woods, to fail in captivating the gaze of even the coldest and dullest observers. In one direction was Derwent Water lake, with its beautiful islands—a lake about ten miles around and shaped pretty much like a boy's kite; in another direction was Bassinthwaite lake; the Newlands mountains arranged like pavilions; the stunning chaos of Borrowdale just revealing its sublime disorder through the narrow view of its gorge: all these features were positioned at different angles in front. Meanwhile, the somber rear, partially hidden on this side of the house, was blocked for many miles by the vast and towering masses of Skiddaw and Blencathara—mountains that are better seen as natural barriers and chains of hills, dividing the county of Cumberland into large chambers and different climates, rather than isolated peaks, so extensive is the area they cover; although there are also such separate and isolated heights, nearly among the highest in the country. Southey's location was therefore, in local terms, a fine heritage. This grand panorama of mountain scenery, so diverse and expansive, yet offering the delightful[Pg 338] feeling of deep seclusion and a cozy retreat from the world—a feeling that could not have been maintained by barriers less elevated than Glaramara, Skiddaw, or (which could also be seen) “the mighty Helvellyn and Catchedicam”—this collection of hills and lakes, so wide yet so isolated from everything beyond it, lay forever before Southey's eyes. His local position, and in some respects, his intellectual standing, reminded one of Gibbon, but with clear advantages for Southey. The small town of Keswick and its neighboring lake bore a relationship to mighty London similar to that of Geneva and its lake to brilliant Paris. Southey, like Gibbon, was a multifaceted scholar; he, like Gibbon, engaged in extensive historical research; he, like Gibbon, was notably hardworking, patient, and thorough in gathering research for his historical works. Like Gibbon, he dedicated a comfortably stable life, financially speaking, to literature; like Gibbon, he gathered a large or at least sufficient library by the shores of a beautiful lake, away from the major capitals (in each case, I believe, the library was between seven and ten thousand volumes); and, like Gibbon, he was the most accomplished littérateur among the erudite scholars of his time, and the most scholarly among the accomplished littérateurs. Having acknowledged all these points of similarity, it remains purely advantageous for Southey—a mere lucro ponatur—that he was a poet; and, by common agreement, a respectable poet, brilliant in his descriptive abilities and captivating in his storytelling, no matter how much he might fall short of
It is remarkable amongst the series of parallelisms that have been or might be pursued between two men, that both had the honour of retreating from a parliamentary life[139]; Gibbon, after[Pg 339] some silent and inert experience of that warfare; Southey, with a prudent foresight of the ruin to his health and literary usefulness, won from the experience of his nearest friends.
It’s striking in the series of comparisons that have been or could be made between two men that both had the honor of stepping away from a political career[139]; Gibbon, after[Pg 339] a period of quiet and inactive involvement in that struggle; Southey, with a wise understanding of the damage it could do to his health and writing ability, learned from the experiences of his closest friends.
I took leave of Southey in 1807, at the descent into the vale of Legbesthwaite, as I have already noticed. One year afterwards, I became a permanent resident in his neighbourhood; and, although, on various accounts, my intercourse with him was at no time very strict, partly from the very uncongenial constitution of my own mind, and the different direction of my studies, partly from my reluctance to levy any tax on time so precious and so fully employed, I was yet on such terms for the next ten or eleven years that I might, in a qualified sense, call myself his friend.
I said goodbye to Southey in 1807, as I was heading into the vale of Legbesthwaite, as I've already mentioned. A year later, I became a permanent resident in his neighborhood; and although our interactions were never very close for various reasons—partly because of the mismatch between our personalities and the different paths my studies took, and partly due to my hesitance to impose on his time, which was so valuable and fully occupied—I maintained a relationship with him for the next ten or eleven years that allowed me to consider myself, in a qualified way, his friend.
Yes! there were long years through which Southey might respect me, I him. But the years came—for I have lived too long, reader, in relation to many things! and the report of me would have been better, or more uniform at least, had I died some twenty years ago—the years came in which circumstances made me an Opium Eater; years through which a shadow as of sad eclipse sate and rested upon my faculties; years through which I was careless of all but those who lived within my inner circle, within "my hearts of hearts"; years—ah! heavenly years!—through which I lived, beloved, with thee, to thee, for thee, by thee! Ah! happy, happy years! in which I was a mere football of reproach, but in which every wind and sounding hurricane of wrath or contempt flew by like chasing enemies past some defying gates of adamant, and left me too blessed in thy smiles—angel of life!—to heed the curses or the mocking which sometimes I heard raving outside of our impregnable Eden. What any man said of me in those days, what he thought, did I ask? did I care? Then it was, or nearly then, that I ceased to see, ceased to hear of Southey; as much abstracted from all which concerned the world outside, and from the Southeys, or even the Coleridges, in its van, as though I had lived with the darlings of my heart in[Pg 340] the centre of Canadian forests, and all men else in the centre of Hindostan.
Yes! There were long years when Southey could respect me, and I could respect him. But those years passed—I've lived too long, reader, related to many things! The years came when circumstances turned me into an Opium Eater; years during which a shadow of sadness rested on my abilities; years where I only cared about those in my inner circle, in "my hearts of hearts"; years—ah! heavenly years!—when I lived, beloved, with you, for you, by you! Ah! happy, happy years! When I was a mere target for reproach, yet every strong wind and hurricane of anger or scorn flew by like enemies chasing past some impenetrable gates, leaving me too blessed in your smiles—angel of life!—to pay attention to the insults or mockery that sometimes echoed outside our secure Eden. What anyone said about me back then, what they thought, did I ask? Did I care? It was around that time, or not long after, that I stopped seeing or hearing about Southey; as disconnected from everything outside, and from Southey, or even the Coleridges at the forefront, as if I lived with the loved ones of my heart in[Pg 340] the middle of Canadian forests, while everyone else was in the heart of Hindostan.
But, before I part from Greta Hall and its distinguished master, one word let me say, to protect myself from the imputation of sharing in some peculiar opinions of Southey, with respect to political economy, which have been but too familiar to the world, and some opinions of the world, hardly less familiar, with respect to Southey himself and his accomplishments. Probably, with respect to the first, before this paper will be made public, I shall have sufficiently vindicated my own opinions in these matters by a distinct treatment of some great questions which lie at the base of all sound political economy; above all, the radical question of value, upon which no man has ever seen the full truth except Mr. Ricardo; and, unfortunately, he had but little of the polemic[140] skill which is required to meet the errors of his opponents. For it is noticeable that the most conspicuous of those opponents, viz. Mr. Malthus, though too much, I fear, actuated by a spirit of jealousy, and therefore likely enough to have scattered sophistry and disingenuous quibbling over the subject, had no need whatever of any further confusion for darkening and perplexing his themes than what inevitably belonged to his own most chaotic understanding. He and Say, the Frenchman, were both plagued by understandings of the same quality—having a clear vision in shallow waters, and this misleading them into the belief that they saw with equal clearness through the remote and the obscure; whereas, universally, their acuteness is like that of Hobbes—the gift of shallowness, and the result of not being subtle or profound enough to apprehend the true locus of the difficulty; and the barriers, which to[Pg 341] them limit the view, and give to it, together with the contraction, all the distinctness and definite outline of limitation, are, in nine cases out of ten, the product of their own defective and aberrating vision, and not real barriers at all.
But before I leave Greta Hall and its distinguished master, I want to say one thing to protect myself from being accused of sharing some of Southey’s peculiar views on political economy, which have been too well-known to the world, as well as some widely held opinions about Southey himself and his achievements. By the time this paper is published, I will likely have defended my own views on these issues by addressing some major questions that underlie all sound political economy, especially the fundamental question of value, which only Mr. Ricardo has fully understood; unfortunately, he lacked the debate skills needed to counter his opponents’ errors. It’s notable that the most prominent of those opponents, Mr. Malthus, although too often driven by jealousy and likely to spread sophistry and misleading arguments, didn’t need any extra confusion to obscure his subjects beyond what arose from his own chaotic understanding. He and Say, the Frenchman, both struggled with the same type of understanding—having clear insights in superficial matters, which misled them into thinking they saw as clearly in complex and obscure areas; however, their sharpness generally resembles Hobbes’s—an ability to see only the surface, stemming from not being subtle or deep enough to grasp the true nature of the challenges; the limitations they faced, which constricted their view and gave it a distinct shape of limitation, were, in nine out of ten cases, the result of their flawed vision rather than real obstacles.
Meantime, until I write fully and deliberately upon this subject, I shall observe, simply, that all "the Lake Poets," as they are called, were not only in error, but most presumptuously in error, upon these subjects. They were ignorant of every principle belonging to every question alike in political economy, and they were obstinately bent upon learning nothing; they were all alike too proud to acknowledge that any man knew better than they, unless it were upon some purely professional subject, or some art remote from all intellectual bearings, such as conferred no honour in its possession. Wordsworth was the least tainted with error upon political economy; and that because he rarely applied his thoughts to any question of that nature, and, in fact, despised every study of a moral or political aspect, unless it drew its materials from such revelations of truth as could be won from the prima philosophia of human nature approached with the poet's eye. Coleridge was the one whom Nature and his own multifarious studies had the best qualified for thinking justly on a theme such as this; but he also was shut out from the possibility of knowledge by presumption, and the habit of despising all the analytic studies of his own day—a habit for which he certainly had some warrant in the peculiar feebleness of all that has offered itself for philosophy in modern England. In particular, the religious discussions of the age, which touch inevitably at every point upon the profounder philosophy of man and his constitution, had laid bare the weakness of his own age to Coleridge's eye; and, because all was hollow and trivial in this direction, he chose to think that it was so in every other. And hence he has laid himself open to the just scoffs of persons far inferior to himself. In a foot-note in some late number of the Westminster Review, it is most truly asserted (not in these words, but to this effect) that Coleridge's "Table Talk" exhibits a superannuation of error fit only for two centuries before. And what gave peculiar point to this display of ignorance was, that Coleridge did not, like Wordsworth, dismiss political[Pg 342] economy from his notice disdainfully, as a puerile tissue of truisms, or of falsehoods not less obvious, but actually addressed himself to the subject; fancied he had made discoveries in the science; and even promised us a systematic work on its whole compass.
In the meantime, until I write in detail about this topic, I want to say simply that all the so-called "Lake Poets" were not only mistaken but extremely arrogant in their mistakes regarding these issues. They were unaware of any principles related to every question in political economy, and they were stubbornly determined to learn nothing. They were all too proud to admit that anyone knew better than they did, unless it was on some purely professional topic or an art that had no intellectual significance and offered no honor in its possession. Wordsworth was the least misguided about political economy, mainly because he rarely focused on questions of that nature and, in fact, held in disdain any study with moral or political implications unless it came from the fundamental truths that could be gleaned from the prima philosophia of human nature as seen through a poet's perspective. Coleridge was perhaps the one best prepared by Nature and his diverse studies to think accurately on a subject like this; however, he too was blocked from gaining knowledge by his arrogance and his tendency to dismiss all the analytical studies of his time—a tendency justified by the undeniable weakness of modern English philosophy. In particular, the religious debates of the time, which inevitably touched on the deeper philosophy of humanity and its structure, laid bare the vulnerabilities of his age to Coleridge; and because everything seemed superficial and trivial in this regard, he concluded it must be the case everywhere. As a result, he opened himself up to the rightful ridicule of those far less accomplished than himself. A footnote in a recent issue of the Westminster Review rightly states (not in these exact words, but in essence) that Coleridge's "Table Talk" reflects a dated misunderstanding suitable only for two centuries prior. What made this display of ignorance particularly notable was that, unlike Wordsworth, who dismissed political economy with disdain as a childish mix of obvious truths and less obvious falsehoods, Coleridge actually engaged with the topic, believed he had made discoveries about the science, and even promised us a comprehensive systematic work on its entirety.
To give a sample of this new and reformed political economy, it cannot well be necessary to trouble the reader with more than one chimera culled from those which Mr. Coleridge first brought forward in his early model of "The Friend." He there propounds, as an original hypothesis of his own, that taxation never burthens a people, or, as a mere possibility, can burthen a people simply by its amount. And why? Surely it draws from the purse of him who pays the quota a sum which it may be very difficult or even ruinous for him to pay, were it no more important in a public point of view than as so much deducted from his own unproductive expenditure, and which may happen to have even a national importance if it should chance to be deducted from the funds destined to productive industry. What is Mr. Coleridge's answer to these little objections? Why, thus: the latter case he evades entirely, apparently not adverting to it as a case in any respect distinguished from the other; and this other—how is that answered? Doubtless, says Mr. Coleridge, it may be inconvenient to John or Samuel that a sum of money, otherwise disposable for their own separate uses, should be abstracted for the purchase of bayonets, or grape-shot; but with this the public, the commonwealth, have nothing to do, any more than with the losses at a gaming-table, where A's loss is B's gain—the total funds of the nation remaining exactly the same. It is, in fact, nothing but the accidental distribution of the funds which is affected—possibly for the worse (no other "worse," however, is contemplated than shifting it into hands less deserving), but, also, by possibility, for the better; and the better and the worse may be well supposed, in the long run, to balance each other. And that this is Mr. Coleridge's meaning cannot be doubted, upon looking into his illustrative image in support of it: he says that money raised by Government in the shape of taxes is like moisture exhaled from the earth—doubtless, for the moment injurious to the crops, but reacting[Pg 343] abundantly for their final benefit when returning in the shape of showers. So natural, so obvious, so inevitable, by the way, is this conceit (or, to speak less harshly, this hypothesis), and so equally natural, obvious, and inevitable is the illustration from the abstraction and restoration of moisture, the exhalations and rains which affect this earth of ours, like the systole and the diastole of the heart, the flux and reflux of the ocean, that precisely the same doctrine, and precisely the same exemplification of the doctrine, is to be found in a Parliamentary speech[141] of some orator in the famous Long Parliament about the year 1642. And to my mind it was a bitter humiliation to find, about 150 years afterwards, in a shallow French work, the famous "Compte Rendu" of the French Chancellor of the Exchequer (Comptroller of the Finances) Neckar—in that work, most humiliating it was to me, on a certain day, that I found this idle Coleridgian fantasy, not merely repeated, as it had been by scores—not merely anticipated by full twenty and two years, so that these French people had been beforehand with him, and had made Coleridge, to all appearance, their plagiarist, but also (hear it, ye gods!) answered, satisfactorily refuted, by this very feeble old sentimentalist, Neckar. Yes; positively Neckar, the slipshod old system-fancier and political driveller, had been so much above falling into the shallow snare, that he had, on sound principles, exposed its specious delusions. Coleridge, the subtlest of men in his proper walk, had brought forward, as a novel hypothesis of his own, in 1810, what Neckar, the rickety old charlatan, had scarcely condescended, in a hurried foot-note, to expose as a vulgar error and the shallowest of sophisms in 1787-88. There was another enormous blunder which Coleridge was constantly authorizing, both in his writings and his conversation. Quoting a passage from Sir James Stuart, in which he speaks of a vine-dresser as adding nothing to the public wealth, unless his labour did something more than replace his own consumption—that is, unless it reproduced it together with a profit; he asks contemptuously, whether the happiness and moral dignity that[Pg 344] may have been exhibited in the vine-dresser's family are to pass for nothing? And then he proceeds to abuse the economists, because they take no account of such important considerations. Doubtless these are invaluable elements of social grandeur, in a total estimate of those elements. But what has political economy to do with them, a science openly professing to insulate, and to treat apart from all other constituents of national well-being, those which concern the production and circulation of wealth?[142] So far from gaining anything by enlarging its field in the way demanded by Coleridge's critic, political economy would be as idly travelling out of the limits indicated and held forth in its very name, as if logic were to teach ethics, or ethics to teach diplomacy. With respect to the Malthusian doctrine of population, it is difficult to know who was the true proprietor of the arguments urged against it sometimes by Southey, sometimes by Coleridge. Those used by Southey are chiefly to be found up and down the Quarterly Review. But a more elaborate attack was published by Hazlitt; and this must be supposed to speak the peculiar objections of Coleridge, for he was in the habit of charging Hazlitt with having pillaged his conversation, and occasionally garbled it throughout the whole of this book. One single argument there was, undoubtedly just, and it was one which others stumbled upon no less than Coleridge, exposing the fallacy of the supposed different laws[Pg 345] of increase for vegetable and animal life. But, though this frail prop withdrawn took away from Mr. Malthus's theory all its scientific rigour, the main practical conclusions were still valid as respected any argument from the Lakers; for the strongest of these arguments that ever came to my knowledge was a mere appeal—not ad verecundiam, in the ordinary sense of the phrase, but ad honestatem, as if it were shocking to the honestum of Roman ethics (the honnêteté of French minor ethics) that the check derived from self-restraint should not be supposed amply competent to redress all the dangers from a redundant population under any certain knowledge generally diffused that such dangers existed. But these are topics which it is sufficient in this place to have noticed currente calamo. I was anxious, however, to protest against the probable imputation that I, because generally so intense an admirer of these men, adopted their blind and hasty reveries in political economy.
To give an example of this new and updated political economy, it’s not really necessary to burden the reader with more than one idea taken from what Mr. Coleridge first presented in his early version of "The Friend." He suggests, as an original hypothesis, that taxation does not burden a people—or, at least, it cannot burden a people based solely on its amount. And why is that? It surely takes from the pockets of those who pay it a sum that can be very difficult or even disastrous for them to pay, especially if it’s seen merely as a deduction from their own spending, which might even have national importance if it comes from funds meant for productive work. What’s Mr. Coleridge’s response to these objections? He seems to ignore the latter case entirely, not acknowledging it as any different from the other; and how does he address this other case? Mr. Coleridge argues that while it may be inconvenient for John or Samuel that a certain amount of money, otherwise set aside for their personal use, is taken away for the purchase of weapons or ammunition, the public, the commonwealth, isn’t affected by this, any more than by losses at a game where A's loss is B's gain—the total wealth of the nation remains unchanged. In reality, only the distribution of funds is affected—potentially for the worse (though the only "worse" considered is when it goes to someone less deserving), but also, possibly, for the better; and it’s reasonable to believe that over time, the better and worse will balance each other out. There’s no doubt that this is Mr. Coleridge's point when we look at his illustrative image: he compares tax money raised by the government to moisture evaporating from the earth—certainly harmful to crops in the moment, but ultimately beneficial when it returns as rain. This conceit (or, to be less harsh, this hypothesis) is so natural, obvious, and inevitable that it appears in a speech by some orator in the famous Long Parliament around 1642. It was a bitter humiliation for me to discover about 150 years later, in a shallow French work, the famous "Compte Rendu" by the French Chancellor of the Exchequer, Neckar. In that work, I found this empty Coleridgian fantasy not only repeated, as it had been by many others—not only acknowledged 22 years earlier, making it appear that the French had beaten him to it and Coleridge was their plagiarist—but also (hear me, gods!) satisfactorily refuted by this very weak old sentimentalist, Neckar. Yes; Neckar, the careless old theorist and political dreamer, was so far above falling for the shallow trap that he pointed out its misleading delusions on sound principles. Coleridge, the most insightful man in his field, had introduced, as a new idea of his own in 1810, what Neckar, the rickety old charlatan, had barely addressed in a hurried footnote, identifying it as a common error and a shallow sophism in 1787-88. There was another huge mistake that Coleridge regularly endorsed in both his writings and conversations. Quoting Sir James Stuart, who stated that a vine-grower doesn’t add to public wealth unless his labor does more than simply replace his own consumption—that is, unless it produces together with a profit—Coleridge scornfully asks whether the happiness and moral dignity displayed in the vine-grower's family count for nothing. He then criticizes economists for not considering such crucial factors. No doubt these are invaluable elements of social greatness when looking at the bigger picture. But what does political economy have to do with them, a discipline that professes to focus solely on the aspects of national well-being related to the production and circulation of wealth? Rather than gaining anything by broadening its scope as demanded by Coleridge's critic, political economy would simply be wandering outside its defined limits, just as if logic were to teach ethics or ethics to instruct diplomacy. Regarding Malthus’s doctrine of population, it’s hard to determine who genuinely owned the arguments made against it, sometimes by Southey and sometimes by Coleridge. Southey’s arguments are mainly found throughout the Quarterly Review. But a more detailed attack was published by Hazlitt; this must reflect Coleridge's specific objections, as he accused Hazlitt of stealing his ideas, often misrepresenting them throughout this book. One single argument was undoubtedly valid, one that both Coleridge and others noted, pointing out the fallacy of the supposed different laws governing growth for plant and animal life. However, although removing this weak support stripped Mr. Malthus’s theory of much of its scientific rigor, the main practical conclusions still held true regarding any argument from the Lakers; the strongest argument I encountered was merely an appeal—not ad verecundiam, in the usual sense, but ad honestatem, as if it were shocking to the honestum of Roman ethics (the honnêteté of French minor ethics) that the restraint derived from self-control should not be viewed as fully capable of addressing all the risks from a surplus population when there's some general awareness of those dangers. But these are topics that it suffices to mention here currente calamo. I wanted to make it clear, however, that despite being a strong admirer of these men, I do not agree with their blind and hasty beliefs in political economy.
There were (and perhaps more justly I might say there are) two other notions currently received about Southey, one of which is altogether erroneous, and the other true only in a limited sense. The first is the belief that he belonged to what is known as the Lake school in poetry; with respect to which all that I need say in this place is involved in his own declaration frankly made to myself in Easedale, during the summer of 1812: that he considered Wordsworth's theory of poetic diction, and still more his principles as to the selection of subjects, and as to what constituted a poetic treatment, as founded on error. There is certainly some community of phraseology between Southey and the other Lakers, naturally arising out of their joint reverence for Scriptural language: this was a field in which they met in common: else it shows but little discernment and power of valuing the essences of things, to have classed Southey in the same school with Wordsworth and Coleridge. The other popular notion about Southey which I conceive to be expressed with much too little limitation regards his style. He has been praised, and justly, for his plain, manly, unaffected English, until the parrot echoers of other men's judgments, who adopt all they relish with undistinguishing blindness, have begun to hold him up as a great master of his[Pg 346] own language, and a classical model of fine composition. Now, if the error were only in the degree, it would not be worth while to notice it; but the truth is, that Southey's defects in this particular power are as striking as his characteristic graces. Let a subject arise—and almost in any path there is a ready possibility that it should—in which a higher tone is required, of splendid declamation, or of impassionate fervour, and Southey's style will immediately betray its want of the loftier qualities as flagrantly as it now asserts its powers in that unpretending form which is best suited to his level character of writing and his humbler choice of themes. It is to mistake the character of Southey's mind, which is elevated but not sustained by the higher modes of enthusiasm, to think otherwise. Were a magnificent dedication required, moving with a stately and measured solemnity, and putting forward some majestic pretensions, arising out of a long and laborious life; were a pleading required against some capital abuse of the earth—war, slavery, oppression in its thousand forms; were a Defensio pro Populo Anglicano required; Southey's is not the mind, and, by a necessary consequence, Southey's is not the style, for carrying such purposes into full and memorable effect. His style is therefore good, because it has been suited to his themes; and those themes have hitherto been either narrative, which usually imposes a modest diction, and a modest structure of sentences, or argumentative in that class which is too overburthened with details, with replies, with interruption, and every mode of discontinuity, to allow a thought of eloquence, or of the periodic style which a perfect eloquence instinctively seeks.
There are (and maybe more accurately, there are) two other common ideas about Southey, one of which is completely wrong, and the other is only true in a limited way. The first is the belief that he was part of what’s known as the Lake school of poetry. Regarding this, all I need to say here is based on his own frank declaration to me in Easedale during the summer of 1812: he thought Wordsworth's theory of poetic language, and even more his principles about subject matter and what constitutes poetic treatment, were based on error. There is definitely some overlap in language between Southey and the other Lakers, naturally coming from their shared reverence for Scriptural language; this was a common ground for them. Beyond that, it shows a lack of insight and appreciation for the essence of things to classify Southey with Wordsworth and Coleridge. The other popular idea about Southey, which I believe is expressed with far too little nuance, pertains to his style. He has been justly praised for his straightforward, strong, and genuine English, but the parrots mimicking others’ opinions, who accept everything they like without discernment, have started to hold him up as a great master of his own language and a classical model of fine writing. If the issue were just about the degree of his ability, it wouldn’t be worth mentioning, but the truth is that Southey's shortcomings in this area are as noticeable as his characteristic strengths. Whenever a topic arises—and it could happen in almost any direction—where a higher tone is needed, with impressive rhetoric or passionate fervor, Southey's style will instantly reveal its lack of those loftier qualities just as clearly as it currently showcases its strengths in the humble form that best matches his writing style and simpler themes. To think otherwise is to misinterpret the nature of Southey's mind, which is elevated but not sustained by higher levels of enthusiasm. If a grand dedication were needed, moving with dignity and measured solemnity and expressing some majestic claims resulting from a long and hard life; if a plea were needed against some major abuse of the earth—like war, slavery, oppression in its many forms; if a Defensio pro Populo Anglicano were needed; Southey's mind isn’t the one, and naturally, Southey's style isn’t the one, for fulfilling such purposes with impact and memorability. His style is good because it fits his themes; and those themes have so far been either narrative, which usually calls for modest diction and sentence structure, or argumentative in a way that is too cluttered with details, responses, interruptions, and all forms of discontinuity, leaving no room for eloquence or the rhythmic style that perfect eloquence innately seeks.
I here close my separate notice of the Lake Poets—meaning those three who were originally so denominated—three men upon whom posterity, in every age, will look back with interest as profound as, perhaps, belongs to any other names of our era; for it happens, not unfrequently, that the personal interest in the author is not in the direct ratio of that which belongs to his works: and the character of an author better qualified to command a vast popularity for the creations of his pen is oftentimes more of a universal character, less peculiar, less fitted to stimulate the curiosity, or to sustain[Pg 347] the sympathy of the intellectual, than the profounder and more ascetic solemnity of a Wordsworth, or the prodigal and magnificent eccentricities of a Coleridge. With respect to both of these gifted men, some interesting notices still remain in arrear; but these will more properly come forward in their natural places, as they happen to arise in after years in connexion with my own memoirs.
I’m finishing my separate note on the Lake Poets—referring to the three who were originally called that—three men whom future generations will remember with as much interest as any other figures from our time. It often happens that the personal connection to the author doesn't match the significance of their works. An author's character can sometimes be more universally appealing, less unique, and less likely to ignite curiosity or maintain the interest of intellectuals than the deeper and more serious nature of a Wordsworth or the extravagant and brilliant quirks of a Coleridge. There are still some interesting notes about both of these talented men that need to be shared, but they will be more appropriately discussed later on as they come up in connection with my own memoirs.
CHAPTER VI
THE SARACEN'S HEAD[143]
My first visit to the Wordsworths had been made in November, 1807; but, on that occasion, from the necessity of saving the Michaelmas Term at Oxford, for which I had barely left myself time, I stayed only one week. On the last day, I witnessed a scene, the first and the last of its kind that ever I did witness, almost too trivial to mention, except for the sake of showing what things occur in the realities of experience which a novelist could not venture to imagine. Wordsworth and his sister were under an engagement of some standing to dine on that day with a literary lady about four miles distant; and, as the southern mail, which I was to catch at a distance of eighteen miles, would not pass that point until long after midnight, Miss Wordsworth proposed that, rather than pass my time at an inn, I should join the dinner party; a proposal rather more suitable to her own fervent and hospitable temper than to the habits of our hostess, who must (from what I came to know of her in after years) have looked upon me as an intruder. Something had reached Miss Wordsworth of her penurious ménage, but nothing that approached the truth. I was presented to the lady, whom we found a perfect bas bleu of a very commonplace order, but having some other accomplishments beyond her slender acquaintance with literature. Our party consisted of six—our hostess, who might be about fifty years of age; a pretty timid young woman,[Pg 349] who was there in the character of a humble friend; some stranger or other; the Wordsworths, and myself. The dinner was the very humblest and simplest I had ever seen—in that there was nothing to offend—I did not then know that the lady was very rich—but also it was flagrantly insufficient in quantity. Dinner, however, proceeded; when, without any removals, in came a kind of second course, in the shape of a solitary pheasant. This, in a cold manner, she asked me to try; but we, in our humility, declined for the present; and also in mere good-nature, not wishing to expose too palpably the insufficiency of her dinner. May I die the death of a traitor, if she did not proceed, without further question to any one of us (and, as to the poor young companion, no form of even invitation was conceded to her), and, in the eyes of us all, eat up the whole bird, from alpha to omega. Upon my honour, I thought to myself, this is a scene I would not have missed. It is well to know the possibilities of human nature. Could she have a bet depending on the issue, and would she explain all to us as soon as she had won her wager? Alas! no explanation ever came, except, indeed, that afterwards her character, put en evidence upon a score of occasions, too satisfactorily explained everything. No; it was, as Mr. Coleridge expresses it, a psychological curiosity—a hollow thing—and only once matched in all the course of my reading, in or out of romances; but that once, I grieve to say it, was by a king, and a sort of hero.
My first visit to the Wordsworths was in November 1807; but on that occasion, I had to save the Michaelmas Term at Oxford, which left me with barely enough time, so I only stayed a week. On the last day, I witnessed a scene, the first and last of its kind that I have ever seen, almost too trivial to mention, except to show what real-life experiences can offer that a novelist could never imagine. Wordsworth and his sister had a longstanding commitment to dine that day with a literary lady about four miles away; and since the southern mail, which I was supposed to catch eighteen miles away, wouldn’t pass that point until long after midnight, Miss Wordsworth suggested that instead of spending my time at an inn, I should join the dinner party. This was a proposal that suited her warm and welcoming nature more than it did our hostess, who (from what I learned about her in later years) likely viewed me as an intruder. Miss Wordsworth had heard something about our hostess's frugal lifestyle, but nothing close to the truth. I was introduced to the lady, who turned out to be a typical second-rate intellectual but had some other skills beyond her limited knowledge of literature. Our group consisted of six people—our hostess, who looked about fifty; a pretty but shy young woman, who was there as a modest friend; some stranger or other; the Wordsworths; and me. The dinner was the simplest and humblest I had ever experienced—there was nothing to offend—I didn’t know at the time that the lady was very wealthy—but it was also glaringly insufficient in quantity. Still, dinner continued; and without clearing any dishes, a kind of second course arrived, in the form of a single pheasant. She coldly asked me to give it a try; but we, being humble, politely declined for the moment, trying not to highlight the inadequacy of her dinner. Honestly, it was shocking how she then proceeded, without further inquiry to any of us (and as for the poor young friend, she wasn’t even extended a formal invitation), to eat the entire bird right in front of all of us. I thought to myself, I wouldn’t have missed this scene for anything. It's good to understand the possibilities of human nature. Could she have had a bet riding on this outcome, and would she explain everything once she had won? Alas! No explanation ever came, except that later on, her character, exposed on multiple occasions, eventually clarified everything. No; it was, as Mr. Coleridge put it, a psychological curiosity—a hollow experience—and I only encountered something similar once in all my reading, fiction or otherwise; but that time, I regret to say, it involved a king and a sort of hero.
The Duchess of Marlborough it is who reports the shocking anecdote of William III, that actually Princess Anne, his future wife, durst not take any of the green peas brought to the dinner table, when that vegetable happened to be as yet scarce and premature. There was a gentleman! And such a lady had we for our hostess. However, we all observed a suitable gravity; but afterwards, when we left the house, the remembrance affected us differently. Miss Wordsworth laughed with undissembled glee; but Wordsworth thought it too grave a matter for laughing—he was thoroughly disgusted, and said repeatedly, "A person cannot be honest, positively not honest, who is capable of such an act." The lady is dead, and I shall not mention her name: she lived[Pg 350] only to gratify her selfish propensities; and two little anecdotes may show the outrageous character of her meanness. I was now on the debtor side of her dinner account, and, therefore, in a future year she readily accepted an invitation to come and dine with me at my cottage. But, on a subsequent occasion, when I was to have a few literary people at dinner, whom I knew that she greatly wished to meet, she positively replied thus:—"No; I have already come with my young lady to dine with you; that puts me on the wrong side by one; now, if I were to come again, as I cannot leave Miss—— behind, I shall then be on the wrong side by three; and that is more than I could find opportunities to repay before I go up to London for the winter." "Very well," I said; "give me 3s. and that will settle the account." She laughed, but positively persisted in not coming until after dinner, notwithstanding she had to drive a distance of ten miles.
The Duchess of Marlborough is the one who shares the shocking story about William III, that Princess Anne, his future wife, didn’t dare to take any of the green peas served at the dinner table when they were still rare and underdeveloped. What a gentleman! And what a hostess she was! We all maintained a serious demeanor; however, once we left the house, it affected us differently. Miss Wordsworth laughed with open delight, but Wordsworth thought it was too serious to find humorous—he was completely disgusted and kept saying, "A person cannot be honest, absolutely not honest, who is capable of such an act." The lady has passed away, and I won’t mention her name: she lived[Pg 350]only to satisfy her own selfish desires; and two little stories can illustrate just how outrageous her meanness was. I was now on the debtor side of her dinner account, so in a later year, she readily accepted an invitation to dine with me at my cottage. But then, on another occasion when I was hosting a few literary friends whom I knew she really wanted to meet, she flatly replied: "No; I have already dined with you once with my young lady; that puts me in debt by one. If I came again, since I can’t leave Miss—behind, I’d then be in debt by three, and that’s more than I could repay before I head to London for the winter." "Alright," I said; "give me 3s. and that will settle the bill." She laughed, but firmly refused to come over until after dinner, even though she had to drive ten miles to get there.
The other anecdote is worse. She was exceedingly careful of her health; and not thinking it healthy to drive about in a close carriage,—which, besides, could not have suited the narrow mountain tracks, to which her sketching habits attracted her,—she shut up her town carriage for the summer, and jobbed some little open car. Being a very large woman, and, moreover, a masculine woman, with a bronzed complexion, and always choosing to wear, at night, a turban, round hair that was as black as that of the "Moors of Malabar," she presented an exact likeness of a Saracen's Head, as painted over inn-doors; whilst the timid and delicate young lady by her side looked like "dejected Pity" at the side of "Revenge" when assuming the war-denouncing trumpet. Some Oxonians and Cantabs, who, at different times, were in the habit of meeting this oddly assorted party in all nooks of the country, used to move the question, whether the poor horse or the young lady had the worst of it? At length the matter was decided: the horse was fast going off this sublunary stage; and the Saracen's Head was told as much, and with this little addition,—that his death was owing inter alia to starvation. Her answer was remarkable:—"But, my dear madam, that is his master's fault; I pay so much a-day—he is to keep the horse." That might be, but[Pg 351] still the horse was dying, and dying in the way stated. The Saracen's Head persisted in using him under those circumstances—such was her "bond"—and in a short time the horse actually died. Yes, the horse died—and died of starvation—or at least of an illness caused originally by starvation: for so said, not merely the whole population of the little neighbouring town, but also the surgeon. Not long after, however, the lady, the Saracen's Head, died herself; but I fear not of starvation; for, though something like it did prevail at her table, she prudently reserved it all for her guests; in fact, I never heard of such vigilant care, and so much laudable exertion, applied to the promotion of health: yet all failed, and, in a degree which confounded people's speculations upon the subject—for she did not live much beyond sixty; whereas everybody supposed that the management of her physical system entitled her to outwear a century. Perhaps the prayers of horses might avail to order it otherwise.
The other story is even worse. She was really careful about her health, and thinking it wasn't healthy to travel in a closed carriage—which wouldn't have suited the narrow mountain paths she liked to sketch—she put away her town carriage for the summer and rented a small open cart. Being a very large and masculine woman, with a bronzed complexion and always choosing to wear a turban at night around her hair, which was as black as the "Moors of Malabar," she looked just like a depiction of a Saracen’s Head that you’d see on an inn sign. Meanwhile, the timid and delicate young lady next to her looked like "dejected Pity" next to "Revenge" holding a trumpet to announce peace. Some students from Oxford and Cambridge, who ran into this oddly matched pair in various parts of the country, would debate whether the poor horse or the young lady had it worse. Eventually, it was settled: the horse was nearing death, and the Saracen's Head was informed of this, with the added note that its condition was partially due to starvation. Her response was striking: "But, my dear madam, that’s his master's fault; I pay a daily rate—he's supposed to take care of the horse." That may have been true, but still, the horse was dying, and dying just as stated. The Saracen's Head insisted on using him regardless—such was her "agreement"—and before long, the horse actually died. Yes, the horse died—and it died from starvation—or at least from an illness that started because of starvation: that’s what the entire population of the nearby small town said, along with the surgeon. Not long after, however, the lady, the Saracen's Head, also passed away; but I doubt it was from starvation, since, although something like it was happening at her table, she smartly saved that for her guests. In fact, I’ve never heard of such careful attention to promoting health, and so much admirable effort put forth, yet it all failed in a way that baffled people’s theories about it—she didn’t live much past sixty, while everyone thought her way of managing her health should have let her live to a hundred. Maybe the prayers of horses could have changed that.
But the singular thing about this lady's mixed and contradictory character was, that in London and Bath, where her peculiar habits of life were naturally less accurately known, she maintained the reputation of one who united the accomplishments of literature and art with a remarkable depth of sensibility, and a most amiable readiness to enter into the distresses of her friends by sympathy the most cordial and consolation the most delicate. More than once I have seen her name recorded in printed books, and attended with praises that tended to this effect. I have seen letters also from a lady in deep affliction which spoke of the Saracen's Head as having paid her the first visit from which she drew any effectual consolation. Such are the erroneous impressions conveyed by biographical memoirs; or, which is a more charitable construction of the case, such are the inconsistencies of the human heart! And certainly there was one fact, even in her Westmoreland life, that did lend some countenance to the southern picture of her amiableness: and this lay in the cheerfulness with which she gave up her time (time, but not much of her redundant money) to the promotion of the charitable schemes set on foot by the neighbouring ladies; sometimes for the education of poor children,[Pg 352] sometimes for the visiting of the sick, &c., &c. I have heard several of those ladies express their gratitude for her exertions, and declare that she was about their best member. But their horror was undisguised when the weekly committee came, by rotation, to hold its sittings at her little villa; for, as the business occupied them frequently from eleven o'clock in the forenoon to a late dinner hour, and as many of them had a fifteen or twenty miles' drive, they needed some refreshments: but these were, of course, a "great idea" at the Saracen's Head; since, according to the epigram which illustrates the maxim of Tacitus that omne ignotum pro magnifico, and, applying it to the case of a miser's horse, terminates by saying, "What vast ideas must he have of oats!"—upon the same principle these poor ladies, on those fatal committee days, never failed to form most exaggerated ideas of bread, butter, and wine. And at length some, more intrepid than the rest, began to carry biscuits in their muffs, and, with the conscious tremors of school girls (profiting by the absence of the mistress but momentarily expecting detection), they employed some casual absence of their unhostly hostess in distributing and eating their hidden "viaticum." However, it must be acknowledged, that time and exertion, and the sacrifice of more selfish pleasure during the penance at the school, were, after all, real indications of kindness to her fellow-creatures; and, as I wish to part in peace even with the Saracen's Head, I have reserved this anecdote to the last: for it is painful to have lived on terms of good nature, and exchanging civilities, with any human being of whom one can report absolutely no good thing; and I sympathize heartily with that indulgent person of whom it is somewhere recorded that, upon an occasion when the death of a man happened to be mentioned who was unanimously pronounced a wretch without one good quality, "monstrum nullâ virtute redemptum," he ventured, however, at last, in a deprecatory tone to say—"Well, he did whistle beautifully, at any rate."
But the unique thing about this woman's mixed and contradictory character was that in London and Bath, where her unusual lifestyle was naturally less well-known, she maintained a reputation as someone who combined the talents of literature and art with a remarkable depth of sensitivity and a very friendly willingness to share in her friends' troubles with heartfelt sympathy and gentle consolation. I’ve seen her name mentioned in printed books, accompanied by praises that suggested this image. I’ve also seen letters from a woman in deep sorrow that referred to the Saracen's Head as having given her the first visit that brought her any real comfort. Such are the mistaken impressions given by biographical accounts; or, to be kinder about it, such are the contradictions of the human heart! And surely there was one fact, even in her Westmoreland life, that did support the southern portrayal of her kindness: it was the cheerful way she dedicated her time (time, but not much of her extra money) to promote the charitable projects initiated by the local women; sometimes for the education of underprivileged children, sometimes for visiting the sick, and so on. I’ve heard several of those women express their gratitude for her efforts and declare that she was among their best members. But their dismay was clear when the weekly committee rotated to hold its meetings at her little villa; since the sessions often occupied them from 11 in the morning until late dinner, and many of them had a fifteen to twenty-mile journey, they needed some refreshments: but these were, of course, a "grand idea" at the Saracen's Head; as illustrated by the saying that aligns with Tacitus’ maxim that all the unknown is regarded as magnificent, and applied to the case of a miser’s horse, concludes by saying, "What enormous ideas must he have of oats!"—on the same principle, these poor ladies, on those dreadful committee days, never failed to develop highly exaggerated notions of bread, butter, and wine. Eventually, some, bolder than the others, began to sneak biscuits in their muffs, and, feeling like schoolgirls filled with nervous anticipation (taking advantage of their hostess's momentary absence), they would use her occasional absence to share and snack on their hidden "provisions." However, it must be acknowledged that the time and effort, along with the sacrifice of more selfish pleasures during their duties at the school, truly reflected kindness to her fellow beings; and, since I want to part amicably even with the Saracen's Head, I’ve saved this story for last: it’s hard to have maintained a friendly rapport, exchanging pleasantries, with someone you can report absolutely no good thing about; I genuinely empathize with that accommodating person noted somewhere who, upon hearing of a man unanimously deemed a wretch without a single good quality, "monstrum nullâ virtute redemptum," eventually ventured to say, in a tone of mild protest, "Well, he could whistle beautifully, at least."
Talking of "whistling" reminds me to return from my digression; for on that night, the 12th of November, 1807, and the last of my visits to the Wordsworths, I took leave of them in the inn at Ambleside about ten at night; and the[Pg 353] post-chaise in which I crossed the country to catch the mail was driven by a postilion who whistled so delightfully that, for the first time in my life, I became aware of the prodigious powers which are lodged potentially in so despised a function of the vocal organs. For the whole of the long ascent up Orrest Head, which obliged him to walk his horses for a full half-mile, he made the woods of Windermere ring with the canorous sweetness of his half flute, half clarionet music; but, in fact, the subtle melody of the effect placed it in power far beyond either flute or clarionet. A year or two afterwards, I heard a fellow-servant of this same postilion's, a black, play with equal superiority of effect upon the jew's harp; making that, which in most hands is a mere monotonous jarring, a dull reverberating vibration, into a delightful lyre of no inconsiderable compass. We have since heard of, some of us have heard, the chinchopper. Within the last hundred years, we have had the Æolian harp (first mentioned and described in the "Castle of Indolence," which I think was first published entire about 1738[144]); then the musical glasses; then the celestina, to represent the music of the spheres, introduced by Mr. Walker, or some other lecturing astronomer; and many another fine effect obtained from trivial means. But, at this moment, I recollect a performance perhaps more astonishing than any of them. A Mr. Worgman, who had very good introductions, and very general ones (for he was to be met within a few months in every part of the island), used to accompany himself on the piano, weaving extempore long tissues of impassioned music, that were called his own, but which, in fact, were all the better[Pg 354] for not being such, or at least for continually embodying passages from Handel and Pergolesi. To this substratum of the instrumental music he contrived to adapt some unaccountable and indescribable choral accompaniment, a pomp of sound, a tempestuous blare of harmony ascending in clouds not from any one, but apparently from a band of Mr. Worgman's; for sometimes it was a trumpet, sometimes a kettle-drum, sometimes a cymbal, sometimes a bassoon, and sometimes it was all of these at once.
Talking about "whistling" reminds me to get back on track; on the night of November 12, 1807, during my last visit to the Wordsworths, I said goodbye to them at the inn in Ambleside around ten at night. The post-chaise I took to catch the mail was driven by a postilion who whistled so beautifully that, for the first time in my life, I realized the incredible talent that can be found in what is often viewed as a simple vocal skill. Throughout the long climb up Orrest Head, where he had to walk his horses for a good half-mile, he filled the woods of Windermere with the sweet sound of his music, which was part flute and part clarinet. In truth, the delicate melody he created had a power beyond either instrument. A year or two later, I heard another servant of this postilion, a Black man, play the jew's harp with such skill that he turned what is usually just a dull, monotonous noise into a delightful instrument with a surprising range. We’ve also heard of—some of us have heard—the chinchopper. In the last hundred years, we've encountered the Æolian harp (first mentioned and described in the "Castle of Indolence," published in full around 1738[144]); then the musical glasses; then the celestina, to represent the music of the spheres, introduced by Mr. Walker or another lecturing astronomer; and many other impressive effects made from ordinary means. But right now, I remember a performance that might be even more astonishing than any of those. A Mr. Worgman, who had excellent and broad connections (as he could be found in every part of the island within a few months), would accompany himself on the piano, weaving long, passionate pieces of music that were claimed as his own, but in reality, they were all the better for incorporating passages from Handel and Pergolesi. He managed to blend some inexplicable and indescribable choral accompaniment—a grand sound, a storm of harmony rising in clouds, seemingly from a group of Mr. Worgman's musicians; sometimes it was a trumpet, sometimes a kettle-drum, sometimes a cymbal, sometimes a bassoon, and sometimes all of these at once.
And now it was a flute; And now it was the voice of an angel,
"That makes the heavens silent."
In this case I presume that ventriloquism must have had something to do with the effect; but, whatever it were, the power varied greatly with the state of his spirits, or with some other fluctuating causes in the animal economy. However, the result of all these experiences is, that I shall never more be surprised at any musical effects, the very greatest, drawn from whatever inconsiderable or apparently inadequate means; not even if the butcher's instrument, the marrow-bones and cleaver, or any of those culinary instruments so pleasantly treated by Addison in the "Spectator," such as the kitchen dresser and thumb, the tongs and shovel, the pepper and salt-box, should be exalted, by some immortal butcher or inspired scullion, into a sublime harp, dulcimer, or lute, capable of wooing St. Cecilia to listen, able even
In this case, I guess that ventriloquism must have played a role in the effect; but whatever it was, the power varied a lot depending on his mood or some other changing factors in the body's system. Anyway, the outcome of all these experiences is that I will never again be shocked by any musical results, even the most amazing ones, produced from seemingly insignificant or inadequate materials; not even if the butcher's tools, like the marrow-bones and cleaver, or any of those cooking instruments that Addison humorously described in the "Spectator," such as the kitchen table and thumb, tongs and shovel, or the pepper and salt shaker, were transformed by some legendary butcher or inspired cook into a magnificent harp, dulcimer, or lute, capable of charming St. Cecilia to listen, even able to
Or summon an angel.
That night, as I was passing under the grounds of Elleray, then belonging to a Westmoreland "statesman," a thought struck me, that I was now traversing a road with which, as yet, I was scarcely at all acquainted, but which, in years to come, might perhaps be as familiar to my eye as the rooms of my own house; and possibly that I might traverse them in company with faces as yet not even seen by me, but in those future years dearer than any which I had yet known. In this prophetic glimpse there was nothing very marvellous;[Pg 355] for what could be more natural than that I should come to reside in the neighbourhood of the Wordsworths, and that this might lead to my forming connexions in a country which I should consequently come to know so well? I did not, however, anticipate so definitely and circumstantially as all this; but generally I had a dim presentiment that here, on this very road, I should often pass, and in company that, now not even conjecturally delineated or drawn out of the utter darkness in which they were as yet reposing, would hereafter plant memories in my heart, the last that will fade from it in the hour of death. Here, afterwards, at this very spot, or a little above it, but on this very estate, which from local peculiarities of ground, and of sudden angles, was peculiarly kenspeck, i.e. easy of recognition,[145] and could have been challenged and identified at any distance of years; here afterwards lived Professor Wilson, the only very intimate male friend I have had; here, too, it was, my M.,[146] that, in long years afterwards, through many a score of nights—nights often dark as Erebus, and amidst thunders and lightnings the most sublime—we descended at twelve, one, and two o'clock at night, speeding from Kendal to our distant home, twenty miles away. Thou wert at present a child not nine years old, nor had I seen thy face, nor heard thy name. But within nine years from that same night thou wert seated by my side;—and, thenceforwards, through a period of fourteen years, how often did we two descend, hand locked in hand, and thinking of things to come, at a pace of hurricane; whilst all the sleeping woods about us re-echoed the uproar of trampling hoofs and groaning wheels. Duly as we mounted the crest of Orrest Head, mechanically and of themselves almost, and spontaneously, without need of voice or spur, according to Westmoreland usage, the horses flew off into a gallop, like the pace of a swallow.[147] It was a railroad[Pg 356] pace that we ever maintained; objects were descried far ahead in one moment, and in the next were crowding into the rear. Three miles and a half did this storm-flight continue, for so long the descent lasted. Then, for many a mile, over undulating ground, did we alternately creep and fly, until again a long precipitous movement, again a storm-gallop, that hardly suffered the feet to touch the ground, gave warning that we drew near to that beloved cottage; warning to us—warning to them:—
That night, as I walked under the grounds of Elleray, which was then owned by a Westmoreland politician, a thought struck me. I was now on a road I barely knew, but in the future, it might become as familiar to me as the rooms of my own home. I might even share this road with people I hadn't met yet but would come to care about more than anyone I'd known so far. There was nothing miraculous about this premonition; it was natural to think I would live near the Wordsworths and that this could lead to connections in a place I would come to know so well. I didn’t imagine the details quite like that, but I had a vague sense that I would often walk this road, accompanied by people who, at that moment, were just shadows, but would later become cherished memories in my heart, memories that would linger even in my final moments. Later on, at this very spot or a little higher up, on this estate, which due to its unique features and sudden angles was easy to recognize, I would live with Professor Wilson, my closest male friend; it was here that, many years later, my dear M. and I would often rush home from Kendal at midnight, sometimes one or two in the morning, racing back to our distant home twenty miles away. You were still a child, not yet nine, and I hadn’t seen your face or known your name. Yet, just nine years after that night, you would be sitting beside me; for fourteen years after that, we would often race down this very road, hand in hand, thinking about the future, at a breakneck pace, while the sleeping woods echoed with the sound of hooves and creaking wheels. As we reached the top of Orrest Head, our horses would take off in a gallop as if they knew what to do, just like they did in Westmoreland. We maintained a speed that felt like a train, spotting objects far ahead one moment and then having them rush past us the next. This wild ride lasted for three and a half miles as we descended. Then, for several miles over rolling hills, we would alternate between creeping and flying, until another steep descent would lead us into a burst of speed, hardly letting our feet touch the ground, signaling that we were nearing that beloved cottage; a signal for us—and a signal for them:
Is serious and strict But the joyful memories of those who have passed.
Sometimes the nights were bright with cloudless moonlight, and of that awful breathless quiet which often broods over vales that are peculiarly landlocked, and which is, or seems to be, so much more expressive of a solemn hush and a Sabbath-like rest from the labours of nature than I remember to have experienced in flat countries:—
Sometimes the nights were bright with clear moonlight, and that eerie, breathless silence often hangs over valleys that are especially enclosed, which feels so much more like a solemn hush and a peaceful break from nature's activities than anything I recall experiencing in flatlands:—
But something much deeper than these.
And on such nights it was no sentimental refinement, but a sincere and hearty feeling, that, in wheeling past the village churchyard of Stavely, something like an outrage seemed offered to the sanctity of its graves by the uproar of our career. Sometimes the nights were of that pitchy darkness which is more palpable and unfathomable wherever hills intercept the gleaming of light which otherwise is usually seen to linger about the horizon in the northern quarter; and then arose in perfection that striking effect when the glare of lamps searches for one moment every dark recess of the thickets, forces them into sudden, almost daylight, revelation, only to leave them within the twinkling of the eye in darkness more profound; making them, like the snow-flakes falling upon a cataract, "one moment bright, then gone for[Pg 357] ever." But, dark or moonlight alike, in every instance throughout so long a course of years, the road was entirely our own for the whole twenty miles. After nine o'clock not many people are abroad, after ten absolutely none, upon the roads of Westmoreland; a circumstance which gives a peculiar solemnity to a traveller's route amongst these quiet valleys upon a summer evening of latter May, of June, or early July; since, in a latitude so much higher than that of London, broad daylight prevails to an hour long after nine. Nowhere is the holiness of vesper hours more deeply felt.
And on nights like this, it wasn’t about sentimental feelings; it was a genuine and strong sentiment that, as we sped past the village churchyard in Stavely, it felt like we were disrespecting the sanctity of its graves with the noise of our journey. Sometimes the nights were pitch black, more tangible and unfathomable where the hills blocked the light that usually lingers on the horizon to the north; and in those moments, there was that striking effect when the bright glow of lamps illuminated every dark corner of the bushes for just a moment, forcing them into sudden, almost daylight clarity, only to plunge them back into an even deeper darkness in the blink of an eye; making them, like snowflakes falling on a waterfall, "one moment bright, then gone for[Pg 357]ever." But, whether dark or moonlit, throughout all those years, the road was completely ours for the entire twenty miles. After nine o'clock, not many people are out, and by ten, absolutely nobody on the roads of Westmoreland; this adds a unique solemnity to a traveler’s journey through these peaceful valleys on a summer evening in late May, June, or early July; since, at a latitude so much higher than London, it stays light well past nine. Nowhere is the sacredness of evening hours felt more deeply.
And now, in 1839, from all these flying journeys and their stinging remembrances, hardly a wreck survives of what composed their living equipage: the men who chiefly drove in those days (for I have ascertained it) are gone; the horses are gone; darkness rests upon all, except myself. I, woe is me! am the solitary survivor from scenes that now seem to me as fugitive as the flying lights from our lamps as they shot into the forest recesses. God forbid that on such a theme I should seem to affect sentimentalism! It is from overmastering recollections that I look back on those distant days; and chiefly I have suffered myself to give way before the impulse that haunts me of reverting to those bitter, bitter thoughts, in order to notice one singular waywardness or caprice (as it might seem) incident to the situation, which, I doubt not, besieges many more people than myself: it is, that I find a more poignant suffering, a pang more searching, in going back, not to those enjoyments themselves, and the days when they were within my power, but to times anterior, when as yet they did not exist; nay, when some who were chiefly concerned in them as parties had not even been born. No night, I might almost say, of my whole life, remains so profoundly, painfully, and pathetically imprinted on my remembrance as this very one, on which I tried prelusively, as it were, that same road in solitude, and lulled by the sweet carollings of the postilion, which, after an interval of ten years, and through a period of more than equal duration, it was destined that I should so often traverse in circumstances of happiness too radiant, that for me are burned out for ever. Coleridge told me of a similar case that had fallen within his knowledge, and the impassioned expression which the feelings[Pg 358] belonging to it drew from a servant woman at Keswick:—She had nursed some boy, either of his or of Mr. Southey's; the boy had lived apart from the rest of the family, secluded with his nurse in her cottage; she was dotingly fond of him; lived, in short, by him, as well as for him; and nearly ten years of her life had been exalted into one golden dream by his companionship. At length came the day which severed the connexion; and she, in the anguish of the separation, bewailing her future loneliness, and knowing too well that education and the world, if it left him some kind remembrances of her, never could restore him to her arms the same fond loving boy that felt no shame in surrendering his whole heart to caressing and being caressed, did not revert to any day or season of her ten years' happiness, but went back to the very day of his arrival, a particular Thursday, and to an hour when, as yet, she had not seen him, exclaiming—"O that Thursday! O that it could come back! that Thursday when the chaise-wheels were ringing in the streets of Keswick; when yet I had not seen his bonny face; but when he was coming!"
And now, in 1839, from all these fleeting journeys and their sharp memories, hardly a trace remains of what made up their lively company: the primary drivers from those days (which I have confirmed) are gone; the horses are gone; darkness envelops everything, except for me. I, unfortunately! am the only survivor from scenes that now feel as fleeting as the flickering lights from our lamps as they disappeared into the forest. God forbid that I should seem overly sentimental on such a topic! It is from overwhelming memories that I reflect on those distant days; and mostly, I have allowed myself to indulge in the impulse that haunts me to think back to those painful, painful thoughts, to point out one peculiar quirk or whim (as it might seem) related to the situation, which I’m sure affects many others besides me: I find a deeper suffering, a more penetrating ache, in looking back, not to those pleasures themselves and the days when they were within my reach, but to earlier times, when they hadn’t even come into existence; indeed, when some of those most involved hadn’t even been born yet. No night, I might almost say, of my entire life remains as deeply, painfully, and touchingly etched in my memory as this very one, on which I tried, as it were, that same road in solitude, lulled by the sweet singing of the postboy, which, after an interval of ten years and through a period of even longer duration, I was destined to travel so often in circumstances of happiness too bright that they have been burned out for me forever. Coleridge told me about a similar case he encountered, and the passionate response it evoked from a servant woman in Keswick: she had cared for some boy, either his or Mr. Southey's; the boy had lived apart from the rest of the family, secluded with his nurse in her cottage; she adored him; in short, she lived by him, as well as for him; and nearly ten years of her life were transformed into one golden dream through his companionship. At last, the day came that severed their bond; and she, in the pain of separation, mourning her future loneliness, and knowing all too well that education and the world, if they left him some memories of her, could never return him to her arms as the same affectionate boy who felt no shame in giving his whole heart to love and being loved, didn’t look back to any day or season of her ten years of happiness, but went back to the very day he arrived, a specific Thursday, and to a moment when she had not yet seen him, exclaiming—“O that Thursday! O that it could come back! that Thursday when the carriage wheels were ringing in the streets of Keswick; when I hadn’t yet seen his beautiful face; but when he was coming!”
Ay, reader, all this may sound foolishness to you, that perhaps never had a heartache, or that may have all your blessings to come. But now let me return to my narrative. After about twelve months' interval, and therefore again in November, but November of the year 1808, I repeated my visit to Wordsworth, and upon a longer scale. I found him removed from his cottage to a house of considerable size, about three-quarters of a mile distant, called Allan Bank. This house had been very recently erected, at an expense of about £1500, by a gentleman from Liverpool, a merchant, and also a lawyer in some department or other. It was not yet completely finished; and an odd accident was reported to me as having befallen it in its earliest stage. The walls had been finished, and this event was to be celebrated at the village inn with an ovation, previously to the triumph that would follow on the roof-raising. The workmen had all housed themselves at the Red Lion, and were beginning their carouse, when up rode a traveller, who brought them the unseasonable news, that, whilst riding along the vale, he had beheld the downfall of the whole building. Out the men[Pg 359] rushed, hoping that this might be a hoax; but too surely they found his report true, and their own festival premature. A little malice mingled unavoidably with the laughter of the Dalesmen; for it happened that the Liverpool gentleman had offered a sort of insult to the native artists, by bringing down both masons and carpenters from his own town; an unwise plan, for they were necessarily unacquainted with many points of local skill; and it was to some ignorance in their mode of laying the stones that the accident was due. The house had one or two capital defects—it was cold, damp, and, to all appearance, incurably smoky. Upon this latter defect, by the way, Wordsworth founded a claim, not for diminution of rent, but absolutely for entire immunity from any rent at all. It was truly comical to hear him argue the point with the Liverpool proprietor, Mr. C. He went on dilating on the hardship of living in such a house; of the injury, or suffering, at least, sustained by the eyes; until, at last, he had drawn a picture of himself as a very ill-used man; and I seriously expected to hear him sum up by demanding a round sum for damages. Mr. C. was a very good-natured man, calm, and gentlemanlike in his manners. He had also a considerable respect for Wordsworth, derived, it may be supposed, not from his writings, but from the authority (which many more besides him could not resist) of his conversation. However, he looked grave and perplexed. Nor do I know how the matter ended; but I mention it as an illustration of Wordsworth's keen spirit of business. Whilst foolish people supposed him a mere honeyed sentimentalist, speaking only in zephyrs and bucolics, he was in fact a somewhat hard pursuer of what he thought fair advantages.
Sure, here’s the modernized version: Hey, reader, all of this might sound ridiculous to you, especially if you’ve never experienced heartache or if all your blessings are waiting for you. But let’s get back to my story. After about a year, in November 1808, I visited Wordsworth again, this time for a longer stay. I found that he had moved from his cottage to a pretty big house about three-quarters of a mile away, called Allan Bank. This house had just been built for around £1500 by a gentleman from Liverpool who was both a merchant and a lawyer in one capacity or another. It wasn't fully finished yet, and I heard an amusing story about something that happened during its early construction. The walls were done, and this was going to be celebrated at the village inn with a little celebration before the bigger party for raising the roof. The workers had all gathered at the Red Lion and were starting to celebrate when a traveler rode in with some bad news—that while riding through the valley, he saw the entire building collapse. The men rushed out, hoping it was a joke, but sadly, they discovered the traveler was telling the truth, and their party was premature. There was a bit of malicious humor among the locals because the Liverpool gentleman had insulted the local craftsmen by bringing masons and carpenters from his town. This was a bad idea, as they weren’t familiar with the local ways, and it was their poor technique that caused the mishap. The house had a couple of major issues—it was cold, damp, and apparently hopelessly smoky. Regarding this last problem, Wordsworth claimed not just a reduction in rent but insisted he shouldn't have to pay any rent at all. It was quite funny to listen to him argue his case with the Liverpool owner, Mr. C. He went on and on about how hard it was to live in such a house, discussing the strain it caused his eyes, until he painted a picture of himself as a terribly mistreated man. I honestly expected him to ask for damages at some point. Mr. C. was a really good-natured guy, calm and polite. He respected Wordsworth, likely for his conversational skills rather than his writings, which many found hard to resist. However, he looked serious and confused. I don’t know how things wrapped up, but I mention this as an example of Wordsworth’s sharp business sense. While foolish people thought he was just a sentimental dreamer, he was actually quite shrewd when it came to pursuing what he believed were fair advantages.
In the February which followed, I left Allan Bank; but, upon Miss Wordsworth's happening to volunteer the task of furnishing for my use the cottage so recently occupied by her brother's family, I took it upon a seven years' lease. And thus it happened—this I mean was the mode of it (for, at any rate, I should have settled somewhere in the country)—that I became a resident in Grasmere.
In the following February, I moved out of Allan Bank; however, when Miss Wordsworth offered to prepare the cottage that her brother's family had just vacated for me, I accepted a seven-year lease. And so it happened—this was how it came about (because, in any case, I would have found a place to live in the countryside)—that I became a resident of Grasmere.
CHAPTER VII
WESTMORELAND AND THE DALESMEN: SOCIETY OF THE LAKES[148]
In February, as I have said, of 1809, I quitted Allan Bank; and, from that time until the depth of summer, Miss Wordsworth was employed in the task she had volunteered, of renewing and furnishing the little cottage in which I was to succeed the illustrious tenant who had, in my mind, hallowed the rooms by a seven years' occupation, during, perhaps, the happiest period of his life—the early years of his marriage, and of his first acquaintance with parental affections. Cottage, immortal in my remembrance! as well it might be; for this cottage I retained through just seven-and-twenty years: this was the scene of struggle the most tempestuous and bitter within my own mind: this the scene of my despondency and unhappiness: this the scene of my happiness—a happiness which justified the faith of man's earthly lot, as, upon the whole, a dowry from heaven. It was, in its exterior, not so much a picturesque cottage—for its outline and proportions, its windows and its chimneys, were not sufficiently marked and effective for the picturesque[149]—as it was lovely: one gable end was, indeed,[Pg 361] most gorgeously apparelled in ivy, and so far picturesque; but the principal side, or what might be called front, as it presented itself to the road, and was most illuminated by windows, was embossed—nay, it might be said, smothered—in roses of different species, amongst which the moss and the damask prevailed. These, together with as much jessamine and honeysuckle as could find room to flourish, were not only in themselves a most interesting garniture for a humble cottage wall, but they also performed the acceptable service of breaking the unpleasant glare that would else have wounded the eye from the whitewash; a glare which, having been renewed amongst the general preparations against my coming to inhabit the house, could not be sufficiently[Pg 362] subdued in tone for the artist's eye until the storm of several winters had weather-stained and tamed down its brilliancy. The Westmoreland cottages, as a class, have long been celebrated for their picturesque forms, and very justly so: in no part of the world are cottages to be found more strikingly interesting to the eye by their general outlines, by the sheltered porches of their entrances, by their exquisite chimneys, by their rustic windows, and by the distribution of the parts. These parts are on a larger scale, both as to number and size, than a stranger would expect to find as dependencies and out-houses attached to dwelling-houses so modest; chiefly from the necessity of making provision both in fuel for themselves, and in hay, straw, and brackens for the cattle against the long winter. But, in praising the Westmoreland dwellings, it must be understood that only those of the native Dalesmen are contemplated; for, as to those raised by the alien intruders—"the lakers," or "foreigners" as they are sometimes called by the old indigenous possessors of the soil—these, being designed to exhibit "a taste" and an eye for the picturesque, are pretty often mere models of deformity, as vulgar and as silly as it is well possible for any object to be in a case where, after all, the workman, and obedience to custom, and the necessities of the ground, &c., will often step in to compel the architects into common sense and propriety. The main defect in Scottish scenery, the eyesore that disfigures so many charming combinations of landscape, is the offensive style of the rural architecture; but still, even where it is worst, the mode of its offence is not by affectation and conceit, and preposterous attempts at realizing sublime, Gothic, or castellated effects in little gingerbread ornaments, and "tobacco pipes," and make-believe parapets, and towers like kitchen or hothouse flues; but in the hard undisguised pursuit of mere coarse uses and needs of life.
In February 1809, as I mentioned, I left Allan Bank. From that time until deep summer, Miss Wordsworth was busy with her project of renovating and furnishing the little cottage that I was to take over from the remarkable previous tenant, who, in my view, had made the rooms special during what was likely the happiest time of his life—his early years of marriage and his first experiences of parenthood. Cottage, unforgettable in my memory! And rightly so; for I held onto this cottage for exactly twenty-seven years: this was the site of my most intense inner struggles: this was where I felt despondent and unhappy: this was also where I found happiness—a happiness that confirmed the belief in a person's earthly existence as, overall, a gift from heaven. Externally, it wasn't particularly picturesque—the cottage's shape and proportions, its windows, and chimneys didn’t stand out enough to be considered picturesque; rather, it was beautiful. One gable end was indeed lavishly adorned with ivy, thus somewhat picturesque; however, the main side, or what could be called the front, facing the road and filled with windows, was covered—indeed, it could be said, overrun—with various types of roses, especially moss and damask varieties. These, along with as much jasmine and honeysuckle as could thrive, not only made for a fascinating decoration for a simple cottage wall, but they also served the useful purpose of softening the harsh glare that would otherwise hurt the eyes from the whitewash. That glare, which had been renewed in preparation for my arrival at the house, couldn't be toned down enough for the artist's eye until the harshness of several winters had weathered and muted its brightness. The cottages of Westmoreland have long been celebrated for their picturesque forms, and rightly so: nowhere else in the world can you find cottages whose general outlines, sheltered porches at their entrances, exquisite chimneys, rustic windows, and overall arrangement are more strikingly beautiful. These elements are larger in both number and size than a newcomer might expect to see in the dependencies and outbuildings of such modest homes, mainly due to the necessity of providing fuel for themselves and supplies like hay, straw, and bracken for cattle during the long winter. However, when praising the dwellings of Westmoreland, it's important to note that we're only considering those built by the native Dalesmen; as for those constructed by outsiders—known as "the lakers" or "foreigners" by the old indigenous landholders—these buildings, designed to show "a taste" for the picturesque, are often just ridiculous eyesores, as vulgar and silly as any object could possibly be in a scenario where, ultimately, the laborers, adherence to tradition, and the practical needs of the land often force the architects into sensible and proper designs. The main flaw in Scottish scenery, the eyesore that ruins so many beautiful landscape combinations, is the crude style of rural architecture; but even where it's at its worst, its faults don't stem from pretentiousness, arrogance, or absurd attempts to create grand Gothic or castle-like effects with cheap decorations and "tobacco pipes," or fake parapets and towers resembling kitchen or greenhouse flues; rather, they stem from a straightforward, unrefined focus on the basic needs and practicality of life.
Too often, the rustic mansion, that should speak of decent poverty and seclusion, peaceful and comfortable, wears the most repulsive air of town confinement and squalid indigence; the house being built of substantial stone, three storeys high, or even four, the roof of massy slate; and everything strong which respects the future[Pg 363] outlay of the proprietor—everything frail which respects the comfort of the inhabitants: windows broken and stuffed up with rags or old hats; steps and door encrusted with dirt; and the whole tarnished with smoke. Poverty—how different the face it wears looking with meagre staring eyes from such a city dwelling as this, and when it peeps out, with rosy cheeks, from amongst clustering roses and woodbines, at a little lattice, from a little one-storey cottage! Are, then, the main characteristics of the Westmoreland dwelling-houses imputable to superior taste? By no means. Spite of all that I have heard Mr. Wordsworth and others say in maintaining that opinion, I, for my part, do and must hold, that the Dalesmen produce none of the happy effects which frequently arise in their domestic architecture under any search after beautiful forms, a search which they despise with a sort of Vandal dignity; no, nor with any sense or consciousness of their success. How then? Is it accident—mere casual good luck—that has brought forth, for instance, so many exquisite forms of chimneys? Not so; but it is this: it is good sense, on the one hand, bending and conforming to the dictates or even the suggestions of the climate, and the local circumstances of rocks, water, currents of air, &c.; and, on the other hand, wealth sufficient to arm the builder with all suitable means for giving effect to his purpose, and to evade the necessity of make-shifts. But the radical ground of the interest attached to Westmoreland cottage architecture lies in its submission to the determining agencies of the surrounding circumstances; such of them, I mean, as are permanent, and have been gathered from long experience. The porch, for instance, which does so much to take away from a house the character of a rude box, pierced with holes for air, light, and ingress, has evidently been dictated by the sudden rushes of wind through the mountain "ghylls," which make some kind of protection necessary to the ordinary door; and this reason has been strengthened, in cases of houses near to a road, by the hospitable wish to provide a sheltered seat for the wayfarer; most of these porches being furnished with one in each of the two recesses, to the right and to the left.
Too often, the rustic mansion that should represent modest poverty and seclusion—peaceful and comfortable—displays a most unsettling air of urban confinement and shabby destitution. The house is built of solid stone, three stories high, or even four, with a heavy slate roof; everything about it seems sturdy for the future[Pg 363] investment of the owner, while everything delicate relates to the comfort of the inhabitants: broken windows stuffed with rags or old hats, steps and doors caked with dirt, and the entire place darkened by smoke. Poverty—how different it looks with its gaunt, staring eyes from a city dwelling compared to when it peeks out, rosy-cheeked, from among blooming roses and honeysuckles at a little lattice in a charming one-story cottage! Are the main features of Westmoreland houses a result of superior taste? Not at all. Despite what I've heard Mr. Wordsworth and others say about that opinion, I believe—and must believe—that the Dalesmen do not achieve the happy outcomes often seen in their domestic architecture through any pursuit of beautiful forms, a pursuit they look down on with a sort of Vandal pride; nor do they have any awareness of their success. So how did it happen? Is it mere chance—random fortune—that has produced so many beautiful chimney designs? Not quite; it’s this: good sense, on one hand, adapting and responding to the demands and suggestions of the climate and local conditions like rocks, water, air currents, etc.; and, on the other hand, enough wealth to equip the builder with all the necessary tools to realize his vision and avoid hasty solutions. But the core of the interest in Westmoreland cottage architecture comes from its responsiveness to the enduring influences of the surrounding conditions; those that are permanent and derived from long experience. The porch, for example, which helps remove the boxy appearance of a house with mere holes for air, light, and access, has clearly been shaped by the sudden gusts of wind through the mountain “ghylls,” making some sort of protection essential for the main door. This reasoning has been reinforced in houses close to a road by the friendly desire to offer a sheltered spot for travelers, most of these porches having seating in each of the two recesses, to the right and left.
The long winter, again, as I have already said, and the[Pg 364] artificial prolongation of the winter by the necessity of keeping the sheep long upon the low grounds, creates a call for large out-houses; and these, for the sake of warmth, are usually placed at right angles to the house; which has the effect of making a much larger system of parts than would else arise. But perhaps the main feature which gives character to the pile of building, is the roof, and, above all, the chimneys. It is the remark of an accomplished Edinburgh artist, H. W. Williams, in the course of his strictures[150] upon the domestic architecture of the Italians, and especially of the Florentines, that the character of buildings, in certain circumstances, "depends wholly or chiefly on the form of the roof and the chimney. This," he goes on, "is particularly the case in Italy, where more variety and taste is displayed in the chimneys than in the buildings to which they belong. These chimneys are as peculiar and characteristic as palm trees in a tropical climate." Again, in speaking of Calabria and the Ionian Islands, he says—"We were forcibly struck with the consequence which the beauty of the chimneys imparted to the character of the whole building." Now, in Great Britain, he complains, with reason, of the very opposite result: not the plain building ennobled by the chimney, but the chimney degrading the noble building, and in Edinburgh especially, where the homely and inelegant appearance of the chimneys contrasts most disadvantageously and offensively with the beauty of the buildings which they surmount. Even here, however, he makes an exception for some of the old buildings, whose chimneys, he admits, "are very tastefully decorated, and contribute essentially to the beauty of the general effect." It is probable, therefore, and many houses of the Elizabethan era confirm it, that a better taste prevailed, in this point, amongst our ancestors, both Scottish and English; that this elder fashion travelled, together with many other usages, from the richer parts of Scotland to the Borders, and thence to the vales of Westmoreland; where they have continued to prevail, from their affectionate adhesion to all patriarchal customs. Some, undoubtedly, of these Westmoreland forms have been dictated by the necessities of the weather, and the systematic energies[Pg 365] of human skill, from age to age, applied to the very difficult task of training smoke into obedience, under the peculiar difficulties presented by the sites of Westmoreland houses. These are chosen, generally speaking, with the same good sense and regard to domestic comfort, as the primary consideration (without, however, disdainfully slighting the sentiment, whatever it were, of peace, of seclusion, of gaiety, of solemnity, the special "religio loci"), which seems to have guided the choice of those who founded religious houses.
The long winter, as I’ve mentioned before, and the need to keep the sheep in the lowlands for an extended period, create a demand for large outbuildings. These are usually positioned at right angles to the main house for warmth, resulting in a larger overall layout than what would otherwise occur. However, the most defining feature of the entire structure is the roof, especially the chimneys. An accomplished Edinburgh artist, H. W. Williams, notes in his comments on the domestic architecture of Italians, particularly Florentines, that the character of buildings often relies heavily on the shape of the roof and chimney. He highlights that this is particularly true in Italy, where chimneys show more variety and artistry than the buildings they belong to. These chimneys are as unique and identifiable as palm trees in a tropical climate. Talking about Calabria and the Ionian Islands, he remarks that the beauty of the chimneys greatly enhances the character of the whole building. In contrast, in Great Britain, he points out a troubling opposite trend: it’s not the humble building that is elevated by the chimney, but rather the chimney that detracts from the impressive building, especially in Edinburgh, where the plain and unrefined chimneys unfortunately clash with the beauty of the structures they top. However, he does make an exception for some of the older buildings, whose chimneys, he acknowledges, are very tastefully decorated and significantly enhance the overall aesthetic. It’s likely, therefore, and many houses from the Elizabethan period support this, that our ancestors—both Scottish and English—had a better sense of taste in this regard. This earlier style likely spread from the richer areas of Scotland to the Borders, then to the valleys of Westmoreland, where it has continued to thrive due to a strong attachment to traditional customs. Some of these Westmoreland designs have undoubtedly been shaped by the weather conditions and the persistent efforts of people over time to manage smoke under the unique challenges presented by Westmoreland homes' locations. These homes are generally chosen with good sense and a focus on domestic comfort, without disregarding the feelings of peace, seclusion, cheerfulness, or solemnity, the particular “spirit of the place,” which seems to have guided the establishment of religious houses.
And here, again, by the way, appears a marked difference between the Dalesmen and the intrusive gentry—not creditable to the latter. The native Dalesman, well aware of the fury with which the wind often gathers and eddies about any eminence, however trifling its elevation, never thinks of planting his house there: whereas the stranger, singly solicitous about the prospect or the range of lake which his gilt saloons are to command, chooses his site too often upon points better fitted for a temple of Eolus than a human dwelling-place; and he belts his house with balconies and verandas that a mountain gale often tears away in mockery. The Dalesman, wherever his choice is not circumscribed, selects a sheltered spot (a wray,[151] for instance), which protects him from the wind altogether, upon one or two quarters, and on all quarters from its tornado violence: he takes good care, at the same time, to be within a few feet of a mountain beck: a caution so little heeded by some of the villa founders that absolutely, in a country surcharged with water, they have sometimes found themselves driven, by sheer necessity, to the after-thought of sinking a well. The very best situation, however, in other respects, may be bad in one, and sometimes find its very advantages, and the beetling crags which protect its rear, obstructions the most permanent to the ascent of smoke; and it is in the contest with these natural baffling repellents of the smoke, and in the variety of artifices for modifying its vertical, or for accomplishing its lateral escape, that have arisen the large and graceful variety of chimney models. My cottage, wanting this primary feature of elegance in the constituents of[Pg 366] Westmoreland cottage architecture, and wanting also another very interesting feature of the elder architecture, annually becoming more and more rare,—viz. the outside gallery (which is sometimes merely of wood, but is much more striking when provided for in the original construction of the house, and completely enfoncé in the masonry),—could not rank high amongst the picturesque houses of the country; those, at least, which are such by virtue of their architectural form. It was, however, very irregular in its outline to the rear, by the aid of one little projecting room, and also of a stable and little barn, in immediate contact with the dwelling-house. It had, besides, the great advantage of a varying height: two sides being about fifteen or sixteen feet high from the exposure of both storeys; whereas the other two, being swathed about by a little orchard that rose rapidly and unequally towards the vast mountain range in the rear, exposed only the upper storey; and, consequently, on those sides the elevation rarely rose beyond seven or eight feet. All these accidents of irregular form and outline gave to the house some little pretensions to a picturesque character; whilst its "separable accidents" (as the logicians say), its bowery roses and jessamine, clothed it in loveliness—its associations with Wordsworth crowned it, to my mind, with historical dignity,—and, finally, my own twenty-seven years' off-and-on connexion with it have, by ties personal and indestructible, endeared it to my heart so unspeakably beyond all other houses, that even now I rarely dream through four nights running that I do not find myself (and others besides) in some one of those rooms, and, most probably, the last cloudy delirium of approaching death will re-install me in some chamber of that same humble cottage. "What a tale," says Foster, the eloquent essayist—"what a tale could be told by many a room, were the walls endowed with memory and speech!" or, in the more impassioned expressions of Wordsworth—
And here, once again, there's a clear distinction between the locals and the incoming gentry—not a flattering one for the latter. The local Dalesman, fully aware of how fiercely the wind can swirl around any height, regardless of how small, never considers building his house there: while the outsider, solely focused on the view or the stretch of lake that his fancy rooms will overlook, often chooses a spot better suited for a temple of Eolus than a place for humans to live; he surrounds his house with balconies and verandas that the mountain winds frequently tear away in mockery. The Dalesman, wherever he can choose, picks a sheltered location (like a wray,[151]) that protects him from the wind on one or two sides, and on all sides from its violent gusts: he makes sure he’s within a few feet of a mountain stream—a caution that some villa builders completely ignore, and as a result, in a region abundant in water, they sometimes find themselves forced to dig a well as an afterthought. However, the best location, despite its merits, can still have drawbacks, and sometimes its very advantages, along with the steep cliffs shielding its back, become permanent barriers to smoke rising. It is through the struggle against these natural obstacles and the various methods devised to redirect or release the smoke that the diverse and elegant designs of chimneys have developed. My cottage, lacking this essential feature of elegance found in[Pg 366] Westmoreland cottage architecture, and missing another fascinating aspect of older architecture that is becoming increasingly rare—the outside gallery (sometimes just wooden but much more impressive when built into the house’s original structure and fully enfoncé in the masonry)—could not be considered highly picturesque among the architectural homes of the area; at least, those that are picturesque due to their design. However, it did have a rather irregular shape at the back, thanks to one small protruding room, as well as a stable and a little barn right next to the main house. Additionally, it had the advantage of varying heights: two sides being about fifteen or sixteen feet high with both stories exposed; while the other two, wrapped in a little orchard that rose quickly and unevenly towards the vast mountain range behind, showed only the upper story; thus, on those sides, the height rarely exceeded seven or eight feet. All these quirks of shape and outline lent the house some claim to a picturesque quality; while its “separable accidents” (as logicians might phrase it), like its climbing roses and jasmine, adorned it with beauty—its connections to Wordsworth added a sense of historical significance, and finally, my own twenty-seven years of on-and-off connection to it have, through indelible personal ties, made it dear to my heart far beyond all other homes, so much so that even now, I rarely go through four nights in a row without finding myself (and others too) in one of those rooms, and most likely, even in the final, cloudy delirium of approaching death, I will be restored to some room in that same humble cottage. “What a story,” says Foster, the eloquent essayist—“what a story could be told by many a room, were the walls endowed with memory and speech!” Or in the more passionate words of Wordsworth—
if any joyful area of the earth Could return the sighs it has responded to,
"Or repeat the sad steps it has taken!"
And equally affecting it would be, if such a field or such a[Pg 367] house could render up the echoes of joy, of festal music, of jubilant laughter—the innocent mirth of infants, or the gaiety, not less innocent, of youthful mothers—equally affecting would be such a reverberation of forgotten household happiness with the re-echoing records of sighs and groans. And few indeed are the houses that, within a period no longer than from the beginning of the century to 1835 (so long was it either mine or Wordsworth's) have crowded such ample materials for those echoes, whether sorrowful or joyous.
And it would be just as moving if such a field or house could bring back the sounds of joy, festive music, and happy laughter—the innocent giggles of babies or the lightheartedness, equally innocent, of young mothers. Just as touching would be the echoes of forgotten family happiness mingled with the lingering sounds of sighs and groans. Indeed, there are very few houses that, within a time span from the beginning of the century to 1835 (so long was it either mine or Wordsworth's), have gathered such rich materials for those echoes, whether they are sorrowful or joyful.
Society of the Lakes
Lakes Society
My cottage was ready in the summer; but I was playing truant amongst the valleys of Somersetshire; and, meantime, different families, throughout the summer, borrowed the cottage of the Wordsworths as my friends. They consisted chiefly of ladies; and some, by the delicacy of their attentions to the flowers, &c., gave me reason to consider their visit during my absence as a real honour; others—such is the difference of people in this world—left the rudest memorials of their careless habits impressed upon house, furniture, garden, &c. In November, at last, I, the long-expected, made my appearance. Some little sensation did really and naturally attend my coming, for most of the draperies belonging to beds, curtains, &c., had been sewed by the young women of that or the adjoining vales. This had caused me to be talked of. Many had seen me on my visit to the Wordsworths. Miss Wordsworth had introduced the curious to a knowledge of my age, name, prospects, and all the rest of what can be interesting to know. Even the old people of the vale were a little excited by the accounts (somewhat exaggerated, perhaps) of the never ending books that continued to arrive in packing-cases for several months in succession. Nothing in these vales so much fixes the attention and respect of the people as the reputation of being a "far learn'd" man. So far, therefore, I had already bespoke the favourable opinion of the Dalesmen. And a separate kind of interest arose amongst mothers and daughters, in the knowledge that I should necessarily want[Pg 368] what—in a sense somewhat different from the general one—is called a "housekeeper"; that is, not an upper servant to superintend others, but one who could undertake, in her own person, all the duties of the house. It is not discreditable to these worthy people that several of the richest and most respectable families were anxious to secure the place for a daughter. Had I been a dissipated young man, I have good reason to know that there would have been no canvassing at all for the situation. But partly my books spoke for the character of my pursuits with these simple-minded people—partly the introduction of the Wordsworths guaranteed the safety of such a service. Even then, had I persisted in my original intention of bringing a man-servant, no respectable young woman would have accepted the place. As it was, and it being understood that I had renounced this intention, many, in a gentle, diffident way, applied for the place, or their parents on their behalf. And I mention the fact, because it illustrates one feature in the manners of this primitive and peculiar people, the Dalesmen of Westmoreland. However wealthy, they do not think it degrading to permit even the eldest daughter to go out a few years to service. The object is not to gain a sum of money in wages, but that sort of household experience which is supposed to be unattainable upon a suitable scale out of a gentleman's family. So far was this carried, that, amongst the offers made to myself, was one from a young woman whose family was amongst the very oldest in the country, and who was at that time under an engagement of marriage to the very richest young man in the vale. She and her future husband had a reasonable prospect of possessing ten thousand pounds in land; and yet neither her own family nor her husband's objected to her seeking such a place as I could offer. Her character and manners, I ought to add, were so truly excellent, and won respect so inevitably from everybody, that nobody could wonder at the honourable confidence reposed in her by her manly and spirited young lover. The issue of the matter, as respected my service, was, why I do not know, that Miss Wordsworth did not accept of her: and she fulfilled her purpose in another family, a very grave and respectable one, in Kendal. She stayed about a couple of[Pg 369] years, returned, and married the young man to whom she had engaged herself, and is now the prosperous mother of a fine handsome family; and she together with her mother-in-law are the two leading matrons of the vale.
My cottage was ready in the summer, but I was skipping out among the valleys of Somersetshire. Meanwhile, various families borrowed the Wordsworths’ cottage during the summer as my friends. They were mainly women; some, by the way they tended to the flowers and such, made me feel that their visit during my absence was a real honor; others—such is the variety of people in this world—left behind the messiest reminders of their careless habits on the house, furniture, garden, etc. Finally, in November, I, the much-anticipated, made my appearance. My arrival did cause a bit of buzz since most of the bedding, curtains, etc., had been sewn by the young women from that valley or nearby. This got people talking. Many had seen me when I visited the Wordsworths. Miss Wordsworth had shared details about my age, name, plans, and all the other interesting stuff. Even the older folks in the valley were a little stirred up by the somewhat exaggerated tales of countless books arriving in packing crates for several months straight. Nothing grabs the attention and respect of the people like being known as a "well-read" man. So far, I had already won the favor of the Dalesmen. There was also a special interest among mothers and daughters, knowing I would need what’s commonly referred to as a "housekeeper," not a higher servant to manage others, but someone who could take on all the house duties herself. It’s not shameful for these good people that several of the wealthiest and most respectable families wanted to secure this position for their daughters. Had I been a wild young man, I know for sure there would have been no competition for the job. But partially, my books vouch for the nature of my pursuits with these simple folks—partially, the Wordsworths' involvement promised the safety of such a role. Even so, if I had stuck to my original plan of bringing a man-servant, no respectable young woman would have taken the job. As it turned out, once it was clear I had given up this idea, many applied for the position gently and shyly, or their parents did on their behalf. I mention this because it highlights a particular feature of the customs of these straightforward and unique people, the Dalesmen of Westmoreland. No matter how wealthy they are, they don’t find it degrading to allow even their oldest daughters to go work for a few years. The aim isn’t to earn wages, but to gain household experience that is supposedly hard to get to the right extent outside of a gentleman's family. This was taken so far that among the offers I received was one from a young woman whose family was among the oldest in the country and who was engaged to the richest young man in the valley at that time. She and her fiancé could reasonably expect to inherit ten thousand pounds in land, yet neither her family nor his minded her looking for a position like the one I could provide. I should add that her character and manners were truly outstanding, earning respect from everyone, which explained the honorable trust her strong and spirited young lover had in her. What happened regarding my service is unknown to me, but for some reason, Miss Wordsworth didn’t accept her, and she ended up fulfilling her plans with another very serious and respectable family in Kendal. She worked there for a couple of [Pg 369] years, returned, and married the man she had been engaged to, and she is now a successful mother of a beautiful family; she and her mother-in-law are now the leading matrons of the valley.
It was on a November night, about ten o'clock, that I first found myself installed in a house of my own—this cottage, so memorable from its past tenant to all men, so memorable to myself from all which has since passed in connexion with it. A writer in The Quarterly Review, in noticing the autobiography of Dr. Watson, the Bishop of Llandaff, has thought fit to say that the Lakes, of course, afforded no society capable of appreciating this commonplace, coarse-minded man of talents. The person who said this I understand to have been Dr. Whitaker, the respectable antiquary. Now, that the reader may judge of the propriety with which this was asserted, I shall slightly rehearse the muster-roll of our Lake society, as it existed at the time when I seated myself in my Grasmere cottage. I will undertake to say that the meanest person in the whole scattered community was more extensively accomplished than the good bishop, was more conscientiously true to his duties, and had more varied powers of conversation. Wordsworth and Coleridge, then living at Allan Bank, in Grasmere, I will not notice in such a question. Southey, living thirteen miles off, at Keswick, I have already noticed; and he needs no proneur. I will begin with Windermere.
It was on a November night, around ten o'clock, that I first found myself settled in a house of my own—this cottage, so notable because of its previous tenant for everyone, and so significant to me because of everything that has since happened here. A writer for The Quarterly Review, in discussing the autobiography of Dr. Watson, the Bishop of Llandaff, claimed that the Lakes obviously didn't have any society that could appreciate this ordinary, narrow-minded man of talent. I understand this comment came from Dr. Whitaker, the respected antiquarian. To help the reader assess the accuracy of this statement, I'll briefly outline the roster of our Lake society at the time I moved into my Grasmere cottage. I can confidently say that even the least remarkable person in the entire scattered community had more accomplishments than the good bishop, was more diligent in his responsibilities, and had a broader range of conversational skills. I will not mention Wordsworth and Coleridge, who were then living at Allan Bank in Grasmere, in this context. Southey, living thirteen miles away in Keswick, I've already mentioned, and he needs no introduction. I will start with Windermere.
At Clappersgate, a little hamlet of perhaps six houses, on its north-west angle, and about five miles from my cottage, resided two Scottish ladies, daughters of Dr. Cullen, the famous physician and nosologist.[152] They were universally beloved for their truly kind dispositions and the firm independence of their conduct They had been reduced from great affluence to a condition of rigorous poverty. Their father had made what should have been a fortune by his practice. The good doctor, however, was careless of his money in proportion to the facility with which he made it. All was put into a box, open to the whole family. Breach[Pg 370] of confidence, in the most thoughtless use of this money, there could be none; because no restraint in that point, beyond what honour and good sense imposed, was laid upon any of the elder children. Under such regulations, it may be imagined that Dr. Cullen would not accumulate any very large capital; and, at his death, the family, for the first time, found themselves in embarrassed circumstances. Of the two daughters who belonged to our Lake population, one had married a Mr. Millar, son to the celebrated Professor Millar of Glasgow.[153] This gentleman had died in America; and Mrs. Millar was now a childless widow. The other still remained unmarried. Both were equally independent; and independent even with regard to their nearest relatives; for, even from their brother—who had risen to rank and affluence as a Scottish judge, under the title of Lord Cullen[154]—they declined to receive assistance; and except for some small addition made to their income by a novel called "Home" (in as many as seven volumes, I really believe) by Miss Cullen, their expenditure was rigorously shaped to meet that very slender income which they drew from their shares of the patrimonial wrecks. More honourable and modest independence, or poverty more gracefully supported, I have rarely known.
At Clappersgate, a small village with probably six houses, located at its northwest corner and about five miles from my cottage, lived two Scottish ladies, daughters of Dr. Cullen, the well-known physician and expert in diseases. They were widely admired for their genuinely kind natures and their strong sense of independence. They had fallen from great wealth into a state of strict poverty. Their father had built what should have been a fortune from his medical practice. However, the good doctor was careless with his money relative to how easily he earned it. All his earnings went into a box that was open to the entire family. There could be no breach of trust in the thoughtless use of this money since no restrictions, other than what honor and common sense dictated, were placed on any of the older children. Given these rules, it's easy to see why Dr. Cullen didn’t accumulate a significant fortune, and upon his death, the family found themselves in financial trouble for the first time. Of the two daughters in our Lake community, one married Mr. Millar, son of the famous Professor Millar of Glasgow. This gentleman had passed away in America, leaving Mrs. Millar a childless widow. The other daughter remained single. Both were equally independent, even in relation to their closest relatives; they chose not to accept help from their brother—who had attained high status and wealth as a Scottish judge, known as Lord Cullen—and aside from a small addition to their income from a novel titled "Home" (which I believe was in seven volumes) by Miss Cullen, they strictly budgeted their living expenses to fit the very meager income they received from their share of the family’s diminished estate. I have rarely seen a more honorable and modest independence or poverty handled with such grace.
Meantime, these ladies, though literary and very agreeable in conversation, could not be classed with what now began to be known as the lake community of literati; for they took no interest in any one of the lake poets; did not affect to take any; and I am sure they were not aware of so much value in any one thing these poets had written as could make it worth while even to look into their books; and accordingly, as well-bred women, they took the same course as was pursued for several years by Mrs. Hannah More, viz. cautiously to avoid mentioning their names in my presence. This was natural enough in women who had probably built their early admiration upon French models (for Mrs. Millar[Pg 371] used to tell me that she regarded the "Mahomet" of Voltaire as the most perfect of human compositions), and still more so at a period when almost all the world had surrendered their opinions and their literary consciences (so to speak) into the keeping of The Edinburgh Review; in whose favour, besides, those ladies had the pardonable prepossessions of national pride, as a collateral guarantee of that implicit faith which, in those days, stronger-minded people than they took a pride in professing. Still, in defiance of prejudices mustering so strongly to support their blindness, and the still stronger support which this blindness drew from their total ignorance of everything either done or attempted by the lake poets, these amiable women persisted in one uniform tone of courteous forbearance, as often as any question arose to implicate the names either of Wordsworth or Coleridge,—any question about them, their books, their families, or anything that was theirs. They thought it strange, indeed (for so much I heard by a circuitous course), that promising and intellectual young men—men educated at great Universities, such as Mr. Wilson of Elleray, or myself, or a few others who had paid us visits,—should possess so deep a veneration for these writers; but evidently this was an infatuation—a craze, originating, perhaps, in personal connexions, and, as the craze of valued friends, to be treated with tenderness. For us therefore—for our sakes—they took a religious care to suppress all allusion to these disreputable names; and it is pretty plain how sincere their indifference must have been with regard to these neighbouring authors, from the evidence of one fact, viz. that when, in 1810, Mr. Coleridge began to issue, in weekly numbers, his Friend, which, by the prospectus, held forth a promise of meeting all possible tastes—literary, philosophic, political—even this comprehensive field of interest, combined with the adventitious attraction (so very unusual, and so little to have been looked for in that thinly-peopled region) of a local origin, from the bosom of those very hills at the foot of which (though on a different side) they were themselves living, failed altogether to stimulate their torpid curiosity; so perfect was their persuasion beforehand that no good thing could by possibility come out of a community[Pg 372] that had fallen under the ban of the Edinburgh critics.
In the meantime, these women, although they were well-read and pleasant to talk to, couldn’t really be associated with the emerging literary community around the lakes. They showed no interest in any of the lake poets, didn’t pretend to, and I’m sure they didn’t see any value in what these poets had written that would make it worthwhile to even glance at their books. As well-mannered women, they followed the same approach that Mrs. Hannah More had adopted for years: carefully avoiding mentioning their names in my presence. This was understandable for women who had likely built their early admiration on French models (Mrs. Millar used to tell me she considered Voltaire's "Mahomet" as the most perfect of human compositions), and even more so at a time when almost everyone had handed over their opinions and literary beliefs to The Edinburgh Review. Moreover, those ladies had the understandable biases of national pride in favor of it, as a kind of guarantee for the unquestioning faith that even more rational people than them proudly professed back then. Still, despite the strong prejudices defending their ignorance and the even stronger ignorance supporting their blindness about everything the lake poets had achieved, these gracious women maintained a consistent tone of polite restraint whenever the names of Wordsworth or Coleridge came up—whether it was about them, their books, their families, or anything else related to them. They found it quite odd (as I indirectly learned) that promising and intelligent young men—men educated at prestigious universities, like Mr. Wilson of Elleray or myself, or a few others who had visited us—held such deep respect for these writers; but clearly, this was just a fixation—a craze, possibly stemming from personal connections, and like the enthusiasm for valued friends, it was to be treated delicately. For our sake, they made a special effort to avoid mentioning these disreputable names; and it’s pretty clear how genuine their indifference must have been toward these local authors from one fact: when, in 1810, Mr. Coleridge began publishing his Friend in weekly installments, which promised to cater to all tastes—literary, philosophical, political—even this broad range of interest, combined with the unusual local appeal (so unexpected and rare in that sparsely populated area) of originating from the very hills at the foot of which they lived (though on a different side), completely failed to spark their dormant curiosity. Their belief was so strong that no good could possibly come out of a community that had been dismissed by the Edinburgh critics.
At the same time, it is melancholy to confess that, partly from the dejection of Coleridge, his constant immersion in opium at that period, his hatred of the duties he had assumed, or at least of their too frequent and periodical recurrence, and partly also from the bad selection of topics for a miscellaneous audience, from the heaviness and obscurity with which they were treated, and from the total want of variety, in consequence of defective arrangements on his part for ensuring the co-operation of his friends, no conceivable act of authorship that Coleridge could have perpetrated, no possible overt act of dulness and somnolent darkness that he could have authorized, was so well fitted to sustain the impression, with regard to him and his friends, that had pre-occupied these ladies' minds. Habes confitentem reum! I am sure they would exclaim; not perhaps confessing to that form of delinquency which they had been taught to expect—trivial or extravagant sentimentalism, Germanity alternating with tumid inanity; not this, but something quite as bad or worse, viz. palpable dulness—dulness that could be felt and handled—rayless obscurity as to the thoughts—and communicated in language that, according to the Bishop of Llandaff's complaint, was not always English. For, though the particular words cited for blame were certainly known to the vocabulary of metaphysics, and had even been employed by a writer of Queen Anne's reign (Leibnitz), who, if any, had the gift of translating dark thoughts into plain ones—still it was intolerable, in point of good sense, that one who had to win his way into the public ear should begin by bringing before a popular and miscellaneous audience themes that could require such startling and revolting words. The Delphic Oracle was the kindest of the nicknames which the literary taste of Windermere conferred upon the new journal. This was the laughing suggestion of a clever young lady, a daughter of the Bishop of Llandaff, who stood in a neutral position with regard to Coleridge. But others there were amongst his supposed friends who felt even more keenly than this young lady the shocking want of adaptation to his[Pg 373] audience in the choice of matter, and, even to an audience better qualified to meet such matter, the want of adaptation in the mode of publication,—viz. periodically, and by weekly recurrence; a mode of soliciting the public attention which even authorizes the expectation of current topics—topics arising each with its own week or day. One in particular I remember of these disapproving friends: a Mr. Blair, an accomplished scholar, and a frequent visitor at Elleray,[155] who started the playful scheme of a satirical rejoinder to Coleridge's Friend, under the name of The Enemy, which was to follow always in the wake of its leader, and to stimulate Coleridge (at the same time that it amused the public) by attic banter, or by downright opposition and showing fight in good earnest. It was a plan that might have done good service to the world, and chiefly through a seasonable irritation (never so much wanted as then) applied to Coleridge's too lethargic state: in fact, throughout life, it is most deeply to be regretted that Coleridge's powers and peculiar learning were never forced out into a large display by intense and almost persecuting opposition. However, this scheme, like thousands of other day-dreams and bubbles that rose upon the breath of morning spirits and buoyant youth, fell to the ground; and, in the meantime, no enemy to The Friend appeared that was capable of matching The Friend when left to itself and its own careless or vagrant guidance. The Friend ploughed heavily along for nine-and-twenty numbers[156]; and our fair recusants and non-conformists in all that regarded the lake poetry or authorship, the two Scottish ladies of Clappersgate, found no reasons for changing their opinions; but continued, for the rest of my acquaintance with them, to practise the same courteous and indulgent silence, whenever the names of Coleridge or Wordsworth happened to be mentioned.
At the same time, it’s sad to admit that, partly due to Coleridge's depression, his constant use of opium during that time, his dislike for the responsibilities he had taken on, or at least their frequent and periodic return, and partly because of the poor choice of topics for a mixed audience, the heavy and unclear way they were presented, and the complete lack of variety, due to his ineffective plans to get his friends involved, no conceivable work that Coleridge could have created, no possible act of dullness and sleepy darkness that he could have approved, was so well-suited to support the impression these ladies had formed regarding him and his friends. Habes confitentem reum! I’m sure they would have exclaimed; not necessarily confessing to the type of error they expected—trivial or overly sentimental, Germanity mixed with pompous nonsense; not that, but something just as bad or worse: blatant dullness—dullness that could be felt and grasped—thoughts wrapped in darkness—and expressed in language that, as the Bishop of Llandaff complained, was not always in plain English. For, even though the specific words criticized were definitely part of the vocabulary of metaphysics and had been used by a writer from Queen Anne's reign (Leibnitz), who had the talent for making complex ideas clear—still, it was absurdly unreasonable that someone aiming to get the public's attention would start by presenting such shocking and off-putting topics to a general and diverse audience. The Delphic Oracle was the kindest nickname that the literary taste of Windermere gave to the new journal. This was a playful suggestion from a clever young woman, the daughter of the Bishop of Llandaff, who was neutral regarding Coleridge. But there were others among his supposed friends who felt even more strongly than she did about the shocking lack of suitability in the choice of material for his[Pg 373] audience, and, even for an audience better suited to such material, the lack of suitability in the method of publication—i.e., periodically, and on a weekly basis; a method of attracting public attention that even sets the expectation for current topics—topics that arise each week or day. I particularly remember one of these disapproving friends: Mr. Blair, an educated scholar, and a regular visitor at Elleray,[155] who came up with a humorous idea for a satirical reply to Coleridge's Friend, titled The Enemy, which would always follow its lead and provoke Coleridge (while entertaining the public) with witty banter or direct opposition and serious challenges. It was a plan that could have been beneficial to the world, mainly through a timely irritation (never more needed than then) aimed at Coleridge's too sluggish state: in fact, throughout his life, it’s a great pity that Coleridge's talents and unique knowledge were never pushed to be prominently displayed by intense and almost relentless opposition. However, this plan, like countless other daydreams and fleeting ideas inspired by youthful spirits, fell apart; and in the meantime, no one opposing The Friend appeared capable of matching The Friend when it was left to its own careless or wandering guidance. The Friend trudged along for twenty-nine issues[156]; and our lovely dissenters and non-conformists regarding lake poetry or authorship, the two Scottish ladies of Clappersgate, found no reasons to change their opinions; they continued, for the rest of my interactions with them, to maintain the same polite and tolerant silence whenever the names of Coleridge or Wordsworth were mentioned.
In taking leave of these Scottish ladies, it may be interesting to mention that, previously to their final farewell to our Lake society, upon taking up their permanent residence in York (which step they adopted partly, I believe, to enjoy the more diversified society which that great city[Pg 374] yields, and, at any rate, the more accessible society than amongst mountain districts—partly with a view to the cheapness of that rich district in comparison with our sterile soil, poor towns, and poor agriculture) somewhere about the May or June of 1810, I think—they were able, by a long preparatory course of economy, to invite to the English lakes a family of foreigners—what shall I call them?—a family of Anglo-Gallo-Americans, from the Carolinas. The invitation had been of old standing, and offered, as an expression of gratitude, from these ladies, for many hospitalities and friendly services rendered by the two heads of that family to Mrs. Millar, in former years, and under circumstances of peculiar trial. Mrs. Millar had been hastily summoned from Scotland to attend her husband at Charleston; him, on her arrival, she found dying; and, whilst overwhelmed by this sudden blow, it may be imagined that the young widow would find trials enough for her fortitude, without needing any addition to the load from friendlessness amongst a nation of strangers and from total solitude. These evils were spared to Mrs. Millar, through the kind offices and disinterested exertions of an American gentleman (French by birth, but American by adoption), M. Simond, who took upon himself the cares of superintending Mr. Millar's funeral through all its details, and, by this most seasonable service, secured to the heart-stricken widow that most welcome of privileges in all situations, the privilege of unmolested privacy; for assuredly the heaviest aggravation of such bereavements lies in the necessity,—too often imposed by circumstances upon him or upon her who may happen to be the sole responsible representative, and, at the same time, the dearest friend of the deceased,—of superintending the funeral arrangements. In the very agonies of a new-born grief, whilst the heart is yet raw and bleeding, the mind not yet able to comprehend its loss, the very light of day hateful to the eyes, the necessity even at such a moment arises, and without a day's delay, of facing strangers, talking with strangers, discussing the most empty details with a view to the most sordid of considerations—cheapness, convenience, custom, and local prejudice—and, finally, talking about whom? why, the very child, husband, wife, who has[Pg 375] just been torn away; and this, too, under a consciousness that the being so hallowed is, as to these strangers, an object equally indifferent with any one person whatsoever that died a thousand years ago. Fortunate, indeed, is that person who has a natural friend, or, in default of such a friend, who finds a volunteer stepping forward to relieve him from a conflict of feeling so peculiarly unseasonable. Mrs. Millar never forgot the service which had been rendered to her; and she was happy when M. Simond, who had become a wealthy citizen of America, at length held out the prospect of coming to profit by her hospitable attentions amongst that circle of friends with whom she and her sister had surrounded themselves in so interesting a part of England.
As the Scottish ladies said their goodbyes, it’s worth noting that before leaving our Lake society for good to settle in York—partly, I believe, to enjoy the more varied social scene that the great city[Pg 374] offers, and also for the more accessible community compared to the mountain areas, as well as the lower cost of living in that rich area versus our barren land, struggling towns, and poor farming—around May or June of 1810, I think, they managed, after a long period of saving, to invite a family of foreigners—what should I call them?—an Anglo-Gallo-American family from the Carolinas. This invitation had long been planned as a way for these ladies to express their gratitude for the many kindnesses and support shown by the heads of that family to Mrs. Millar in earlier times, especially during particularly challenging circumstances. Mrs. Millar had been quickly called from Scotland to be with her husband in Charleston, only to find him dying upon her arrival. As she grappled with this abrupt tragedy, it’s easy to imagine that the young widow faced enough challenges for her strength without adding the burden of feeling isolated among a nation of strangers and being completely alone. Thankfully, Mrs. Millar didn’t have to face this hardship, thanks to the kind efforts of an American gentleman (originally French, but American by choice), M. Simond, who took on the responsibility of overseeing Mr. Millar's funeral and all its arrangements. By providing this essential assistance, he granted the grief-stricken widow the much-needed opportunity for uninterrupted privacy during such a difficult time. The heaviest weight during such losses is often the obligation—usually thrust upon the person who is left to manage the funeral arrangements, as well as being the closest friend of the deceased—to handle all the details. In the throes of fresh grief, when the heart is still raw and aching, and the mind hasn’t fully grasped its loss, even the light of day can feel unbearable, yet in those moments, one must face strangers, discuss arrangements, and deal with the most trivial matters concerned with money, convenience, traditions, and local biases—while ultimately talking about whom? The very person who has[Pg 375] just been lost; and all this done knowing that to these strangers, the cherished person is just as indifferent as anyone else who passed away a thousand years ago. Truly fortunate is the person who has a natural friend, or even better, who finds a volunteer willing to step in and ease the burden of emotions that are so notably difficult at such a time. Mrs. Millar never forgot the kindness shown to her, and she felt delighted when M. Simond, who had become a wealthy American citizen, finally hinted at coming to enjoy her hospitality among the circle of friends she and her sister had cultivated in such an appealing part of England.
M. Simond had been a French emigrant; not, I believe, so far connected with the privileged orders of his country, or with any political party, as to be absolutely forced out of France by danger or by panic; but he had shared in the feelings of those who were. Revolutionary France, in the anarchy of the transition state, and still heaving to and fro with the subsiding shocks of the great earthquake, did not suit him: there was neither the polish which he sought in its manners, nor the security which he sought in its institutions. England he did not love; but yet, if not England, some country which had grown up from English foundations was the country for him; and, as he augured no rest for France through some generations to come, but an endless succession of revolution to revolution, anarchy to anarchy, he judged it best that, having expatriated himself and lost one country, he should solemnly adopt another. Accordingly he became an American citizen. English he already spoke with propriety and fluency. And, finally, he cemented his English connexions by marrying an English lady, the niece of John Wilkes. "What John Wilkes?" asked a lady, one of a dinner-party at Calgarth (the house of Dr. Watson, the celebrated Bishop of Llandaff, upon the banks of Windermere).—"What John Wilkes?" re-echoed the Bishop, with a vehement intonation of scorn; "What John Wilkes, indeed! as if there was ever more than one John Wilkes—fama super æthera notus!"—"O, my Lord, I beg your[Pg 376] pardon," said an old lady, nearly connected with the Bishop, "there were two; I knew one of them: he was a little, ill-looking man, and he kept the Blue Boar at——."—"At Flamborough Head!" roared the Bishop, with a savage expression of disgust. The old lady, suspecting that some screw was loose in the matter, thought it prudent to drop the contest; but she murmured, sotto voce, "No, not at Flamborough Head, but at Market Drayton." Madame Simond, then, was the niece, not of the ill-looking host of the Blue Boar, but of the Wilkes so memorably connected with the parvanimities of the English government at one period; with the casuistry of our English constitution, by the questions raised in his person as to the effects of expulsion from the House of Commons, &c. &c.; and, finally, with the history of English jurisprudence, by his intrepidity on the matter of general warrants. M. Simond's party, when at length it arrived, consisted of two persons besides himself, viz. his wife, the niece of Wilkes, and a young lady of eighteen, standing in the relation of grand-niece to the same memorable person. This young lady, highly pleasing in her person, on quitting the lake district, went northwards with her party, to Edinburgh, and there became acquainted with Mr. Francis Jeffrey, the present Lord Jeffrey [1840], who naturally enough fell in love with her, followed her across the Atlantic, and in Charleston, I believe, received the honour of her hand in marriage.[157]
M. Simond had been a French emigrant; I don't think he was really tied to the privileged classes of his country or any political party to the extent that he had to leave France due to danger or panic. However, he did share the sentiments of those who were. Revolutionary France, with its chaos during the transition period and still shaking from the aftershocks of the major upheaval, was not right for him: it lacked the refinement he desired in its social interactions and the stability he sought in its institutions. He didn't love England; but if not England, then some country that had developed from English roots was ideal for him. He predicted that France would experience generations of unrest, constantly moving from revolution to revolution and from chaos to chaos, so he decided it was best to renounce his home country and formally choose another. Consequently, he became an American citizen. He already spoke English well and fluently. Finally, he solidified his connections to England by marrying an English woman, the niece of John Wilkes. "Which John Wilkes?" asked a woman at a dinner party at Calgarth (the home of Dr. Watson, the famous Bishop of Llandaff, by Windermere).—"Which John Wilkes?" echoed the Bishop, scornfully. "Which John Wilkes, indeed! as if there was ever more than one John Wilkes—fama super æthera notus!"—"Oh, my Lord, I apologize," said an elderly lady who was closely related to the Bishop, "there were two; I knew one of them: he was a small, unattractive man, and he ran the Blue Boar at——."—"At Flamborough Head!" shouted the Bishop, with a look of disgust. The old lady, sensing there was something off about the situation, decided it was best to drop the argument; but she murmured, sotto voce, "No, not at Flamborough Head, but at Market Drayton." Madame Simond was the niece, not of the unattractive innkeeper, but of *the* Wilkes famously associated with the political issues of English government at one point; with the complexities of the English constitution, raised by his expulsion from the House of Commons, etc.; and, lastly, with English legal history due to his boldness regarding general warrants. M. Simond's party, when they finally arrived, consisted of two other people besides himself: his wife, Wilkes' niece, and an eighteen-year-old young lady who was a grand-niece to the same notable figure. This young lady, very attractive, went north with her group after leaving the lake area to Edinburgh, where she met Mr. Francis Jeffrey, now Lord Jeffrey [1840], who naturally fell for her, followed her across the Atlantic, and in Charleston, I believe, had the honor of marrying her.
I, as one of Mrs. Millar's friends, put in my claim to entertain her American party in my turn. One long summer's day, they all came over to my cottage in Grasmere; and, as it became my duty to do the honours of our vale to the strangers, I thought that I could not discharge the duty in a way more likely to interest them all than by conducting them through Grasmere into the little inner chamber of Easedale, and there, within sight of the solitary cottage, Blentarn Ghyll, telling them the story of the Greens[158]; because, in this way, I had an opportunity, at the same time, of showing the scenery from some of the best points, and of opening to them a few glimpses of the character and customs which[Pg 377] distinguish this section of the English yeomanry from others. The story did certainly interest them all; and thus far I succeeded in my duties as Cicerone and Amphytrion of the day. But, throughout the rest of our long morning's ramble, I remember that accident, or, possibly the politeness of M. Simond, and his French sympathy with a young man's natural desire to stand well in the eyes of a handsome young woman, so ordered it that I had constantly the honour of being Miss Wilkes's immediate companion, as the narrowness of the path pretty generally threw us into ranks of two and two. Having, therefore, through so many hours, the opportunity of an exclusive conversation with this young lady, it would have been my own fault had I failed to carry off an impression of her great good sense, as well as her amiable and spirited character. Certainly I did mon possible to entertain her, both on her own account and as the visitor of my Scottish friends. But, in the midst of all my efforts, I had the mortification to feel that I was rowing against the stream; that there was a silent body of prepossession against the whole camp of the lakers, which nothing could unsettle. Miss Wilkes naturally looked up, with some feelings of respect, to M. Simond, who, by his marriage with her aunt, had become her own guardian and protector. Now, M. Simond, of all the men in the world, was the last who could have appreciated an English poet. He had, to begin with, a French inaptitude for apprehending poetry at all: any poetry, that is, which transcends manners and the interests of social life. Then, unfortunately, not merely through what he had not, but equally through what he had, this cleverish Frenchman was, by whole diameters of the earth, remote from the station at which he could comprehend Wordsworth. He was a thorough, knowing man of the world, keen, sharp as a razor, and valuing nothing but the tangible and the ponderable. He had a smattering of mechanics, of physiology, geology, mineralogy, and all other ologies whatsoever; he had, besides, at his fingers' ends, a huge body of statistical facts—how many people did live, could live, ought to live, in each particular district of each manufacturing county; how many old women of eighty-three there ought to be to so many little children of one; how many murders ought to be committed[Pg 378] in a month by each town of five thousand souls; and so on ad infinitum. And to such a thin shred had his old French politeness been worn down by American attrition, that his thin lips could with much ado contrive to disguise his contempt for those who failed to meet him exactly upon his own field, with exactly his own quality of knowledge. Yet, after all, it was but a little case of knowledge, that he had packed up neatly for a make-shift; just what corresponds to the little assortment of razors, tooth-brushes, nail-brushes, hair-brushes, cork-screw, gimlet, &c. &c., which one carries in one's trunk, in a red Morocco case, to meet the casualties of a journey. The more one was indignant at being the object of such a man's contempt, the more heartily did one disdain his disdain, and recalcitrate his kicks.
I, as one of Mrs. Millar's friends, made my case to host her American party next. One long summer day, they all came over to my cottage in Grasmere, and since it was my job to show them around our valley, I thought the best way to do that would be to take them through Grasmere into the small inner chamber of Easedale. There, with the lone cottage Blentarn Ghyll in sight, I told them the story of the Greens[158]; this way, I could also show them the scenery from some of the best spots while sharing a bit about the character and traditions that distinguish this part of the English countryside from others. The story definitely caught their interest, and I managed to fulfill my role as both guide and host for the day. However, throughout the rest of our long morning walk, I remember how chance, or possibly M. Simond's politeness and his French sympathy towards a young man's natural desire to impress a lovely young woman, had me often by Miss Wilkes's side since the narrow path often put us in pairs. Having this many hours for an exclusive conversation with her, it would have been my own fault if I hadn’t noticed her great sense and her charming, spirited character. I definitely tried my best to entertain her, both for her own sake and as a visitor of my Scottish friends. But amid all my efforts, I felt frustrated that I was going against the current; there seemed to be some silent bias against the whole group of lake dwellers that nothing could change. Miss Wilkes naturally looked up to M. Simond with some respect, as he had become her guardian and protector through his marriage to her aunt. Now, M. Simond was, of all people, the last one who could appreciate an English poet. To begin with, he had a French inability to grasp poetry that went beyond social manners and interests. Then, unfortunately, not only because of what he lacked but also due to what he had, this somewhat clever Frenchman was far removed from the level where he could grasp Wordsworth. He was a savvy, world-wise man, sharp and practical, valuing only the tangible and measurable. He had a little knowledge of mechanics, physiology, geology, mineralogy, and every other "ology” you could think of; he also had a huge array of statistical facts at his fingertips—like how many people lived, could live, or should live in each manufacturing district; how many 83-year-old women there ought to be for every one-year-old child; how many murders should happen in a month in each town of five thousand people; and so on ad infinitum. His old French politeness had been worn down by American influence to the point where he could barely hide his disdain for anyone who didn’t meet him on his own turf with the same kind of knowledge he possessed. Still, in reality, it was just a small “case” of knowledge he had neatly packed up as a makeshift—like the little assortment of razors, toothbrushes, nail brushes, hairbrushes, corkscrews, and other essentials you carry in your trunk in a red Morocco case to handle the ups and downs of travel. The more indignant I felt about being the target of such a man's contempt, the more I genuinely scorned his disdain and resisted his kicks.
On the single day which Mrs. Millar could spare for Grasmere, I had taken care to ask Wordsworth amongst those who were to meet the party. Wordsworth came; but, by instinct, he and Monsieur Simond knew and recoiled from each other. They met, they saw, they inter-despised. Wordsworth, on his side, seemed so heartily to despise M. Simond that he did not stir or make an effort to right himself under any misapprehension of the Frenchman, but coolly acquiesced in any and every inference which he might be pleased to draw; whilst M. Simond, double-charged with contempt from The Edinburgh Review, and from the report (I cannot doubt) of his present hostess, manifestly thought Wordsworth too abject almost for the trouble of too openly disdaining him. More than one of us could have done justice on this malefactor by meeting M. Simond on his own ground, and taking the conceit out of him most thoroughly. I was one of those; for I had the very knowledge, or some of it, that he most paraded. But one of us was lazy; another thought it not tanti; and I, for my part, in my own house, could not move upon such a service. And in those days, moreover, when as yet I loved Wordsworth not less than I venerated him, a success that would have made him suffer in any man's opinion by comparison with myself would have been painful to my feelings. Never did party meet more exquisitely ill-assorted; never did party separate with more exquisite and cordial disgust in its principal members towards each other. I[Pg 379] mention the case at all, in order to illustrate the abject condition of worldly opinion in which Wordsworth then lived. Perhaps his ill fame was just then in its meridian; for M. Simond, soon after, published his English Tour in two octavo volumes; and, of course, he goes over his residence at the Lakes; yet it is a strong fact that, according to my remembrance, he does not vouchsafe to mention such a person as Wordsworth.
On the one day that Mrs. Millar could spare for Grasmere, I made sure to invite Wordsworth to meet the group. Wordsworth came, but instinctively, he and Monsieur Simond recognized each other and pulled away. They met, they saw, they inter-despised. Wordsworth seemed to look down on M. Simond so much that he didn't move or try to correct any misunderstanding the Frenchman might have had, but calmly accepted any conclusion M. Simond chose to reach; while M. Simond, fueled by contempt from The Edinburgh Review and, I have no doubt, from our hostess, clearly thought that Wordsworth was too insignificant to bother disdaining openly. More than one of us could have confronted this villain by meeting M. Simond on his own turf and thoroughly taking him down a peg. I was one of those; I had at least some of the knowledge he flaunted. But one of us was lazy, another thought it wasn't worth it, and I, in my own home, couldn't take on such a task. Furthermore, back then, when I still loved Wordsworth as much as I respected him, a success that would have made him suffer in anyone's eyes by comparison with me would have hurt my feelings. Never has a group gathered in such a poorly matched way; never has a group parted with such clear and mutual disgust among its main members. I mention this situation only to highlight the low state of public opinion that Wordsworth was living in at that time. Perhaps his bad reputation was peaking then; shortly after, M. Simond published his English Tour in two volumes, where he went over his time at the Lakes. Yet, interestingly, as far as I remember, he does not even mention someone like Wordsworth.
One anecdote, before parting with these ladies, I will mention, as received from Miss Cullen on her personal knowledge of the fact. There are stories current which resemble this, but wanting that immediate guarantee for their accuracy which, in this case, I at least was obliged to admit, in the attestation of so perfectly veracious a reporter as this excellent lady. A female friend of her own, a person of family and consideration, being on the eve of undertaking a visit to a remote part of the kingdom, dreamed that, on reaching the end of her journey, and drawing up to the steps of the door, a footman, with a very marked and forbidding expression of countenance, his complexion pale and bloodless, and his manners sullen, presented himself to let down the steps of her carriage. This same man, at a subsequent point of her dream, appeared to be stealing up a private staircase, with some murderous instruments in his hands, towards a bed-room door. This dream was repeated, I think, twice. Some time after, the lady, accompanied by a grown-up daughter, accomplished her journey. Great was the shock which awaited her on reaching her friend's house: a servant corresponding in all points to the shadowy outline of her dream, equally bloodless in complexion, and equally gloomy in manner, appeared at her carriage door. The issue of the story was that upon a particular night, after a stay of some length, the lady grew unaccountably nervous; resisted her feelings for some time; but at length, at the entreaty of her daughter, who slept in the same room, suffered some communication of the case to be made to a gentleman resident in the house, who had not yet retired to rest. This gentleman, struck by the dream, and still more on recalling to mind some suspicious preparations, as if for a hasty departure, in which he had detected the servant, waited in concealment[Pg 380] until three o'clock in the morning—at which time, hearing a stealthy step moving up the staircase, he issued with firearms, and met the man at the lady's door, so equipped as to leave no doubt of his intentions; which possibly contemplated only robbing of the lady's jewels, but possibly also murder in a case of extremity. There are other stories with some of the same circumstances; and, in particular, I remember one very like it in Dr. Abercrombie's "Inquiries Concerning the Intellectual Powers" [1830], p. 283. But in this version of Dr. Abercrombie's (supposing it another version of the same story) the striking circumstance of anticipating the servant's features is omitted; and in no version, except this of Miss Cullen's, have I heard the names mentioned both of the parties to the affair, and also of the place at which it occurred.
Before I say goodbye to these ladies, I want to share an anecdote I received from Miss Cullen, who knows the facts personally. There are similar stories out there, but none have the immediate proof of accuracy that this one does, thanks to such a reliable source as this wonderful lady. A female friend of hers, who came from an important family, had a dream right before she was about to visit a distant part of the country. In her dream, when she reached her destination and arrived at the steps of the door, a footman with a very distinct and intimidating expression—a pale, ghostly complexion and gloomy demeanor—came to help her out of the carriage. In another part of her dream, this same man was seen sneaking up a private staircase, holding some deadly tools, heading towards a bedroom door. She had this dream, I think, twice. Later on, the lady, along with her adult daughter, made her visit. She was in for a shock when she arrived at her friend's house: there was a servant who matched exactly the description from her dream—equally pale and gloomy—waiting at her carriage door. After staying for a while, the lady became inexplicably anxious; she tried to shake off the feeling, but eventually, at her daughter's urging, she decided to share her concerns with a gentleman in the house, who hadn’t gone to bed yet. This gentleman, intrigued by the dream, recalled some suspicious behavior from the servant, as if he was preparing for a quick getaway. So he hid away until three in the morning. When he heard a quiet step approaching the staircase, he went out with a weapon and confronted the man at the lady's door, ready for anything; it was clear he had bad intentions that could range from robbery of the lady's jewels to potentially murder if pushed. There are other stories with similar elements; I even remember one that closely resembles this one in Dr. Abercrombie's "Inquiries Concerning the Intellectual Powers" [1830], p. 283. However, in Abercrombie's account (assuming it’s a different version of the same story), the vivid detail of anticipating the servant's features is missing. Also, in no other version, aside from Miss Cullen’s, have I heard the names of both the people involved or the location where it happened.
CHAPTER VIII
SOCIETY OF THE LAKES: CHARLES LLOYD[159]
Immediately below the little village of Clappersgate, in which the Scottish ladies resided—Mrs. Millar and Mrs. Cullen—runs the wild mountain river called the Brathay, which, descending from Langdale Head, and soon after becoming confluent with the Rothay (a brook-like stream that comes originally from Easedale, and takes its course through the two lakes of Grasmere and Rydal), finally composes a considerable body of water, that flows along, deep, calm, and steady—no longer brawling, bubbling, tumultuous—into the splendid lake of Windermere, the largest of our English waters, or, if not, at least the longest, and of the most extensive circuit. Close to this little river, Brathay, on the farther side as regards Clappersgate (and what, though actually part and parcel of a district that is severed by the sea, or by Westmoreland, from Lancashire proper, is yet, from some old legal usage, denominated the Lancashire side of the Brathay), stands a modest family mansion, called Low Brathay, by way of distinction from another and a larger mansion, about a quarter of a mile beyond it, which, standing upon a little eminence, is called High Brathay.
Right below the small village of Clappersgate, where the Scottish ladies lived—Mrs. Millar and Mrs. Cullen—flows the wild mountain river known as the Brathay. This river, which comes down from Langdale Head, merges with the Rothay (a small stream that originates in Easedale and flows through the two lakes of Grasmere and Rydal), ultimately forms a significant body of water that moves along deep, calm, and steady—no longer noisy or turbulent—into the beautiful lake of Windermere, the largest of England's lakes, or at least the longest with the most extensive perimeter. Close to this little river, Brathay, on the opposite side from Clappersgate (and although it is technically part of an area separated by the sea, or by Westmoreland, from true Lancashire, it is still, due to some old legal tradition, called the Lancashire side of the Brathay), stands a modest family home called Low Brathay, distinguished from another larger house about a quarter of a mile away, which sits on a small hill and is called High Brathay.
In this house of Low Brathay lived, and continued to live, for many years (in fact, until misery, in its sharpest form, drove him from his hearth and his household happiness), Charles L—— the younger[160];—on his own account,[Pg 382] and for his personal qualities, worthy of a separate notice in any biography, howsoever sparing in its digressions; but, viewed in reference to his fortunes, amongst the most interesting men I have known. Never do I reflect upon his hard fate, and the bitter though mysterious persecution of body which pursued him, dogged him, and thickened as life advanced, but I feel gratitude to Heaven for my own exemption from suffering in that particular form; and, in the midst of afflictions, of which two or three have been most hard to bear,—because not unmingled with pangs of remorse for the share which I myself may have had in causing them,—still, by comparison with the lot of Charles Lloyd, I acknowledge my own to have been happy and serene. Already, on my first hasty visit to Grasmere in 1807, I found Charles Lloyd settled with his family at Brathay, and a resident there, I believe, of some standing. It was on a wet gloomy evening; and Miss Wordsworth and I were returning from an excursion to Esthwaite Water, when, suddenly, in the midst of blinding rain, without previous notice, she said—Pray, let us call for a few minutes at this house. A garden gate led us into a little shrubbery, chiefly composed of lawns, beautifully kept, through which ran a gravel road, just wide enough to admit a single carriage. A minute or so saw us housed in a small comfortable drawing-room, but with no signs of living creatures near it; and, from the accident of double doors, all covered with baize, being scattered about the house, the whole mansion seemed the palace of silence, though populous, I understood, with children. In no long time appeared Mr. Lloyd, soon followed by his youthful wife, both radiant with kindness; and it may be supposed that we were not suffered to depart for some hours. I call Mrs. Lloyd youthful; and so I might call her husband; for both were youthful, considered as the parents of a numerous family, six or seven children then living—Charles Lloyd himself not being certainly more than twenty-seven, and his "Sophia" perhaps not twenty-five.
In this house at Low Brathay lived, and continued to live, for many years (in fact, until misery, in its harshest form, forced him from his home and happiness), Charles L—— the younger[160];—noteworthy on his own and deserving of a special mention in any biography, however brief its asides; but, when considering his fortunes, he was among the most interesting people I’ve known. Whenever I think of his tough fate and the bitter, yet mysterious, physical persecution that followed him closely and intensified as he got older, I can’t help but feel grateful to Heaven for my own escape from suffering in that way; and, amid the hardships I’ve faced—two or three of which have been particularly difficult because they came with feelings of guilt for my part in causing them—I still recognize that, compared to Charles Lloyd’s situation, mine has been happy and peaceful. During my first quick visit to Grasmere in 1807, I found Charles Lloyd settled with his family at Brathay, and I believe he had been living there for some time. It was a wet, gloomy evening, and Miss Wordsworth and I were coming back from a trip to Esthwaite Water when, out of the blue, in the pouring rain, she suggested, “Let’s stop by this house for a few minutes.” A garden gate led us into a small shrubbery, mostly made up of beautifully maintained lawns, through which ran a gravel path wide enough for a single carriage. After a minute or so, we found ourselves in a cozy little drawing room, but there were no signs of life around; and since there were double doors, all covered with baize, scattered throughout the house, it felt like a quiet palace, even though it was reportedly full of children. Before long, Mr. Lloyd appeared, soon followed by his young wife, both beaming with warmth; and it’s safe to say we weren’t allowed to leave for several hours. I refer to Mrs. Lloyd as young, and I could say the same for her husband; both were youthful as the parents of a large family, with six or seven children then living—Charles Lloyd himself couldn’t have been more than twenty-seven, and his “Sophia” perhaps not twenty-five.
On that short visit I saw enough to interest me in both; and, two years after, when I became myself a permanent resident in Grasmere, the connexion between us became close and intimate. My cottage stood just five miles from[Pg 383] Brathay; and there were two mountain roads which shortened the space between us, though not the time nor the toil. But, notwithstanding this distance, often and often, upon the darkest nights, for many years, I used to go over about nine o'clock, or an hour later, and sit with him till one. Mrs. Lloyd was simply an amiable young woman, of pleasing person, perfectly well principled, and, as a wife and mother, not surpassed by anybody I have known in either of those characters. In figure she somewhat resembled the ever memorable and most excellent Mrs. Jordan; she was exactly of the middle height and having that slight degree of embonpoint, even in youth, which never through life diminishes or increases. Her complexion may be imagined from the circumstance of her hair being tinged with a slight and not unpleasing shade of red. Finally, in manners she was remarkably self-possessed, free from all awkward embarrassment, and (to an extent which some people would wonder at in one who had been brought up, I believe, wholly in a great commercial town) perfectly lady-like. So much description is due to one who, though no authoress, and never making the slightest pretension to talents, was too much connected subsequently with the lakers to be passed over in a review of their community. Ah! gentle lady! your head, after struggling through many a year with strange calamities, has found rest at length; but not in English ground, or amongst the mountains which you loved: at Versailles it is, and perhaps within a stone's throw of that Mrs. Jordan whom in so many things you resembled, and most of all in the misery which settled upon your latter years. There you lie, and for ever, whose blooming matronly figure rises up to me at this moment from a depth of thirty years! and your children scattered into all lands!
During that brief visit, I saw enough to pique my interest in both; and, two years later, when I became a permanent resident in Grasmere, our connection became close and personal. My cottage was just five miles from[Pg 383] Brathay; and there were two mountain roads that made the distance shorter, though not the time or effort. Yet, despite this distance, often on the darkest nights, for many years, I would go over around nine o'clock, or an hour later, and sit with him until one. Mrs. Lloyd was simply a kind young woman, attractive, well-principled, and, as a wife and mother, incomparable to anyone I have known in those roles. Physically, she somewhat resembled the unforgettable and wonderful Mrs. Jordan; she was about average height and had that slight degree of embonpoint, even in her youth, which never lessens or increases throughout life. You could imagine her complexion based on the fact that her hair had a slight, pleasant shade of red. Lastly, in her demeanor, she was remarkably composed, free from any awkwardness, and (to a degree that some might find surprising in someone who I believe grew up entirely in a large commercial town) completely ladylike. Such a detailed description is warranted for someone who, although she wasn’t an author and never claimed any talents, was too closely connected with the lakers to be overlooked in an overview of their community. Ah! gentle lady! your head, after enduring many years of strange hardships, has finally found rest; not on English soil or among the mountains you loved, but at Versailles, perhaps close to that Mrs. Jordan whom you resembled in so many ways, especially in the sorrow that marked your later years. There you rest now, and forever, whose vibrant matronly figure rises to my mind from a depth of thirty years! And your children are scattered across the globe!
But for Charles Lloyd: he, by his literary works, is so far known to the public, that, on his own account, he merits some separate notice.[161] His poems do not place him in the class of powerful poets; they are loosely conceived—faultily even at times—and not finished in the execution. But they have a real and a mournful merit under one aspect, which[Pg 384] might be so presented to the general reader as to win a peculiar interest for many of them, and for some a permanent place in any judicious thesaurus—such as we may some day hope to see drawn off, and carefully filtered, from the enormous mass of poetry produced since the awakening era of the French Revolution. This aspect is founded on the relation which they bear to the real events and the unexaggerated afflictions of his own life. The feelings which he attempts to express were not assumed for effect, nor drawn by suggestion from others, and then transplanted into some ideal experience of his own. They do not belong to the mimetic poetry so extensively cultivated; but they were true solitary sighs, wrung from his own meditative heart by excess of suffering, and by the yearning after old scenes and household faces of an impassioned memory, brooding over vanished happiness, and cleaving to those early times when life wore even for his eyes the golden light of Paradise. But he had other and higher accomplishments of intellect than he showed in his verses, as I shall presently explain; and of a nature which make it difficult to bring them adequately within the reader's apprehension.
But for Charles Lloyd: he is known to the public through his literary works, so he deserves some individual attention. His poems don’t put him among powerful poets; they are loosely crafted—flawed at times—and not fully polished. However, they have a genuine and mournful quality that could be presented to the general reader in a way that might spark a unique interest in many of them, and for some, a lasting place in any thoughtful thesaurus we hope to see compiled from the vast amount of poetry produced since the French Revolution began. This quality comes from the connection they have to the real events and genuine struggles of his own life. The feelings he tries to express aren’t put on for effect or inspired by others, then transplanted into some ideal version of his own experiences. They do not fit into the imitative poetry that is so widely practiced; rather, they are true solitary sighs, drawn from his own reflective heart by overwhelming suffering and a longing for old scenes and familiar faces from a passionate memory, reflecting on lost happiness and clinging to earlier times when life even for him had the golden glow of Paradise. But he had other and more advanced intellectual abilities than he demonstrated in his poems, as I will explain shortly; and these qualities make it hard to present them in a way that the reader can fully grasp.
Meantime, I will sketch an outline of poor Lloyd's history, so far as I can pretend to know it. He was the son, and probably his calamitous life originally dated from his being the son, of Quaker parents. It was said, indeed, by himself as well as others, that the mysterious malady which haunted him had been derived from an ancestress in the maternal line; and this may have been true; and, for all that, it may also be true that Quaker habits were originally answerable for this legacy of woe. It is sufficiently well known that, in the training of their young people, the Society of Friends make it a point of conscience to apply severe checks to all open manifestations of natural feeling, or of exuberant spirits. Not the passions—they are beyond their control—but the expression of those passions by any natural language; this they lay under the heaviest restraint; and, in many cases, it is possible that such a system of thwarting nature may do no great mischief; just as we see the American Indians, in moulding the plastic skulls of their infants into capricious shapes, do not, after all, much disturb the ordinary course[Pg 385] of nature, nor produce the idiots we might have expected. But, then, the reason why such tampering may often terminate in slight results is, because often there is not much to tamper with; the machinery is so slight, and the total range within which it plays is perhaps so narrow, that the difference between its normal action and its widest deviation may, after all, be practically unimportant. For there are many men and women of whom I have already said, borrowing the model of the word from Hartley, that they have not so much passions as passiuncles. These, however, are in one extreme; and others there are and will be, in every class, and under every disadvantage, who are destined to illustrate the very opposite extreme. Great passions—passions pointing to the paths of love, of ambition, of glory, martial or literary—these in men—and in women, again, these, either in some direct shape, or taking the form of intense sympathy with the same passions as moving amongst contemporary men—will gleam out fitfully amongst the placid children of Fox and Penn, not less than amongst us who profess no war with the nobler impulses of our nature. And, perhaps, according to the Grecian doctrine of antiperistasis, strong untameable passions are more likely to arise even in consequence of the counteraction. Deep passions undoubtedly lie in the blood and constitution of Englishmen; and Quakers,[162] after all, do not, by being such, cease, therefore, to be Englishmen.
Meantime, I will outline the story of poor Lloyd, as much as I can reasonably know it. He was the son—his unfortunate life likely began with just that fact—of Quaker parents. It was said, by both him and others, that the mysterious illness that troubled him came from an ancestor on his mother's side; this might be true, but it could also be the case that Quaker customs were originally responsible for this burden. It's well known that, in raising their young, the Society of Friends makes it a priority to impose strict limitations on any open displays of natural emotion or enthusiastic spirits. Not the feelings themselves—they're beyond control—but the expression of those feelings in any natural way; they heavily restrain that. In many instances, it’s possible that such a system of suppressing nature doesn't cause too much harm, just like American Indians, who shape the flexible skulls of their infants into unusual forms, don't ultimately disrupt nature's usual course or create the idiots we might expect. However, the reason why such interference often results in trivial outcomes is that there often isn’t much to interfere with; the mechanism is so delicate, and the overall range in which it operates may be so limited that the difference between its normal function and its greatest deviation is practically insignificant. There are many men and women I’ve mentioned before, borrowing a term from Hartley, who have not so much passions as passiuncles. These individuals represent one extreme, but there are—and there always will be—others in every class, and facing every challenge, who will demonstrate the opposite extreme. Intense passions—passions driving towards love, ambition, glory, whether martial or literary—exist in men—and in women, these passions might manifest directly or as a deep sympathy for similar drives among contemporary men—will occasionally emerge amidst the calm children of Fox and Penn, no less than among those of us who don't struggle against the nobler impulses of our nature. And perhaps, according to the Greek idea of antiperistasis, strong, untamed passions are more likely to arise as a result of that very suppression. Deep passions undeniably dwell in the blood and makeup of Englishmen; and Quakers,[162] being who they are, still do not stop being Englishmen.
It is, I have said, sufficiently well known that the Quakers make it a point of their moral economy to lay the severest restraints upon all ebullitions of feeling. Whatever may be the nature of the feeling, whatever its strength, utter itself by word or by gesture it must not; smoulder it may, but it must not break into a flame. This is known; but it is not equally known that this unnatural restraint,[Pg 386] falling into collision with two forces at once, the force of passion and of youth, not uncommonly records its own injurious tendencies, and publishes the rebellious movements of nature, by distinct and anomalous diseases. And further, I have been assured, upon most excellent authority, that these diseases, strange and elaborate affections of the nervous system, are found exclusively amongst the young men and women of the Quaker society; that they are known and understood exclusively amongst physicians who have practised in great towns having a large Quaker population, such as Birmingham; that they assume a new type, and a more inveterate character, in the second or third generation, to whom this fatal inheritance is often transmitted; and finally, that, if this class of nervous derangements does not increase so much as to attract public attention, it is simply because the community itself—the Quaker body—does not increase, but, on the contrary, is rather on the wane.
It's well known that the Quakers focus on maintaining strict control over all expressions of emotion. No matter what the emotion is or how strong it may be, it must not be expressed by words or gestures; it can simmer, but it must not burst into flames. This is widely recognized, but it's less understood that this unnatural suppression, [Pg 386], when it clashes with two powerful forces—passion and youth—often leads to harmful effects and reveals the rebellious nature of human instincts through distinct and unusual diseases. Furthermore, I've been informed by reliable sources that these diseases, which are complex and unusual issues of the nervous system, are found exclusively among the young men and women in Quaker society. They are known and recognized only by doctors practicing in large cities with significant Quaker populations, such as Birmingham. These conditions take on a new form and a more persistent nature in the second or third generation, often passed down as a detrimental inheritance. Lastly, if this category of nervous disorders doesn't grow enough to attract public attention, it's simply because the Quaker community itself isn’t growing but is actually declining.
From a progenitrix, then, no matter in what generation, C. Lloyd inherited that awful malady which withered his own happiness, root and branch, gathering strength from year to year. His father was a banker, and, I presume, wealthy, from the ample allowance which he always made to his son Charles. Charles, it is true, had the rights of primogeniture—which, however, in a commercial family, are not considerable—but, at the same time, though eldest, he was eldest of seventeen or eighteen brothers and sisters, and of these I believe that some round dozen or so were living at the time when I first came to know him. He had been educated in the bosom of Quaker society; his own parents, with most of their friends, were Quakers; and, even of his own generation, all the young women continued Quakers. Naturally, therefore, as a boy, he also was obliged to conform to the Quaker ritual. But this ritual presses with great inequality upon the two sexes; in so far, at least, as regards dress. The distinctions of dress which announce the female Quaker are all in her favour. In a nation eminent for personal purity, and where it should seem beforehand impossible for any woman to create a pre-eminence for herself in that respect, so it is, however, that the female Quaker, by her dress, seems even purer than[Pg 387] other women, and consecrated to a service of purity; earthly soil or taint, even the sullying breath of mortality, seems as if kept aloof from her person—forcibly held in repulsion by some protecting sanctity. This transcendent purity, and a nun-like gentleness, self-respect, and sequestration from the world—these are all that her peculiarity of dress expresses; and surely this "all" is quite enough to win every man's favourable feelings towards her, and something even like homage. But, with the male Quaker, how different is the case! His dress—originally not remarkable by its shape, but solely by its colour and want of ornament, so peculiar has it become in a lapse of nearly two centuries—seems expressly devised to point him out to ridicule. In some towns, it is true, such as Birmingham and Kendal, the public eye is so familiar with this costume, that in them it excites no feeling whatever more than the professional costume of butchers, bakers, grooms, &c. But in towns not commercial—towns of luxury and parade—a Quaker is exposed to most mortifying trials of his self-esteem. It has happened that I have followed a young man of this order for a quarter of a mile, in Bath, or in one of the fashionable streets of London, on a summer evening, when numerous servants were lounging on the steps of the front door, or at the area gates; and I have seen him run the gauntlet of grim smiles from the men, and heard him run the gauntlet of that sound—the worst which heaven has in its artillery of scorn against the peace of poor man—the half-suppressed titter of the women. Laughing outright is bad, but still that may be construed into a determinate insult that studiously avows more contempt than is really felt; but tittering is hell itself; for it seems mere nature, and absolute truth, that extort this expression of contempt in spite of every effort to suppress it.
From a mother, no matter the generation, C. Lloyd inherited that terrible condition that ruined his happiness completely, growing stronger every year. His father was a banker, and I assume he was wealthy due to the generous allowance he consistently provided for his son Charles. It’s true that Charles had the right of primogeniture—which isn’t a big deal in a commercial family—but at the same time, even though he was the oldest, he was the first of seventeen or eighteen siblings, and I believe about a dozen of them were still alive when I first met him. He was raised in a Quaker household; his parents and most of their friends were Quakers, and even among his peers, all the young women remained Quakers. Naturally, as a boy, he had to follow the Quaker rituals. However, this ritual weighs heavily and unequally on the two genders, especially regarding clothing. The dress codes that signify a female Quaker are all beneficial to her. In a society known for valuing purity, where it should seem impossible for any woman to stand out in that regard, the female Quaker, through her attire, appears even more pure than other women, dedicated to a life of purity; earthly dirt or taint, even the very breath of mortality, seems to be kept away from her—as if it’s kept at bay by some protective sanctity. This extraordinary purity, along with a nun-like gentleness, self-respect, and withdrawal from worldly distractions—these are all that her unique dress conveys; and surely that "all" is more than enough to earn every man’s positive regard and even something like reverence. But with the male Quaker, it’s a completely different story! His clothing—originally not notable for its shape but solely for its color and lack of decoration—has become so peculiar over nearly two centuries that it seems designed to invite ridicule. In some cities, like Birmingham and Kendal, people are so accustomed to this outfit that it elicits no more reaction than the uniforms of butchers, bakers, and grooms. But in non-commercial towns—places of luxury and display—a Quaker faces the most painful blows to his self-esteem. I have followed a young man of this kind for a quarter of a mile, in Bath or on one of the upscale streets of London, on a summer evening, when many servants were lounging on the front steps or around the entrance gates; and I watched him endure the smirks of men and heard him deal with the most painful sound—one of the worst forms of scorn heaven has against the peace of a man—the half-suppressed giggles of women. Laughing out loud is bad enough, but that can be seen as a deliberate insult that pretends to show more disdain than is actually felt; but tittering is pure hell; it feels like natural instinct and absolute truth are forcing that expression of contempt despite all efforts to hide it.
Some such expression it was that drove Charles Lloyd into an early apostasy from his sect: early it must have been, for he went at the usual age of eighteen to Cambridge, and there, as a Quaker, he could not have been received. He, indeed, of all men, was the least fitted to contend with the world's scorn, for he had no great fortitude of mind; his vocation was not to martyrdom, and he was cursed with[Pg 388] the most exquisite sensibility. This sensibility, indeed, it was, and not so properly any determinate passion, which had been the scourge of his ancestors. There was something that appeared effeminate about it; and which, accordingly, used to provoke the ridicule of Wordsworth, whose character, in all its features, wore a masculine and Roman harshness. But, in fact, when you came to know Charles Lloyd, there was, even in this slight tinge of effeminacy, something which conciliated your pity by the feeling that it impressed you with, of being part of his disease. His sensibility was eminently Rousseauish—that is, it was physico-moral; now pointing to appetites that would have mastered him had he been less intellectual and governed by a less exalted standard of moral perceptions; now pointing to fine aerial speculations, subtle as a gossamer, and apparently calculated to lead him off into abstractions even too remote from flesh and blood.
Some expression like this pushed Charles Lloyd into leaving his religious group early: it must have been early, since he went to Cambridge at the typical age of eighteen, where he wouldn’t have been accepted as a Quaker. In fact, he was the least equipped to handle the world's scorn, as he didn’t have much mental toughness; his calling was not for martyrdom, and he was burdened with[Pg 388] an intense sensitivity. This sensitivity, rather than a specific passion, had plagued his family for generations. It had an aspect that seemed effeminate and often drew ridicule from Wordsworth, who had a character marked by a strong, masculine, Roman toughness. However, when you got to know Charles Lloyd, even this slight hint of effeminacy evoked pity because it felt like a part of his struggle. His sensitivity was distinctly Rousseauish—that is, it was both physical and moral; sometimes pointing to desires that would have overwhelmed him if he wasn’t so intellectual and held to a high moral standard, and other times leading him to delicate, airy ideas, as fragile as gossamer, seemingly pulling him into abstractions too far removed from real life.
During the Cambridge vacation, or, it might be, even before he went to Cambridge—and my reason for thinking so is because both, I believe, belonged to the same town, if it could not be said of them as of Pyramus and Thisbe, that "contiguas habuere domos"—he fell desperately in love with Miss Sophia P—— n. Who she was I never heard—that is, what were her connexions; but I presume that she must have been of an opulent family, because Mrs. P—— n, the mother of Mrs. Lloyd, occasionally paid a visit to her daughter at the lakes, and then she brought with her a handsomely-appointed equipage, as to horses and servants. This I have reason to remember from the fact of herself and her daughter frequently coming over on summer evenings to drink tea with me, and the affront (as I then thought it) which Wordsworth fastened upon me in connexion with one of those visits. One evening,[163] * * * * * A pang of wrath gathered at my heart. Yet why? One moment, I felt, indeed, that it was not gentlemanly to interfere with the privileges of any man standing in the situation which I then occupied, of host; but still I should not have regarded it, except from its connexion with a case I recollected[Pg 389] in a previous year. One fine summer day, we were walking together—Wordsworth, myself, and Southey. Southey had been making earnest inquiries about poor Lloyd, just then in the crisis of some severe illness, and Wordsworth's answer had been partly lost to me. I put a question upon it, when, to my surprise (my wrath internally, but also to my special amusement), he replied that, in fact, what he had said was a matter of some delicacy, and not quite proper to be communicated except to near friends of the family. This to me!—O ye gods!—to me, who knew by many a hundred conversations how disagreeable Wordsworth was both to Charles Lloyd and to his wife; whilst, on the other hand—not by words only, but by deeds, and by the most delicate acts of confidential favour—I knew that Mr. Wilson (Professor Wilson) and myself had been selected as friends in cases which were not so much as named to Wordsworth. The arrogance of Wordsworth was well illustrated in this case of the Lloyds.
During the Cambridge vacation, or maybe even before he went to Cambridge—and I think this because both, I believe, came from the same town, even if it can’t be said of them like Pyramus and Thisbe that "contiguas habuere domos"—he fell head over heels in love with Miss Sophia P—— n. Who she was, I never heard—that is, what her connections were; but I assume she must have come from a wealthy family since Mrs. P—— n, the mother of Mrs. Lloyd, would sometimes visit her daughter at the lakes, bringing with her a fancy carriage, along with horses and servants. I remember this because she and her daughter often came over on summer evenings to have tea with me, and the slight (as I then thought it) that Wordsworth placed upon me during one of those visits. One evening,[163] * * * * * a surge of anger built up in my chest. But why? For a moment, I felt it wasn't really appropriate to interfere with the rights of any man in the position I was in, as host; but still, I wouldn’t have minded it, except for how it reminded me of a situation I recalled[Pg 389] from a previous year. One lovely summer day, we were walking together—Wordsworth, Southey, and I. Southey had been seriously asking about poor Lloyd, who was going through a tough illness, and part of Wordsworth's response was lost on me. I asked him about it, and to my surprise (my anger brewing inside, but also to my particular amusement), he replied that, in fact, what he had said was a sensitive matter and not quite suitable to share except with close friends of the family. This to me!—Oh, the irony!—to me, who knew from countless conversations just how unpleasant Wordsworth was to both Charles Lloyd and his wife; while, on the other hand—not just through words but through actions and the most discreet gestures of friendship—I knew that Mr. Wilson (Professor Wilson) and I had been chosen as friends in situations that weren’t even mentioned to Wordsworth. Wordsworth’s arrogance was clearly shown in his treatment of the Lloyds.
But to resume Lloyd's history. Being so desperately in love with Miss P—— n, and his parents being rich, why should he not have married her? Why, I know not. But some great obstacles arose; and, I presume, on the side of Miss P—— n's friends; for, actually, it became necessary to steal her away; and the person in whom Lloyd confided for this delicate service was no other than Southey. A better choice he could not have made. Had the lady been Helen of Greece, Southey would not have had a thought but for the honour and interests of his confiding friend.
But to continue with Lloyd's story. Since he was so hopelessly in love with Miss P—— n and his parents were wealthy, why shouldn't he have married her? Why, I have no idea. But some significant obstacles came up, and I assume it was from Miss P—— n's side; in fact, it became necessary to kidnap her. The person Lloyd trusted for this delicate task was none other than Southey. He couldn't have made a better choice. Even if the lady had been Helen of Greece, Southey would only have had the honor and interests of his trusting friend in mind.
Having thus, by proxy, run away with his young wife, and married her, Lloyd brought her to Cambridge. It is a novel thing in Cambridge, though not altogether unprecedented, for a student to live there with a wife. This novelty Lloyd exhibited to the University for some time; but then, finding the situation not perfectly agreeable to the delicate sensibilities of his young wife, Lloyd removed, first, I think, to Penrith; and, after some changes, he settled down at Brathay, from which, so long as he stayed on English ground—that is, for about fifteen or sixteen years—he never moved. When I first crossed his path at the Lakes, he was in the zenith of the brief happiness that was granted to him on[Pg 390] earth. He stood in the very centre of earthly pleasures; and, that his advantages may be easily estimated, I will describe both himself and his situation.
Having run away with his young wife and married her, Lloyd brought her to Cambridge. It's a unique situation in Cambridge, though not entirely unheard of, for a student to live there with a wife. Lloyd showed this novelty to the University for a while; however, realizing that it wasn’t completely comfortable for his sensitive young wife, he first moved to Penrith, and after some changes, settled down in Brathay, from which, as long as he remained in England—about fifteen or sixteen years—he never relocated. When I first encountered him at the Lakes, he was at the peak of the short happiness he had on[Pg 390] earth. He was at the center of earthly pleasures, and to make his advantages clear, I will describe both him and his situation.
First, then, as to his person: he was tall and somewhat clumsy—not intellectual so much as benign and conciliatory in his expression of face. His features were not striking, but they expressed great goodness of heart; and latterly wore a deprecatory expression that was peculiarly touching to those who knew its cause. His manners were free from all modes of vulgarity; and where he acquired his knowledge I know not (for I never heard him claim any connexion with people of rank), but a knowledge he certainly had of all the conventional usages amongst the higher circles, and of those purely arbitrary customs which mere good sense and native elegance of manner are not, of themselves, sufficient to teach. Some of these he might have learned from the family of the Bishop of Llandaff; for with the ladies of that family he was intimate, especially with the eldest daughter, who was an accomplished student in that very department of literature which Lloyd himself most cultivated, viz. all that class of works which deal in the analysis of human passions, or attempt to exhibit the development of human character, in relation to sexual attachments, when placed in trying circumstances. Lloyd corresponded with Miss Watson in French; the letters, on both sides, being full of spirit and originality; the subjects generally drawn from Rousseau's "Heloise" or his "Confessions," from "Corinne," from "Delphine," or some other work of Madame de Stael. For such disquisitions Lloyd had a real and a powerful genius. It was really a delightful luxury to hear him giving free scope to his powers for investigating subtle combinations of character; for distinguishing all the shades and affinities of some presiding qualities, disentangling their intricacies, and balancing, antithetically, one combination of qualities against another. Take, for instance, any well-known character from the drama, and pique Lloyd's delicate perception of differences by affecting to think it identical with some other character of the same class—instantly, in his anxiety to mark out the features of dissimilitude, he would hurry into an impromptu analysis of each character separately, with an eloquence, with a keenness of[Pg 391] distinction, and a felicity of phrase, which were perfectly admirable. This display of familiarity with life and human nature, in all its masqueradings, was sometimes truly splendid. But two things were remarkable in these displays. One was, that the splendour was quite hidden from himself, and unperceived amidst the effort of mind, and oftentimes severe struggles, in attempting to do himself justice, both as respected the thoughts and the difficult task of clothing them in adequate words; he was as free from vanity, or even from complacency in reviewing what he had effected, as it is possible for a human creature to be. He thought, indeed, slightly of his own power; and, which was even a stronger barrier against vanity, his displays of this kind were always effective in proportion to his unhappiness; for unhappiness it was, and the restlessness of internal irritation, that chiefly drove him to exertions of his intellect; else, and when free from this sort of excitement, he tended to the quiescent state of a listener; for he thought everybody better than himself. The other point remarkable in these displays was (and most unfavourable, of course, it proved to his obtaining the reputation they merited), that he could succeed in them only before confidential friends, those on whom he could rely for harbouring no shade of ridicule towards himself or his theme. Let but one person enter the room of whose sympathy he did not feel secure, and his powers forsook him as suddenly as the buoyancy of a bird that has received a mortal shot in its wing. Accordingly, it is a fact that neither Wordsworth nor Coleridge ever suspected the amount of power which was latent in Lloyd; for he firmly believed that both of them despised him. Mrs. Lloyd thought the same thing. Often and often she has said to me, smiling in a mournful way—"I know too well that both Wordsworth and Coleridge entertain a profound contempt for my poor Charles." And, when I combated this notion, declaring that, although they might (and probably did) hold very cheap such writers as Rousseau and Madame de Stael, and, consequently, could not approve of studies directed so exclusively to their works, or to works of the same class, still that was not sufficient to warrant them in undervaluing the powers which Mr. Lloyd applied to such studies. To this, or similar arguments, she would[Pg 392] reply by simply shaking her head, and then sink into silence.
First, as for his appearance: he was tall and a bit awkward—not so much intellectual as friendly and accommodating in his facial expression. His features weren’t remarkable, but they conveyed great kindness; and lately, he had a humble look that was particularly touching to those who understood its cause. His manners were devoid of any vulgarity; and I don’t know where he gained his knowledge (since I never heard him claim any connection with people of rank), but he clearly understood all the social norms among the higher circles, as well as those purely arbitrary customs that good sense and natural elegance alone don't teach. He might have picked up some of these from the family of the Bishop of Llandaff; he was close with the ladies of that family, especially the eldest daughter, who was well-versed in the very literature Lloyd himself most enjoyed, namely the works that analyze human emotions or try to portray the development of human character in relation to romantic attachments under challenging conditions. Lloyd corresponded with Miss Watson in French; their letters were lively and original, generally discussing ideas from Rousseau's "Heloise" or his "Confessions," from "Corinne," "Delphine," or another work by Madame de Stael. He had a genuine and strong talent for such discussions. It was truly a pleasure to hear him freely exploring the intricate combinations of character, identifying all the nuances and connections of certain key traits, untangling their complexities, and contrasting one set of qualities against another. For example, if you mentioned a well-known character from a play and mistakenly claimed it was the same as another character of its kind, Lloyd’s keen perception of differences would kick in, and he would eagerly dive into an impromptu analysis of each character, showcasing an eloquence, clarity of distinction, and skill with words that were truly admirable. His familiarity with life and human nature, in all its disguises, was sometimes exceptionally impressive. However, two things stood out in these moments. First, he was completely unaware of his own brilliance and couldn’t see it through his mental effort and often intense struggle to express himself properly; he was as free from vanity, or even from self-satisfaction in reflecting on his accomplishments, as anyone could be. He actually thought little of his abilities; and even more importantly, his displays of talent were often linked to his unhappiness; it was his internal restlessness that primarily pushed him to engage his intellect. Otherwise, when he was free from this tension, he preferred being a listener, believing everyone else was better than he was. The second noteworthy point about these moments, which unfortunately hindered his ability to gain the recognition he deserved, was that he could only perform in front of close friends—those he trusted to refrain from mocking him or the subject. If even one person entered the room whose sympathy he didn’t feel sure of, his abilities vanished as quickly as a bird’s buoyancy after being shot. Consequently, it’s true that neither Wordsworth nor Coleridge ever suspected the depth of talent that lay within Lloyd; he was convinced that both of them looked down on him. Mrs. Lloyd felt the same way. She often told me, with a sad smile, “I know too well that both Wordsworth and Coleridge have a deep contempt for my poor Charles.” And when I argued against this, claiming that while they might have (and probably did) think very little of writers like Rousseau and Madame de Stael, and thus could not appreciate studies focused solely on their works or similar ones, that wasn’t enough to justify underestimating the abilities Mr. Lloyd brought to such studies. To this, or similar points, she would simply shake her head and then fall silent.
But the time was fast approaching when all pains of this kind, from supercilious or well-founded disparagement, were to be swallowed up in more awful considerations and fears. The transition was not a long one from the state of prosperity in which I found Lloyd about 1807-10 to the utter overthrow of his happiness, and, for his friends, the overthrow of all hopes on his behalf. In the three years I have assigned, his situation seemed luxuriously happy, as regarded the external elements of happiness. He had, without effort of his own, an income, most punctually remitted from his father, of from £1500 to £1800 per annum. This income was entirely resigned to the management of his prudent and excellent wife; and, as his own personal expenses, separate from those of his family, were absolutely none at all, except for books, she applied the whole either to the education of her children, or to the accumulation of all such elegances of life about their easy unpretending mansion as might soothe her husband's nervous irritations, or might cheer his drooping spirits with as much variety of pleasure as a mountainous seclusion allowed. The establishment of servants was usually limited to six—one only being a man-servant—but these were well chosen: and one or two were confidential servants, tried by long experience. Rents are always low in the country for unfurnished houses; and, even for the country, Low Brathay was a cheap house; but it contained everything for comfort, nothing at all for splendour. Consequently, a very large part of their income was disposable for purposes of hospitality; and, when I first knew them, Low Brathay was distinguished above every other house at the head of Windermere, or within ten miles of that neighbourhood, by the judicious assortment of its dinner parties, and the gaiety of its soirées dansantes. These parties were never crowded; poor Lloyd rarely danced himself; but it gladdened his benevolent heart to see the young and blooming floating through the mazes of the dances then fashionable, whilst he sat by, looking on, at times, with pleasure from his sympathy with the pleasure of others; at times pursuing some animated discussion with a literary friend; at times lapsing into profound[Pg 393] reverie. At some of these dances it was that I first saw Wilson of Elleray (Professor Wilson), in circumstances of animation, and buoyant with youthful spirits, under the excitement of lights, wine, and, above all, of female company. He, by the way, was the best male dancer (not professional) I have ever seen; and this advantage he owed entirely to the extraordinary strength of his foot in all its parts, to its peculiarly happy conformation, and to the accuracy of his ear; for, as to instruction, I have often understood from his family that he never had any. Here also danced the future wife of Professor Wilson, Miss Jane P——,[164] at that time the leading belle of the Lake country. But, perhaps, the most interesting person in those parties, from the peculiarity of her situation, was Mrs. Lloyd herself, still young, and, indeed, not apparently exceeding in years most of her unmarried visitors; still dancing and moving through cotillons, or country dances, as elegantly and as lightly as the youngest of the company; still framing her countenance to that expression of cheerfulness which hospitality required; but stealing for ever troubled glances to the sofa, or the recess, where her husband had reclined himself, dark foreboding looks, that saw but too truly the coming darkness which was soon to swallow up every vestige of this festal pleasure. She looked upon herself and her children too clearly as a doomed household; and such, in some sense, they were. And, doubtless, to poor Lloyd himself, it must a thousandfold have aggravated his sufferings—that he could trace, with a steady eye, the continual growth of that hideous malady which was stealing over the else untroubled azure of his life, and with inaudible foot was hastening onwards for ever to that night in which no man can work, and in which no man can hope.
But the time was quickly approaching when all the pain from arrogant or justified criticism would be overshadowed by more terrifying thoughts and fears. The shift from the comfortable life I saw Lloyd living around 1807-10 to the complete collapse of his happiness, and the loss of hope for his friends, wasn’t a long one. In those three years I mentioned, his life seemed luxuriously happy in terms of external comforts. He received an income, sent regularly by his father, of about £1500 to £1800 a year, without any effort on his part. This income was entirely managed by his wise and capable wife. Since he had no personal expenses aside from buying books, she used the entire amount for educating their children or for creating a comfortable life in their modest home that might ease his nervous tensions or lift his spirits with as much variety as their remote mountain location allowed. Their household usually had six servants, only one of whom was male, but they were well-selected, including one or two long-trusted, confidential staff. Rent is typically low for unfurnished houses in the countryside, and Low Brathay, even by country standards, was relatively cheap; it had everything needed for comfort but nothing extravagant. As a result, a large portion of their income could be spent on hospitality, and when I first got to know them, Low Brathay stood out among all the homes at the head of Windermere and within ten miles, thanks to its thoughtful dinner parties and lively dance soirées. These gatherings were never overcrowded; poor Lloyd hardly ever danced himself, but it warmed his generous heart to see the young and vibrant people enjoying the dances that were fashionable at the time while he sat back, sometimes joyfully sharing in others' happiness, sometimes engaging in lively discussions with a literary friend, and sometimes slipping into profound reverie. At some of these dances, I first met Wilson of Elleray (Professor Wilson), full of energy and buoyed by youthful spirit, energized by lights, wine, and especially by the company of women. By the way, he was the best non-professional male dancer I've ever seen, a skill he owed entirely to the remarkable strength and unique shape of his foot, along with the accuracy of his ear; his family has often told me he never had any formal lessons. Also dancing there was the future wife of Professor Wilson, Miss Jane P——, who was then the leading beauty of the Lake District. But perhaps the most captivating person at these gatherings was Mrs. Lloyd herself, still young and not noticeably older than most of her unmarried guests, still dancing and moving gracefully through cotillions or country dances as lightly as the youngest dancers. She managed to keep a cheerful expression on her face as hospitality demanded, yet she often stole anxious glances toward the sofa or corner where her husband had reclined, dark premonitions clouding her thoughts, knowing too well that impending gloom would soon engulf every trace of joy from the festivities. She saw herself and her children as a doomed family, and in a certain sense, they were. It must have made poor Lloyd’s suffering even worse that he could clearly see the relentless advance of the dreadful illness stealing over the once untroubled sky of his life, quietly moving forward to that night when no one can work, and no one can hope.
It was so painful to Charles Lloyd, naturally, to talk much about his bodily sufferings, and it would evidently have been so unfeeling in one who had no medical counsels to offer, if, for the mere gratification of his curiosity, he had asked for any circumstantial account of its nature or symptoms, that I am at this moment almost as much at a loss to understand what was the mode of suffering which it produced, how it operated, and through what organs, as any of my readers[Pg 394] can be. All that I know is this:—For several years—six or seven, suppose—the disease expressed itself by intense anguish of irritation; not an irritation that gnawed at any one local spot, but diffused itself; sometimes causing a determination of blood to the head, then shaping itself in a general sense of plethoric congestion in the blood-vessels, then again remoulding itself into a restlessness that became insupportable; preying upon the spirits and the fortitude, and finding no permanent relief or periodic interval of rest, night or day. Sometimes Lloyd used robust exercise, riding on horseback as fast as he could urge the horse forward; sometimes, for many weeks together, he walked for twenty miles, or even more, at a time; sometimes (this was in the earlier stages of the case) he took large doses of ether; sometimes he used opium, and, I believe, in very large quantities; and I understood him to say that, for a time, it subdued the excess of irritability, and the agonizing accumulation of spasmodic strength which he felt for ever growing upon him, and, as it were, upon the very surface of his whole body. But all remedies availed him nothing; and once he said to me, when we were out upon the hills—"Ay, that landscape below, with its quiet cottage, looks lovely, I dare say, to you: as for me, I see it, but I feel it not at all; for, if I begin to think of the happiness, and its various modes which, no doubt, belong to the various occupants, according to their ages and hopes, then I could begin to feel it; but it would be a painful effort to me; and the worst of all would be when I had felt it; for that would so sharpen the prospect before me, that just such happiness, which naturally ought to be mine, is soon on the point of slipping away from me for ever." Afterwards he told me that his situation internally was always this: it seemed to him as if on some distant road he heard a dull trampling sound, and that he knew it, by a misgiving, to be the sound of some man, or party of men, continually advancing slowly, continually threatening, or continually accusing him; that all the various artifices which he practised for cheating himself into comfort, or beguiling his sad forebodings, were, in fact, but like so many furious attempts, by drum and trumpets, or even by artillery, to drown the distant noise of his enemies; that, every now and then, mere[Pg 395] curiosity, or rather breathless anxiety, caused him to hush the artificial din, and to put himself into the attitude of listening again; when, again and again, and so he was sure it would still be, he caught the sullen and accursed sound, trampling and voices of men, or whatever it were, still steadily advancing, though still perhaps at a great distance. It was too evident that derangement of the intellect, in some shape, was coming on; because slight and transient fits of aberration from his perfect mind had already, at intervals, overtaken him; flying showers, from the skirts of the clouds, that precede and announce the main storm. This was the anguish of his situation, that, for years, he saw before him what was on the road to overwhelm his faculties and his happiness. Still his fortitude did not wholly forsake him, and, in fact, proved to be far greater than I or others had given him credit for possessing. Once only he burst suddenly into tears, on hearing the innocent voices of his own children laughing, and of one especially who was a favourite; and he told me that sometimes, when this little child took his hand and led him passively about the garden, he had a feeling that prompted him (however weak and foolish it seemed) to call upon this child for protection; and that it seemed to him as if he might still escape, could he but surround himself only with children. No doubt this feeling arose out of his sense that a confusion was stealing over his thoughts, and that men would soon find this out to be madness, and would deal with him accordingly; whereas children, as long as he did them no harm, would see no reason for shutting him up from his own fireside, and from the human face divine.
It was incredibly painful for Charles Lloyd to talk about his physical suffering, and it would clearly have been thoughtless for someone without any medical advice to ask for a detailed account of its nature or symptoms, purely out of curiosity. Because of that, I'm currently just as confused about the type of suffering he experienced, how it affected him, and through which organs, as any of my readers[Pg 394] might be. All I know is this: for several years—let's say six or seven—the disease manifested as intense, widespread anguish. It wasn’t localized but spread out; sometimes causing blood to rush to his head, creating a general feeling of congested blood vessels, then shifting into an unbearable restlessness that preyed on his spirit and strength. He found no lasting relief or breaks from the pain, whether day or night. Sometimes Lloyd would engage in vigorous exercise, riding his horse as fast as he could. Other times, for weeks on end, he would walk twenty miles or more at a time. Early on, he took large amounts of ether; sometimes he used opium, and I believe, in very large doses. He mentioned that, for a time, it dulled the extreme irritability and the excruciating buildup of spasmodic tension he always felt creeping up on him, seemingly affecting his entire body. But no remedy helped him. Once while we were out on the hills, he said to me, "That landscape down there, with the peaceful cottage, looks beautiful, I’m sure, to you. As for me, I see it, but I don’t feel anything. If I start thinking about the happiness and the different forms it takes for the various people there, depending on their ages and hopes, then I could start to feel it, but that would be a painful effort. The worst part would be once I did feel it, because it would make me acutely aware that that kind of happiness, which should naturally belong to me, is about to slip away forever." Later, he explained that internally, it always felt like he was hearing a distant, dull thudding sound on some far-off road, which he understood to be the sound of a man or group of men slowly advancing, constantly threatening or accusing him. All the various tricks he tried to convince himself to feel comfortable or to distract himself from his bleak premonitions were really just frantic attempts—like drumbeats or even artillery—to drown out the distant noise of his enemies. Every now and then, out of mere curiosity or anxious worry, he would silence the made-up noise and listen again. Again and again, he was sure he’d hear the grim and cursed sound of footsteps and voices moving steadily closer, even if they were still far off. It was clear that some kind of mental disturbance was setting in because he had already experienced brief and fleeting episodes of confusion, like the sudden showers that come before a full storm. This was the anguish of his situation: for years, he had seen what was coming that would overwhelm his mind and happiness. Yet, his strength didn’t completely abandon him, and in fact, it turned out to be far greater than I or others had realized. He only broke down in tears once, upon hearing the innocent laughter of his children, especially one who was his favorite. He told me that sometimes, when this little child took his hand and gently led him through the garden, he felt an almost weak and foolish urge to call on this child for protection. It seemed to him that he might still escape his fate if he were just surrounded by children. This feeling undoubtedly stemmed from his awareness that confusion was creeping into his thoughts, and that eventually, people would recognize this as madness and treat him accordingly. In contrast, children, as long as he didn’t harm them, would see no reason to shut him away from his home and the divine human connection.
It would be too painful to pursue the unhappy case through all its stages. For a long time, the derangement of poor Lloyd's mind was but partial and fluctuating; and it was the opinion of Professor Wilson, from what he had observed, that it was possible to recall him to himself by firmly opposing his delusions. He certainly, on his own part, did whatever he could to wean his thoughts from gloomy contemplation, by pre-occupying them with cheerful studies, and such as might call out his faculties. He translated the whole of Alfieri's dramas, and published his translation. He wrote and printed (but did not publish) a novel in two volumes;[Pg 396] my copy of which he soon after begged back again so beseechingly that I yielded; and so, I believe, did all his other friends: in which case no copy may now exist. All, however, availed him not; the crisis so long dreaded arrived. He was taken away to a lunatic asylum; and, for some long time, he was lost to me as to the rest of the world. The first memorial I had of him was a gentleman, with his hair in disorder, rushing into my cottage at Grasmere, throwing his arms about my neck, and bursting into stormy weeping—it was poor Lloyd!
It would be too painful to go through the unhappy situation at every stage. For a long time, poor Lloyd's mental instability was only partial and inconsistent; Professor Wilson believed that, based on his observations, it was possible to bring him back to reality by firmly challenging his delusions. He certainly did whatever he could to distract Lloyd from his dark thoughts by engaging him with uplifting activities that could stimulate his mind. He translated all of Alfieri's plays and published his translations. He wrote and printed (but did not publish) a two-volume novel;[Pg 396] I soon after gave back my copy at his heartfelt request, as did all his other friends, so no copies may exist now. Unfortunately, it was all in vain; the long-dreaded crisis finally came. He was taken to a mental health facility, and for quite some time, he was lost to me, just like he was to the rest of the world. The first sign I had of him was when a man, with his hair all messy, rushed into my cottage at Grasmere, threw his arms around my neck, and started crying uncontrollably—it was poor Lloyd!
Yes, it was indeed poor Lloyd, a fugitive from a madhouse, and throwing himself for security upon the honour and affection of one whom, with good reason, he supposed confidentially attached to him. Could there be a situation so full of interest or perplexity? Should any ill happen to himself, or to another, through his present enlargement—should he take any fit of vindictive malice against any person whom he might view as an accomplice in the plans against his own freedom—and probably many persons in the neighbourhood, medical and non-medical, stood liable to such a suspicion—upon me, I felt, as the abettor of his evasion, would all the blame settle. And unfortunately we had, in the recent records of this very vale, a most awful lesson, and still fresh in everybody's remembrance, of the danger connected with this sort of criminal connivance, or passive participation in the purposes of maniacal malignity. A man, named Watson, had often and for years threatened to kill his aged and inoffensive mother. His threats, partly from their own monstrosity, and from the habit of hearing him for years repeating them without any serious attempt to give them effect—partly also from an unwillingness to aggravate the suffering of the poor lunatic, by translating him out of a mountaineer's liberty into the gloomy confinement of an hospital—were treated with neglect; and at length, after years of disregarded menace, and direct forewarning to the parish authorities, he took an opportunity (which indeed was rarely wanting to him) of killing the poor gray-headed woman by her own fireside. This case I had before my mind; and it was the more entitled to have weight with me when connected with the altered temper of Lloyd, who now, for the first time in his[Pg 397] life, had dropped his gentle and remarkably quiet demeanour, for a tone, savage and ferocious, towards more than one individual. This tone, however, lurked under a mask, and did not come forward, except by fits and starts, for the present. Indeed his whole manner wore the appearance of studied dissimulation, from the moment when he perceived that I was not alone. In the interval of years since I had last seen him (which might have been in 1816) my own marriage had taken place; accordingly, on turning round and seeing a young woman seated at the tea-table, where heretofore he had been so sure of finding me alone, he seemed shocked at the depth of emotion which he had betrayed before a stranger, and anxious to reinstate himself in his own self-respect, by assuming a tone of carelessness and indifference. No person in the world could feel more profoundly on his account than the young stranger before him, who in fact was not a stranger to his situation and the excess of his misery. But this he could not know; and it was not, therefore, until we found ourselves alone, that he could be prevailed upon to speak of himself, or of the awful circumstances surrounding him, unless in terms of most unsuitable levity.
Yes, it was really poor Lloyd, a runaway from a mental institution, putting himself in the care of someone he believed was genuinely attached to him. Could there be a scenario more gripping or confusing? If anything bad were to happen to him or anyone else because of his current freedom—if he were to act out of vindictive anger towards someone he might view as an accomplice in his struggle for freedom—and there were probably many people in the area, both medical and non-medical, who could fall under such suspicion—then I knew that all the blame would fall on me as the supporter of his escape. Unfortunately, we had a recent and horrifying example in this very valley, still fresh in everyone's mind, of the risks associated with this kind of criminal complicity or passive involvement in the schemes of a disturbed mind. A man named Watson had often and for years threatened to kill his elderly and harmless mother. His threats, partly due to their outrageousness and the familiarity of hearing him repeat them without any serious intent to act—partly also because no one wanted to worsen the poor lunatic's suffering by forcing him from his mountainous freedom into the dark confines of a hospital—were ignored. Eventually, after years of being disregarded and direct warnings to the local authorities, he found an opportunity (which was rarely lacking) to kill the poor, gray-haired woman by her own fireside. This case weighed heavily on my mind; it was especially significant to me given Lloyd's changed behavior, as he had now, for the first time in his life, dropped his gentle and notably calm demeanor for a savage and brutal tone towards more than one person. However, this aggression was hidden beneath a facade and only came out occasionally for now. In fact, his whole demeanor seemed like a deliberate act of hiding how he really felt, especially when he realized I was not alone. In the years since I had last seen him (which might have been in 1816), I had gotten married; therefore, when he turned around and saw a young woman sitting at the tea table—where he had always expected to find me alone—he looked shocked at how much emotion he had shown in front of a stranger and seemed eager to regain his self-respect by acting casual and indifferent. No one in the world could feel more deeply for him than the young woman in front of him, who actually was not a stranger to his situation or his extreme suffering. But he couldn't know that; and it wasn't until we found ourselves alone that he felt able to talk about himself or the terrible circumstances surrounding him, unless in the most inappropriate joking manner.
One thing I resolved, at any rate, to make the rule of my conduct towards this unhappy friend, viz. to deal frankly with him, and in no case to make myself a party to any plot upon his personal freedom. Retaken I knew he would be, but not through me; even a murderer in such a case (i.e. the case of having thrown himself upon my good faith) I would not betray. I drew from him an account of the immediate facts in his late escape, and his own acknowledgment that even now the pursuit must be close at hand; probably, that his recaptors were within a few hours' distance of Grasmere; that he would be easily traced. That my cottage furnished no means of concealment, he knew too well; still in these respects he was not worse off in Grasmere than elsewhere; and, at any rate, it might save him from immediate renewal of his agitation, and might procure for him one night of luxurious rest and relaxation, by means of conversation with a friend, if he would make up his mind to stay with us until his pursuers should appear; and them I could easily contrive to delay, for at least one day and night, by throwing[Pg 398] false information in their way, such as would send them on to Keswick at least, if not to Whitehaven, through the collusion of the very few persons who could have seen him enter my door. My plan was simple and feasible: but, somehow or other, and, I believe, chiefly because he did not find me alone, nothing I could say had any weight with him; nor would he be persuaded to stay longer than for a little tea. Staying so short a time, he found it difficult to account for having ever come. But it was too evidently useless to argue the point with him; for he was altered, and had become obstinate and intractable. I prepared, therefore, to gratify him according to his own plan, by bearing him company on the road to Ambleside, and (as he said) to Brathay. We set off on foot: the distance to Ambleside is about three and a half miles; and one-third of this distance brought us to an open plain on the margin of Rydalmere, where the road lies entirely open to the water. This lake is unusually shallow, by comparison with all its neighbours; but, at the point I speak of, it takes (especially when seen under any mode of imperfect light) the appearance of being gloomily deep: two islands of exquisite beauty, but strongly discriminated in character, and a sort of recess or bay in the opposite shore, across which the shadows of the hilly margin stretch with great breadth and solemnity of effect to the very centre of the lake,—together with the very solitary character of the entire valley, on which (excluding the little hamlet in its very gorge or entrance) there is not more than one single house,—combine to make the scene as impressive by night as any in the Lake country. At this point it was that my poor friend paused to converse, and, as it seemed, to take his leave, with an air of peculiar sadness, as if he had foreseen (what in fact proved to be the truth) that we now saw each other for the final time. The spot seemed favourable to confidential talk; and here, therefore, he proceeded to make his heart-rending communication: here he told me rapidly the tale of his sufferings, and, what oppressed his mind far more than those at this present moment, of the cruel indignities to which he had been under the necessity of submitting. In particular, he said, that a man of great muscular power had instructions to knock him down whenever he made any[Pg 399] allusion to certain speculative subjects which the presiding authorities of the asylum chose to think connected with his unhappy disease. Many other brutalities, damnable and dishonouring to human nature, were practised in this asylum, not always by abuse of the powers lodged in the servants, but by direct authority from the governors; and yet it had been selected as the one most favourable to a liberal treatment of the patients; and, in reality, it continued to hold a very high reputation.
One thing I decided, at any rate, was to make it my rule in dealing with this unfortunate friend: to be honest with him and never to get involved in any scheme that jeopardized his freedom. I knew he would be recaptured, but not through me; I wouldn’t betray even a murderer who had placed his trust in me. I got him to share the details of his recent escape, and he admitted that the chase was likely still very close behind him; probably, his pursuers were only a few hours away from Grasmere and could easily track him down. He was well aware that my cottage offered no means of hiding, but still, he wouldn’t be worse off there than anywhere else. Regardless, staying with us might save him from immediately re-entering a state of panic and give him a night of peaceful rest and relaxation through conversation with a friend, if he could resolve to stay until his pursuers showed up. I could easily figure out a way to delay them for at least a day and night by feeding them false information that would redirect them to Keswick, if not Whitehaven, through the cooperation of the very few people who could have seen him come in. My scheme was straightforward and doable: however, for some reason—mostly because he didn’t find me alone—nothing I said seemed to make an impression on him. He wouldn’t agree to stay longer than just for a quick tea. Being there for such a short time, he struggled to justify why he had even come. But it was clearly pointless to argue with him; he had changed, becoming stubborn and difficult. So, I prepared to go along with his plan by walking him to Ambleside and, as he mentioned, to Brathay. We set off on foot: the distance to Ambleside is about three and a half miles; after about a mile of this, we reached an open area on the edge of Rydalmere, where the road runs right along the water. This lake is unusually shallow compared to its neighboring lakes; yet, at this spot, especially under dim light, it looks hauntingly deep: two beautiful islands, distinctly different from one another, along with a recess or bay on the opposite shore, where the shadows cast by the hilly edges stretch wide and solemnly across the center of the lake—combined with the lonely nature of the entire valley (which, aside from a small hamlet at its entrance, has only one house)—make the view as stunning at night as any in the Lake District. It was here that my poor friend stopped to talk and, it seemed, to say goodbye, with a unique sadness, as if he somehow sensed (which turned out to be true) that this would be our last meeting. The location seemed perfect for a deep conversation, so he began to share his heart-wrenching story here: he quickly recounted the tale of his suffering and, more troubling to him than anything at that moment, the cruel humiliations he had been forced to endure. In particular, he mentioned that a strong man had orders to knock him down whenever he brought up certain speculative topics that the asylum’s authorities deemed linked to his unfortunate condition. Many other atrocities, disgraceful and degrading to human dignity, occurred in this asylum, not just through the abuse of the staff’s authority, but by direct order from the governors; yet it had been chosen as the one most suitable for a more humane treatment of patients and continued to maintain a strong reputation.
Great and monstrous are the abuses which have been detected in such institutions, and exposed by parliamentary interference, as well as by the energy of individual philanthropists; but it occurs to one most forcibly, that, after all, the light of this parliamentary torch must have been but feeble and partial, when it was possible for cases such as these to escape all general notice, and for the establishment which fostered them to retain a character as high as any in the land for enlightened humanity. Perhaps the paramount care in the treatment of lunatics should be directed towards those appliances, and that mode of discipline, which is best fitted for restoring the patient finally to a sane condition; but the second place in the machinery of his proper management should be reserved for that system of attentions, medical or non-medical, which has the best chance of making him happy for the present; and especially because his present happiness must always be one of the directest avenues to his restoration. In the present case, could it be imagined that the shame, agitation, and fury, which convulsed poor Lloyd, as he went over the circumstances of his degradation, were calculated for any other than the worst effects upon the state and prospects of his malady? By sustaining the tumult of his brain, they must, almost of themselves, have precluded his restoration. At the side of that quiet lake he stood for nearly an hour repeating his wrongs, his eyes glaring continually, as the light thrown off from those parts of the lake which reflected bright tracts of sky amongst the clouds fitfully illuminated them, and again and again threatening, with gestures the wildest, vengeance the most savage upon those vile keepers who had so abused any just purposes of authority. He would talk of little else;[Pg 400] apparently he could not. A hollow effort he would make now and then, when his story had apparently reached its close, to sustain the topics of ordinary conversation; but in a minute he had relapsed into the one subject which possessed him. In vain I pressed him to return with me to Grasmere. He was now, for a few hours to come, to be befriended by the darkness; and he resolved to improve the opportunity for some purpose of his own, which, as he showed no disposition to communicate any part of his future plans, I did not directly inquire into. In fact, part of his purpose in stopping where he did had been to let me know that he did not wish for company any further. We parted; and I saw him no more. He was soon recaptured; then transferred to some more eligible asylum; then liberated from all restraint; after which, with his family, he went to France; where again it became necessary to deprive him of liberty. And, finally, in France it was that his feverish existence found at length a natural rest and an everlasting liberty; for there it was, in a maison de santé, at or near Versailles, that he died (and I believe tranquilly), a few years after he had left England. Death was indeed to him, in the words of that fine mystic, Blake the artist, a "golden gate"—the gate of liberation from the captivity of half a life; or, as I once found the case beautifully expressed in a volume of poems a century old, and otherwise poor enough, for they offered nothing worth recollecting beyond this single line, in speaking of the particular morning in which some young man had died—
Great and terrible are the abuses that have been uncovered in such institutions, revealed by government intervention and the efforts of individual philanthropists. However, it strikes me that the light from this governmental investigation must have been weak and limited, given that situations like these could go unnoticed and that the institution fostering them could maintain a reputation as one of the most compassionate in the country. Perhaps the main focus when treating individuals with mental illness should be on methods that are best suited for ultimately restoring the patient to a sane state; the second priority in their care should be the attentiveness—medical or not—that most likely promotes their current happiness, since their present well-being is often one of the most direct paths to recovery. In this particular situation, could one imagine that the shame, distress, and anger that overwhelmed poor Lloyd as he recounted the details of his humiliation would have any effects other than the most negative on his mental state and condition? By intensifying the turmoil in his mind, these feelings surely prevented his recovery. He stood by that quiet lake for nearly an hour, repeating his grievances, his eyes shining wildly as the light reflected off parts of the lake that caught glimpses of a bright sky among the clouds that intermittently lit them up, again and again making wildly threatening gestures of vengeance against those cruel keepers who had so misused their authority. He seemed to talk of nothing else; apparently, he couldn't. Every now and then, he would make a hollow attempt to shift to ordinary conversation topics when it seemed his story had ended, but within a minute, he would fall back to the one subject that consumed him. I tried in vain to persuade him to return with me to Grasmere. For the next few hours, he planned to befriend the darkness and resolved to use the opportunity for a purpose of his own, which, since he showed no intention of sharing his future plans, I didn't ask about directly. In fact, part of his reason for stopping where he did was to signal that he didn’t want any further company. We parted ways, and I never saw him again. He was soon recaptured, then moved to a more suitable asylum, and subsequently released from all constraints. After that, he and his family went to France, where it became necessary to confine him again. Ultimately, it was in France where his restless life finally found natural rest and lasting freedom; there, in a **maison de santé**, in or near Versailles, he died (and I believe peacefully) a few years after leaving England. For him, death was indeed, in the words of the great mystic artist Blake, a "golden gate"—the gateway to liberation from a life half-lived; or, as I once came across beautifully articulated in an old poetry book, which otherwise offered little of value to remember except for this one line about the morning when some young man had died—
Charles Lloyd never returned to Brathay after he had once been removed from it; and the removal of his family soon followed. Mrs. Lloyd, indeed, returned at intervals from France to England, upon business connected with the interests of her family; and, during one of those fugitive visits, she came to the Lakes, where she selected Grasmere for her residence, so that I had opportunities of seeing her every day, for a space of several weeks. Otherwise, I never again saw any of the family, except one son, an interesting young man, who sought most meritoriously, by bursting asunder the heavy yoke of constitutional inactivity, to extract[Pg 401] a balm for his own besetting melancholy from a constant series of exertions in which he had forced himself to engage for promoting education or religious knowledge amongst his poorer neighbours. But often and often, in years after all was gone, I have passed old Brathay, or have gone over purposely after dark, about the time when, for many a year, I used to go over to spend the evening; and, seating myself on a stone, by the side of the mountain river Brathay, have staid for hours listening to the same sound to which so often Charles Lloyd and I used to hearken together with profound emotion and awe—the sound of pealing anthems, as if streaming from the open portals of some illimitable cathedral; for such a sound does actually arise, in many states of the weather, from the peculiar action of the river Brathay upon its rocky bed; and many times I have heard it, of a quiet night, when no stranger could have been persuaded to believe it other than the sound of choral chanting—distant, solemn, saintly. Its meaning and expression were, in those earlier years, uncertain and general; not more pointed or determined in the direction which it impressed upon one's feelings than the light of setting suns: and sweeping, in fact, the whole harp of pensive sensibilities, rather than striking the chord of any one specific sentiment. But since the ruin or dispersion of that household, after the smoke had ceased to ascend from their hearth, or the garden walks to re-echo their voices, oftentimes, when lying by the river side, I have listened to the same aerial saintly sound, whilst looking back to that night, long hidden in the frost of receding years, when Charles and Sophia Lloyd, now lying in foreign graves, first dawned upon me, coming suddenly out of rain and darkness; then—young, rich, happy, full of hope, belted with young children (of whom also most are long dead), and standing apparently on the verge of a labyrinth of golden hours. Musing on that night in November, 1807, and then upon the wreck that had been wrought by a space of fifteen years, I would say to myself sometimes, and seem to hear it in the songs of this watery cathedral—Put not your trust in any fabric of happiness that has its root in man or the children of men. Sometimes even I was tempted to discover in the same music a sound such as this—Love nothing, love[Pg 402] nobody, for thereby comes a killing curse in the rear. But sometimes also, very early on a summer morning, when the dawn was barely beginning to break, all things locked in sleep, and only some uneasy murmur or cock-crow, at a faint distance, giving a hint of resurrection for earth and her generations, I have heard in that same chanting of the little mountain river a more solemn if a less agitated admonition—a requiem over departed happiness, and a protestation against the thought that so many excellent creatures, but a little lower than the angels, whom I have seen only to love in this life—so many of the good, the brave, the beautiful, the wise—can have appeared for no higher purpose or prospect than simply to point a moral, to cause a little joy and many tears, a few perishing moons of happiness and years of vain regret! No! that the destiny of man is more in correspondence with the grandeur of his endowments, and that our own mysterious tendencies are written hieroglyphically in the vicissitudes of day and night, of winter and summer, and throughout the great alphabet of Nature! But on that theme—beware, reader! Listen to no intellectual argument. One argument there is, one only there is, of philosophic value: an argument drawn from the moral nature of man: an argument of Immanuel Kant's. The rest are dust and ashes.
Charles Lloyd never went back to Brathay after he was taken away from it; soon after, his family left too. Mrs. Lloyd, however, returned occasionally from France to England for family matters. During one of those short visits, she came to the Lakes and chose Grasmere as her home, which gave me the chance to see her every day for several weeks. Otherwise, I never saw any of the family again, except for one son. He was a fascinating young man who tried hard to break free from a heavy burden of inactivity, engaging himself in various efforts to promote education and religious knowledge among his less fortunate neighbors to lift his own sadness. However, many years later, after everything was gone, I often passed by old Brathay or visited it purposely after dark, around the time I used to go there in the evenings. I would sit on a stone by the side of the Brathay River and spend hours listening to the same sound that Charles Lloyd and I used to hear together, filled with deep emotion and awe—the sound of resonant anthems, as if streaming from the open doors of some infinite cathedral. This sound does arise, at times, from the river Brathay as it flows over its rocky bed, and many times I’ve heard it on quiet nights, when no one could have been persuaded to think it was anything other than choral singing—distant, solemn, saintly. Its meaning and expression, back then, were vague and broad; not clearer or more focused in the feelings it stirred than the light of setting suns, indeed sweeping through the whole spectrum of pensive emotions rather than striking a single note of sentiment. But since the breakdown or dispersion of that household, after the smoke stopped rising from their hearth, or their garden paths stopped echoing with their voices, I’ve often found myself listening to that same ethereal sound by the river, as I recalled that night, long hidden in the frost of past years, when Charles and Sophia Lloyd—now resting in graves abroad—first appeared to me, suddenly emerging from rain and darkness; then—young, wealthy, happy, full of hope, surrounded by young children (most of whom are also long gone), standing seemingly on the edge of a maze of golden moments. Reflecting on that night in November 1807, and then on the wreck that had occurred over the next fifteen years, I would sometimes tell myself, and felt I could hear it in the songs of this watery cathedral—Don’t put your trust in any happiness that relies on people or their children. At times I was even tempted to hear in the same music a message like this—Love nothing, love nobody, because it will bring a deadly curse. But sometimes, very early on a summer morning, when the dawn was just starting to break, everything still in slumber, and only a distant crowing of roosters or a soft murmur hinting at the rebirth of earth and her generations, I have heard in that same chant of the little mountain river a more serious, though less frantic, warning—a requiem for lost happiness, and a protest against the idea that so many admirable beings, only a little lower than angels, whom I have encountered and loved in this life—so many of the good, the brave, the beautiful, the wise—could have existed for no higher purpose than to teach a moral, to cause a little joy and a lot of tears, a few moments of fleeting happiness and years of useless regret! No! The destiny of man is more aligned with the greatness of his gifts, and our own mysterious inclinations are written in the changing patterns of day and night, of winter and summer, throughout the vast language of Nature! But on that note—be careful, reader! Don’t listen to any intellectual arguments. There is one argument only, one with true philosophical value: an argument based on the moral nature of man, an argument from Immanuel Kant. The rest are just dust and ashes.
CHAPTER IX
SOCIETY OF THE LAKES: MISS ELIZABETH SMITH, THE
SYMPSONS, AND THE K—— FAMILY[165]
Passing onwards from Brathay, a ride of about forty minutes carries you to the summit of a wild heathy tract, along which, even at noonday, few sounds are heard that indicate the presence of man, except now and then a woodman's axe in some of the many coppice-woods scattered about that neighbourhood. In Northern England there are no sheep-bells; which is an unfortunate defect, as regards the full impression of wild solitudes, whether amongst undulating heaths or towering rocks: at any rate, it is so felt by those who, like myself, have been trained to its soothing effects upon the hills of Somersetshire—the Cheddar, the Mendip, or the Quantock—or any other of those breezy downs which once constituted such delightful local distinctions for four or five counties in that south-west angle of England. At all hours of day or night, this silvery tinkle was delightful; but, after sunset, in the solemn hour of gathering twilight, heard (as it always was) intermittingly, and at great varieties of distance, it formed the most impressive incident for the ear, and the most in harmony with the other circumstances of the scenery, that, perhaps, anywhere exists—not excepting even the natural sounds, the swelling and dying intonations of insects wheeling in their vesper flights. Silence and desolation are never felt so profoundly as when they are interrupted by solemn sounds, recurring by uncertain intervals, and from[Pg 404] distant places. But in these Westmoreland heaths, and uninhabited ranges of hilly ground, too often nothing is heard except occasionally the wild cry of a bird—the plover, the snipe, or perhaps the raven's croak. The general impression is, therefore, cheerless; and the more are you rejoiced when, looking down from some one of the eminences which you have been gradually ascending, you descry, at a great depth below,[166] the lovely lake of Coniston. The head of this lake is the part chiefly interesting, both from the sublime character of the mountain barriers, and from the intricacy of the little valleys at their base.
After leaving Brathay, a ride of about forty minutes takes you to the top of a wild, grassy area where, even at noon, few sounds hint at the presence of humans, except for the occasional sound of a woodman's axe in the many small woods scattered around the area. In Northern England, there are no sheep bells; this is a disappointing shortcoming regarding the experience of wild solitude, whether among rolling heaths or towering rocks. This is particularly felt by those like me who have become accustomed to their calming effects on the hills of Somersetshire—the Cheddar, the Mendip, or the Quantock—or any of those breezy downs that once created such lovely local distinctions for several counties in that southwestern corner of England. At any time of day or night, the soft tinkling of bells was delightful; but after sunset, in the solemn hour of twilight, when this sound was always heard intermittently from varying distances, it created the most striking auditory experience and was the most harmonious with the surrounding scenery, perhaps unmatched anywhere else—not excluding even the natural sounds, the rising and falling notes of insects flying in their evening circles. Silence and desolation are never felt as deeply as when they are broken by solemn sounds, returning at unpredictable intervals from distant places. But in these Westmorland heaths and uninhabited hilly areas, often the only sounds you hear are the occasional wild cry of a bird—the plover, the snipe, or perhaps the croak of a raven. The overall impression is therefore bleak; and you feel a sense of joy when, looking down from one of the heights you’ve been slowly climbing, you spot, far below, the beautiful lake of Coniston. The head of this lake is particularly captivating, both for the majestic mountain ridges surrounding it and for the complexity of the small valleys at their base.
On a little verdant knoll, near the north-eastern margin of the lake, stands a small villa, called Tent Lodge, built by Colonel Smith, and for many years occupied by his family. That daughter of Colonel Smith who drew the public attention so powerfully upon herself by the splendour of her attainments had died some months before I came into the country.[167] But yet, as I was subsequently acquainted with her family through the Lloyds (who were within an easy drive of Tent Lodge), and as, moreover, with regard to Miss Elizabeth Smith herself, I came to know more than the world knew—drawing my knowledge from many of her friends, but especially from Mrs. Hannah More, who had been intimately connected with her: for these reasons, I shall rehearse the leading points of her story; and the rather because her family, who were equally interested in that story, long continued to form part of the Lake society.
On a small green hill near the northeastern edge of the lake, there's a little villa called Tent Lodge, built by Colonel Smith and occupied by his family for many years. Colonel Smith's daughter, who had attracted a lot of public attention due to her impressive achievements, had died a few months before I arrived in the country.[167] However, since I later got to know her family through the Lloyds (who lived a short drive from Tent Lodge), and since I learned more about Miss Elizabeth Smith than most people knew—gaining insights from many of her friends, especially from Mrs. Hannah More, who was closely connected to her—I’ll share the key points of her story. This is all the more relevant because her family, who were equally invested in that story, continued to be part of the Lake community for a long time.
On my first becoming acquainted with Miss Smith's pretensions, it is very true that I regarded them with but little concern; for nothing ever interests me less than great philological attainments, or at least that mode of philological learning which consists in mastery over languages. But one reason for this indifference is, that the apparent splendour is too often a false one. They who know a vast number of languages rarely know any one with accuracy; and, the more they gain in one way, the more they lose in another. With Miss Smith, however, I gradually came to know that this was not the case; or, at any rate, but partially the case; for, of some languages which she possessed, and those the least accessible, it appeared, finally, that she had even a critical knowledge. It created also a secondary interest in these difficult accomplishments of hers, to find that they were so very extensive. Secondly, That they were pretty nearly all of self-acquisition. Thirdly, That they were borne so meekly, and with unaffected absence of all ostentation. As to the first point, it appears (from Mrs. H. Bowdler's Letter to Dr. Mummsen, the friend of Klopstock)[168] that she made herself mistress of the French, the Italian, the Spanish, the Latin, the German, the Greek, and the Hebrew languages. She had no inconsiderable knowledge of the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Persic. She was a good geometrician and algebraist. She was a very expert musician. She drew from nature, and had an accurate knowledge of perspective. Finally, she manifested an early talent for poetry; but, from pure modesty, destroyed most of what she had written, as soon as her acquaintance with the Hebrew models had elevated the standard of true poetry in her mind, so as to disgust her with what she now viewed as the tameness and inefficiency of her own performances. As to the second point—that for these attainments she was indebted, almost exclusively, to her own energy,—this is placed beyond all doubt by the fact that the only governess she ever had (a young lady not much beyond her own age) did not herself possess, and therefore could not have communicated, any knowledge of languages, beyond a little French and Italian. Finally, as to the modesty with which she wore her distinctions, that is sufficiently[Pg 406] established by every page of her printed works, and her letters. Greater diffidence, as respected herself, or less willingness to obtrude her knowledge upon strangers, or even upon those correspondents who would have wished her to make a little more display, cannot be imagined. And yet I repeat that her knowledge was as sound and as profound as it was extensive. For, taking only one instance of this, her Translation of Job has been pronounced, by Biblical critics of the first rank, a work of real and intrinsic value, without any reference to the disadvantages of the translator, or without needing any allowances whatever. In particular, Dr. Magee, the celebrated writer on the Atonement, and subsequently a dignitary of the Irish Church—certainly one of the best qualified judges at that time—describes it as "conveying more of the character and meaning of the Hebrew, with fewer departures from the idiom of the English, than any other translation whatever that we possess." So much for the scholarship; whilst he rightly notices, in proof of the translator's taste and discretion, that "from the received version she very seldom unnecessarily deviates": thus refusing to disturb what was, generally speaking, so excellent and time-hallowed for any dazzling effects of novelty; and practising this forbearance as much as possible, notwithstanding novelty was, after all, the main attraction upon which the new translation must rest.
When I first got to know Miss Smith's ambitions, I have to admit I paid them little mind; nothing interests me less than impressive language skills, or at least that type of learning that focuses on languages. One reason for my indifference is that the apparent brilliance is often misleading. People who claim to know many languages usually have little mastery over any one of them; the more they accumulate in one area, the more they lack in another. However, with Miss Smith, I gradually realized that this wasn’t the case, or at least only partially so; she had a critical understanding of some less accessible languages she knew. It also piqued my interest to discover that her skills were quite extensive. Moreover, almost all of them were self-taught. And she carried her knowledge with such humility, free from any pretentiousness. Regarding the first point, it appears (based on Mrs. H. Bowdler’s letter to Dr. Mummsen, a friend of Klopstock)[168] that she mastered French, Italian, Spanish, Latin, German, Greek, and Hebrew. She had a substantial understanding of Syriac, Arabic, and Persian. She was adept in geometry and algebra. She was a skilled musician, able to draw from nature with a good grasp of perspective. Lastly, she had an early talent for poetry; however, out of sheer modesty, she destroyed most of her writings as soon as her exposure to Hebrew models raised her standards of true poetry, making her feel dissatisfied with her own work, which she now saw as dull and inadequate. As for the second point—that she owed her achievements primarily to her own hard work—this is clearly shown by the fact that the only governess she ever had (a young woman not much older than herself) didn’t have any language knowledge to share beyond a bit of French and Italian. Finally, as for the modesty with which she carried her accolades, that is evident in every page of her published works and her correspondence. It’s hard to imagine greater humility about herself, or less willingness to impose her knowledge on strangers, or even on those who corresponded with her and wanted her to showcase her abilities more. Yet I repeat that her knowledge was as deep and solid as it was extensive. To give just one example, her Translation of Job has been recognized by top Biblical critics as a work of real and significant value, regardless of any challenges the translator faced, requiring no allowances. In particular, Dr. Magee, the well-known writer on Atonement and later a high-ranking member of the Irish Church—undoubtedly one of the best-qualified judges at that time—described it as "conveying more of the character and meaning of the Hebrew, with fewer deviations from the English idiom, than any other translation we have." So much for her scholarship; he also rightly points out, as evidence of the translator's taste and judgment, that "she rarely strays unnecessarily from the accepted version": thus avoiding disruption to what was, in general, so excellent and time-honored for any flashy effects of novelty; and practicing this restraint as much as possible, even though novelty was, after all, the main draw of the new translation.
The example of her modesty, however, is not more instructive than that of her continued struggle with difficulties in pursuing knowledge, and with misfortunes in supporting a Christian fortitude. I shall briefly sketch her story:—She was born at Burnhall, in the county of Durham, at the latter end of the year 1776. Early in 1782, when she had just entered her sixth year, her parents removed into Suffolk, in order to be near a blind relation, who looked with anxiety to the conscientious attentions of Mrs. Smith in superintending his comforts and interests. This occupation absorbed so much of her time that she found it necessary to obtain the aid of a stranger in directing the studies of her daughter. An opportunity just then offered of attaining this object, concurrently with another not less interesting to herself, viz. that of offering an asylum to a young lady who had recently[Pg 407] been thrown adrift upon the world by the misfortunes of her parents. They had very suddenly fallen from a station of distinguished prosperity; and the young lady herself, then barely sixteen, was treading that path of severe adversity upon which, by a most singular parallelism of ill fortune, her young pupil was destined to follow her steps at exactly the same age. Being so prematurely called to the office of governess, this young lady was expected rather to act as an elder companion, and as a lightener of the fatigues attached to their common studies, than exactly as their directress. And, at all events, from her, who was the only even nominal governess that Miss Smith ever had, it is certain that she could have learned little or nothing. This arrangement subsisted between two and three years, when the death of their blind kinsman allowed Mr. Smith's family to leave Suffolk, and resume their old domicile of Burnhall. But from this, by a sudden gleam of treacherous prosperity, they were summoned, in the following year (June, 1785) to the splendid inheritance of Piercefield—a show-place upon the river Wye, and, next after Tintern Abbey and the river itself, an object of attraction to all who then visited the Wye.
The example of her modesty is just as instructive as her ongoing struggle with challenges in seeking knowledge and dealing with hardships while maintaining a strong Christian faith. I'll briefly outline her story: She was born in Burnhall, Durham, at the end of 1776. Early in 1782, when she was just about to turn six, her parents moved to Suffolk to be close to a blind relative who relied on Mrs. Smith’s care to manage his needs and interests. This responsibility took up so much of her time that she realized she needed help from someone else to guide her daughter's studies. At that moment, an opportunity arose to achieve this goal while also fulfilling her desire to provide a home for a young lady who had recently found herself struggling after her parents faced unfortunate circumstances. They had abruptly lost their high social standing, and the young lady, barely sixteen, was starting her own challenging journey, just as her young pupil would soon do at the same age. Because she was called to be a governess so early, this young lady was seen more as an older companion, someone to ease the burdens of their shared studies rather than a strict instructor. Ultimately, since this was the only official governess Miss Smith ever had, it's clear she probably learned very little from her. This arrangement lasted between two and three years until the passing of their blind relative allowed Mr. Smith's family to leave Suffolk and return to their home in Burnhall. However, just a year later (June 1785), they were unexpectedly invited to inherit the magnificent estate of Piercefield—a well-known spot along the Wye River, and one of the main attractions after Tintern Abbey itself for those visiting the area.
A residence on the Wye, besides its own natural attraction, has this collateral advantage, that it brings Bath (not to mention Clifton and the Hot Wells) within a visiting distance for people who happen to have carriages; and Bath, it is hardly necessary to say, besides its stationary body of polished and intellectual residents, has also a floating casual population of eminent or interesting persons, gathered into this focus from every quarter of the empire. Amongst the literary connexions which the Piercefield family had formed in Bath was one with Mrs. Bowdler and her daughter—two ladies not distinguished by any very powerful talents, but sufficiently tinctured with literature and the love of literature to be liberal in their opinions. And, fortunately (as it turned out for Miss Smith), they were eminently religious: but not in a bigoted way; for they were conciliating and winning in the outward expression of their religious character; capable of explaining their own creed with intelligent consistency; and, finally, were the women to recommend any creed by the sanctity and the benignity of their own lives. This[Pg 408] strong religious bias of the two Bath ladies operated in Miss Smith's favour by a triple service. First of all, it was this depth of religious feeling, and, consequently, of interest in the Scriptures, which had originally moved the elder Mrs. Bowdler to study the Hebrew and the Greek, as the two languages in which they had been originally delivered. And this example it was of female triumph over their difficulties, together with the proof thus given that such attainments were entirely reconcilable with feminine gentleness, which first suggested to Miss Smith the project of her philological studies; and, doubtless, these studies, by the constant and agreeable occupation which they afforded, overspread the whole field of her life with pleasurable activity. "From the above-mentioned visit," says her mother, writing to Dr. Randolph,[169] and referring to the visit which these Bath ladies had made to Piercefield—"from the above-mentioned visit I date the turn of study which Elizabeth ever after pursued, and which I firmly believe the amiable conduct of our guests first led her to delight in." Secondly, to the religious sympathies which connected these two ladies with Miss Smith was owing the fervour of that friendship which afterwards, in their adversity, the Piercefield family found more strenuously exerted in their behalf by the Bowdlers than by all the rest of their connexions. And, finally, it was this piety and religious resignation, with which she had been herself inoculated by her Bath friends, that, throughout the calamitous era of her life, enabled Miss Elizabeth Smith to maintain her own cheerfulness unbroken, and greatly to support the failing fortitude of her mother.
A house on the Wye, besides its own natural beauty, has the added perk of making Bath (not to mention Clifton and the Hot Wells) easily reachable for those who have carriages. And Bath, it goes without saying, has not only its permanent residents who are polished and intellectual but also a transient population of notable or intriguing individuals gathered here from all over the empire. Among the literary connections the Piercefield family had established in Bath was one with Mrs. Bowdler and her daughter—two women not particularly remarkable for their talent, but enough in touch with literature and its appreciation to be open-minded in their views. Fortunately for Miss Smith, they were also very religious; but not in a narrow-minded way. They expressed their faith in a warm and inviting manner, could explain their beliefs with thoughtful clarity, and, most importantly, lived lives so virtuous and kind that they effectively endorsed any faith through their example. This[Pg 408] strong religious influence of the two Bath ladies was beneficial to Miss Smith in three ways. First, it was this profound sense of faith and interest in the Scriptures that initially inspired the elder Mrs. Bowdler to learn Hebrew and Greek, the original languages of the texts. This example of female triumph over challenges, along with the proof that such achievements could coexist with feminine grace, first inspired Miss Smith to pursue her linguistic studies, which undoubtedly provided a continuous and enjoyable focus in her life. “From the above-mentioned visit,” her mother wrote to Dr. Randolph, referring to the visit these Bath ladies made to Piercefield, “I trace the change in study that Elizabeth pursued thereafter, and I truly believe it was the gracious demeanor of our guests that first encouraged her enjoyment.” Secondly, the religious bonds connecting these two women with Miss Smith fueled the strength of the friendship that the Piercefield family later relied upon, especially in challenging times, finding more support from the Bowdlers than from anyone else they knew. Lastly, it was this faith and acceptance of life's trials, instilled in her by her Bath friends, that helped Miss Elizabeth Smith maintain her cheerful spirit throughout her difficult times and greatly supported her mother’s waning strength.
This visit of her Bath friends to Piercefield—so memorable an event for the whole subsequent life of Miss Smith—occurred in the summer of 1789; consequently, when she was just twelve and a half years old. And the impressions then made upon her childish, but unusually thoughtful, mind, were kept up by continual communications, personal or written, through the years immediately succeeding. Just two and a half years after, in the very month when Miss Smith accomplished her fifteenth year, upon occasion of going[Pg 409] through the rite of Confirmation, according to the discipline of the English Church, she received a letter of religious counsel—grave, affectionate, but yet humble—from the elder Mrs. Bowdler, which might almost have been thought to have proceeded from a writer who had looked behind the curtain of fate, and had seen the forge at whose fires the shafts of Heaven were even now being forged.
This visit of her Bath friends to Piercefield—such a memorable event for the rest of Miss Smith's life—happened in the summer of 1789; she was just twelve and a half years old at the time. The impressions made on her young, but unusually thoughtful, mind were kept alive by ongoing communication, whether in person or through letters, in the years that followed. Just two and a half years later, in the very month when Miss Smith turned fifteen, during her Confirmation in the English Church, she received a letter of religious guidance—serious, affectionate, yet humble—from the older Mrs. Bowdler. It was almost as if the writer had looked behind the scenes of fate and saw the anvil where the arrows of Heaven were currently being forged.
Just twelve months from the date of this letter, in the very month when Miss Elizabeth Smith completed her sixteenth year, the storm descended upon the house of Piercefield. The whole estate, a splendid one, was swept away by the failure (as I have heard) of one banking-house; nor were there recovered, until some years after, any slender fragments of that estate. Piercefield was, of course, sold; but that was not the heaviest of her grievances to Miss Smith. She was now far advanced upon her studious career; for it should be mentioned, as a lesson to other young ladies of what may be accomplished by unassisted labour, that, between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one, all her principal acquisitions were made. No treasure, therefore, could, in her eyes, be of such priceless value as the Piercefield library; but this also followed the general wreck: not a volume, not a pamphlet, was reserved; for the family were proud in their integrity, and would receive no favours from the creditors. Under this scorching test, applied to the fidelity of friends, many, whom Mrs. Smith mentions in one of her letters under the name of "summer friends," fled from them by crowds: dinners, balls, soirées—credit, influence, support—these things were no longer to be had from Piercefield. But more annoying even than the fickle levity of such open deserters, was the timid and doubtful countenance, as I have heard Mrs. Smith say, which was still offered to them by some who did not relish, for their own sakes, being classed with those who had paid their homage only to the fine house and fine equipages of Piercefield. These persons continued, therefore, to send invitations to the family; but so frigidly that every expression manifested but too forcibly how disagreeable was the duty with which they were complying, and how much more they submitted to it for their own reputation's sake than for any kindness they felt to their old friends. Mrs.[Pg 410] Smith was herself a very haughty woman, and it maddened her to be the object of condescensions so insolent and so reluctant.
Just twelve months after this letter, in the month when Miss Elizabeth Smith turned sixteen, disaster struck the Piercefield house. The entire estate, a magnificent one, collapsed due to the failure (as I’ve heard) of a banking firm; it wasn’t until years later that any small remnants of the estate were recovered. Piercefield was, of course, sold; but that wasn't the worst of Miss Smith's troubles. She was now well into her studies; it should be noted, as a lesson for other young women about what can be achieved through hard work, that she made all her significant gains between the ages of thirteen and twenty-one. No treasure could hold more value in her eyes than the Piercefield library; but this too was lost in the general ruin: not a single book or pamphlet was saved, for the family took pride in their integrity and would not accept any favors from creditors. Under this harsh test of loyalty, many friends, whom Mrs. Smith referred to in one of her letters as “summer friends,” abandoned them in droves: dinners, balls, soirées—credit, influence, support—these were no longer available from Piercefield. Even more frustrating than the fickleness of such blatant deserters was the hesitant and uncertain attitude, as I’ve heard Mrs. Smith remark, offered by some who didn’t want to be associated, for their own sake, with those who had only honored the impressive house and luxurious carriages of Piercefield. These individuals continued to send invitations to the family; but they did so so coldly that every gesture made it painfully clear how unpleasant the obligation was for them and how much more they were doing it for the sake of their own reputation than out of any genuine affection for their old friends. Mrs. Smith was herself quite a proud woman, and it infuriated her to be the target of such condescending and reluctant gestures.
Meantime, her daughter, young as she was, became the moral support of her whole family, and the fountain from which they all drew consolation and fortitude. She was confirmed in her religious tendencies by two circumstances of her recent experience: one was that she, the sole person of her family who courted religious consolations, was also the sole person who had been able to maintain cheerfulness and uniform spirits: the other was that, although it could not be truly said of all their worldly friends that they had forsaken them, yet of their religious friends it could be said that not one had done so; and at last, when for some time they had been so far reduced as not to have a roof over their heads, by one of these religious friends it was that they were furnished with every luxury as well as comfort of life, and in a spirit of such sisterly kindness as made the obligation not painful to the proudest amongst them.
Meanwhile, her daughter, despite her youth, became the emotional anchor for the entire family and the source from which they all drew comfort and strength. She strengthened her religious beliefs through two recent experiences: one was that she, the only member of her family seeking religious solace, was also the only one who had managed to stay upbeat and maintain a positive spirit; the other was that, while not all their worldly friends had abandoned them, it could be said that none of their religious friends had done so. Eventually, after a period of being without a roof over their heads, it was one of these religious friends who provided them with every luxury and comfort in life, doing so with such genuine kindness that it made the duty a welcome one for even the proudest among them.
It was in 1792 that the Piercefield family had been ruined; and in 1794, out of the wrecks which had been gathered together, Mr. Smith (the father of the family) bought a commission in the army. For some time the family continued to live in London, Bath, and other parts of England; but, at length, Mr. Smith's regiment was ordered to the west of Ireland; and the ladies of his family resolved to accompany him to head-quarters. In passing through Wales (May, 1796) they paid a visit to those sentimental anchorites of the last generation whom so many of us must still remember—Miss Ponsonby and Lady Eleanor Butler (a sister of Lord Ormond), whose hermitage stood near to Llangollen, and, therefore, close to the usual Irish route, by way of Holyhead. On landing in Ireland, they proceeded to a seat of Lord Kingston—a kind-hearted, hospitable Irishman, who was on the old Piercefield list of friends, and had never wavered in his attachment. Here they stayed three weeks. Miss Smith renewed, on this occasion, her friendship with Lady Isabella King, the daughter of Lord Kingston; and a little incident connected with this visit gave her an opportunity afterwards of showing her delicate sense of the sacred character which[Pg 411] attaches to gifts of friendship, and showing it by an ingenious device that may be worth the notice of other young ladies in the same case. Lady Isabella had given to Miss Smith a beautiful horse, called Brunette. In process of time, when they had ceased to be in the neighbourhood of any regimental stables, it became matter of necessity that Brunette should be parted with. To have given the animal away, had that been otherwise possible, might only have been delaying the sale for a short time. After some demur, therefore, Miss Smith adopted this plan: she sold Brunette, but applied the whole of the price, 120 guineas, to the purchase of a splendid harp. The harp was christened Brunette, and was religiously preserved to the end of her life. Now, Brunette, after all, must have died in a few years; but, by translating her friend's gift into another form, she not only connected the image of her distant friend, and her sense of that friend's kindness, with a pleasure and a useful purpose of her own, but she conferred on that gift a perpetuity of existence.
It was in 1792 that the Piercefield family faced ruin; and in 1794, from the remnants they had pieced together, Mr. Smith (the family’s father) bought a commission in the army. For a while, the family lived in London, Bath, and other parts of England; but eventually, Mr. Smith's regiment was sent to the west of Ireland, and the women of the family decided to join him at headquarters. While passing through Wales (May, 1796), they visited the sentimental hermits of the previous generation that many of us still remember—Miss Ponsonby and Lady Eleanor Butler (sister of Lord Ormond), whose retreat was near Llangollen and thus along the common Irish route from Holyhead. After arriving in Ireland, they went to visit Lord Kingston—a kind-hearted, hospitable Irishman, who was on the old Piercefield list of friends and had remained loyal to them. They stayed here for three weeks. During this time, Miss Smith renewed her friendship with Lady Isabella King, Lord Kingston’s daughter; and a little incident related to this visit allowed her to demonstrate her deep appreciation for the sacred nature of friendship, through a clever idea that might be worth considering for other young women in similar situations. Lady Isabella had given Miss Smith a beautiful horse named Brunette. Eventually, when they were no longer near any regimental stables, it became necessary to part with Brunette. Giving the horse away, if it had been an option, would only have postponed the sale for a short while. After some hesitation, Miss Smith decided on this plan: she sold Brunette but used the entire sale price of 120 guineas to buy a stunning harp. The harp was named Brunette and was treasured until her death. Now, Brunette, the horse, would have likely died within a few years anyway; but by transforming her friend’s gift into another form, she not only kept the memory of her distant friend and appreciated her kindness but also linked it to a joy and a useful purpose of her own, granting that gift a lasting existence.
At length came the day when the Smiths were to quit Kingston Lodge for the quarters of the regiment. And now came the first rude trial of Mrs. Smith's fortitude, as connected with points of mere decent comfort. Hitherto, floating amongst the luxurious habitations of opulent friends, she might have felt many privations as regarded splendour and direct personal power, but never as regarded the primary elements of comfort, warmth, cleanliness, convenient arrangements. But on this journey, which was performed by all the party on horseback, it rained incessantly. They reached their quarters drenched with wet, weary, hungry, forlorn. The quartermaster had neglected to give any directions for their suitable accommodation—no preparations whatever had been made for receiving them; and, from the luxuries of Lord Kingston's mansion, which habit had made so familiar to them all, the ladies found themselves suddenly transferred to a miserable Irish cabin—dirty, narrow, nearly quite unfurnished, and thoroughly disconsolate. Mrs. Smith's proud spirit fairly gave way, and she burst out into a fit of weeping. Upon this, her daughter Elizabeth (and Mrs. Smith herself it was that told the anecdote, and often she told it, or told others of the[Pg 412] same character, at Lloyd's), in a gentle, soothing tone, began to suggest the many blessings which lay before them in life, and some even for this evening.
At last, the day arrived for the Smiths to leave Kingston Lodge for the regiment's quarters. This marked the first real challenge for Mrs. Smith's resilience regarding basic comforts. Until now, floating among the luxurious homes of wealthy friends, she may have noticed some lacks in glamour and personal influence, but never in the basic essentials of comfort—warmth, cleanliness, and practical arrangements. However, during this journey, which the entire group made on horseback, it rained continuously. They arrived at their quarters soaked, exhausted, hungry, and despondent. The quartermaster had failed to provide any instructions for their proper accommodation—no preparations had been made to welcome them. From the luxuries of Lord Kingston's mansion, which had become so familiar to them all, the ladies found themselves suddenly moved to a wretched Irish cabin—dirty, cramped, almost entirely unfurnished, and thoroughly depressing. Mrs. Smith's proud spirit completely broke, and she started to cry. In response, her daughter Elizabeth (and it was Mrs. Smith herself who shared this story, often recounting it along with others of a similar nature at Lloyd's) gently began to point out the many blessings still ahead for them in life, and even some for that evening.
"Blessings, child!"—her mother impatiently interrupted her. "What sort of blessings? Irish blessings!—county of Sligo blessings, I fancy. Or, perhaps, you call this a blessing?" holding up a miserable fragment of an iron rod, which had been left by way of poker, or rather as a substitute for the whole assortment of fire-irons. The daughter laughed; but she changed her wet dress expeditiously, assumed an apron; and so various were her accomplishments that, in no long time, she had gathered together a very comfortable dinner for her parents, and, amongst other things, a currant tart, which she had herself made, in a tenement absolutely unfurnished of every kitchen utensil.
"Blessings, child!" her mother interrupted her, sounding a bit impatient. "What kind of blessings? Irish blessings! — blessings from County Sligo, I assume. Or do you consider this a blessing?" She held up a sad piece of iron rod that had been left as a poker, or more accurately, as a stand-in for the whole set of fire tools. The daughter laughed, but she quickly changed out of her wet dress, put on an apron, and with her many skills, she soon put together a very nice dinner for her parents. Among other things, there was a currant tart that she had made herself, in a place that was completely lacking any kitchen tools.
In the autumn of this year (1796), they returned to England; and, after various migrations through the next four years, amongst which was another and longer visit to Ireland in 1800, they took up their abode in the sequestered vale of Patterdale. Here they had a cottage upon the banks of Ulleswater; the most gorgeous of the English lakes, from the rich and ancient woods which possess a great part of its western side; the sublimest, as respects its mountain accompaniments, except only, perhaps, Wastdale; and, I believe, the largest; for, though only nine miles in length, and, therefore, shorter by about two miles than Windermere, it averages a greater breadth. Here, at this time, was living Mr. Clarkson—that son of thunder, that Titan, who was in fact the one great Atlas that bore up the Slave-Trade Abolition cause—now resting from his mighty labours and nerve-shattering perils. So much had his nerves been shattered by all that he had gone through in toil, in suffering, and in anxiety, that, for many years, I have heard it said, he found himself unable to walk up stairs without tremulous motions of his limbs. He was, perhaps, too iron a man, too much like the Talus of Spenser's "Faerie Queene,"[170] to appreciate so gentle a creature as Miss Elizabeth Smith. A more suitable friend, and one who thoroughly comprehended her, and expressed his admiration for her in verse, was[Pg 413] Thomas Wilkinson of Yanwath, a Quaker, a man of taste, and of delicate sensibility. He wrote verses occasionally; and, though feebly enough as respected poetic power, there were often such delicate touches of feeling, such gleams of real tenderness, in some redeeming part of each poem, that even Wordsworth admired and read them aloud with pleasure. Indeed Wordsworth has addressed to him one copy of verses, or rather to his spade, which was printed in the collection of 1807, and which Lord Jeffrey, after quoting one line, dismissed as too dull for repetition.[171]
In the autumn of this year (1796), they returned to England; and after various moves over the next four years, including another longer visit to Ireland in 1800, they settled in the secluded valley of Patterdale. Here, they had a cottage by the shores of Ulleswater, the most stunning of the English lakes, surrounded by the lush and ancient woods that cover much of its western side; the most majestic in terms of its mountain scenery, possibly second only to Wastdale; and I believe the largest; for, although it’s only nine miles long—about two miles shorter than Windermere—it is wider on average. At this time, Mr. Clarkson was living there— that son of thunder, that Titan, who truly was the one great Atlas carrying the cause of Slave-Trade Abolition—now taking a break from his immense efforts and nerve-wracking dangers. His nerves had been so damaged by all the toil, suffering, and anxiety that, for many years, I've heard it said he couldn’t walk up stairs without trembling. He was perhaps too strong a man, too much like the Talus from Spenser's "Faerie Queene," to appreciate such a gentle person as Miss Elizabeth Smith. A more fitting friend, who truly understood her and expressed his admiration for her in poetry, was Thomas Wilkinson of Yanwath, a Quaker, a man of taste, and of delicate sensitivity. He occasionally wrote poems; and, while they lacked much poetic power, there were often such delicate expressions of feeling, such moments of genuine tenderness in redeeming parts of each poem, that even Wordsworth admired them and read them aloud with pleasure. Indeed, Wordsworth wrote one poem to him, or rather to his spade, which was published in the collection of 1807, and which Lord Jeffrey, after quoting one line, dismissed as too dull to repeat.
During this residence upon Ulleswater (winter of 1800) it was that a very remarkable incident befell Miss Smith. I have heard it often mentioned, and sometimes with a slight variety of circumstances; but I here repeat it from an account drawn up by Miss Smith herself, who was most literally exact and faithful to the truth in all reports of her own personal experience. There is, on the western side of Ulleswater, a fine cataract (or, in the language of the country, a force), known by the name of Airey Force; and it is of importance enough, especially in rainy seasons, to attract numerous visitors from among "the Lakers." Thither, with some purpose of sketching, not the whole scene, but some picturesque features of it, Miss Smith had gone, quite unaccompanied. The road to it lies through Gobarrow Park; and it was usual, at that time, to take a guide from the family of the Duke of Norfolk's keeper, who lived in Lyulph's Tower—a solitary hunting lodge, built by his Grace for the purposes of an annual visit which he used to pay to his estates in that part of England. She, however, thinking herself sufficiently familiar with the localities, had declined to encumber her motions with such an attendant; consequently she was alone. For half an hour or more, she continued to ascend: and, being a good "cragswoman," from the experience she had won in Wales as well as in northern England, she had reached an altitude much beyond what would generally be thought corresponding to the time.[Pg 414] The path had vanished altogether; but she continued to pick out one for herself amongst the stones, sometimes receding from the force, sometimes approaching it, according to the openings allowed by the scattered masses of rock. Pressing forward in this hurried way, and never looking back, all at once she found herself in a little stony chamber, from which there was no egress possible in advance. She stopped and looked up. There was a frightful silence in the air. She felt a sudden palpitation at her heart, and a panic from she knew not what. Turning, however, hastily, she soon wound herself out of this aerial dungeon; but by steps so rapid and agitated, that, at length, on looking round, she found herself standing at the brink of a chasm, frightful to look down. That way, it was clear enough, all retreat was impossible; but, on turning round, retreat seemed in every direction alike even more impossible. Down the chasm, at least, she might have leaped, though with little or no chance of escaping with life; but on all other quarters it seemed to her eye that at no price could she effect an exit, since the rocks stood round her in a semi-circus, all lofty, all perpendicular, all glazed with trickling water, or smooth as polished porphyry. Yet how, then, had she reached the point? The same track, if she could hit that track, would surely secure her escape. Round and round she walked; gazed with almost despairing eyes; her breath became thicker and thicker; for path she could not trace by which it was possible for her to have entered. Finding herself grow more and more confused, and every instant nearer to sinking into some fainting fit or convulsion, she resolved to sit down and turn her thoughts quietly into some less exciting channel. This she did; gradually recovered some self-possession; and then suddenly a thought rose up to her, that she was in the hands of God, and that He would not forsake her. But immediately came a second and reproving thought—that this confidence in God's protection might have been justified had she been ascending the rocks upon any mission of duty; but what right could she have to any providential deliverance, who had been led thither in a spirit of levity and carelessness? I am here giving her view of the case; for, as to myself, I fear greatly[Pg 415] that, if her steps were erring ones, it is but seldom indeed that nous autres can pretend to be treading upon right paths. Once again she rose; and, supporting herself upon a little sketching-stool that folded up into a stick, she looked upwards, in the hope that some shepherd might, by chance, be wandering in those aerial regions; but nothing could she see except the tall birches growing at the brink of the highest summits, and the clouds slowly sailing overhead. Suddenly, however, as she swept the whole circuit of her station with her alarmed eye, she saw clearly, about two hundred yards beyond her own position, a lady, in a white muslin morning robe, such as were then universally worn by young ladies until dinner-time. The lady beckoned with a gesture and in a manner that, in a moment, gave her confidence to advance—how she could not guess; but, in some way that baffled all power to retrace it, she found instantaneously the outlet which previously had escaped her. She continued to advance towards the lady, whom now, in the same moment, she found to be standing upon the other side of the force, and also to be her own sister. How or why that young lady, whom she had left at home earnestly occupied with her own studies, should have followed and overtaken her filled her with perplexity. But this was no situation for putting questions; for the guiding sister began to descend, and, by a few simple gestures, just serving to indicate when Miss Elizabeth was to approach and when to leave the brink of the torrent, she gradually led her down to a platform of rock, from which the further descent was safe and conspicuous. There Miss Smith paused, in order to take breath from her panic, as well as to exchange greetings and questions with her sister. But sister there was none. All trace of her had vanished; and, when, in two hours after, she reached her home, Miss Smith found her sister in the same situation and employment in which she had left her; and the whole family assured her that she had never stirred from the house.
During her stay at Ulleswater in the winter of 1800, a remarkable incident happened to Miss Smith. I've heard this story mentioned multiple times, sometimes with slight variations, but I'm sharing it here as per an account written by Miss Smith herself, who was very precise and truthful about her personal experiences. On the western side of Ulleswater, there's a beautiful waterfall (or, in local language, a force), known as Airey Force, which is significant enough, especially during rainy seasons, to attract many visitors among "the Lakers." Miss Smith went there alone with the intention of sketching some picturesque features of the scene, rather than the entire view. The path to the waterfall goes through Gobarrow Park, and it was common at that time to hire a guide from the family of the Duke of Norfolk's keeper, who lived in Lyulph's Tower—a solitary hunting lodge constructed by his Grace for his annual visits to his estates in that part of England. However, believing she was familiar enough with the area, she decided to go without a guide and was therefore alone. For over half an hour, she climbed higher, and being a skilled "cragswoman," thanks to her experiences in Wales and northern England, she reached an elevation much greater than what would typically be expected at that time. The path had completely disappeared, but she continued to find her way among the stones, sometimes moving away from the force, sometimes getting closer, depending on the openings created by the scattered rocks. As she hurried forward without looking back, she suddenly found herself in a small stony chamber, with no way out ahead. She paused and looked up. There was a terrifying silence in the air. She felt a sudden flutter in her heart and a wave of panic for reasons she couldn't understand. However, she quickly turned and managed to navigate out of this rocky trap, albeit with such quick and frantic steps that, upon looking around, she realized she was standing at the edge of a chasm, which was daunting to peer down into. There was clearly no escape in that direction, but turning around, escaping seemed equally impossible in every other direction. She could leap down into the chasm, though it would likely cost her life; yet on all other sides, it appeared that there was no way out, as rocks surrounded her in a semi-circle, all towering, all vertical, and slick with water or smooth like polished stone. But how had she gotten to this point? If she could just find that same path she must have taken to get there, surely she could escape. She walked around in circles, gazing with nearly hopeless eyes; her breathing grew more labored since she couldn't trace the path she had taken. Feeling increasingly confused and on the brink of fainting or convulsing, she decided to sit down and calm her thoughts. She did so, gradually regaining some composure, and then suddenly a realization struck her: she was in God's hands, and He would not abandon her. But almost immediately, a second thought surfaced, chastising her—this faith in divine protection could be justified if she had been climbing the rocks on a mission of duty, but what right did she have to expect providential rescue when she had arrived there in a spirit of levity and carelessness? I'm sharing her perspective on the matter; as for me, I fear greatly that if her steps were misguided, it’s rare for us to claim we are walking the right path. Once more she stood up, leaning on a small sketching stool that folded up into a stick, looking upwards, hoping that a shepherd might happen to be wandering in those high regions; yet she could see nothing except tall birches at the edge of the highest summits and clouds drifting slowly overhead. Then, as she scanned her surroundings with anxious eyes, she clearly saw, about two hundred yards from her position, a woman in a white muslin morning dress, which was then typically worn by young ladies until dinner. The woman beckoned with a gesture that swiftly gave her the confidence to move forward—how she couldn’t explain, but somehow, in a way that eluded her ability to retrace, she instantly found the exit that had previously eluded her. She made her way toward the woman, who turned out to be on the other side of the force and also her sister. How or why her sister, who had been deeply focused on her studies at home, had followed and caught up with her puzzled her. But this wasn’t a moment for questions; the guiding sister began to descend and with a few simple gestures indicated when Miss Elizabeth should approach and when to step back from the edge of the torrent, gradually leading her down to a rocky platform from which it was safe and clear to descend further. There, Miss Smith paused to catch her breath from the panic and exchange greetings and questions with her sister. But her sister had vanished completely. When she finally returned home two hours later, Miss Smith found her sister in the same situation and doing the same tasks as when she had left, and the entire family confirmed that she had never left the house.
In 1801, I believe it was that the family removed from Patterdale to Coniston. Certainly they were settled there in the spring of 1802; for, in the May of that spring, Miss Elizabeth Hamilton—a writer now very much forgotten, or[Pg 416] remembered only by her "Cottagers of Glenburnie," but then a person of mark and authority in the literary circles of Edinburgh[172]—paid a visit to the Lakes, and stayed there for many months, together with her married sister, Mrs. Blake; and both ladies cultivated the friendship of the Smiths. Miss Hamilton was captivated with the family; and, of the sisters in particular, she speaks as of persons that, "in the days of paganism would have been worshipped as beings of a superior order, so elegantly graceful do they appear, when, with easy motion, they guide their light boat over the waves." And of Miss Elizabeth, separately, she says, on another occasion,—"I never before saw so much of Miss Smith; and, in the three days she spent with us, the admiration which I had always felt for her extraordinary talents, and as extraordinary virtues, was hourly augmented. She is, indeed, a most charming creature; and, if one could inoculate her with a little of the Scotch frankness, I think she would be one of the most perfect of human beings."
In 1801, I believe the family moved from Patterdale to Coniston. They were definitely settled there by the spring of 1802; because in May of that year, Miss Elizabeth Hamilton—a writer now mostly forgotten, or[Pg 416] only remembered for her "Cottagers of Glenburnie," but then a notable figure in the literary circles of Edinburgh[172]—visited the Lakes and stayed there for several months, along with her married sister, Mrs. Blake. Both ladies formed a friendship with the Smiths. Miss Hamilton was charmed by the family and, especially about the sisters, remarked that they were like people who "in the days of paganism would have been worshipped as beings of a superior order, so elegantly graceful do they appear when, with easy motion, they guide their light boat over the waves." About Miss Elizabeth, she added on another occasion, "I never before saw so much of Miss Smith; and in the three days she spent with us, the admiration I had always felt for her incredible talents and equally incredible virtues grew every hour. She is truly a delightful person; and if she could just gain a little of the Scottish straightforwardness, I believe she would be one of the most perfect human beings."
About four years had been delightfully passed in Coniston. In the summer of 1805 Miss Smith laid the foundation of her fatal illness in the following way, according to her own account of the case to an old servant, a very short time before she died:—"One very hot evening, in July, I took a book, and walked about two miles from home, when I seated myself on a stone beside the lake. Being much engaged by a poem I was reading, I did not perceive that the sun was gone down, and was succeeded by a very heavy dew, till, in a moment, I felt struck on the chest as if with a sharp knife. I returned home, but said nothing of the pain. The next day being also very hot, and every one busy in the hay-field, I thought I would take a rake, and work very hard to produce perspiration, in the hope that it might remove the pain; but it did not." From that time, a bad cough, with occasional loss of voice, gave reason to suspect some organic injury of the lungs. Late in the autumn of this year (1805) Miss Smith accompanied her mother and her two younger sisters to Bristol, Bath, and other places in[Pg 417] the south, on visits to various friends. Her health went through various fluctuations until May of the following year, when she was advised to try Matlock. Here, after spending three weeks, she grew worse; and, as there was no place which she liked so well as the Lakes, it was resolved to turn homewards. About the beginning of June, she and her mother returned alone to Coniston: one of her sisters was now married; her three brothers were in the army or navy; and her father almost constantly with his regiment. Through the next two months she faded quietly away, sitting always in a tent,[173] that had been pitched upon the lawn, and which remained open continually to receive the fanning of the intermitting airs upon the lake, as well as to admit the bold mountain scenery to the north. She lived nearly through the first week of August, dying on the morning of August 7; and the circumstances of her last night are thus recorded by her mother:—"At nine she went to bed. I resolved to quit her no more, and went to prepare for the night. Turpin [Miss Smith's maid] came to say that Elizabeth entreated I would not stay in her room. I replied—'On that one subject I am resolved; no power on earth shall keep me from her; so, go to bed yourself.' Accordingly, I returned to her room; and, at ten, gave her the usual dose of laudanum. After a little time, she fell into a doze, and, I thought, slept till one. She was uneasy and restless, but never complained; and, on my wiping the cold sweat off her face, and bathing it with camphorated vinegar, which I did very often in the course of the night, she thanked me, smiled, and said—'That is the greatest comfort I have.' She slept again for a short time; and, at half past four, asked for some chicken broth, which she took perfectly well. On being told the hour, she said, 'How long this night is!' She continued very uneasy; and, in half an hour after, on my inquiring if I could move the pillow, or do anything to relieve her, she replied, 'There is nothing for it but quiet.' At six, she said, 'I must get up and have some mint tea.' I then called for Turpin, and felt my angel's[Pg 418] pulse: it was fluttering; and by that I knew I should soon lose her. She took the tea well. Turpin began to put on her clothes, and was proceeding to dress her, when she laid her head upon the faithful creature's shoulder, became convulsed in the face, spoke not, looked not, and in ten minutes expired."
About four years had happily passed in Coniston. In the summer of 1805, Miss Smith began to develop her serious illness in this way, according to her own account to an old servant, just before she died: “One very hot evening in July, I took a book and walked about two miles from home, where I sat on a stone by the lake. I was so absorbed in a poem I was reading that I didn’t notice the sun had gone down and was replaced by a heavy dew until I suddenly felt a sharp pain in my chest. I went home but said nothing about the pain. The next day was also very hot, and everyone was busy in the hayfield, so I thought I would take a rake and work hard to sweat in hopes of easing the pain, but it didn’t help.” From that point on, she had a bad cough and occasional loss of voice, which made people suspect lung damage. Late in autumn of that year (1805), Miss Smith went with her mother and two younger sisters to Bristol, Bath, and other southern places to visit various friends. Her health fluctuated until May of the following year when she was advised to try Matlock. After spending three weeks there, her condition worsened; since she liked the Lakes better than anywhere else, it was decided to head home. Around the beginning of June, she and her mother returned to Coniston alone: one of her sisters was now married, her three brothers were in the army or navy, and her father was almost constantly with his regiment. Over the next two months, she gradually faded away, always sitting in a tent that had been set up on the lawn, which stayed open to let in the gentle breezes from the lake and the stunning mountain views to the north. She lived nearly until the first week of August, dying on the morning of August 7; her mother recorded the events of her last night as follows: “At nine she went to bed. I decided I wouldn’t leave her again and went to prepare for the night. Turpin [Miss Smith's maid] came in and said Elizabeth asked me not to stay in her room. I replied, ‘On that one subject I am resolved; no power on earth will keep me from her, so you go to bed yourself.’ So, I returned to her room, and at ten, gave her the usual dose of laudanum. After a little while, she fell into a doze and, I thought, slept until one. She was uneasy and restless but never complained; and when I wiped the cold sweat off her face and bathed it with camphorated vinegar, which I did often through the night, she thanked me, smiled, and said, ‘That is the greatest comfort I have.’ She slept again for a short time; and at half-past four, she asked for some chicken broth, which she took well. When I told her the hour, she said, ‘How long this night is!’ She remained very uneasy; a half hour later, when I asked if I could move the pillow or do anything to help her, she replied, ‘There is nothing for it but quiet.’ At six, she said, ‘I must get up and have some mint tea.’ I then called for Turpin and felt my angel’s pulse: it was fluttering, and I knew I would soon lose her. She took the tea well. Turpin began to put on her clothes and was getting her dressed when she laid her head on the trustworthy servant’s shoulder, her face convulsed, she didn’t speak or look at anyone, and she died ten minutes later.”
She was buried in Hawkshead churchyard, where a small tablet of white marble is raised to her memory, on which there is the scantiest record that, for a person so eminently accomplished, I have ever met with. After mentioning her birth and age (twenty-nine), it closes thus:—"She possessed great talents, exalted virtues, and humble piety." Anything so unsatisfactory or so commonplace I have rarely known. As much, or more, is often said of the most insipid people; whereas Miss Smith was really a most extraordinary person. I have conversed with Mrs. Hannah More often about her; and I never failed to draw forth some fresh anecdote illustrating the vast extent of her knowledge, the simplicity of her character, the gentleness of her manners, and her unaffected humility. She passed, it is true, almost inaudibly through life; and the stir which was made after her death soon subsided. But the reason was that she wrote but little! Had it been possible for the world to measure her by her powers, rather than her performances, she would have been placed, perhaps, in the estimate of posterity, at the head of learned women; whilst her sweet and feminine character would have rescued her from all shadow and suspicion of that reproach which too often settles upon the learned character when supported by female aspirants.
She was buried in Hawkshead churchyard, where a small white marble tablet honors her memory, which contains the barest record I've ever seen for someone so accomplished. After noting her birth and age (twenty-nine), it ends with: "She had great talents, lofty virtues, and humble piety." I’ve rarely found anything so unremarkable or so generic. Similar, or even more, is often said about the dullest people; whereas Miss Smith was truly an extraordinary individual. I've talked with Mrs. Hannah More about her often, and I always managed to bring out a new story that showcased the vast extent of her knowledge, the simplicity of her character, the gentleness of her manners, and her genuine humility. It’s true that she moved through life almost unnoticed, and the noise around her after her death soon faded. But that’s because she wrote very little! If the world could have measured her by her abilities rather than her works, she would probably have been recognized as one of the top learned women of her time; while her sweet and feminine nature would have spared her from the common stigma that often hangs over academic women.
The family of Tent Lodge continued to reside at Coniston for many years; and they were connected with the Lake literary clan chiefly through the Lloyds and those who visited the Lloyds; for it is another and striking proof of the slight hold which Wordsworth, &c., had upon the public esteem in those days, that even Miss Smith, with all her excessive diffidence in judging of books and authors, never seems, by any one of her letters, to have felt the least interest about Wordsworth or Coleridge; nor did Miss Hamilton, with all her esprit de corps and acquired interest in[Pg 419] everything at all bearing upon literature, ever mention them in those of her letters which belong to the period of her Lake visit in 1802; nor, for the six or seven months which she passed in that country, and within a short morning ride of Grasmere, did she ever think it worth her while to seek an introduction to any one of the resident authors.
The Tent Lodge family lived in Coniston for many years and were mainly linked to the Lake literary group through the Lloyds and their visitors. It's a striking indication of how little influence Wordsworth and others had on public perception back then that even Miss Smith, despite her extreme hesitance in judging books and authors, never expressed any interest in Wordsworth or Coleridge in any of her letters. Similarly, Miss Hamilton, with all her enthusiasm and acquired interest in anything related to literature, never mentioned them in the letters from her visit to the Lake area in 1802. Throughout the six or seven months she spent there, just a short morning ride from Grasmere, she never found it worthwhile to seek an introduction to any of the local authors.
Yet this could not be altogether from ignorance that such people existed; for Thomas Wilkinson, the intimate and admiring friend of Miss Smith, was also the friend of Wordsworth; and, for some reason that I never could fathom, he was a sort of pet with Wordsworth. Professor Wilson and myself were never honoured with one line, one allusion from his pen; but many a person of particular feebleness has received that honour. Amongst these I may rank Thomas Wilkinson. Not that I wish to speak contemptuously of him; he was a Quaker, of elegant habits, rustic simplicity, and with tastes, as Wordsworth affirms, "too pure to be refined."[174] His cottage was seated not far from the great castle of the Lowthers; and, either from mere whim—as sometimes such whims do possess great ladies—whims, I mean, for drawing about them odd-looking, old-world people, as piquant contrasts to the fine gentlemen of their own society—or because they did really feel a homely dignity in the plain-speaking "Friend," and liked, for a frolic, to be thou'd and thee'd—on some motive or other, at any rate, they introduced themselves to Mr. Wilkinson's cottage; and I believe that the connexion was afterwards improved by the use they found for his services in forming walks through the woods of Lowther, and leading them in such a circuit as to take advantage of all the most picturesque stations. As a poet, I presume that Mr. Wilkinson could hardly have recommended himself to the notice of ladies who would naturally have modelled their tastes upon the favourites of the age. A poet, however, in a gentle, unassuming way, he was; and[Pg 420] he, therefore, is to be added to the corps litteraire of the Lakes, and Yanwath to be put down as the advanced post of that corps to the north.
Yet this couldn’t be entirely due to ignorance that such people existed; for Thomas Wilkinson, the close and admiring friend of Miss Smith, was also a friend of Wordsworth. For some reason I could never understand, he was kind of a favorite with Wordsworth. Professor Wilson and I were never honored with a single line or even a mention from him, but many individuals of particular weakness have received that recognition. Among these, I can place Thomas Wilkinson. Not that I want to speak disrespectfully of him; he was a Quaker, with refined habits, rustic simplicity, and tastes, as Wordsworth puts it, "too pure to be refined." His cottage was located not far from the grand castle of the Lowthers; and, either out of mere whim—as such whims sometimes seize noble ladies—whims, I mean, to attract odd-looking, old-world people, as an interesting contrast to the sophisticated gentlemen of their own circles—or perhaps because they truly appreciated the homely dignity of the plain-speaking "Friend" and enjoyed, just for fun, being addressed as "thou" and "thee"—for whatever reason, they found their way to Mr. Wilkinson's cottage. I believe their connection was later strengthened by the help they found in him for creating paths through the woods of Lowther, leading them in such a way as to take advantage of all the most picturesque spots. As a poet, I doubt Mr. Wilkinson would have caught the attention of ladies who were likely to model their tastes on the favored writers of the time. However, in a gentle, unassuming way, he was a poet; and he, therefore, should be included in the literary community of the Lakes, with Yanwath noted as the northern outpost of that group.
Two families there still remain which I am tempted to gather into my group of Lake society—notwithstanding it is true that the two most interesting members of the first had died a little before the period at which my sketch commences; and the second, though highly intellectual in the person of that particular member whom I have chiefly to commemorate, was not, properly speaking, literary, and, moreover, belongs to a later period of my own Westmoreland experience—being, at the time of my settlement in Grasmere, a girl at a boarding-school. The first was the family of the Sympsons, whom Mr. Wordsworth has spoken of, with deep interest, more than once. The eldest son, a clergyman, and, like Wordsworth, an alumnus of Hawkshead school, wrote, amongst other poems, "The Vision of Alfred." Of these poems Wordsworth says that they "are little known; but they contain passages of splendid description; and the versification of his 'Vision' is harmonious and animated." This is much for Wordsworth to say; and he does him even the honour of quoting the following illustrative simile from his description of the sylphs in motion (which sylphs constitute the machinery of his poem); and, probably, the reader will be of opinion that this passage justifies the praise of Wordsworth. It is founded, as he will see, on the splendid scenery of the heavens in Polar latitudes, as seen by reflection in polished ice at midnight.
Two families still stand out to me that I’m tempted to include in my Lake society, even though it’s true that the two most interesting members of the first family had passed away just before my story begins. The second family, while having an incredibly intellectual member who I mainly want to highlight, wasn’t really literary and was, in fact, from a later time in my own Westmoreland experience—specifically, when I first settled in Grasmere, it included a girl attending a boarding school. The first family was the Sympsons, whom Mr. Wordsworth has mentioned with great interest several times. The eldest son, a clergyman and also an alumnus of Hawkshead school like Wordsworth, wrote several poems, including "The Vision of Alfred." Wordsworth remarked that these poems "are little known, but they contain passages of splendid description; and the versification of his 'Vision' is harmonious and animated." That’s a significant acknowledgment coming from Wordsworth, who even honors him by quoting a striking simile from his description of the sylphs in motion (these sylphs make up the machinery of his poem). Most likely, the reader will agree that this passage backs up Wordsworth’s praise. It’s based on the breathtaking scenery of the Polar skies, as seen reflected in polished ice at midnight.
That, swinging back and forth, their light shone On the Gulf of Bothnia, covered in smooth ice; Where the solitary native, as he makes his way home On polished sandals over the trapped tides,
Sees, at a glance, above and below him,
Two competing heavens shine with equal brilliance:
Stars, moons, and meteors shine side by side; "And at midnight, the brightness of day is pouring in."
"He was a man," says Wordsworth, in conclusion, "of ardent feeling; and his facilities of mind, particularly his[Pg 421] memory, were extraordinary." Brief notices of his life ought to find a place in the history of Westmoreland.
"He was a man," says Wordsworth, in conclusion, "of passionate emotions; and his mental abilities, especially his[Pg 421] memory, were remarkable." Brief accounts of his life should be included in the history of Westmoreland.
But it was the father of this Joseph Sympson who gave its chief interest to the family. Him Wordsworth has described, at the same time sketching his history, with a fulness and a circumstantiality beyond what he has conceded to any other of the real personages in "The Excursion." "A priest he was by function"; but a priest of that class which is now annually growing nearer to extinction among us, not being supported by any sympathies in this age.
But it was Joseph Sympson's father who brought the most significance to the family. Wordsworth described him while detailing his history with more depth and detail than he has given to any other real characters in "The Excursion." "He was a priest by profession"; but he was part of a group of priests that is gradually disappearing in our time, as they no longer have any support from the feelings of this era.
Through unstable books and his pastoral care Not enough checked. A lively, passionate mind;
A grand idea filled with resources and plans. To escape the sadness of a rainy day; Skilled hands for every clever craft and game; A giving heart and a strong body To deal with the strongest champions of the bowl;
Had earned him a warm welcome and the rights Of a valued visitor, in the cheerful hall Of a country gentleman; or at the more formal table Of a duke or earl, from scenes of royal splendor
Withdrawn, to pass the summer hours. In condescension among rural guests.
He had enjoyed a long celebration with these esteemed companions, Enticed by the hopes of future support, Until the heart ached.
Slowly, however, and indignantly his eyes opened fully to the windy treachery of all the promises held out to him; and, at length, for mere bread, he accepted, from an "unthought-of patron," a most "secluded chapelry" in Cumberland. This was "the little, lowly house of prayer" of Wythburn, elsewhere celebrated by Wordsworth; and, for its own sake, interesting to all travellers, both for its deep privacy, and for the excessive humility of its external pretensions, whether as to size or ornament. Were it not for its twin sister at Buttermere, it would be the very smallest place of worship in all England; and it looks even smaller than it is, from its position; for it stands at the base of the mighty Helvellyn, close to the high-road between Ambleside and Keswick, and within speaking distance of the upper lake—(for[Pg 422] Wythburn Water, though usually passed by the traveller under the impression of absolute unity in its waters, owing to the interposition of a rocky screen, is, in fact, composed of two separate lakes). To this miniature and most secluded congregation of shepherds did the once dazzling parson officiate as pastor; and it seems to amplify the impression already given of his versatility, that he became a diligent and most fatherly, though not peculiarly devout, teacher and friend. The temper, however, of the northern Dalesmen, is not constitutionally turned to religion; consequently that part of his defects did him no special injury, when compensated (as, in the judgment of these Dalesmen, it was compensated) by ready and active kindness, charity the most diffusive, and patriarchal hospitality. The living, as I have said, was in Wythburn; but there was no parsonage, and no house in this poor dale which was disposable for that purpose. So Mr. Sympson crossed the marches of the sister counties, which to him were about equidistant from his chapel and his house, into Grasmere, on the Westmoreland side. There he occupied a cottage by the roadside,—a situation which, doubtless, gratified at once his social and his hospitable propensities,—and, at length, from age, as well as from paternal character and station, came to be regarded as the patriarch of the vale. Before I mention the afflictions which fell upon his latter end, and by way of picturesque contrast to his closing scene, let me have permission to cite Wordsworth's sketch (taken from his own boyish remembrance of the case) describing the first gipsy-like entrance of the brilliant parson and his household into Grasmere—so equally out of harmony with the decorums of his sacred character and the splendours of his past life:—
Slowly, but with a sense of indignation, he fully realized the windy deceit behind all the promises made to him. Eventually, in exchange for simple sustenance, he accepted a position from an unexpected benefactor at a very remote chapel in Cumberland. This was the "little, lowly house of prayer" in Wythburn, famously mentioned by Wordsworth; it was interesting to travelers for its extreme privacy and the modesty of its size and decoration. If not for its twin chapel at Buttermere, it would be the smallest place of worship in all of England, appearing even smaller due to its location at the base of the massive Helvellyn, right by the main road between Ambleside and Keswick, and within earshot of the upper lake—(for Wythburn Water, usually seen by travelers as a single body of water due to a rocky barrier, is actually made up of two separate lakes). To this tiny and secluded congregation of shepherds, the once prominent parson served as their pastor. This experience only added to the impression of his versatility; he became a diligent and caring, though not particularly devout, teacher and friend. However, the nature of the northern Dalesmen is not inherently religious, so that aspect of his character didn’t particularly hurt him, especially since it was balanced (as the Dalesmen viewed it) by his genuine kindness, generous charity, and welcoming hospitality. As I mentioned, the living was in Wythburn, but there was no parsonage or available home in this poor valley for that purpose. So Mr. Sympson crossed the borders into Grasmere in Westmoreland, which was about the same distance from both his chapel and his home. There, he rented a cottage by the side of the road—an arrangement that surely satisfied both his social and hospitable nature—and eventually, due to his age, as well as his fatherly demeanor and position, he came to be seen as the patriarch of the valley. Before I discuss the troubles that befell him later in life, and to provide a vivid contrast to his final days, let me quote Wordsworth's description (from his own youthful memories) of the first gypsy-like arrival of the brilliant parson and his family into Grasmere—so starkly out of sync with the decorum expected of his sacred role and the grandeur of his previous existence:—
By which our northern wilderness could then be crossed; And into most of these hidden valleys There was no access for carts, heavy or light.
So the priest arrived at his home. With a supply of household items, in bags hanging On strong horses with jingling bells, And on the back of a more despicable beast,
That, with a similar load of highly valued outcomes Or easiest carried, closed the colorful train.
I was young then, an eight-year-old schoolboy:
But still I think I see them as they went by[Pg 423] Heading towards their desired destination. Shaken by the movement of a reliable donkey
Two rosy children were suspended, a well-balanced load,
Each one in his basket dozing off, I remember their bonnets, decorated with flowers, Which indicated it was the lovely month of June;
And right behind the attractive woman rode, A woman with a gentle voice and a friendly smile,
And with a lady's demeanor. From a distance they arrived,
Even from the hills of Northumbria: still, they had been A fun journey filled with activities, uplifted Through music, pranks, and laughter-inducing jokes; And freak put on, and arch word dropped—to grow That cloud of elaborate and crude speculation Which gathered around the slowly moving train.
Where do they come from? And what mission do they have?
They belong to the fortune-telling community. Who sets up their tents under the green tree? Or are they strollers, designed to carry out Fair Rosamond and the Kids of the Forest? When the next village hears about the show being announced
By the sound of a trumpet? The growth was abundant. Of such guesses—overheard or seen On many a wide-eyed face shown Of a peasant or a townsman, as they walked along. And more than once their calm expressions Was put to the test, and practice provided
With their clever humor and serious expressions, And questions in a commanding tone,
By a serious protector of public order,
Examining the sober horse he was riding,
In his questionable wisdom; even more often now Through indirect notice or direct request
From a traveler stopping on his own accord,
A basic curiosity to satisfy:
Of the adventures that entertained and uplifted Their significant journey, the couple would describe. "With unwavering joy in old age."
Meantime the lady of the house embellished it with feminine skill; and the homely pastor—for such he had now become—not having any great weight of spiritual duties, busied himself in rural labours and rural sports. But was his mind, though bending submissively to his lot, changed in conformity to his task? No:
Meantime, the lady of the house decorated it with her unique touch; and the simple pastor—who he had grown to be—didn’t have many spiritual responsibilities, so he occupied himself with country work and outdoor activities. But though he accepted his situation, did his mind shift to match his new role? No:
A restless foot, a mind that raced at night[Pg 424] On its pillow with a thousand plans.
He had dropped very few likes and lost very few pleasures; Kind and giving, quick to help;
And yet his stronger emotions still had a grip on him—
Anger and frustration. Yet he still loved
The sound of titled names and joyful conversations Of long-ago feasts with noble friends:
Then, from those comforting moments of empty pleasure Upset by remembered injury, ranted They look down on their false ways with disdain—and often In anger, and with a menacing glare
Of fire, ignited under its grayish crown.
Those transports, with serious expressions of genuine goodwill,
And with a gentle smile, his partner would scold him. She, much younger than him in the race of life,
Yet she maintained her initial gentleness and grew more confident. Much closer, in the nature of her soul, "To that quiet place where everyone is headed."
Such was the tenor of their lives; such the separate character of their manners and dispositions; and, with unusual quietness of course, both were sailing placidly to their final haven. Death had not visited their happy mansion through a space of forty years—"sparing both old and young in that abode." But calms so deep are ominous—immunities so profound are terrific. Suddenly the signal was given, and all lay desolate.
Such was the nature of their lives; such the distinct character of their behavior and attitudes; and, with an unusual sense of tranquility, both were peacefully making their way to their final resting place. Death had not touched their happy home for forty years—"sparing both old and young in that dwelling." But such deep calmness is a warning—such profound immunity is frightening. Suddenly, the signal was given, and everything lay empty.
Before the greedy visit ended,
And the once-privileged house stood empty; cleared out. Like a plague. But not a greedy plague
Had been among them; everything was a gentle death,
"One after another with breaks of calm."
The aged pastor's wife, his son, one of his daughters, and "a little smiling grandson," all had gone within a brief series of days. These composed the entire household in Grasmere (the others having dispersed or married away); and all were gone but himself, by very many years the oldest of the whole: he still survived. And the whole valley, nay, all the valleys round about, speculated with a tender interest upon what course the desolate old man would take for his support.
The elderly pastor's wife, his son, one of his daughters, and "a little smiling grandson" had all passed away in just a few days. They made up the entire household in Grasmere (the others had either moved away or gotten married), and now he was left alone, being many years older than anyone else. He was still alive. The whole valley, and indeed all the valleys around, watched with gentle curiosity to see what the lonely old man would do for his comfort.
How will he confront the remainder of his life?
[Pg 425] What will happen to him? we asked, and thought In sad reflections.—Will we see him now,
Fishing with a rod and line in the rocky streams? Or will we hear him as we walk by,
Trying to make the lonely hours more enjoyable
With music? (because he hadn't stopped playing
The harp or viola, which he had crafted himself For their delightful goals, with complete skill).
What titles will he keep? Will he stay Musician, gardener, builder, mechanic,
"A planter and someone who raises from the seed?"
Yes; he persevered in all his pursuits; intermitted none of them; weathered a winter in solitude; once more beheld the glories of a spring, and the resurrection of the flowers upon the graves of his beloved; held out even through the depths of summer into the cheerful season of haymaking (a season much later in Westmoreland than in the south); took his rank, as heretofore, amongst the haymakers; sat down at noon for a little rest to his aged limbs, and found even a deeper rest than he was expecting; for, in a moment of time, without a warning, without a struggle, and without a groan, he did indeed rest from his labours for ever. He,
Yes, he kept going in all his pursuits; he never gave any of them up; he braved a winter alone; once again, he saw the beauty of spring and the flowers blooming on the graves of his loved ones; he pushed through even the heart of summer into the cheerful haymaking season (which comes much later in Westmoreland than in the south); he took his place, as before, among the haymakers; he sat down at noon for a short break for his tired body and found an even deeper rest than he expected; for, in an instant, without warning, without struggle, and without a groan, he truly rested from his work forever. He,
Of open projects, and his private stash Of unspoken sorrows, too many and too intense,
Fell into unexpected sleep In one blessed moment. Like a shadow cast,
Gently and softly, from a passing cloud,
He faced death while lying back. For midday relaxation on the summer grass—
The comforting embrace of his mother earth; and so,
Their relaxed period of separation ended,
That family, With an even greater privilege, once again
Were gathered together.
Two surviving members of the family, a son and a daughter, I knew intimately. Both have been long dead; but the children of the daughter—grandsons, therefore, to the patriarch here recorded—are living prosperously, and do honour to the interesting family they represent.
Two surviving members of the family, a son and a daughter, I knew well. Both have been dead for a long time; however, the daughter’s children—grandsons of the patriarch mentioned here—are living comfortably and honoring the remarkable family they come from.
The other family were, if less generally interesting by their characters or accomplishments, much more so by the circumstances[Pg 426] of their position; and that member of the family with whom accident and neighbourhood had brought me especially connected was, in her intellectual capacity, probably superior to most of those whom I have had occasion to record. Had no misfortunes settled upon her life prematurely, and with the benefit of a little judicious guidance to her studies, I am of opinion that she would have been a most distinguished person. Her situation, when I came to know her, was one of touching interest. I will state the circumstances:—She was the sole and illegitimate daughter of a country gentleman, and was a favourite with her father, as she well deserved to be, in a degree so excessive—so nearly idolatrous—that I never heard illustrations of it mentioned but that secretly I trembled for the endurance of so perilous a love under the common accidents of life, and still more under the unusual difficulties and snares of her peculiar situation. Her father was, by birth, breeding, and property, a Leicestershire farmer; not, perhaps, what you would strictly call a gentleman, for he affected no refinements of manner, but rather courted the exterior of a bluff, careless yeoman. Still he was of that class whom all people, even then, on his letters, addressed as esquire: he had an ample income, and was surrounded with all the luxuries of modern life. In early life—and that was the sole palliation of his guilt—(and yet, again, in another view, aggravated it)—he had allowed himself to violate his own conscience in a way which, from the hour of his error, never ceased to pursue him with remorse, and which was, in fact, its own avenger. Mr. K—— was a favourite specimen of English yeomanly beauty: a fine athletic figure; and with features handsome, well moulded, frank and generous in their expression, and in a striking degree manly. In fact, he might have sat for Robin Hood. It happened that a young lady of his own neighbourhood, somewhere near Mount Soril I think, fell desperately in love with him. Oh! blindness of the human heart! how deeply did she come to rue the day when she first turned her thoughts to him! At first, however, her case seemed a hopeless one; for she herself was remarkably plain, and Mr. K—— was profoundly in love with the very handsome daughter of a neighbouring farmer. One advantage, however, there was on the side of this plain girl:[Pg 427] she was rich; and part of her wealth, or of her expectations, lay in landed property that would effect a very tempting arrondissement of an estate belonging to Mr. K——. Through what course the affair travelled, I never heard more particularly than that Mr. K—— was besieged and worried out of his steady mind by the solicitations of aunts and other relations, who had all adopted the cause of the heiress. But what finally availed to extort a reluctant consent from him was the representation made by the young lady's family, and backed by medical men, that she was seriously in danger of dying unless Mr. K—— would make her his wife. He was no coxcomb; but, when he heard all his own female relations calling him a murderer, and taxing him with having, at times, given some encouragement to the unhappy lovesick girl, in an evil hour he agreed to give up his own sweetheart and marry her. He did so. But no sooner was this fatal step taken than it was repented. His love returned in bitter excess for the girl whom he had forsaken, and with frantic remorse. This girl, at length, by the mere force of his grief, he actually persuaded to live with him as his wife; and when, in spite of all concealments, the fact began to transpire, and the angry wife, in order to break off the connexion, obtained his consent to their quitting Leicestershire altogether and transferring their whole establishment to the Lakes, Mr. K—— evaded the whole object of this manœuvre by secretly contriving to bring her rival also into Westmoreland. Her, however, he placed in another vale; and, for some years, it is pretty certain that Mrs. K—— never suspected the fact. Some said that it was her pride which would not allow her to seem conscious of so great an affront to herself; others, better skilled in deciphering the meaning of manners, steadfastly affirmed that she was in happy ignorance of an arrangement known to all the country beside.
The other family was, if not as interesting in their characters or accomplishments, much more intriguing due to their circumstances[Pg 426]. The family member I became especially connected to by chance and through our neighborhood was probably more intellectually capable than most of the people I've written about. If misfortunes hadn’t hit her life so early, and with a little guidance in her studies, I believe she could have become a truly remarkable person. When I met her, her situation was quite touching. Here are the details: She was the only illegitimate daughter of a country gentleman and was her father's favorite, deserving of such affection to an extent that bordered on idolization—so much so that I often secretly worried about how such a precarious love could withstand life's common challenges, and even more so the unique difficulties of her difficult situation. Her father was, by birth, upbringing, and wealth, a farmer from Leicestershire; not exactly what you’d call a gentleman, since he didn't display any refined manners and rather embraced the rough, casual image of a sturdy farmer. Still, he belonged to a class that everyone, even then, addressed as esquire; he had a good income and enjoyed all the modern luxuries. In his youth—this was the only excuse for his wrongdoing—he had made choices that violated his conscience, and from the moment of his mistake, he was haunted by remorse, which became its own punishment. Mr. K—— was an ideal example of English rural charm: he had a strong, athletic build and good-looking, well-defined features that were honest and open in their expression, presenting a distinctly manly appearance. In fact, he could have been a stand-in for Robin Hood. It happened that a young lady from his neighborhood, somewhere near Mount Soril, fell hopelessly in love with him. Oh, the foolishness of the human heart! How she came to regret the day she first thought of him! Initially, her chances seemed bleak since she was rather plain, and Mr. K—— was deeply infatuated with the beautiful daughter of a neighboring farmer. However, this plain girl had one advantage: she was wealthy, and part of her fortune, or her expectations, included land that would make for a very attractive addition to Mr. K——'s estate. I never got the full story of how things unfolded, but I did hear that Mr. K—— was overwhelmed and worn down by the persistent pleas from aunts and other relatives, all pushing for the heiress's cause. Ultimately, what forced him into a reluctant agreement was the family's portrayal of her as being in real danger of dying unless Mr. K—— agreed to marry her. He wasn’t vain, but when he heard all his female relatives calling him a murderer and accusing him of having given some encouragement to the lovesick girl, he rashly agreed to abandon his sweetheart and marry her instead. He did it. But as soon as he took that disastrous step, he regretted it. His love for the girl he left grew stronger with anguish. Eventually, through the power of his sorrow, he convinced her to live with him as his wife. When the truth began to come out, and the angry wife sought to terminate their connection by getting him to move away from Leicestershire to the Lakes, Mr. K—— thwarted that plan by secretly bringing his rival to Westmoreland as well. However, he placed her in a different valley, and for several years, Mrs. K—— seemed unaware of what was going on. Some speculated that her pride wouldn’t let her acknowledge such a significant insult, while others, who understood social cues better, insisted she was blissfully ignorant of an arrangement that everyone else in the community knew about.
Years passed on; and the situation of the poor wife became more and more gloomy. During those years, she brought her husband no children; on the other hand, her hated rival had: Mr. K—— saw growing up about his table two children, a son, and then a daughter, who, in their childhood, must have been beautiful creatures; for the son, when I knew him in after life, though bloated and disfigured[Pg 428] a good deal by intemperance, was still a very fine young man; more athletic even than his father; and presenting his father's handsome English yeoman's face, exalted by a Roman dignity in some of the features. The daughter was of the same cast of person; tall, and Roman also in the style of her face. In fact, the brother and the sister would have offered a fine impersonation of Coriolanus and Valeria. This Roman bias of the features a little affected the feminine loveliness of the daughter's appearance. But still, as the impression was not very decided, she would have been pronounced anywhere a very captivating young woman. These were the two crowns of Mr. K—— 's felicity, that for seventeen or eighteen years made the very glory of his life. But Nemesis was on his steps; and one of these very children she framed the scourge which made the day of his death a happy deliverance, for which he had long hungered and thirsted. But I anticipate.
Years went by, and the situation of the poor wife became increasingly bleak. During those years, she didn't give her husband any children; meanwhile, her despised rival did: Mr. K—— saw two children growing up at his table, a son and then a daughter, who must have been beautiful in their childhood. When I later met the son, although he was bloated and disfigured from excess, he was still a very handsome young man—more athletic than his father—and he had his father's attractive English yeoman face, elevated by a noble Roman dignity in some of his features. The daughter shared this look; she was tall and also had a Roman appearance. In fact, the brother and sister would have made a great portrayal of Coriolanus and Valeria. This Roman trait in their features slightly affected the daughter’s feminine beauty, but the effect wasn’t very strong; she would have been considered a captivating young woman anywhere. These two were the highlights of Mr. K——'s happiness, which for seventeen or eighteen years made his life feel glorious. But Nemesis was following him, and one of these very children would become the source of the suffering that made the day of his death a happy relief, something he had long desired. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
About the time when I came to reside in Grasmere, some little affair of local business one night drew Wordsworth up to Mr. K—— 's house. It was called, and with great propriety, from the multitude of holly trees that still survived from ancient days, The Hollens; which pretty local name Mrs. K——, in her general spirit of vulgar sentimentality, had changed to Holly Grove. The place, spite of its slipshod novelish name, which might have led one to expect a corresponding style of tinsel finery, and a display of childish purposes, about its furniture or its arrangements, was really simple and unpretending; whilst its situation was, in itself, a sufficient ground of interest; for it stood on a little terrace running like an artificial gallery or corridor along the final, and all but perpendicular, descent of the mighty Fairfield.[175] It seemed as if it must require iron bolts[Pg 429] to pin it to the rock which rose so high, and, apparently, so close behind. Not until you reached the little esplanade upon which the modest mansion stood, were you aware of a little area interposed between the rear of the house and the rock, just sufficient for ordinary domestic offices. The house was otherwise interesting to myself, from recalling one in which I had passed part of my infancy. As in that, you entered by a rustic hall, fitted up so as to make a beautiful little breakfasting-room: the distribution of the passages was pretty nearly the same; and there were other resemblances.
About the time I moved to Grasmere, a local matter one night brought Wordsworth to Mr. K——'s house. It was aptly named, due to the many holly trees that still thrived from ancient days, The Hollens; however, Mrs. K——, in her typical sentimental fashion, had renamed it Holly Grove. Despite its clumsy, cliché name that might suggest a superficial style and childish decor, the place was genuinely simple and unpretentious. Its location itself was enough to draw interest, as it sat on a small terrace that stretched out like an artificial gallery along the steep, nearly vertical slope of the impressive Fairfield.[175] It seemed like it would need iron bolts[Pg 429] to anchor it to the rock looming high and seemingly close behind. It wasn't until you reached the small esplanade where the modest mansion stood that you noticed a small space between the back of the house and the rock, just enough for typical household functions. The house also held interest for me because it reminded me of one where I had spent part of my childhood. Like that house, you entered through a rustic hall that was set up to create a charming little breakfast room: the layout of the hallways was nearly identical, and there were other similarities as well.
Mr. K—— received us with civility and hospitality—checked, however, and embarrassed, by a very evident reserve. The reason of this was, partly, that he distrusted the feelings towards himself of two scholars; but more, perhaps, that he had something beyond this general jealousy for distrusting Wordsworth. He had been a very extensive planter of larches, which were then recently introduced into the Lake country, and were, in every direction, displacing the native forest scenery, and dismally disfiguring this most lovely region; and this effect was necessarily in its worst excess during the infancy of the larch plantations; both because they took the formal arrangement of nursery grounds, until extensive thinnings, as well as storms, had begun to break this hideous stiffness in the lines and angles, and also because the larch is a mean tree, both in form and colouring (having a bright gosling glare in spring, a wet blanket hue in autumn) as long as it continues a young tree. Not until it has seen forty or fifty winters does it begin to toss its boughs about with a wild Alpine grace. Wordsworth, for many years, had systematically abused the larches and the larch planters; and there went about the country a pleasant anecdote, in connexion with this well-known habit of his, which I have often heard repeated by the woodmen—viz. that, one day, when he believed himself to be quite alone—but was, in fact, surveyed coolly, during the whole process[Pg 430] of his passions, by a reposing band of labourers in the shade, and at their noontide meal—Wordsworth, on finding a whole cluster of birch-trees grubbed up, and preparations making for the installation of larches in their place, was seen advancing to the spot with gathering wrath in his eyes; next he was heard pouring out an interrupted litany of comminations and maledictions; and, finally, as his eye rested upon the four or five larches which were already beginning to "dress the line" of the new battalion, he seized his own hat in a transport of fury, and launched it against the odious intruders. Mr. K—— had, doubtless, heard of Wordsworth's frankness upon this theme, and knew himself to be, as respected Grasmere, the sole offender. In another way, also, he had earned a few random shots from Wordsworth's wrath—viz. as the erector of a huge unsightly barn, built solely for convenience, and so far violating all the modesty of rustic proportions that it was really an eyesore in the valley. These considerations, and others besides, made him reserved; but he felt the silent appeal to his lares from the strangers' presence, and was even kind in his courtesies. Suddenly, Mrs. K—— entered the room: instantly his smile died away: he did not even mention her name. Wordsworth, however, she knew slightly; and to me she introduced herself. Mr. K—— seemed almost impatient when I rose and presented her with my chair. Anything that detained her in the room for a needless moment seemed to him a nuisance. She, on the other hand—what was her behaviour? I had been told that she worshipped the very ground on which he trod; and so, indeed, it appeared. This adoring love might, under other circumstances, have been beautiful to contemplate; but here it impressed unmixed disgust. Imagine a woman of very homely features, and farther disfigured by a scorbutic eruption, fixing a tender gaze upon a burly man of forty, who showed, by every word, look, gesture, movement, that he disdained her. In fact, nothing could be more injudicious than her deportment towards him. Everybody must feel that a man who hates any person hates that person the more for troubling him with expressions of love; or, at least, it adds to hatred the sting of disgust. That was the fixed language of Mr. K—— 's manner, in relation to his[Pg 431] wife. He was not a man to be pleased with foolish fondling endearments from any woman before strangers; but from her! Faugh! he said internally, at every instant. His very eyes he averted from her: not once did he look at her, though forced into the odious necessity of speaking to her several times; and, at length, when she seemed disposed to construe our presence as a sort of brief privilege to her own, he adopted that same artifice for ridding himself of her detested company which has sometimes done seasonable service to a fine gentleman when called upon by ladies for the explanation of a Greek word. He hinted to her, pretty broadly, that the subject of our conversation was not altogether proper for female ears,—very much to the astonishment of Wordsworth and myself.
Mr. K—— welcomed us politely and generously, but he seemed constrained and awkward due to an obvious reserve. This was partly because he was suspicious of two scholars' feelings toward him, but more likely because he had a particular grudge against Wordsworth. He was a significant planter of larches, which had recently been introduced to the Lake District and were replacing the native forest scenery, badly marring this stunning region. The damage was particularly severe during the early stages of the larch plantations because they resembled the formal layout of nursery plots until extensive thinning and storms began to soften their rigid lines and angles. Additionally, larches are not appealing trees while they are young, having a bright yellow-green hue in spring and a dull grayish shade in autumn. It’s only after they’ve weathered forty or fifty winters that they start to display a wild, graceful beauty. For many years, Wordsworth had harshly criticized the larches and those who planted them, and there was a popular anecdote circulating among the local woodmen connected to this well-known trait of his. It described a day when he thought he was alone—but was actually being observed coolly by a group of laborers resting in the shade during their lunch. Upon discovering a cluster of birch trees had been cut down in favor of planting larches, Wordsworth stormed over with anger in his eyes. He began unleashing a string of curses, and when he saw a few larches already lining up in the newly cleared area, he threw his hat in a fit of rage at the awful newcomers. Mr. K—— must have been aware of Wordsworth's bluntness on this subject and knew he was the one being criticized in Grasmere. He had also drawn some of Wordsworth’s ire for erecting a large, ugly barn purely for practicality, which clashed with the rustic aesthetics and became an eyesore in the valley. These thoughts made him reserved, but he felt the unspoken request for hospitality from the strangers and was kind in his manners. Suddenly, Mrs. K—— entered the room, and instantly his smile faded; he didn’t even say her name. However, she recognized Wordsworth slightly and introduced herself to me. Mr. K—— appeared almost impatient when I stood to offer her my chair; anything that kept her in the room longer than necessary seemed to annoy him. Conversely, her behavior was quite different. I’d heard she idolized him, and it certainly seemed that way. This kind of adoring love might have been beautiful in other circumstances, but here it was purely repulsive. Picture a woman with very plain features, further marred by a skin condition, gazing lovingly at a stocky man in his forties who showed through his every word, look, and gesture that he despised her. In fact, nothing could be more misguided than her demeanor toward him. It’s clear that a man who hates someone resents that person even more for the intrusion of affection; or at the very least, it adds a layer of revulsion to his hatred. This was clearly reflected in Mr. K——’s behavior toward his wife. He was not a man who appreciated silly, affectionate gestures from any woman in front of others, but from her? Disgusting! he thought to himself constantly. He didn’t even look at her; he avoided her gaze completely, though he was forced to speak with her several times. Eventually, when she seemed inclined to interpret our presence as a brief opportunity for her, he tried to sideline her with a tactic usually reserved for polite gentlemen when asked by ladies to explain a Greek word. He hinted broadly that the topic of our conversation wasn’t quite appropriate for women’s ears—which took both Wordsworth and me by surprise.
CHAPTER X
SOCIETY OF THE LAKES: PROFESSOR WILSON: DEATH OF LITTLE KATE
WORDSWORTH[176]
It was at Mr. Wordsworth's house that I first became acquainted with Professor (then Mr.) Wilson, of Elleray. I have elsewhere described the impression which he made upon me at my first acquaintance; and it is sufficiently known, from other accounts of Mr. Wilson (as, for example, that written by Mr. Lockhart in "Peter's Letters"), that he divided his time and the utmost sincerity of his love between literature and the stormiest pleasures of real life. Cock-fighting, wrestling, pugilistic contests, boat-racing, horse-racing, all enjoyed Mr. Wilson's patronage; all were occasionally honoured by his personal participation. I mention this in no unfriendly spirit toward Professor Wilson; on the contrary, these propensities grew out of his ardent temperament and his constitutional endowments—his strength, speed, and agility: and, being confined to the period of youth—for I am speaking of a period removed by five-and-twenty years—can do him no dishonour amongst the candid and the judicious. "Non lusisse pudet, sed non incidere ludum." The truth was that Professor Wilson had in him, at that period of life, something of the old English chivalric feeling which our old ballad poetry agrees in ascribing to Robin Hood. Several men of genius have expressed to me, at different times, the delight they had in the traditional character of Robin Hood. He has no resemblance to the old heroes of Continental romance in one important feature:[Pg 433] they are uniformly victorious: and this gives even a tone of monotony to the Continental poems: for, let them involve their hero in what dangers they may, the reader still feels them to be as illusory as those which menace an enchanter—an Astolpho, for instance, who, by one blast of his horn, can dissipate an army of opponents. But Robin is frequently beaten: he never declines a challenge; sometimes he courts one; and occasionally he learns a lesson from some proud tinker or masterful beggar, the moral of which teaches him that there are better men in the world than himself. What follows? Is the brave man angry with his stout-hearted antagonist because he is no less brave and a little stronger than himself? Not at all; he insists on making him a present, on giving him a dejeuner à la fourchette, and (in case he is disposed to take service in the forest) finally adopts him into his band of archers. Much the same spirit governed, in his earlier years, Professor Wilson. And, though a man of prudence cannot altogether approve of his throwing himself into the convivial society of gipsies, tinkers, potters,[177] strolling players, &c., nevertheless it tells altogether in favour of Professor Wilson's generosity of mind, that he was ever ready to forgo his advantages of station and birth, and to throw himself fearlessly upon his own native powers, as man opposed to man. Even at Oxford he fought an aspiring shoemaker repeatedly—which is creditable to both sides; for the very prestige of the gown is already overpowering to the artisan from the beginning, and he is half beaten by terror at his own presumption. Elsewhere he sought out, or, at least, did not avoid the most dreaded of the local heroes; and fought his way through his "most verdant years," taking or giving defiances to the right and the left in perfect carelessness, as chance or occasion offered. No man could well show more generosity in these struggles, nor more magnanimity in reporting their issue, which naturally went many times against him. But Mr. Wilson neither sought to disguise the issue nor showed himself at all displeased with it: even brutal ill-usage did not seem to have left any[Pg 434] vindictive remembrance of itself. These features of his character, however, and these propensities, which naturally belonged merely to the transitional state from boyhood to manhood, would have drawn little attention on their own account, had they not been relieved and emphatically contrasted by his passion for literature, and the fluent command which he soon showed over a rich and voluptuous poetic diction. In everything Mr. Wilson showed himself an Athenian. Athenians were all lovers of the cockpit; and, howsoever shocking to the sensibilities of modern refinement, we have no doubt that Plato was a frequent better at cock-fights; and Socrates is known to have bred cocks himself. If he were any Athenian, however, in particular, it was Alcibiades; for he had his marvellous versatility; and to the Windermere neighbourhood, in which he had settled, this versatility came recommended by something of the very same position in society—the same wealth, the same social temper, the same jovial hospitality. No person was better fitted to win or to maintain a high place in social esteem; for he could adapt himself to all companies; and the wish to conciliate and to win his way by flattering the self-love of others was so predominant over all personal self-love and vanity
It was at Mr. Wordsworth's house that I first met Professor (then Mr.) Wilson from Elleray. I've described the impression he made on me when we first met elsewhere; and it's well-known from other accounts about Mr. Wilson (like the one written by Mr. Lockhart in "Peter's Letters") that he split his time and poured his heart into both literature and the wild pleasures of real life. Cock-fighting, wrestling, boxing, boat racing, horse racing—all had Mr. Wilson's support; he sometimes even participated personally. I'm not mentioning this in a negative spirit towards Professor Wilson; rather, these interests stemmed from his passionate character and natural abilities—his strength, speed, and agility: and since this all took place in his youth—I'm talking about a time twenty-five years ago—it doesn't tarnish his reputation among fair-minded people. "Non lusisse pudet, sed non incidere ludum." The truth is, during that stage of his life, Professor Wilson had a hint of the old English chivalric spirit that our traditional ballads attribute to Robin Hood. Several creative individuals have told me at various times how much they enjoyed the classic character of Robin Hood. He doesn’t resemble the old heroes of Continental romance in one significant way: [Pg 433] they always win, which gives a sense of monotony to the Continental tales; because, no matter what dangers they face, the reader still perceives them as fictional, like those that threaten an enchanter—like Astolpho, who can disperse an army of foes with a single blast from his horn. But Robin often loses: he never backs down from a challenge; sometimes he even seeks them out; and occasionally, he learns a lesson from a proud tinker or pushy beggar, which teaches him that there are people who are better than he is. What happens next? Does the brave man get mad at his tough rival for being just as brave and a bit stronger? Not at all; he insists on giving him a gift, treats him to a dejeuner à la fourchette, and (if he's inclined to join the forest crew) eventually welcomes him into his band of archers. A similar spirit guided Professor Wilson in his younger years. And while a sensible person may not entirely approve of him joining the lively company of gypsies, tinkers, potters, [177] and traveling performers, it certainly reflects well on Professor Wilson's open-mindedness that he was willing to set aside his advantages of class and birth and throw himself boldly into situations where he was just another man. Even at Oxford, he fought against an ambitious shoemaker multiple times—which is commendable on both sides; because the very prestige of the academic gown can be intimidating to the artisan from the start, leaving him half beaten by fear of his own audacity. Elsewhere, he sought out, or at least didn't avoid, the most feared local heroes; and he fought his way through his "most verdant years," issuing and accepting challenges without concern, as chance or circumstance arose. No one displayed more generosity in these encounters or more nobility in recounting the outcomes, which often didn't come out in his favor. But Mr. Wilson never tried to hide the results or seemed displeased by them: even harsh treatment didn't seem to leave any [Pg 434] vindictive memories. However, these traits and tendencies, which were part of the transition from boyhood to manhood, would have drawn little attention on their own unless they were highlighted and dramatically contrasted by his passion for literature and his impressive command of a rich and expressive poetic language. In everything, Mr. Wilson exhibited an Athenian spirit. Athenians were all fans of the cockpit; and, shocking as it may be to modern sensibilities, we have no doubt that Plato often bet on cock-fights; and Socrates is known to have raised cocks himself. If he were any Athenian in particular, it was Alcibiades, given his amazing versatility; and in the Windermere area where he settled, this versatility came with a social position that matched—similar wealth, the same sociable nature, and warm hospitality. No one was better suited to gain or keep a respected social standing; he could adapt to any group, and his desire to please and win people over by appealing to their vanity was much stronger than any personal pride or vanity he had.
Of all ages.
Mr. Wilson and most of his family I had already known for six years. We had projected journeys together through Spain and Greece, all of which had been nipped in the bud by Napoleon's furious and barbarous mode of making war. It was no joke, as it had been in past times, for an Englishman to be found wandering in continental regions; the pretence that he was, or might be, a spy—a charge so easy to make, so impossible to throw off—at once sufficed for the hanging of the unhappy traveller. In one of his Spanish bulletins, Napoleon even boasted[178] of having hanged sixteen Englishmen, "merchants or others of that nation," whom he taxed with no suspicion even of being suspected, beyond the simple fact of being detected in the act of breathing Spanish[Pg 435] air. These atrocities had interrupted our continental schemes; and we were thus led the more to roam amongst home scenes. How it happened I know not—for we had wandered together often in England—but, by some accident, it was not until 1814 that we visited Edinburgh together. Then it was that I first saw Scotland.
Mr. Wilson and most of his family I had already known for six years. We had planned trips together through Spain and Greece, all of which had been cut short by Napoleon's brutal and savage way of waging war. It was no joke, as it had been in the past, for an Englishman to be found wandering in continental areas; the mere suggestion that he was, or could be, a spy—a charge so easy to make, so impossible to shake off—was enough for the unfortunate traveler to be hanged. In one of his Spanish bulletins, Napoleon even boasted[178] of having hanged sixteen Englishmen, "merchants or others of that nation," whom he accused with no evidence of wrongdoing other than simply being caught breathing Spanish[Pg 435] air. These atrocities had disrupted our plans for Europe; and we were therefore inclined to explore more of our own surroundings. How it happened, I don't know—since we had traveled together often in England—but by some chance, it wasn’t until 1814 that we visited Edinburgh together. That was when I first saw Scotland.
I remember a singular incident which befell us on the road. Breakfasting together, before starting, at Mr. Wilson's place of Elleray, we had roamed, through a long and delightful day, by way of Ulleswater, &c. Reaching Penrith at night, we slept there; and in the morning, as we were sunning ourselves in the street, we saw, seated in an arm-chair, and dedicating himself to the self-same task of apricating his jolly personage, a rosy, jovial, portly man, having something of the air of a Quaker. Good nature was clearly his predominating quality; and, as that happened to be our foible also, we soon fell into talk; and from that into reciprocations of good will; and from those into a direct proposal, on our new friend's part, that we should set out upon our travels together. How—whither—to what end or object—seemed as little to enter into his speculations as the cost of realizing them. Rare it is, in this business world of ours, to find any man in so absolute a state of indifference and neutrality that for him all quarters of the globe, and all points of the compass, are self-balanced by philosophic equilibrium of choice. There seemed to us something amusing and yet monstrous in such a man; and, perhaps, had we been in the same condition of exquisite indetermination, to this hour we might all have been staying together at Penrith. We, however, were previously bound to Edinburgh; and, as soon as this was explained to him, that way he proposed to accompany us. We took a chaise, therefore, jointly, to Carlisle; and, during the whole eighteen miles, he astonished us by the wildest and most frantic displays of erudition, much of it levelled at Sir Isaac Newton. Much philosophical learning also he exhibited; but the grotesque accompaniment of the whole was that, after every bravura, he fell back into his corner in fits of laughter at himself. We began to find out the unhappy solution of his indifference and purposeless condition; he was a lunatic; and, afterwards, we had reason to suppose[Pg 436] that he was now a fugitive from his keepers. At Carlisle he became restless and suspicious; and, finally, upon some real or imaginary business, he turned aside to Whitehaven. We were not the objects of his jealousy; for he parted with us reluctantly and anxiously. On our part, we felt our pleasure overcast by sadness; for we had been much amused by his conversation, and could not but respect the philological learning which he had displayed. But one thing was whimsical enough:—Wilson purposely said some startling things—startling in point of decorum, or gay pleasantries contra bonos mores; at every sally of which he looked as awfully shocked as though he himself had not been holding the most licentious talk in another key, licentious as respected all truth of history or of science. Another illustration, in fact, he furnished of what I have so often heard Coleridge say—that lunatics, in general, so far from being the brilliant persons they are thought, and having a preternatural brightness of fancy, usually are the very dullest and most uninspired of mortals. The sequel of our poor friend's history—for the apparent goodness of his nature had interested us both in his fortunes, and caused us to inquire after him through all probable channels—was, that he was last seen by a Cambridge man of our acquaintance, but under circumstances which confirmed our worst fears. It was in a stage-coach; and, at first, the Cantab suspected nothing amiss; but, some accident of conversation having started the topic of La Place's Mechanique Celeste, off flew our jolly Penrith friend in a tirade against Sir Isaac Newton; so that at once we recognised him, as the Vicar of Wakefield his "cosmogony friend" in prison; but—and that was melancholy to hear—this tirade was suddenly checked, in the rudest manner, by a brutal fellow in one corner of the carriage, who, as it now appeared, was attending him as a regular keeper, and, according to the custom of such people, always laid an interdict upon every ebullition of fancy or animated thought. He was a man whose mind had got some wheel entangled, or some spring overloaded, but else was a learned and able person; and he was to be silent at the bidding of a low, brutal fellow, incapable of distinguishing between the gaieties of fancy and the wandering of the intellect. Sad fate! and sad inversion[Pg 437] of the natural relations between the accomplished scholar and the rude illiterate boor!
I remember a unique incident that happened to us on the road. We had breakfast together, before starting, at Mr. Wilson's place in Elleray, and spent a long and wonderful day wandering by Ulleswater, etc. After reaching Penrith at night, we slept there, and in the morning, while enjoying the sun on the street, we noticed a rosy, cheerful, portly man sitting in an armchair, focused on tanning his jolly self. Good nature was clearly his main trait, and since that was also our weakness, we quickly struck up a conversation, which led to sharing good vibes, and eventually, our new friend directly proposed that we travel together. How, where, or for what purpose didn’t seem to cross his mind, nor did the cost of it. It's rare in our business-focused world to find someone so completely indifferent that all corners of the globe feel equally balanced to them in a philosophical sense. We found something both amusing and bizarre about such a person; perhaps if we had shared his state of exquisite uncertainty, we might still be in Penrith together. However, we were committed to going to Edinburgh, and once we explained that to him, he decided to join us in that direction. So, we all took a carriage to Carlisle together; and for the entire eighteen miles, he amazed us with the wildest and most frantic displays of knowledge, much of it aimed at Sir Isaac Newton. He showcased a lot of philosophical learning, but the strange part was that after every grand statement, he would collapse into laughter at himself. We started to figure out the sad reason behind his indifference and lack of direction; he was a lunatic, and later we suspected that he was a runaway from his caretakers. Once we got to Carlisle, he became restless and paranoid; eventually, for some real or imaginary reason, he headed off to Whitehaven. He reluctantly and anxiously parted ways with us, as we were not the focus of his jealousy. On our side, we felt a mix of sadness, as we had been really entertained by his conversation and couldn’t help but respect the linguistic knowledge he had shown. One quirky thing happened: Wilson intentionally said some shocking things—shocking in terms of propriety or playful jokes against morals; every time he made a comment, he looked just as appalled as if he hadn't been the one having the most inappropriate conversation in another context, equally offensive to all historical or scientific truth. In fact, he illustrated what I have often heard Coleridge say—that lunatics, far from being the brilliant people they are often thought to be, and not having an extraordinary brightness of imagination, are usually the dullest and most uninspired individuals. The aftermath of our poor friend’s story—his apparent kindness had drawn both of us to care about his fate, and led us to ask after him through various channels—was that he was last seen by a Cambridge acquaintance of ours, but under circumstances that confirmed our worst fears. It was on a stagecoach; initially, the Cambridge man suspected nothing was wrong, but once conversation turned to La Place's *Mechanique Celeste*, our cheerful Penrith friend launched into a tirade against Sir Isaac Newton; at that moment, we recognized him, much like how the Vicar of Wakefield would recognize his "cosmogony friend" in prison. But, sadly, this outburst was abruptly silenced in the rudest way by a brutish man in one corner of the carriage, who we soon realized was there as his regular keeper, who, as is common with such people, suppressed every burst of creativity or animated thought. He was a man whose mind seemed tangled or burdened but was otherwise learned and capable; tragically, he had to remain silent at the command of a lowly, brutish individual, incapable of discerning between the joys of imagination and the wandering of the mind. A sad fate! And a heartbreaking reversal of the natural order between the educated scholar and the uncouth, uneducated boor!
Of Edinburgh I thought to have spoken at length. But I pause, and retreat from the subject, when I remember that so many of those whom I loved and honoured at that time—some, too, among the gayest of the gay—are now lying in their graves. Of Professor Wilson's sisters, the youngest, at that time a child almost, and standing at the very vestibule of womanhood, is alone living; she has had a romantic life; has twice traversed, with no attendance but her servants, the gloomy regions of the Caucasus, and once with a young child by her side. Her husband, Mr. M'Neill, is now the English Envoy at the court of Teheran. On the rest, one of whom I honoured and loved as a sister, the curtain has fallen; and here, in the present mood of my spirits, I also feel disposed to drop a curtain over my subsequent memoirs. Farewell, hallowed recollections!
I intended to talk a lot about Edinburgh. But I pause and step back from the topic when I think about how many of the people I loved and respected back then—some of whom were among the liveliest—are now resting in their graves. Of Professor Wilson's sisters, the youngest, who was almost a child and just starting to become a woman, is the only one still alive. She has lived a romantic life, having traveled alone, with just her servants, through the dark regions of the Caucasus twice, and once with a young child by her side. Her husband, Mr. M'Neill, is now the English Envoy at the court of Teheran. For the others, one whom I cherished and loved like a sister, the curtain has fallen; and here, in my current mood, I feel inclined to draw the curtain over my future memoirs as well. Goodbye, cherished memories!
Thus, I have sketched the condition of the Lake District, as to society of an intellectual order, at the time (viz. the winter of 1808-9) when I became a personal resident in that district; and, indeed, from this era, through a period of about twenty years in succession, I may describe my domicile as being amongst the lakes and mountains of Westmoreland. It is true, I often made excursions to London, Bath, and its neighbourhood, or northwards to Edinburgh, and, perhaps, on an average, passed one-fourth part of each year at a distance from this district; but here only it was that henceforwards I had a house and small establishment. The house, for a very long course of years, was that same cottage in Grasmere, embowered in roses and jessamine, which I have already described as a spot hallowed to the admirers of Mr. Wordsworth by his seven years' occupation of its pretty chambers and its rocky orchard: a little domain, which he has himself apostrophized as the "lowest stair in that magnificent temple" forming the north-eastern boundary of Grasmere. The little orchard is rightly called "the lowest stair"; for within itself all is ascending ground; hardly enough of flat area on which to pitch a pavilion, and even that scanty surface an inclined plane; whilst the rest of the valley, into[Pg 438] which you step immediately from the garden gate, is (according to the characteristic beauty of the northern English valleys, as first noticed by Mr. Wordsworth himself) "flat as the floor of a temple."
Thus, I've outlined the state of the Lake District in terms of its intellectual community during the winter of 1808-9, when I became a personal resident there. From that point on, for about twenty years, I can say that I lived among the lakes and mountains of Westmoreland. It's true that I often took trips to London, Bath, and nearby areas, or traveled north to Edinburgh; on average, I spent about a quarter of each year away from this district. But this was the only place where I had a home and a small establishment. For many years, that home was the same cottage in Grasmere, surrounded by roses and jasmine, which I’ve already described as a place cherished by admirers of Mr. Wordsworth due to his seven-year stay in its charming rooms and rocky orchard. It’s a small domain that he referred to as the "lowest stair in that magnificent temple" marking the northeastern edge of Grasmere. The little orchard is aptly named "the lowest stair," as it's all sloped ground; there’s hardly enough flat space to set up a pavilion, and even that limited area is an incline. Meanwhile, the rest of the valley, which you step into directly from the garden gate, is (in line with the typical beauty of northern English valleys, as first noted by Mr. Wordsworth himself) "flat as the floor of a temple."
In sketching the state of the literary society gathered or gathering about the English lakes, at the time of my settling amongst them, I have of course authorized the reader to suppose that I personally mixed freely amongst the whole; else I should have had neither the means for describing that society with truth, nor any motive for attempting it. Meantime the direct object of my own residence at the lakes was the society of Mr. Wordsworth. And it will be a natural inference that, if I mingled on familiar or friendly terms with this society, a fortiori would Mr. Wordsworth do so, as belonging to the lake district by birth, and as having been, in some instances, my own introducer to members of this community. But it was not so; and never was a grosser blunder committed than by Lord Byron when, in a letter to Mr. Hogg (from which an extract is given in some volume of Mr. Lockhart's "Life of Sir Walter Scott"), he speaks of Wordsworth, Southey, &c., in connexion with Sir Walter, as all alike injured by mixing only with little adoring coteries, which each severally was supposed to have gathered about himself as a centre.[179] Now, had this really been the case, I know not how the objects of such a partial or exclusive admiration could have been injured by it in any sense with which the public were concerned. A writer may—and of that there are many instances—write the worse for meeting nobody of sympathy with himself; no admiration sufficient to convince him that he has written powerfully: that misfortune, when it occurs, may injure a writer, or may cause him to cease cultivating his genius. But no man was ever injured by the strong reflection of his own power in love and admiration; not as a[Pg 439] writer, I mean: though it is very true, from the great variety of modes in which praise, or the indirect flattery of silent homage, acts upon different minds, that some men may be injured as social companions: vanity, and, still more, egotism—the habit of making self the central point of reference in every treatment of every subject—may certainly be cherished by the idolatry of a private circle, continually ascending; but arrogance and gloomy anti-social pride are qualities much more likely to be favoured by sympathy withheld, and the unjust denial of a man's pretensions. This, however, need not be discussed with any reference to Mr. Wordsworth; for he had no such admiring circle: no applauding coterie ever gathered about him.[180] Wordsworth was not a man to be openly flattered; his pride repelled that kind of homage, or any homage that offered itself with the air of conferring honour; and repelled it in a tone of loftiness or arrogance that never failed to kindle the pride of the baffled flatterer. Nothing in the way of applause could give Wordsworth any pleasure, unless it were the spontaneous and half-unconscious utterance of delight in some passage—the implicit applause of love, half afraid to express itself; or else the deliberate praise of rational examination, study, and comparison, applied to his writings: these were the only modes of admiration which could recommend themselves to Wordsworth. But, had it been otherwise, there was another mistake in what Lord Byron said:—The neighbouring people, in every degree, "gentle and simple," literary or half-educated, who had heard of Wordsworth, agreed in despising him. Never had poet or prophet less honour in his own country. Of the gentry, very few knew anything about Wordsworth. Grasmere was a vale little visited at that time, except for an hour's admiration. The case is now [1840] altered; and partly by a new road, which, having pierced the valley by a line carried along[Pg 440] the water's edge, at a most preposterous cost, and with a large arrear of debt for the next generation, saves the labour of surmounting a laborious hill. The case is now altered no less for the intellect of the age; and Rydal Mount is now one of the most honoured abodes in the island. But, at that time, Grasmere did not differ more from the Grasmere of to-day than Wordsworth from the Wordsworth of 1809-20. I repeat that he was little known, even as a resident in the country; and, as a poet, strange it would have been had the little town of Ambleside undertaken to judge for itself, and against a tribunal which had for a time subdued the very temper of the age. Lord Byron might have been sure that nowhere would the contempt for Mr. Wordsworth be rifer than exactly amongst those who had a local reason for curiosity about the man, and who, of course, adopting the tone of the presiding journals, adopted them with a personality of feeling unknown elsewhere.
In outlining the state of the literary community surrounding the English lakes when I settled among them, I have naturally allowed the reader to believe that I actively interacted with everyone there; otherwise, I wouldn't have had the means to describe that community accurately or any reason to do so. Meanwhile, the main purpose of my staying at the lakes was to be part of Mr. Wordsworth's company. It would be a reasonable assumption that if I mixed on friendly terms with this group, Mr. Wordsworth, being a native of the lake district and having sometimes introduced me to its members, would do the same. However, that wasn't the case, and no greater mistake was made than by Lord Byron when he wrote to Mr. Hogg (an excerpt of which can be found in some volume of Mr. Lockhart's "Life of Sir Walter Scott"), referring to Wordsworth, Southey, etc., in connection with Sir Walter, as all being harmed by only associating with little adoring circles they were believed to have created around themselves. Now, had this truly been the case, I don't see how such selective admiration could have harmed them in any way that mattered to the public. A writer can—and there are many examples—actually write worse for having no one around who resonates with them; a lack of admiration can leave them unconvinced that they have written powerfully. That kind of misfortune can harm a writer or discourage them from developing their talent. But no one has ever been harmed by the strong reflection of their own power in love and admiration—not as a writer, at least. It’s true that due to the wide variety of ways praise or the indirect flattery of silent homage affects different people, some individuals might suffer as social companions: vanity, and especially egotism—the habit of centering everything around oneself—can certainly be fostered by the adoration of a private group that endlessly elevates them; but arrogance and a gloomy, anti-social pride are far more likely to arise from withheld sympathy and unjust denial of one's worth. This, however, doesn't need to be discussed concerning Mr. Wordsworth, as he had no such admiring circle; no applauding group ever formed around him. Wordsworth wasn't one to welcome open flattery; his pride repelled that kind of tribute, or any form of admiration that tried to bestow honor upon him, and he rejected it in a way that inevitably ignited the pride of those attempting to flatter him. Nothing in terms of applause could please Wordsworth unless it was the spontaneous and half-unconscious expression of joy in a passage—the implicit approval of love that was shy to show itself; or the thoughtful praise coming from rational critique, study, and comparison of his work—these were the only forms of admiration that would resonate with Wordsworth. But even if it were different, there was another error in what Lord Byron claimed: the local people, in every class, "gentle and simple," literary or semi-educated, who had heard of Wordsworth, generally looked down on him. Never had a poet or prophet been less honored in his own country. Among the gentry, very few knew anything about Wordsworth. Grasmere was a valley that was hardly visited at that time, except for a brief hour of admiration. The situation is different now [1840]; partly due to a new road that has cut through the valley along the water's edge, at a ridiculous expense, leaving a large debt for the next generation to manage, eliminating the need to climb a difficult hill. The situation has changed not just for the geography, but also for the intellect of the age; Rydal Mount is now one of the most respected places in the country. However, at that time, Grasmere was not more different from today’s Grasmere than Wordsworth was from the Wordsworth of 1809-20. I repeat that he was little known, even as a local resident; and as a poet, it would have been quite odd if the small town of Ambleside had tried to judge for itself, opposing a standard that had, for a while, dominated the spirit of the age. Lord Byron could have been sure that nowhere would the disdain for Mr. Wordsworth be stronger than exactly among those who had local reasons to be curious about him, and who, of course, adopting the tone of the leading journals, infused it with a sense of personal feeling that wasn't found elsewhere.
Except, therefore, with the Lloyds, or occasionally with Thomas Wilkinson the Quaker, or very rarely with Southey, Wordsworth had no intercourse at all beyond the limits of Grasmere: and in that valley I was myself, for some years, his sole visiting friend; as, on the other hand, my sole visitors as regarded that vale, were himself and his family.
Except for the Lloyds, or occasionally Thomas Wilkinson the Quaker, or very rarely Southey, Wordsworth had no contact outside of Grasmere. During that time, I was his only visiting friend in the valley, and in turn, my only visitors in that area were him and his family.
Among that family, and standing fourth in the series of his children, was a little girl, whose life, short as it was, and whose death, obscure and little heard of as it was amongst all the rest of the world, connected themselves with the records of my own life by ties of passion so profound, by a grief so frantic, and so memorable through the injurious effects which it produced of a physical kind, that, had I left untouched every other chapter of my own experience, I should certainly have left behind some memorandum of this, as having a permanent interest in the psychological history of human nature. Luckily the facts are not without a parallel, and in well authenticated medical books; else I should have scrupled (as what man does not scruple who values, above all things, the reputation for veracity?) to throw the whole stress of credibility on my own unattached narration. But all experienced physicians know well that cases similar to mine, though not common, occur at intervals in every large community.
Among that family, and fourth in the order of their children, was a little girl whose life, though brief, and whose death, obscure and largely unnoticed by the rest of the world, were deeply intertwined with my own life through ties of profound passion, a frantic grief, and lasting physical effects. Had I chosen to ignore every other chapter of my experiences, I would have certainly documented this one for its lasting significance in understanding human psychology. Fortunately, the facts have parallels documented in reputable medical texts; otherwise, I would have been hesitant (as anyone would be who values their reputation for honesty) to place the weight of credibility solely on my own uncorroborated account. However, all experienced doctors know that cases like mine, while not common, do happen periodically in every large community.
When I first settled in Grasmere, Catherine Wordsworth was in her infancy, but, even at that age, noticed me more than any other person, excepting, of course, her mother. She had for an attendant a young girl, perhaps thirteen years old—Sarah, one of the orphan children left by the unfortunate couple, George and Sarah Green, whose tragical end in a snow-storm I have already narrated.[181] This Sarah Green was as far removed in character as could be imagined from that elder sister who had won so much admiration in her childish days, by her premature display of energy and household virtues. She was lazy, luxurious, and sensual: one, in fact, of those nurses who, in their anxiety to gossip about young men, leave their infant or youthful charges to the protection of chance. It was, however, not in her out-of-door ramblings, but at home, that the accident occurred which determined the fortunes of little Catherine. Mr. Coleridge was at that time a visitor to the Wordsworths at Allan Bank, that house in Grasmere to which Wordsworth had removed upon quitting his cottage. One day about noon, when, perhaps, he was coming down to breakfast, Mr. Coleridge passed Sarah Green, playing after her indolent fashion with the child; and between them lay a number of carrots. He warned the girl that raw carrots were an indigestible substance for the stomach of an infant. This warning was neglected: little Catherine ate—it was never known how many; and, in a short time, was seized with strong convulsions. I saw her in this state about two P.M. No medical aid was to be had nearer than Ambleside; about six miles distant. However, all proper measures were taken; and, by sunset, she had so far recovered as to be pronounced out of danger. Her left side, however, left arm, and left leg, from that time forward, were in a disabled state: not what could be called paralyzed, but suffering a sort of atony or imperfect distribution of vital power.
When I first moved to Grasmere, Catherine Wordsworth was just a baby, but even then, she noticed me more than anyone else, except her mom, of course. She had a young girl looking after her, maybe thirteen years old—Sarah, one of the orphaned kids left by the unfortunate couple, George and Sarah Green, whose tragic end in a snowstorm I've already talked about.[181] This Sarah Green was completely different in character from her older sister, who had gained so much admiration as a child for her early display of energy and domestic skills. She was lazy, indulgent, and sensual: one of those nurses who, more concerned with gossiping about young men, leave their babies or young charges to fend for themselves. However, it wasn’t during her outdoor wanderings, but at home, that the incident happened which would impact little Catherine's future. Mr. Coleridge was visiting the Wordsworths at Allan Bank, the house in Grasmere where Wordsworth had moved after leaving his cottage. One day around noon, as he was possibly heading down for breakfast, Mr. Coleridge saw Sarah Green idly playing with the child, and there were several carrots scattered between them. He warned her that raw carrots are hard for a baby's stomach to digest. This warning was ignored: little Catherine ate—no one ever knew how many; and shortly after, she began to have severe convulsions. I witnessed her in that state around two PM There was no medical help closer than Ambleside, about six miles away. Nevertheless, all the proper steps were taken; and by sunset, she had recovered enough to be deemed out of danger. However, from then on, her left side, including her left arm and leg, was in a weakened state: not exactly paralyzed, but suffering from a lack of strength or proper vital energy distribution.
Catherine was not above three years old when she died; so that there could not have been much room for the expansion of her understanding, or the unfolding of her real character. But there was room enough in her short life, and too much, for love the most frantic to settle upon her. The[Pg 442] whole vale of Grasmere is not large enough to allow of any great distances between house and house; and, as it happened that little Kate Wordsworth returned my love, she in a manner lived with me at my solitary cottage; as often as I could entice her from home, walked with me, slept with me, and was my sole companion. That I was not singular in ascribing some witchery to the nature and manners of this innocent child, you may gather from the following most beautiful lines extracted from a sketch[182] towards her portraiture, drawn by her father (with whom, however, she was noways a favourite):—
Catherine was only about three years old when she died, so there wasn’t much time for her understanding to grow or her true character to develop. However, there was plenty of room in her short life for the most intense love to be focused on her. The whole vale of Grasmere isn’t large enough to create significant distances between houses; and since little Kate Wordsworth returned my affection, she essentially lived with me in my lonely cottage. Whenever I could coax her away from home, she walked with me, slept with me, and was my only companion. The fact that I wasn’t alone in attributing some magic to the nature and behavior of this innocent child can be seen in the following beautiful lines taken from a sketch towards her portrait, drawn by her father (who, by the way, was not particularly fond of her):—
Not less if left unattended and alone
When both the young and the old sit together And enjoy its activity; Even so, this joyful being is content with herself. Was entirely enough: solitude for her
What a carefree society, who filled the air With joy and spontaneous songs.
Her movements were as light as a playful fawn's. Suddenly startled from the position where she was lying; Unanticipated, surprising, like the excitement Of the gentle breeze stirring the meadow flowers,
Or from before it pursuing carelessly The colorful images impressed "On the surface of a calm lake."
It was this radiant spirit of joyousness, making solitude for her blithe society, and filling from morning to night the air "with gladness and involuntary songs," this it was which so fascinated my heart that I became blindly, doatingly, in[Pg 443] a servile degree, devoted to this one affection. In the spring of 1812, I went up to London; and, early in June, by a letter from Miss Wordsworth, her aunt, I learned the terrific news (for such to me it was) that she had died suddenly. She had gone to bed in good health about sunset on June 4th; was found speechless a little before midnight; and died in the early dawn, just as the first gleams of morning began to appear above Seat Sandel and Fairfield, the mightiest of the Grasmere barriers, about an hour, perhaps, before sunrise.
It was this bright spirit of happiness, creating a cheerful atmosphere in her solitude and filling the air "with joy and spontaneous songs" from morning till night, that captivated my heart so much that I became blindly and obsessively devoted to this one feeling. In the spring of 1812, I went to London; and, early in June, I received a letter from Miss Wordsworth, her aunt, with the shocking news (which was heartbreaking to me) that she had died suddenly. She had gone to bed in good health around sunset on June 4th; was found speechless just before midnight; and passed away in the early dawn, just as the first light of morning began to break over Seat Sandel and Fairfield, the tallest of the Grasmere hills, about an hour maybe before sunrise.
Never, perhaps, from the foundations of those mighty hills, was there so fierce a convulsion of grief as mastered my faculties on receiving that heart-shattering news. Over and above my excess of love for her, I had always viewed her as an impersonation of the dawn and the spirit of infancy; and this abstraction seated in her person, together with the visionary sort of connexion which, even in her parting hours, she assumed with the summer sun, by timing her immersion into the cloud of death with the rising and setting of that fountain of life,—these combined impressions recoiled so violently into a contrast or polar antithesis to the image of death that each exalted and brightened the other. I returned hastily to Grasmere; stretched myself every night, for more than two months running, upon her grave; in fact, often passed the night upon her grave; not (as may readily be supposed) in any parade of grief; on the contrary, in that quiet valley of simple shepherds, I was secure enough from observation until morning light began to return; but in mere intensity of sick, frantic yearning after neighbourhood to the darling of my heart. Many readers will have seen in Sir Walter Scott's "Demonology," and in Dr. Abercrombie's "Inquiries concerning the Intellectual Powers," some remarkable illustrations of the creative faculties awakened in the eye or other organs by peculiar states of passion; and it is worthy of a place amongst cases of that nature that, in many solitary fields, at a considerable elevation above the level of the valleys,—fields which, in the local dialect, are called "intacks,"—my eye was haunted at times, in broad noonday (oftener, however, in the afternoon), with a facility, but at times also with a[Pg 444] necessity, for weaving, out of a few simple elements, a perfect picture of little Kate in the attitude and onward motion of walking. I resorted constantly to these "intacks," as places where I was little liable to disturbance; and usually I saw her at the opposite side of the field, which might sometimes be at a distance of a quarter of a mile, generally not so much. Always almost she carried a basket on her head; and usually the first hint upon which the figure arose commenced in wild plants, such as tall ferns, or the purple flowers of the foxglove; but, whatever might be the colours or the forms, uniformly the same little full-formed figure arose, uniformly dressed in the little blue bed-gown and black skirt of Westmoreland, and uniformly with the air of advancing motion. Through part of June, July, and part of August, in fact throughout the summer, this frenzy of grief continued. It was reasonably to be expected that nature would avenge such senseless self-surrender to passion; for, in fact, so far from making an effort to resist it, I clung to it as a luxury (which, in the midst of suffering, it really was in part). All at once, on a day at the latter end of August, in one instant of time, I was seized with some nervous sensation that, for a moment, caused sickness. A glass of brandy removed the sickness; but I felt, to my horror, a sting as it were, of some stationary torment left behind—a torment absolutely indescribable, but under which I felt assured that life could not be borne. It is useless and impossible to describe what followed: with no apparent illness discoverable to any medical eye—looking, indeed, better than usual for three months and upwards, I was under the possession of some internal nervous malady, that made each respiration which I drew an act of separate anguish. I travelled southwards immediately to Liverpool, to Birmingham, to Bristol, to Bath, for medical advice; and finally rested—in a gloomy state of despair, rather because I saw no use in further change than that I looked for any change in this place more than others—at Clifton, near Bristol. Here it was, at length, in the course of November, that, in one hour, my malady began to leave me: it was not quite so abrupt, however, in its departure, as in its first development: a peculiar sensation arose from the knee[Pg 445] downwards, about midnight: it went forwards through a space of about five hours, and then stopped, leaving me perfectly free from every trace of the awful malady which had possessed me, but so much debilitated as with difficulty to stand or walk. Going down soon after this, to Ilfracombe, in Devonshire, where there were hot sea baths, I found it easy enough to restore my shattered strength. But the remarkable fact in this catastrophe of my illness is that all grief for little Kate Wordsworth, nay, all remembrance of her, had, with my malady, vanished from my mind. The traces of her innocent features were utterly washed away from my heart: she might have been dead for a thousand years, so entirely abolished was the last lingering image of her face or figure. The little memorials of her which her mother had given to me, as, in particular, a pair of her red morocco shoes, won not a sigh from me as I looked at them: even her little grassy grave, white with snow, when I returned to Grasmere in January, 1813, was looked at almost with indifference; except, indeed, as now become a memorial to me of that dire internal physical convulsion thence arising by which I had been shaken and wrenched; and, in short, a case more entirely realizing the old Pagan superstition of a nympholepsy in the first place, and, secondly, of a Lethe or river of oblivion, and the possibility, by one draught from this potent stream, of applying an everlasting ablution to all the soils and stains of human anguish, I do not suppose the psychological history of man affords.[183]
Never, perhaps, from the foundations of those mighty hills, was there so intense a wave of grief that overwhelmed me upon receiving that devastating news. Beyond my overwhelming love for her, I always saw her as a symbol of the dawn and the essence of childhood; this idea embodied in her person, along with the surreal connection she maintained with the summer sun, by timing her passing with its rising and setting,—these impressions clashed so sharply with the concept of death that each heightened the other. I hurried back to Grasmere, lying every night for more than two months on her grave; in fact, I often spent the night there, not out of a display of grief, but rather in that quiet valley of simple shepherds, where I felt safe from notice until morning light began to break. This was merely an intense, frantic longing for closeness to my beloved. Many readers may have seen in Sir Walter Scott's "Demonology," and in Dr. Abercrombie's "Inquiries concerning the Intellectual Powers," some striking examples of how deep emotions can spark creativity in our senses; it's worth noting that in many solitary fields, elevated above the valleys—fields known locally as "intacks"—my eye would sometimes be gripped during broad daylight (though more often in the afternoon) by a strange but compelling urge to create a perfect image of little Kate walking, drawn from a few simple elements. I frequently visited these "intacks," as they were less likely to be disturbed; and I often spotted her on the far side of the field, sometimes as far as a quarter of a mile away, but generally not much further. Almost always, she carried a basket on her head; and the initial cue for her figure emerged from wild plants, like tall ferns or the purple flowers of foxgloves; yet, regardless of colors or shapes, the same little full-formed figure would consistently emerge, dressed in her little blue nightgown and black skirt of Westmoreland, always appearing to be in motion. From late June through July and into August, indeed throughout the summer, this frenzy of grief persisted. It was fairly predictable that my abandonment to such passion would invite nature's retribution; for instead of resisting it, I embraced it as a kind of luxury (which, amidst suffering, it partly was). Suddenly, on a day at the end of August, I was struck by a nervous sensation that briefly caused nausea. A glass of brandy alleviated this nausea, but to my horror, I felt a lingering sting of a deep, indescribable torment that left me convinced that such suffering was unbearable. It's futile and impossible to detail what followed: with no apparent illness noticeable to doctors—indeed, appearing healthier than usual for over three months—I was plagued by an internal nervous disorder that made every breath an act of distinct anguish. I traveled south to Liverpool, Birmingham, Bristol, and Bath seeking medical advice; finally settling—feeling despondent, primarily because I saw no benefit in further change—at Clifton, near Bristol. Here, at last, in November, my ailment began to lift in the span of an hour; however, it did not leave as abruptly as it had struck: a peculiar sensation spread from my knee downwards around midnight, traveling forward over about five hours, then halting, leaving me entirely free from the dreadful affliction that had possessed me, but so weakened that I struggled to stand or walk. Shortly after, I went to Ilfracombe in Devonshire, where there were hot sea baths, and found it fairly easy to regain my lost strength. However, what stands out in this illness is that all grief for little Kate Wordsworth, and indeed all memory of her, had vanished from my mind along with my ailment. The memories of her innocent features were entirely wiped from my heart: it felt as if she had been gone for a thousand years, so completely erased was the last remnant of her face or figure. The small keepsakes her mother had given me, particularly a pair of her red morocco shoes, brought me no sigh as I looked at them; even her little grave, blanketed in snow when I returned to Grasmere in January 1813, felt almost indifferent to me—except as it stood as a reminder of that terrible internal turmoil I had endured; in short, I do not think there exists a psychological account in human history that could better illustrate the old pagan superstitions about nympholepsy and the river Lethe—or the possibility, with a single sip from that potent stream, of providing an everlasting cleansing of all the stains of human anguish.
CHAPTER XI
RAMBLES FROM THE LAKES: MRS. SIDDONS AND HANNAH MORE[184]
From the Lakes, as I have mentioned before, I went annually southwards—chiefly to Somersetshire or to London, and more rarely to Edinburgh. In my Somersetshire visits, I never failed to see Mrs. Hannah More. My own relative's house, in fact, standing within one mile of Barley Wood,[185] I seldom suffered a week to pass without calling to pay my respects. There was a stronger motive to this than simply what arose from Mrs. H. More's company, or even from that of her sisters (one or two of whom were more entertaining, because more filled with animal spirits and less thoughtful, than Mrs. Hannah); for it rarely happened that one called within the privileged calling hours,—which, with these rural ladies, ranged between twelve and four o'clock,—but one met some person interesting by rank, station, political or literary eminence.
From the Lakes, as I mentioned earlier, I traveled south every year—mainly to Somersetshire or London, and less often to Edinburgh. During my trips to Somersetshire, I always made a point to visit Mrs. Hannah More. My relative's house is actually just a mile away from Barley Wood,[185] and I rarely let a week go by without stopping by to pay my respects. There was a stronger reason for this than simply enjoying Mrs. H. More's company, or even that of her sisters (one or two of whom were more fun, as they were livelier and less contemplative than Mrs. Hannah); it was uncommon to drop by during the designated visiting hours—between twelve and four o'clock with these country ladies—without encountering some interesting person of notable rank, status, or literary or political significance.
Here, accordingly, it was that, during one of my last visits to Somersetshire, either in 1813 or 1814, I met Mrs. Siddons, whom I had often seen upon the stage, but never before in private society.[186] She had come into this part of the country chiefly, I should imagine, with a view to the medical advice at the Bristol Hot Wells and Clifton; for it happened that one of her daughters—a fine interesting[Pg 447] young woman—was suffering under pulmonary consumption—that scourge of the British youth; of which malady, I believe, she ultimately died. From the Hot Wells, Mrs. Siddons had been persuaded to honour with her company a certain Dr. Wh——, whose splendid villa of Mendip Lodge stood about two miles from Barley Wood.
During one of my last visits to Somersetshire, either in 1813 or 1814, I met Mrs. Siddons, someone I had seen many times on stage but had never encountered in private. [186] She had come to this part of the country mainly, I suppose, for medical advice at the Bristol Hot Wells and Clifton; one of her daughters—a lovely, interesting young woman—was suffering from tuberculosis, which was a serious threat to British youth. I believe this daughter ultimately passed away from the illness. While at the Hot Wells, Mrs. Siddons was persuaded to visit a certain Dr. Wh——, whose beautiful villa, Mendip Lodge, was located about two miles from Barley Wood.
This villa, by the way, was a show place, in which a vast deal of money had been sunk upon two follies equally unproductive of pleasure to the beholder and of anything approaching a pecuniary compensation to the owner. The villa, with its embellishments, was supposed to have cost at least sixty thousand pounds; of which one-half had been absorbed, partly by a contest with the natural obstacles of the situation, and partly by the frailest of all ornaments—vast china jars, vases, and other "knicknackery" baubles, which held their very existence by so frail a tenure as the carefulness of a housemaid, and which, at all events, if they should survive the accidents of life, never are known to reproduce to the possessor one-tenth part of what they have cost. Out of doors there were terraces of a mile long, one rising above another, and carried, by mere artifice of mechanic skill, along the perpendicular face of a lofty rock. Had they, when finished, any particular beauty? Not at all. Considered as a pleasure ground, they formed a far less delightful landscape, and a far less alluring haunt to rambling steps, than most of the uncostly shrubberies which were seen below, in unpretending situations, and upon the ordinary level of the vale. What a record of human imbecility! For all his pains and his expense in forming this costly "folly," his reward was daily anxiety, and one solitary bon mot which he used to record of some man who, on being asked by the Rev. Doctor what he thought of his place, replied that "he thought the Devil had tempted him up to an exceedingly high place." No part of the grounds, nor the house itself, was at all the better because originally it had been, beyond measure, difficult to form it: so difficult that, according to Dr. Johnson's witty remark on another occasion, there was good reason for wishing that it had been impossible. The owner, whom I knew, most certainly never enjoyed a happy day in this costly creation; which, after[Pg 448] all, displayed but little taste, though a gorgeous array of finery. The show part of the house was itself a monument to the barrenness of invention in him who planned it; consisting, as it did, of one long suite of rooms in a straight line, without variety, without obvious parts, and therefore without symmetry or proportions. This long vista was so managed that, by means of folding-doors, the whole could be seen at a glance, whilst its extent was magnified by a vast mirror at the further end. The Doctor was a querulous old man, enormously tall and enormously bilious; so that he had a spectral appearance when pacing through the false gaieties of his glittering villa. He was a man of letters, and had known Dr. Johnson, whom he admired prodigiously; and had himself been, in earlier days, the author of a poem now forgotten. He belonged, at one period, to the coterie of Miss Seward, Dr. Darwin, Day, Mr. Edgeworth, &c.; consequently he might have been an agreeable companion, having so much anecdote at his command: but his extreme biliousness made him irritable in a painful degree and impatient of contradiction—impatient even of dissent in the most moderate shape. The latter stage of his life is worth recording, as a melancholy comment upon the blindness of human foresight, and in some degree also as a lesson on the disappointments which follow any departure from high principle, and the deception which seldom fails to lie in ambush for the deceiver. I had one day taken the liberty to ask him why, and with what ultimate purpose, he, who did not like trouble and anxiety, had embarrassed himself with the planning and construction of a villa that manifestly embittered his days? "That is, my young friend," replied the doctor, "speaking plainly, you mean to express your wonder that I, so old a man (for he was then not far from seventy), should spend my time in creating a show-box. Well now, I will tell you: precisely because I am old. I am naturally of a gloomy turn; and it has always struck me that we English, who are constitutionally haunted by melancholy, are too apt to encourage it by the gloomy air of the mansions we inhabit. Your fortunate age, my friend, can dispense with such aids: ours requires continual influxes of pleasure through the senses, in order to cheat the stealthy advances[Pg 449] of old age, and to beguile us of our sadness. Gaiety, the riant style in everything, that is what we old men need. And I, who do not love the pains of creating, love the creation; and, in fact, require it as part of my artillery against time." Such was the amount of his explanation: and now, in a few words, for his subsequent history.
This villa, by the way, was a showcase where a huge amount of money had been spent on two follies that provided neither enjoyment for the viewer nor any financial return for the owner. The villa, with all its decorations, was estimated to have cost at least sixty thousand pounds; half of that was wasted, partly due to battling the natural challenges of the location, and partly on the most delicate of all decorations—huge china jars, vases, and other "knickknack" trinkets, which depended for their survival on the attentiveness of a housekeeper, and, in any case, if they survived the trials of life, were rarely known to yield even a tenth of their original cost. Outside, there were terraces stretching a mile long, stacked one above the other, created through sheer mechanical skill along the steep face of a tall cliff. Did they, when completed, have any particular beauty? Not at all. As a recreational space, they offered a far less delightful view and a far less inviting place to wander than most of the inexpensive shrubs seen below, in humble settings, at the ordinary level of the valley. What a testament to human foolishness! For all his efforts and expenses in making this pricey "folly," his reward was constant worry and one solitary bon mot he used to mention about a man who, when the Rev. Doctor asked for his thoughts on the place, replied that "he thought the Devil had tempted him to an exceedingly high place." Neither the grounds nor the house itself were any better just because it was originally incredibly difficult to build: so difficult that, according to Dr. Johnson’s witty remark on another occasion, there was good reason to wish it had been impossible. The owner, whom I knew, certainly never had a happy day in this extravagant creation, which, after[Pg 448] all, displayed little taste, despite a lavish display of style. The impressive part of the house was itself a monument to the lack of originality in its design; it consisted of one long row of rooms in a straight line, lacking variety, noticeable features, and therefore lacking symmetry or proportions. This long corridor was arranged so that, with folding doors, the entire space could be seen at once, while its length was exaggerated by a large mirror at the far end. The Doctor was a cantankerous old man, extremely tall and very bilious, which gave him a ghostly appearance as he walked through the artificial cheerfulness of his dazzling villa. He was a literary figure who had known Dr. Johnson, whom he admired greatly, and had once been the author of a now-forgotten poem. He had at one point been part of the circle of Miss Seward, Dr. Darwin, Day, Mr. Edgeworth, etc.; thus he could have been a charming companion, with plenty of stories at his disposal: but his extreme biliousness made him irritable to a painful degree and intolerant of contradiction—unwilling even to tolerate any disagreement, no matter how mild. The later part of his life is worth noting, as a sad commentary on the limitations of human foresight, and in some respects, as a lesson on the disappointments that follow straying from strong principles, along with the deception that often waits stealthily for the deceiver. One day, I took the liberty of asking him why, knowing he disliked trouble and stress, he had burdened himself with the planning and building of a villa that clearly soured his days? "That is, my young friend," replied the doctor, "to put it plainly, you mean to wonder why I, such an old man (for he was nearly seventy at the time), would spend my time creating a showpiece. Well now, I’ll tell you: precisely because I am old. I have a naturally gloomy disposition; and it has always struck me that we English, who are naturally troubled by melancholy, tend to foster it with the dreary atmosphere of the homes we live in. Your fortunate youth, my friend, can do without such aids: we need continuous sensory pleasures to counteract the slow approach[Pg 449] of old age and distract us from our sadness. Cheerfulness, a vibrant style in everything, that is what we old men require. And I, who don't enjoy the effort of creating, do love the creation; in fact, I need it as part of my defense against time." So that was the gist of his explanation; and now, in a few words, for his later history.
Finding himself involved in difficulties by the expenses of this villa, going on concurrently with a large London establishment, he looked out for a good marriage (being a widower) as the sole means within his reach for clearing off his embarrassments without proportionable curtailment of his expenses. It happened, unhappily for both parties, that he fell in with a widow lady, who was cruising about the world with precisely the same views, and in precisely the same difficulties. Each (or the friends of each) held out a false flag, magnifying their incomes respectively, and sinking the embarrassments. Mutually deceived, they married: and one change immediately introduced at the splendid villa was the occupation of an entire wing by a lunatic brother of the lady's; the care of whom, with a large allowance, had been committed to her by the Court of Chancery. This, of itself, shed a gloom over the place which defeated the primary purpose of the doctor (as explained by himself) in erecting it. Windows barred, maniacal howls, gloomy attendants from a lunatic hospital ranging about: these were sad disturbances to the doctor's rose-leaf system of life. This, however, if it were a nuisance, brought along with it some solatium, as the lawyers express it, in the shape of the Chancery allowance. But next came the load of debts for which there was no solatium, and which turned out to be the only sort of possession with which the lady was well endowed. The disconsolate doctor—an old man, and a clergyman of the Establishment—could not resort to such redress as a layman might have adopted: he was obliged to give up all his establishments; his gay villa was offered to Queen Caroline, who would, perhaps, have bought it, but that her final troubles in this world were also besetting her about that very time. For the present, therefore, the villa was shut up, and "left alone with its glory." The reverend and aged proprietor, now ten times more bilious and more querulous than ever, shipped[Pg 450] himself off for France; and there, in one of the southern provinces—so far, therefore, as climate was concerned, realizing his vision of gaiety, but for all else the most melancholy of exiles—sick of the world and of himself, hating to live, yet more intensely hating to die, in a short time the unhappy old man breathed his last, in a common lodging house, gloomy and vulgar, and in all things the very antithesis to that splendid abode which he had planned for the consolation of his melancholy, and for the gay beguilement of old age.
Finding himself in trouble with the expenses of this villa, along with running a large place in London, he looked for a good marriage (being a widower) as the only way he could think of to resolve his financial problems without significantly cutting his expenses. Unfortunately for both parties, he met a widow who was traveling around the world with the exact same goals and facing the same issues. Both he and she (or their friends) presented an exaggerated picture of their incomes, downplaying their financial troubles. Misled, they got married, and one immediate change at the beautiful villa was that it now required an entire wing to be occupied by a mentally ill brother of the lady; caring for him, along with a large allowance, had been assigned to her by the Court of Chancery. This alone cast a shadow over the place that undermined the doctor's primary purpose in building it. With barred windows, raving screams, and gloomy attendants from a mental hospital wandering about, these disruptions were sad obstacles to the doctor’s ideal way of life. However, while it was a nuisance, it did come with some compensation, as lawyers put it, in the form of the Chancery allowance. But soon came the burden of debts for which there was no compensation, and that turned out to be the only kind of wealth the lady possessed. The despondent doctor—an old man and a clergyman—couldn't turn to the kinds of solutions a layman might have considered: he had to give up all his establishments; his cheerful villa was offered to Queen Caroline, who might have bought it, but her own final troubles in the world were also closing in on her at that very time. So for now, the villa was locked up, left alone with its glory. The reverend and aged owner, now ten times more irritable and complaining than ever, packed himself off to France; there, in one of the southern provinces—so at least in terms of climate, realizing his dream of joy, but for everything else the saddest exile—sick of the world and of himself, loathing to live but even more to die, in a short time the unfortunate old man breathed his last in a gloomy and ordinary lodging house, the complete opposite of the splendid home he had envisioned for his comfort and for the joyful distraction of old age.
At this gentleman's villa Mrs. Siddons had been paying a visit; for the doctor was a worshipper, in a servile degree, of all things which flourished in the sunshine of the world's applause. To have been the idolized favourite of nations, to have been an honoured and even a privileged[187] guest at Windsor, that was enough for him; and he did his utmost to do the honours of his neighbourhood, not less to glorify himself in the eye of the country, who was fortunate enough to have such a guest, than to show his respect for the distinguished visitor. Mrs. Siddons felt herself flattered by the worthy doctor's splendid hospitalities; for that they were really splendid may be judged by this fact, communicated to me by Hannah More, viz. that the Bishop of London (Porteus), when on a visit to Barley Wood, being much pressed by the doctor to visit him, had at length accepted a dinner invitation. Mrs. Hannah More was, of course, included in the invitation, but had found it impossible to attend, from ill health; and the next morning, at breakfast, the bishop had assured her that, in all his London experience, in that city of magnificent dinners beyond all other cities of the earth, and amongst the princes of the land, he had never witnessed an entertainment so perfect in its appointments.
At this gentleman's villa, Mrs. Siddons was visiting because the doctor was a huge admirer of everything that thrived in the spotlight of public acclaim. To have been the beloved favorite of nations and an esteemed guest at Windsor was more than enough for him; he did everything he could to host those around him, not just to elevate his own status in the eyes of the country that was lucky enough to have such a guest, but also to show his respect for the distinguished visitor. Mrs. Siddons felt flattered by the doctor's lavish hospitality; the fact that it was indeed lavish is supported by this detail shared with me by Hannah More: the Bishop of London (Porteus), during a visit to Barley Wood and after much persuasion from the doctor, eventually accepted a dinner invitation. Mrs. Hannah More was also invited but couldn't attend due to health issues. The next morning at breakfast, the bishop assured her that, in all his experiences in London, a city known for its amazing dinners more than any other in the world, even among the nation's elite, he had never seen an event so perfectly organized.
Gratified as she was, however, by her host's homage, as expressed in his splendid style of entertaining, Mrs. Siddons was evidently more happy in her residence at Barley Wood.[Pg 451] The style of conversation pleased her. It was religious: but Mrs. Siddons was herself religious; and at that moment, when waiting with anxiety upon a daughter whose languor seemed but too ominous in her maternal eyes, she was more than usually open to religious impressions, and predisposed to religious topics. Certain I am, however, from what I then observed, that Mrs. Siddons, in common with many women of rank who were on the list of the Barley Wood visitors, did not apprehend, in their full sense and severity, the peculiar principles of Hannah More. This lady, excellent as she was, and incapable of practising any studied deceit, had, however, an instinct of worldly wisdom, which taught her to refrain from shocking ears polite with too harsh or too broad an exposure of all which she believed. This, at least, if it were any duty of hers, she considered, perhaps, as already fulfilled by her writings; and, moreover, the very tone of good breeding which she had derived from the good company she had kept made her feel the impropriety of lecturing her visitors even when she must have thought them in error. Mrs. Siddons obviously thought Hannah More a person who differed from the world chiefly by applying a greater energy, and sincerity, and zeal, to a system of religious truth equally known to all. Repentance, for instance—all people hold that to be a duty; and Mrs. Hannah More differed from them only by holding it to be a duty of all hours, a duty for youth not less than for age. But how much would she have been shocked to hear that Mrs. Hannah More held all repentance, however indispensable, yet in itself, and though followed by the sincerest efforts at reformation of life, to be utterly unavailing as any operative part of the means by which man gains acceptance with God. To rely upon repentance, or upon anything that man can do for himself, that Mrs. Hannah More considered as the mortal taint, as the πρωτον ψευδος (prôton pseudos), in the worldly theories of the Christian scheme; and I have heard the two ladies—Mrs. More and Mrs. Siddons, I mean—talking by the hour together, as completely at cross purposes as it is possible to imagine. Everything in fact of what was special in the creed adopted by Mrs. Hannah More, by Wilberforce, and many others known as Evangelical Christians, is always capable, in[Pg 452] lax conversation, of being translated into a vague general sense, which completely obscures the true limitations of the meaning.
As grateful as she was for her host's praise, shown through his amazing way of entertaining, Mrs. Siddons was clearly happier living at Barley Wood.[Pg 451] She enjoyed the conversations there. They were religious in nature, but Mrs. Siddons was religious herself; and at that moment, waiting anxiously for a daughter whose weakness seemed all too concerning in her mother’s eyes, she was particularly receptive to religious feelings and topics. However, I am certain, based on what I observed, that Mrs. Siddons, like many noble women who were among the visitors at Barley Wood, didn’t fully grasp the specific principles of Hannah More. This lady, as admirable as she was and incapable of any deliberate deceit, had an instinct for worldly wisdom that taught her to avoid offending polite ears with too stark or excessive a revelation of her beliefs. At least, if she felt this was any responsibility of hers, she probably considered it already fulfilled through her writings; moreover, the very manners she had acquired from her fine company made her aware of the inappropriateness of lecturing her guests, even when she must have believed them to be mistaken. Mrs. Siddons clearly viewed Hannah More as someone who differed from the commonality mainly by applying more energy, sincerity, and zeal to a system of religious truth that everyone was familiar with. For example, everyone acknowledges repentance as a duty; but Mrs. Hannah More differed only in believing it was a duty at all times, a responsibility for the young just as much as for the old. Yet, how shocked she would have been to learn that Mrs. Hannah More believed all repentance, no matter how essential it may be, could ultimately be ineffective as a means for winning God’s favor. Relying on repentance or anything a person can achieve for themselves, that Mrs. Hannah More considered to be the fatal flaw, the πρωτον ψευδος (prôton pseudos), in the worldly interpretations of Christian doctrine; and I have overheard the two ladies—Mrs. More and Mrs. Siddons, that is—talking for hours, completely missing each other’s point as much as one could imagine. In fact, everything specific to the beliefs held by Mrs. Hannah More, by Wilberforce, and many others known as Evangelical Christians, can always be translated in casual conversation into a vague general sense, which completely obscures the true limits of the meaning.
Mrs. Hannah More, however, was too polished a woman to allow of any sectarian movement being impressed upon the conversation; consequently, she soon directed it to literature, upon which Mrs. Siddons was very amusing, from her recollections of Dr. Johnson, whose fine-turned compliment to herself (so much in the spirit of those unique compliments addressed to eminent people by Louis XIV) had for ever planted the Doctor's memory in her heart.[188] She spoke also of Garrick and of Mrs. Garrick; but not, I think, with so much respect and affection as Mrs. Hannah More, who had, in her youthful days, received the most friendly attentions from both, though coming forward at that time in no higher character than as the author of Percy, the most insipid of tragedies.[189]
Mrs. Hannah More, however, was too refined a woman to let any sectarian movement influence the conversation; so she quickly shifted it to literature, where Mrs. Siddons was quite entertaining, sharing her memories of Dr. Johnson, whose elegantly phrased compliment to her (similar to those unique praises given to prominent figures by Louis XIV) had forever etched the Doctor's memory in her heart.[188] She also talked about Garrick and Mrs. Garrick; but I don't think it was with as much respect and affection as Mrs. Hannah More, who, in her younger days, had received the warmest kindness from both, although she only came forward then as the author of Percy, the most bland of tragedies.[189]
Mrs. Siddons was prevailed on to read passages from both Shakspere and Milton. The dramatic readings were delightful; in fact, they were almost stage rehearsals, accompanied with appropriate gesticulation. One was the great somnambulist scene in Macbeth, which was the ne plus ultra in the whole range of Mrs. Siddons's scenical exhibitions, and can never be forgotten by any man who once had the happiness to witness that immortal performance of the divine artist. Another, given at the request of a Dutch lady residing in the neighbourhood of Barley Wood, was the scene from King John of the Lady Constance, beginning—"Gone to be married! gone to swear a peace!" &c. The last, and truly superb for the musical intonation of the cadences, was that inimitable apology or pleading of Christian charity for Cardinal Wolsey, addressed to his bitterest enemy, Queen[Pg 453] Catherine. All these, in different degrees and different ways, were exquisite. But the readings from Milton were not to my taste. And, some weeks after, when, at Mrs. Hannah More's request, I had read to her some of Lord Byron's most popular works, I got her to acknowledge, in then speaking upon the subject of reading, that perhaps the style of Mrs. Siddons's reading had been too much determined to the dramatic cast of emphasis, and the pointed expression of character and situation which must always belong to a speaker bearing a part in a dialogue, to admit of her assuming the tone of a rapt poetic inspiration.
Mrs. Siddons was convinced to read excerpts from both Shakespeare and Milton. The dramatic readings were wonderful; in fact, they were almost like stage rehearsals, complete with fitting gestures. One was the famous sleepwalking scene from Macbeth, which was the highlight of all of Mrs. Siddons's performances, and it can never be forgotten by anyone who had the pleasure of witnessing that unforgettable portrayal by the incredible artist. Another, requested by a Dutch lady living near Barley Wood, was the scene from King John featuring Lady Constance, starting with—"Gone to be married! gone to swear a peace!" &c. The last, truly stunning for the musical rhythm of the lines, was that unique plea for Christian charity for Cardinal Wolsey, directed at his fiercest opponent, Queen[Pg 453] Catherine. All of these, in various ways, were exquisite. However, the readings from Milton didn't appeal to me. Some weeks later, when, at Mrs. Hannah More's request, I read some of Lord Byron's most popular works to her, I got her to admit, while discussing reading, that perhaps Mrs. Siddons's style of reading leaned too much toward dramatic emphasis and the expressive nature of character and context that always comes with delivering a part in dialogue, which made it hard for her to adopt the tone of inspired poetry.
Meantime, whatever she did—whether it were in display of her own matchless talents, but always at the earnest request of the company or of her hostess, or whether it were in gentle acquiescent attention to the display made by others, or whether it were as one member of a general party taking her part occasionally for the amusement of the rest and contributing to the general fund of social pleasure—nothing could exceed the amiable, kind, and unassuming deportment of Mrs. Siddons. She had retired from the stage,[190] and no longer regarded herself as a public character.[191] But so much the stronger did she seem to think the claims of her friends upon anything she could do for their amusement.
In the meantime, no matter what she did—whether it was showing off her incredible talents, always at the sincere request of her guests or hostess, or whether it was attentively enjoying the performances of others, or even participating occasionally in group activities for everyone’s entertainment—nothing could top the friendly, kind, and modest behavior of Mrs. Siddons. She had stepped back from the stage,[190] and no longer saw herself as a public figure.[191] Yet, she felt even more strongly that her friends deserved anything she could do to entertain them.
Meantime, amongst the many pleasurable impressions which Mrs. Siddons's presence never failed to make, there was one which was positively painful and humiliating: it was the degradation which it inflicted upon other women. One day there was a large dinner party at Barley Wood: Mrs. Siddons was present; and I remarked to a gentleman who sat next to me—a remark which he heartily confirmed—that, upon rising to let the ladies leave us, Mrs. Siddons, by the mere necessity of her regal deportment, dwarfed the[Pg 454] whole party, and made them look ridiculous; though Mrs. H. More, and others of the ladies present, were otherwise really women of very pleasing appearance. One final remark is forced upon me by my recollections of Mrs. Jordan, and of her most unhappy end: it is this; and strange enough it seems:—that the child of laughter and comic mirth, whose laugh itself thrilled the heart with pleasure, and who created gaiety of the noblest order for one entire generation of her countrymen, died prematurely, and in exile, and in affliction which really killed her by its own stings. If ever woman died of a broken heart, of tenderness bereaved, and of hope deferred, that woman was Mrs. Jordan.[192] On the other hand, this sad votary of Melpomene, the queen of the tragic stage, died full of years and honours, in the bosom of her admiring country, in the centre of idolizing friends, and happy in all things except this, that some of those whom she most loved on earth had gone before her. Strange contrariety of lots for the two transcendent daughters of the comic and tragic muses. For my own part, I shall always regard my recollections of Mrs. Siddons as those in which chiefly I have an advantage over the coming generation; nay, perhaps over all generations; for many centuries may revolve without producing such another transcendent creature.
Meantime, among the many enjoyable impressions that Mrs. Siddons's presence always created, there was one that was truly painful and humiliating: it was the way it made other women feel inferior. One day there was a big dinner party at Barley Wood: Mrs. Siddons was there, and I commented to a gentleman sitting next to me—something he wholeheartedly agreed with—that when she stood up to let the ladies leave, Mrs. Siddons, just by the nature of her regal presence, overshadowed the entire party and made them look silly, even though Mrs. H. More and the other ladies present were actually quite attractive. One last thought comes to mind when I think of Mrs. Jordan and her unfortunate ending: it’s strange to consider that the child of laughter and comic joy, whose laughter could warm the heart and who brought the finest kind of fun to one entire generation of her countrymen, died young, in exile, and from the suffering that ultimately consumed her. If any woman ever died from a broken heart, from the pain of loss, and from dashed hopes, it was Mrs. Jordan. On the other hand, this sorrowful follower of Melpomene, the queen of the tragic stage, lived a long life filled with honors, surrounded by her admiring country and devoted friends, happy in every way except for the fact that some of those she loved most had passed before her. It’s a strange twist of fate for the two remarkable daughters of comedy and tragedy. For my part, I will always feel that my memories of Mrs. Siddons give me an advantage over future generations; in fact, perhaps over all generations, since many centuries might pass without bringing forth another such extraordinary person.
END OF VOL. II
END OF VOL. II
In Four Volumes, large crown 8vo, Art Canvas binding, price 6s. each.
In four volumes, large crown 8vo, with Art Canvas binding, priced at £6 each.
THE INGENIOUS GENTLEMAN
DON QUIXOTE
OF LA MANCHA
THE CREATIVE GENTleman
Don Quixote
OF LA MANCHA
BY
MIGUEL DE CERVANTES SAAVEDRA
BY
MIGUEL DE CERVANTES SAAVEDRA
DONE INTO ENGLISH BY
HENRY EDWARD WATTS
TRANSLATED INTO ENGLISH BY
HENRY EDWARD WATTS
A NEW EDITION
With Notes Original and Selected.
A new edition
With Original and Selected Notes.
In One Volume, uniform with the above Edition of Don Quixote,
price 7s. 6d.
In one volume, matching the edition of Don Quixote,
price £7.50.
A NEW AND GREATLY ENLARGED
LIFE OF CERVANTES
A NEW AND MUCH LARGER
Cervantes' Life
BY
HENRY EDWARD WATTS
BY
HENRY EDWARD WATTS
The above Life has been wholly recast and almost entirely rewritten, and contains an autogravure frontispiece of an interesting and original portrait, reproduced from an exact copy of the bust of the figure believed to represent Cervantes in Pacheco's picture at Seville.
The above Life has been completely updated and almost entirely rewritten, and it includes a high-quality frontispiece featuring an interesting and unique portrait, reproduced from an accurate representation of the bust believed to depict Cervantes from Pacheco's painting in Seville.
LONDON: A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE.
LONDON: A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE.
Standard Edition
of the
Waverley Novels
Standard Edition
of the
Waverley Novels
Complete in 25 Volumes, Crown 8vo, bound in Art Canvas, Gilt top, containing Photogravure Frontispieces printed on Japanese Paper.
Finished in 25 volumes, crown 8vo size, covered in art canvas, with gilt tops, and includes photogravure frontispieces printed on Japanese paper.
Also to be had in full limp leather, gilt edges, price 3s. 6d. per volume.
Also available in soft leather, gold edges, price 3s. 6d. per volume.
Sets, cloth ... Price £3:2:6.
Sets, fabric ... Price £3.13.
Sets can also be had in various leather bindings. Prices upon application.
You can also get sets in different leather bindings. Prices available upon request.
- 1. Waverley; or, "'Tis Sixty Years Since."
- 2. Guy Mannering; or, The Astrologer.
- 3. The Antiquary.
- 4. Rob Roy.
- 5. A Legend of Montrose, and The Black Dwarf.
- 6. Old Mortality.
- 7. The Heart of Mid-Lothian.
- 8. The Bride of Lammermoor.
- 9. Ivanhoe: A Romance.
- 10. The Monastery.
- 11. The Abbot: A Sequel.
- 12. Kenilworth.
- 13. The Pirate.
- 14. The Fortunes of Nigel.
- 15. Peveril of the Peak.
- 16. Quentin Durward.
- 17. St. Ronan's Well.
- 18. Redgauntlet.
- 19. The Betrothed, and The Highland Widow.
- 20. The Talisman: A Tale of the Crusaders.
- 21. Woodstock; or, The Cavalier.
- 22. The Fair Maid of Perth; or, St. Valentine's Day.
- 23. Anne of Geierstein; or, The Maiden of the Mist.
- 24. Count Robert of Paris.
- 25. The Surgeon's Daughter, and Castle Dangerous.
The above Volumes contain all the Author's Introductions and Notes, as well as the Copyright Annotations of the late David Laing, LL.D. A Glossary and Index are also appended to each.
The above volumes include all of the author's introductions and notes, along with the copyright annotations of the late David Laing, LL.D. A glossary and index are also attached to each one.
LONDON: A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE.
LONDON: A. & C. BLACK, SOHO SQUARE.
Transcriber's Note
Transcriber’s Note
Variations in spelling, punctuation and hyphenation have been retained except in obvious cases of typographical errors.
Variations in spelling, punctuation, and hyphenation have been kept except in clear cases of typing mistakes.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] From Tait's Magazine for February 1835.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ From Tait's Magazine for February 1835.—M.
[2] I.e. Lord Westport. Sec vol. i. pp. 161-2 et seq.—M.
[2] That is, Lord Westport. See vol. i, pp. 161-2 and following.—M.
[3] This paragraph is omitted in the American reprint of the Tait paper, probably because it repeats information given already. See the chapter entitled "The Priory, Chester," in Vol. I, and especially the concluding pages of that chapter. As, however, the paragraph contains some new particulars, and explains what follows, I have retained it, the rather because it ought to be the rule not to tamper with De Quincey's text on any such occasion.—M.
[3] This paragraph is left out in the American reprint of the Tait paper, likely because it repeats information already provided. See the chapter titled "The Priory, Chester," in Vol. I, particularly the last pages of that chapter. However, since the paragraph includes some new details and clarifies what comes next, I've kept it, especially because we should generally avoid altering De Quincey's text in these cases.—M.
[4] From Tait's Magazine for June 1835.
[5] Among the students in Christ Church at this time was Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, afterwards so well known as a fellow-resident with De Quincey in Edinburgh. He was De Quincey's senior by four years, and had entered Christ Church in 1798. Among his acquaintances and fellow-students were Lord Gower, afterwards Duke of Sutherland, Lord Newtown, Elijah Impey (son of the famous Indian judge of that name), and others of high name and rank. In the Memoirs and Correspondence of Kirkpatrick Sharpe (published 1888) there are descriptions of the society of the college, with sketches of Dean Cyril Jackson, &c., from Sharpe's cynical pen.—M.
[5] Among the students at Christ Church during this time was Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, who later became well-known as a resident alongside De Quincey in Edinburgh. He was four years older than De Quincey and began his time at Christ Church in 1798. His circle included notable acquaintances and fellow students such as Lord Gower, who would later become the Duke of Sutherland, Lord Newtown, Elijah Impey (the son of the famous Indian judge of the same name), and others of high status and reputation. In the Memoirs and Correspondence of Kirkpatrick Sharpe (published 1888), there are accounts of the college society, along with portraits of Dean Cyril Jackson, etc., from Sharpe's cynical perspective.—M.
[6] It was Worcester College; and we shall use the full name, instead of the blank W., in the sequel.—M.
[6] It was Worcester College, and we will use the full name instead of the abbreviated W. moving forward.—M.
[7] Oxford may confessedly claim a duration of that extent; and the pretensions of Cambridge, in that respect, if less aspiring, are, however, as I believe, less accurately determined.
[7] Oxford can certainly claim to have lasted that long; and while Cambridge's claims are less ambitious in that regard, I believe they are also less precisely defined.
[8] It may be necessary to inform some readers that the word noble, by which so large a system of imposition and fraud, as to the composition of foreign society, has long been practised upon the credulity of the British, corresponds to our word gentlemanly (or, rather, to the vulgar word genteel, if that word were ever used legally, or extra gradum), not merely upon the argument of its virtual and operative value in the general estimate of men (that is, upon the argument that a count, baron, &c., does not, qua such, command any deeper feeling of respect or homage than a British esquire), but also upon the fact, that, originally, in all English registers, as, for instance, in the Oxford matriculation registers, all the upper gentry (knights, esquires, &c.) are technically designated by the word nobiles.—See Chamberlayne, &c.
[8] It may be important to let some readers know that the word noble, used to describe a significant system of deception and fraud regarding the makeup of foreign society, has long taken advantage of the gullibility of the British. This word corresponds to our term gentlemanly (or rather, to the common word genteel, if that word were ever used in a formal sense, or extra gradum). This is not only based on its virtual and practical value in how people are generally perceived (meaning that a count, baron, etc., does not, qua such, garner any greater respect or admiration than a British esquire), but also on the fact that originally, in all English records, such as the Oxford matriculation registers, all upper gentry (knights, esquires, etc.) are officially referred to as nobiles.—See Chamberlayne, &c.
[9] The subject is amusingly illustrated by an anecdote of Goethe, recorded by himself in his autobiography. Some physiognomist, or phrenologist, had found out, in Goethe's structure of head, the sure promise of a great orator. "Strange infatuation of nature!" observes Goethe, on this assurance, "to endow me so richly and liberally for that particular destination which only the institutions of my country render impossible. Music for the deaf! Eloquence without an audience!"
[9] The topic is humorously illustrated by a story from Goethe, which he shared in his autobiography. A physiognomist or phrenologist had discovered, based on Goethe's head shape, that he had all the traits of a great orator. "What a strange trick of nature!" Goethe remarks about this certainty, "to give me such gifts and talents for a role that my country's systems make impossible. It's like music for the deaf! Eloquence without an audience!"
[10] Whilst I am writing, a debate of the present Parliament, reported on Saturday, March 7, 1835, presents us with a determinate repetition of the error which I have been exposing; and, again, as in the last Parliament, this error is not inert, but is used for a hostile (apparently a malicious) purpose; nay, which is remarkable, it is the sole basis upon which the following argument reposes. Lord Radnor again assumes that the students of Oxford are "boys"; he is again supported in this misrepresentation by Lord Brougham; and again the misrepresentation is applied to a purpose of assault upon the English Universities, but especially upon Oxford. And the nature of the assault does not allow any latitude in construing the word boys, nor any room for evasion as respects the total charge, except what goes the length of a total retraction. The charge is, that, in a requisition made at the very threshold of academic life, upon the understanding and the honour of the students, the University burdens their consciences to an extent which, in after life, when reflection has enlightened them to the meaning of their engagements, proves either a snare to those who trifle with their engagements, or an insupportable burden to those who do not. For the inculpation of the party imposing such oaths, it is essential that the party taking them should be in a childish condition of the moral sense, and the sense of responsibility; whereas, amongst the Oxonian under-graduates, I will venture to say that the number is larger of those who rise above than of those who fall below twenty; and, as to sixteen (assumed as the representative age by Lord Radnor), in my time, I heard of only one student, amongst, perhaps, sixteen hundred, who was so young. I grieve to see that the learned prelate who replied to the assailants was so much taken by surprise; the defence might have been made triumphant. With regard to oaths incompatible with the spirit of modern manners, and yet formally unrepealed—that is a case of neglect and indolent oversight. But the gravamen of that reproach does not press exclusively upon Oxford; all the ancient institutions of Europe are tainted in the same way, more especially the monastic orders of the Romish church.
[10] While I’m writing, a discussion from the current Parliament, reported on Saturday, March 7, 1835, shows us a clear repetition of the mistake I’ve been pointing out; once again, just like in the last Parliament, this mistake is not inactive, but is being used for a hostile (seemingly malicious) purpose; indeed, notably, it is the only basis on which the following argument stands. Lord Radnor again claims that the students of Oxford are "boys"; he is once more supported in this misrepresentation by Lord Brougham; and again this misrepresentation is aimed at attacking the English Universities, particularly Oxford. The nature of the attack doesn’t allow for any flexibility in interpreting the word boys, nor any room for avoidance regarding the overall accusation, except to fully retract it. The accusation is that, at the beginning of their academic journey, the University imposes a burden on the students’ understanding and honor to such an extent that later in life, once they reflect on the meaning of their commitments, it either becomes a trap for those who disregard their commitments or an unbearable burden for those who don’t. For the party imposing such oaths to be blamed, it’s necessary for the party taking them to be in a childish state of moral awareness and sense of responsibility; however, among the Oxonian under-graduates, I would argue that there are more who rise above the age of twenty than those who fall below it; and concerning sixteen (the age assumed by Lord Radnor), in my experience, I only heard of one student, out of perhaps sixteen hundred, who was that young. I regret to see that the learned bishop who responded to the attackers was so caught off guard; the defense could have been made overwhelmingly successful. Regarding oaths that are incompatible with the spirit of modern customs, yet still formally unrevoked—that is a case of neglect and lazy oversight. But the gravamen of that criticism does not solely fall on Oxford; all the ancient institutions of Europe share this flaw, especially the monastic orders of the Roman Catholic Church.
[11] These changes have been accomplished, according to my imperfect knowledge of the case, in two ways: first, by dispensing with the services whenever that could be done; and, secondly, by a wise discontinuance of the order itself in those colleges which were left to their own choice in this matter.
[11] These changes have been made, based on my limited understanding of the situation, in two ways: first, by eliminating services wherever possible; and second, by wisely stopping the order in those colleges that were free to decide for themselves on this issue.
[12] From Tait's Magazine for August 1835.
[13] I cannot for a moment believe that the original and most eloquent critic in Blackwood is himself the dupe of an argument which he has alleged against this passage, under too open a hatred of Shakspeare, as though it involved a contradiction to common sense, by representing all human beings of such an age as school-boys, all of such another age as soldiers, of such another as magistrates, &c. Evidently the logic of the famous passage is this,—that, whereas every age has its peculiar and appropriate temper, that profession or employment is selected for the exemplification which seems best fitted, in each case, to embody the characteristic or predominating quality. Thus, because impetuosity, self-esteem, and animal or irreflective courage, are qualities most intense in youth, next it is considered in what profession those qualities find their most unlimited range; and, because that is obviously the military profession, therefore it is that the soldier is selected as the representative of young men. For the same reason, as best embodying the peculiar temper of garrulous old age, the magistrate comes forward as supporting the part of that age. Not that old men are not also soldiers; but that the military profession, so far from strengthening, moderates and tempers the characteristic temper of old age.
[13] I can’t believe for a second that the original and most articulate critic in Blackwood is actually falling for an argument he’s made against this passage, driven by an overt dislike of Shakespeare, as if it contradicts common sense by portraying all human beings at one age as schoolboys, all at another age as soldiers, and all at yet another as magistrates, etc. Clearly, the logic of the famous passage is this: every age has its unique temperament, and the profession or occupation chosen for illustration is the one that best represents the defining or dominant quality for that age. So, because qualities like impulsiveness, self-importance, and raw or unthinking courage are most intense in youth, the question is then considered of which profession allows those qualities to express themselves fully; and since that’s clearly the military profession, the soldier is chosen to represent young men. Similarly, the magistrate is presented as embodying the unique temperament of garrulous old age. It’s not that old men can’t also be soldiers; rather, the military profession tends to soften and temper the defining characteristics of old age.
[14] The diction of Milton is a case absolutely unique in literature: of many writers it has been said, but of him only with truth, that he created a peculiar language. The value must be tried by the result, not by inferences from a priori principles; such inferences might lead us to anticipate an unfortunate result; whereas, in fact, the diction of Milton is such that no other could have supported his majestic style of thinking. The final result is a transcendent answer to all adverse criticism; but still it is to be lamented that no man properly qualified has undertaken the examination of the Miltonic diction as a separate problem. Listen to a popular author of this day (Mr. Bulwer). He, speaking on this subject, asserts (England and the English, p. 329) that "there is scarcely an English idiom which Milton has not violated, or a foreign one which he has not borrowed." Now, in answer to this extravagant assertion, I will venture to say that the two following are the sole cases of questionable idiom throughout Milton:—1st, "Yet virgin of Proserpina from Jove"; and, in this case, the same thing might be urged in apology which Aristotle urges in another argument, namely, that πρωτον ψευδος (anônymon to pathos), the case is unprovided with any suitable expression. How would it be possible to convey in good English the circumstances here indicated: viz. that Ceres was yet in those days of maiden innocence, when she had borne no daughter to Jove? 2d, I will cite a case which, so far as I remember, has been noticed by no commentator; and, probably, because they have failed to understand it. The case occurs in the "Paradise Regained"; but where I do not at this moment remember. "Will they transact with God?" [The only case of the use of the word transact by Milton registered in the Verbal Indexes is in Par. Lost, vi. 286, where Satan says, "Easier to transact with me."—M.] This is the passage; and a most flagrant instance it offers of pure Latinism. Transigere, in the language of the civil law, means to make a compromise; and the word transact is here used in that sense—a sense utterly unknown to the English language. This is the worst case in Milton; and I do not know that it has been ever noticed. Yet even here it may be doubted whether Milton is not defensible; asking if they proposed to terminate their difference with God after the fashion in use amongst courts of law, he points properly enough to these worldly settlements by the technical term which designated them. Thus might a divine say: Will he arrest the judgments of God by a demurrer? Thus, again, Hamlet apostrophises the lawyer's skull by the technical terms used in actions for assault, &c. Besides, what proper term is there in English for expressing a compromise? Edmund Burke, and other much older authors, express the idea by the word temperament; but that word, though a good one, was at one time considered an exotic term—equally a Gallicism and a Latinism.
[14] Milton’s choice of words is truly one-of-a-kind in literature: many writers have been said to create a unique language, but only he can be said to have done so genuinely. The value of his language should be judged by the outcome, not by assumptions based on prior principles; such assumptions might lead us to expect a poor result. However, in reality, Milton’s diction is such that nothing else could have upheld his grand style of thought. The ultimate result is a superior response to all negative critique; it’s still unfortunate that no properly qualified person has taken on the task of examining Milton’s diction as a distinct issue. Take a popular writer today (Mr. Bulwer). In discussing this matter, he claims (England and the English, p. 329) that "there is hardly an English idiom that Milton hasn't broken, or a foreign one that he hasn't adopted." In response to this outrageous claim, I would argue that there are only two instances of questionable phrasing in Milton’s work: First, "Yet virgin of Proserpina from Jove"; and in this case, one might use the same justification Aristotle employs in another argument, which is that πρωτον ψευδος (anônymon to pathos), the case lacks any suitable expression. How could one effectively convey in good English the idea that Ceres was still in the days of her maidenhood, having not yet given birth to a daughter of Jove? Secondly, I’ll mention a case that, as far as I recall, has not been pointed out by any commentators, probably because they didn’t grasp it. This instance appears in "Paradise Regained"; though I can’t recall where at the moment. "Will they transact with God?" [The only instance of Milton using the word transact listed in the Verbal Indexes is in Par. Lost, vi. 286, where Satan says, "Easier to transact with me."—M.] This is the passage; and it presents a glaring example of pure Latinism. Transigere, in legal terms, means to compromise; and here the word transact is used in that sense—a meaning completely foreign to the English language. This is the strongest example in Milton; and I’m not sure it has ever been mentioned. Yet even in this case, one might argue that Milton is justifiable; questioning whether they intended to resolve their disagreement with God like one would in a court of law, he refers correctly to these worldly agreements using the technical term that describes them. Thus, a divine might ask: Will he challenge the judgments of God with a demurrer? Similarly, Hamlet addresses the lawyer’s skull using the technical terms from assault cases, etc. Furthermore, what is the proper term in English for representing a compromise? Edmund Burke and other much earlier authors use the word temperament; however, that term, while suitable, was once considered somewhat exotic—being both a Gallicism and a Latinism.
[15] From Tait's Magazine for June 1836. See ante, Preface, pp. 1, 2.—M.
[15] From Tait's Magazine for June 1836. See previously, Preface, pp. 1, 2.—M.
[16] Επεα πτεροεντα (Epea pteroenta) literally winged words. To explain the use and origin of this phrase to non-classical readers, it must be understood that, originally, it was used by Homer to express the few, rapid, and significant words which conveyed some hasty order, counsel, or notice, suited to any sudden occasion or emergency: e.g. "To him flying from the field the hero addressed these winged words—'Stop, coward, or I will transfix thee with my spear.'" But by Horne Tooke the phrase was adopted on the title-page of his Diversions of Purley, as a pleasant symbolic expression for all the non-significant particles, the articuli or joints of language, which in his well-known theory are resolved into abbreviations or compendious forms (and therefore rapid, flying, winged forms), substituted for significant forms of greater length. Thus, if is a non-significant particle, but it is an abbreviated form of an imperative in the second person—substituted for gif, or give, or grant the case—put the case that. All other particles are shewn by Horne Tooke to be equally short-hand (or winged) substitutions.
[16] Επεα πτεροεντα (Epea pteroenta) literally winged words. To explain the use and origin of this phrase to modern readers, it’s important to know that it was originally used by Homer to describe the few, quick, and meaningful words that delivered a hasty order, advice, or notice, suitable for any sudden situation or emergency: e.g. "To him fleeing from the battlefield, the hero said these winged words—'Stop, coward, or I will stab you with my spear.'" However, Horne Tooke adopted the phrase on the title page of his Diversions of Purley as a charming symbolic expression for all the non-significant particles, the articuli or connectors of language, which in his well-known theory are distilled into abbreviations or compact forms (and therefore quick, flying, winged forms), replacing significant forms that are longer. Thus, if is a non-significant particle, but it is an abbreviated form of an imperative in the second person—substituted for gif, or give, or grant the case—let's say that. Horne Tooke demonstrates that all other particles are similarly short-hand (or winged) substitutions.
[17] It has been rather too much forgotten that Africa, from the northern margin of Bilidulgerid and the Great Desert, southwards—everywhere, in short, beyond Egypt, Cyrene, and the modern Barbary States—belongs, as much as America, to the New World, the world unknown to the ancients.
[17] It has been quite overlooked that Africa, stretching from the northern edge of Bilidulgerid and the Great Desert all the way south—essentially, everywhere beyond Egypt, Cyrene, and the present-day Barbary States—belongs, just like America, to the New World, the world that was unknown to ancient peoples.
[18] I might have mastered the philosophy of Kant without waiting for the German language, in which all his capital works are written; for there is a Latin version of the whole by Born, and a most admirable digest of the cardinal work (admirable for its fidelity and the skill by which that fidelity is attained) in the same language by Rhiseldek, a Danish professor. But this fact, such was the slight knowledge of all things connected with Kant in England, I did not learn for some years.
[18] I could have understood Kant's philosophy without waiting to learn German, since all his major works are written in that language. There's a Latin version of the complete works by Born, along with an outstanding summary of the key work (remarkable for its accuracy and the ability with which that accuracy is achieved) in the same language by Rhiseldek, a Danish professor. However, due to the limited knowledge about Kant in England, I didn't find out about this for several years.
[19] De Quincey was so fastidious in the matter of grammatical correctness that he would have been shocked to find that he had let this sentence go forth in print.—M.
[19] De Quincey was so particular about grammatical accuracy that he would have been appalled to see this sentence published without correction.—M.
[20] Those who look back to the newspapers of 1799 and 1800 will see that considerable discussion went on at that time upon the question whether the year 1800 was entitled to open the 19th century or to close the 18th. Mr. Laureate Pye wrote a poem with a long and argumentative preface on the point.
[20] People reviewing newspapers from 1799 and 1800 will notice a lot of debate about whether the year 1800 should mark the beginning of the 19th century or the end of the 18th. Mr. Laureate Pye even wrote a poem with a lengthy and detailed introduction discussing the issue.
[21] From Tait's Magazine for February 1837, where the title was "A Literary Novitiate."—M.
[21] From Tait's Magazine for February 1837, where the title was "A Literary Novitiate."—M.
[22] As De Quincey has divulged the name of this clergyman in his Autobiography (see vol. i. pp. 136-138), there is no need for concealing it here. He was the Rev. John Clowes, Rector of St. John's Church, Manchester, and we shall substitute the full name for the blank in the sequel.—M.
[22] Since De Quincey has revealed the name of this clergyman in his Autobiography (see vol. i. pp. 136-138), there’s no reason to hide it here. He was the Rev. John Clowes, Rector of St. John's Church, Manchester, and we will fill in the full name in the next part.—M.
[23] In a recent [1889] catalogue of a Manchester book-sale I find this entry:—"Clowes (John, of Manchester, the Church of England Swedenborgian). Sermons, Translations, etc., with a Life of him by Theo. Crompton, principally published in Manchester from 1799 to 1850. 17 vols."—M.
[23] In a recent [1889] catalog of a book sale in Manchester, I found this entry:—"Clowes (John, from Manchester, the Church of England Swedenborgian). Sermons, Translations, etc., with a biography by Theo. Crompton, mainly published in Manchester from 1799 to 1850. 17 vols."—M.
[24] For a similar passage, see ante, pp. 96, 97.—M.
[24] For a similar passage, see before, pp. 96, 97.—M.
[25] He was first editor of the London Magazine, and was killed in an unfortunate duel in February 1821.—M.
[25] He was the first editor of the London Magazine and tragically died in a duel in February 1821.—M.
[26] William Roscoe (1753-1831), author of Life of Lorenzo de' Medici, Life and Pontificate of Leo X, and other works, was a native of Liverpool, and spent the main part of his life as a banker in that town.—M.
[26] William Roscoe (1753-1831), who wrote Life of Lorenzo de' Medici, Life and Pontificate of Leo X, and other works, was from Liverpool and spent most of his life as a banker there.—M.
[27] The Rev. William Shepherd, author of a Life of Poggio Bracciolini (Liverpool, 1802) and Paris in 1802 and 1814 (London, 1814), and joint author of a work in two volumes called Systematic Education, or Elementary Instruction in the various Departments of Literature and Science (London, 1815).—M.
[27] The Rev. William Shepherd, writer of a Life of Poggio Bracciolini (Liverpool, 1802) and Paris in 1802 and 1814 (London, 1814), and co-author of a two-volume work titled Systematic Education, or Elementary Instruction in the Various Departments of Literature and Science (London, 1815).—M.
[28] Dr. James Currie, born 1756, a native of Dumfriesshire, settled in Liverpool, in medical practice, in 1781. His edition of Burns, with memoir and criticism, published in 1800, was for the benefit of the widow and children of the poet, and realised £1400. Currie died in 1805.—M.
[28] Dr. James Currie, born in 1756 and originally from Dumfriesshire, moved to Liverpool to practice medicine in 1781. His version of Burns' works, complete with a biography and critique, was published in 1800 to support the poet's widow and children, earning £1400. Currie passed away in 1805.—M.
[29] Wordsworth's publication was in 1816, under the title A Letter to a Friend of Robert Burns, occasioned by an intended Republication of the Account of the Life of Burns by Dr. Currie. By William Wordsworth.—M.
[29] Wordsworth's publication was in 1816, under the title A Letter to a Friend of Robert Burns, occasioned by an intended Republication of the Account of the Life of Burns by Dr. Currie. By William Wordsworth.—M.
[30] Jacobinism—although the seminal principle of all political evil in all ages alike of advanced civilization—is natural to the heart of man, and, in a qualified sense, may be meritorious. A good man, a high-minded man, in certain circumstances, must be a Jacobin in a certain sense. The aspect under which Burns's Jacobinism appears is striking: there is a thought which an observing reader will find often recurring, which expresses its peculiar bitterness. It is this: the necessity which in old countries exists for the labourer humbly to beg permission that he may labour. To eat in the sweat of a man's brow—that is bad; and that is a curse, and pronounced such by God. But, when that is all, the labourer is by comparison happy. The second curse makes that a jest: he must sue, he must sneak, he must fawn like an Oriental slave, in order to win his fellow-man, in Burns's indignant words, "to give him leave to toil." That was the scorpion thought that was for ever shooting its sting into Burns's meditations, whether forward-looking or backward-looking; and, that considered, there arises a world of allowance for that vulgar bluster of independence which Lord Jeffrey, with so much apparent reason charges upon his prose writings.
[30] Jacobinism—while being the fundamental source of all political wrongdoing throughout history in advanced societies—is instinctive to human nature and can, in a specific sense, be commendable. A decent, principled person, in specific situations, must be a Jacobin to some extent. The way Burns's Jacobinism is presented is noteworthy: there’s a recurring thought that an attentive reader will notice, which conveys its unique bitterness. It is this: the necessity in older societies for workers to humbly ask for permission to work. To eat by the sweat of one’s brow—that’s unfortunate; it’s a curse, condemned by God. But when that is the only issue, the worker is somewhat fortunate. The second curse turns that into a joke: he must plead, he must grovel, he must fawn like an Eastern slave, just to persuade another person, in Burns's outraged words, "to give him leave to labor." That was the stinging thought that continually pierced Burns's reflections, whether thinking about the future or the past; and, considering that, there’s plenty of understanding for that crude display of independence that Lord Jeffrey, with such apparent justification, attributes to his written works.
[31] De Quincey's strictures in this paper of 1837 on the Liverpool literary coterie of 1801 gave great offence in that town. The Liverpool papers attacked him for it; and Dr. Shepherd of Gatacre, apparently then the sole survivor of the coterie, addressed a letter of remonstrance to the editor of Tait's Magazine. It appeared in the number of the magazine for May 1837, with some editorial comments. "The question of which I have to treat," wrote Dr. Shepherd, "is a question of accuracy of recollection; and I am constrained to remark that, as, from the appellation by which, with an extraordinary kind of taste, Mr. De Quincey chooses to designate himself in his literary character, he seems to have been at one period of his life the slave of a deleterious drug, which shakes the nerves, and, inflaming the brain, impairs the memory, whilst I have avoided that poison even in its medical application, therefore my recollection is more likely to be correct that his." The letter proceeds to vindicate Dr. Currie, Mr. Roscoe, and the writer himself, from the charge of defective appreciation of the manly demeanour of Burns in his relations with the Scottish aristocracy and lairds; after which come some words of special self-defence of the writer in the matters of his political consistency and his jests at Hannah More. The letter altogether is destitute of effective point; and the editor of Tait was quite justified in standing by De Quincey. This is done in every particular of the offending paper, with this included sting: "It may tempt a smile from the few who are likely to trouble themselves about this foolish affair to find that, though solemnly assuming the office of advocate-general for the other members of the extinct coterie, Dr. Shepherd, as well as the newspaper writers, has entirely overlooked the vivacious tailor celebrated by Mr. De Quincey, of whom we think none of his literary friends have the least reason to be ashamed."—— The main matter of interest now in this little controversy of 1837 respects De Quincey's own estimate of Burns. Although he had taken up the cudgels for Burns in that particular in which he thought Dr. Currie and the rest of the Liverpool coterie of 1801, professed democrats though they were, had done Burns injustice,—viz. his spirit of manly independence and superiority to considerations of mere worldly rank,—it remains true that De Quincey's own estimate of Burns all in all fell woefully beneath the proper mark. There are evidences of this in the present paper, and there are other evidences at different points of De Quincey's life. Wordsworth in this respect differed immensely from his friend De Quincey, and might have taught him better. In that letter of Wordsworth's which is referred to by De Quincey (ante, p. 131) precisely because it had deprecated the republication in 1816 of Dr. Currie's Life of Burns in 1800, how enthusiastic was the feeling for Burns and his memory compared with anything that De Quincey seems ever to have permitted himself! And, as long before as 1803, had not Wordsworth, in his lines At the Grave of Burns, given expression to the same feeling in more personal shape? Who can forget that deathless stanza in which, remembering that Burns had died so recently, and that, though they had never met, they had been near neighbours by their places of habitation, the new poet of England had confessed his own indebtedness to the example of the Scottish ploughman bard?—
[31] De Quincey's criticisms in this 1837 paper about the Liverpool literary group from 1801 really upset a lot of people in that city. The Liverpool newspapers went after him; and Dr. Shepherd of Gatacre, seemingly the last remaining member of that group, sent a letter of complaint to the editor of Tait's Magazine. This letter was published in the May 1837 issue of the magazine, along with some editorial notes. "The topic I need to address," Dr. Shepherd wrote, "concerns the accuracy of recollection; and I must point out that since, based on the rather questionable taste by which Mr. De Quincey chooses to label himself in his literary identity, he seems to have been at one point in his life addicted to a harmful drug that disrupts the nerves, inflames the brain, and damages memory, while I have steered clear of that poison even in its medical use, therefore my memory is more likely to be accurate than his." The letter goes on to defend Dr. Currie, Mr. Roscoe, and the writer himself against the accusation of having a poor appreciation of Burns' dignified behavior in his interactions with the Scottish aristocracy and landowners; it also features some personal defense regarding the writer's political consistency and his jabs at Hannah More. Overall, the letter lacks any strong arguments, and the editor of Tait was completely justified in supporting De Quincey. This support covers every detail of the controversial paper, including this pointed remark: "It may amuse those few who care about this trivial matter to see that, although he takes it upon himself to act as the chief advocate for the other members of the now-defunct group, Dr. Shepherd, along with the newspaper writers, has completely ignored the lively tailor celebrated by Mr. De Quincey, of whom we believe none of his literary friends should feel ashamed."—— The main focus of interest in this small controversy from 1837 is De Quincey's own assessment of Burns. Although he stood up for Burns in the way he believed Dr. Currie and the rest of the Liverpool group had done him wrong—specifically regarding Burns' spirit of independence and his disregard for mere social rank—it’s clear that De Quincey’s overall judgment of Burns fell significantly short. There are signs of this throughout the current paper, and at various moments in De Quincey's life. Wordsworth, in this respect, greatly disagreed with his friend De Quincey and could have educated him better. In the letter from Wordsworth that De Quincey references (ante, p. 131), precisely because it criticized the 1816 reissue of Dr. Currie's Life of Burns from 1800, how much more passionate was the sentiment for Burns and his legacy compared to anything De Quincey ever seemed to allow himself! And, back in 1803, had not Wordsworth expressed the same sentiment earlier in his poem At the Grave of Burns? Who can forget that unforgettable stanza where, recalling that Burns had only recently passed away, and that even though they had never met, they had lived close to each other, England's new poet admitted his own debt to the example set by the Scottish farmer and bard?—
More deeply saddened; for He was gone Whose light I celebrated when it first appeared And showed my young self
How poetry can create a royal throne On humble truth.
In connexion with the fact of De Quincey's defective appreciation of Burns even so late as 1837, it is additionally significant that, though he refers in the present paper, with modified approbation, to Jeffrey's somewhat captious article on Burns in the Edinburgh Review for January 1809, he does not mention the compensation which had appeared, with Jeffrey's own editorial sanction, in the shape of Carlyle's essay on Burns in the same Review for December 1828.—M.
In connection with De Quincey's poor understanding of Burns even as late as 1837, it's also important to note that while he references Jeffrey's somewhat critical article on Burns in the Edinburgh Review from January 1809 with some modified approval, he doesn't mention the counterbalance that appeared, with Jeffrey’s own editorial approval, in the form of Carlyle's essay on Burns in the same Review from December 1828.—M.
[32] This chapter is composed of four articles contributed to Tait's Magazine under the title of "Samuel Taylor Coleridge: By the English Opium-Eater." They appeared, respectively, in the numbers of the Magazine for September, October, and November 1834, and January 1835. Three of these articles were revised by De Quincey, and thrown into one paper for Vol. II of the Collective Edition of his writings, published in 1854. The fourth article was not included in that paper; but it is added to the reprint of the paper in the American Collective Edition of De Quincey, and is necessary to complete his sketch of Coleridge. It is therefore reproduced here. The reader will understand, accordingly, that as far as to p. 208 we follow De Quincey's revised text of three of his Coleridge articles; after which we have to print the fourth article as it originally stood in Tait.—M.
[32] This chapter consists of four articles that appeared in Tait's Magazine under the title "Samuel Taylor Coleridge: By the English Opium-Eater." They were published in the magazine's September, October, and November 1834 issues, as well as in January 1835. Three of these articles were revised by De Quincey and combined into one paper for Vol. II of his Collective Edition, which was released in 1854. The fourth article wasn’t included in that paper; however, it is included in the reprint of the paper in the American Collective Edition of De Quincey and is essential to complete his portrayal of Coleridge. Therefore, it is included here. Readers should note that, up until page 208, we follow De Quincey's revised text of three of his Coleridge articles; after that, we present the fourth article as it originally appeared in Tait.—M.
[33] Published in 1798.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Published in 1798.—M.
[34] See ante, p. 61.—M.
[35] Published in 1800.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Published in 1800.
[36] The first edition of Southey's epic was published in 1796, the second in 1798, both at Bristol.—M.
[36] The first edition of Southey's epic came out in 1796, and the second in 1798, both in Bristol.—M.
[37] Published, with other political pieces, in 1798, after having appeared in the Morning Post newspaper.—M.
[37] Published, along with other political writings, in 1798, after being featured in the Morning Post newspaper.—M.
[38] English Anthology for 1799-1800, in 2 vols., published at Bristol, and edited by Southey.—M.
[38] English Anthology for 1799-1800, in 2 vols., published in Bristol, and edited by Southey.—M.
[39] The first edition, entitled Poems on Various Subjects, by S. T. Coleridge, late of Jesus College, Cambridge, was published at Bristol in 1796; the second at London in 1797; the third at London in 1803.—M.
[39] The first edition, called Poems on Various Subjects, by S. T. Coleridge, formerly of Jesus College, Cambridge, was published in Bristol in 1796; the second edition was released in London in 1797; and the third edition came out in London in 1803.—M.
[40] For a full account of this interesting Mr. Poole see Thomas Poole and his Friends, by Mrs. Henry Sandford, 2 vols., 1888. He was born 1765, and died 1837.—M.
[40] For a complete story about the fascinating Mr. Poole, check out Thomas Poole and his Friends by Mrs. Henry Sandford, 2 volumes, 1888. He was born in 1765 and passed away in 1837.—M.
[41] More properly spelt Alfoxden.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ More correctly spelled Alfoxden.—M.
[42] In the abrupt phrasing of Mr. Poole's question De Quincey must surely have recollected the similar question put by the clown in Twelfth Night to the supposed madman Malvolio to test his sanity—"Clown. What is the opinion of Pythagoras concerning wild fowl?"—M.
[42] In the blunt way Mr. Poole asked his question, De Quincey must have remembered the similar question asked by the clown in Twelfth Night to the so-called madman Malvolio, to check if he was sane—"Clown. What does Pythagoras think about wild birds?"—M.
[43] With respect to all these cases of apparent plagiarism, see an explanatory Note at the end of this chapter.
[43] For all these instances of obvious plagiarism, refer to the explanatory note at the end of this chapter.
[44] I forget the exact title, not having seen the book since 1823, and then only for one day; but I believe it was Schelling's "Kleine Philosophische Werke."
[44] I can't remember the exact title since I only saw the book for one day back in 1823, but I think it was Schelling's "Kleine Philosophische Werke."
[45] "Whatever Time, or the heedless hand of blind Chance, hath drawn down from of old to this present in her huge drag-net, whether fish, or seaweed, shells or shrubs, unpicked, unchosen, these are the Fathers." Milton's Tract Of Prelatical Episcopacy, published in 1641.—M.
[45] "Whatever time, or the careless hand of blind chance, has dragged from the past to the present in her vast net—be it fish, seaweed, shells or shrubs, unselected and unfiltered—these are the Fathers." Milton's Tract Of Prelatical Episcopacy, published in 1641.—M.
[46] This might pass as a description of De Quincey himself in his later years, if not all through his life.—M.
[46] This could be seen as a description of De Quincey himself in his later years, if not throughout his entire life.—M.
[47] At the date of this first meeting of De Quincey with Coleridge, De Quincey was twenty-two years of age and Coleridge nearly thirty-seven.—M.
[47] At the time of this first meeting between De Quincey and Coleridge, De Quincey was twenty-two years old and Coleridge was almost thirty-seven.—M.
[48] Seiris ought to have been the title—i.e. Σειρις (Seiris), a chain. From this defect in the orthography, I did not in my boyish days perceive, nor could obtain any light upon, its meaning.
[48] Seiris should have been the title—i.e. Σειρις (Seiris), a chain. I didn’t notice this spelling mistake when I was a kid, nor could I get any insight into what it meant.
[49] Another sentence of faulty grammar: a rare thing with De Quincey.—M.
[49] Another example of incorrect grammar: something unusual from De Quincey.—M.
[50] Arthur Young's numerous works, published between 1768 and 1812, are mainly on agricultural subjects, in the form of tours and statistics, but include political doctrines and theories.—M.
[50] Arthur Young wrote many works from 1768 to 1812, focusing mainly on agricultural topics through tours and statistics, but also covering political beliefs and theories.—M.
[51] The service consisted in a gift by De Quincey of £300 conveyed to Coleridge through the Bristol bookseller Cottle. Coleridge's receipt to Cottle for the money is dated 12th November 1807. Coleridge knew nothing more at the time than that the gift came from "a young man of fortune who admired his talents." De Quincey, who had but recently attained his majority, had then plenty of money. He wanted, indeed, to make the gift £500; but Cottle insisted on reducing the sum.—M.
[51] The service was a gift of £300 from De Quincey to Coleridge, delivered through the Bristol bookseller Cottle. Coleridge's receipt to Cottle for the money is dated November 12, 1807. At that time, Coleridge only knew that the gift came from "a young man of fortune who admired his talents." De Quincey, who had just recently turned 21, had a good amount of money. He actually wanted to give £500, but Cottle insisted on lowering the amount.—M.
[52] Coleridge was born there 21st October 1772, the youngest of a family of nine brothers and four sisters, three of the sisters by a previous marriage of his father.—M.
[52] Coleridge was born there on October 21, 1772, the youngest of a family with nine brothers and four sisters, three of the sisters from his father's previous marriage.—M.
[53] A Critical Latin Grammar, published for the author in 1772, and Sententiæ Excerptæ, explaining the Rules of Grammar, printed for the author in 1777. He also published a political sermon. Besides being vicar of Ottery St. Mary, he was master of the grammar school there.—M.
[53] A Critical Latin Grammar, released for the author in 1772, and Sententiæ Excerptæ, explaining the Rules of Grammar, printed for the author in 1777. He also published a political sermon. In addition to being the vicar of Ottery St. Mary, he was the head of the grammar school there.—M.
[54] This was in July 1782.—M.
[55] In February 1791.—M.
[56] The Rev. William Frend (1757-1831), a very eminent scholar, had been ejected from his tutorship in Jesus College in 1788, because of his Unitarian opinions and general liberalism, but was still about the University in Coleridge's time, battling stoutly with the authorities.
[56] The Rev. William Frend (1757-1831), a highly respected scholar, was removed from his teaching position at Jesus College in 1788 due to his Unitarian beliefs and overall liberal views, but he remained active in the University during Coleridge's time, strongly opposing the authorities.
[57] He enlisted in the 15th Light Dragoons, 3d December 1793, under the name of Silas Titus Comberback. So says a very minute memoir of him prefixed to Messrs. Macmillan's edition of his Poetical and Dramatic Works in four volumes, 1880.—M.
[57] He joined the 15th Light Dragoons on December 3, 1793, using the name Silas Titus Comberback. This is stated in a detailed memoir about him that is included in Messrs. Macmillan's edition of his Poetical and Dramatic Works in four volumes, 1880.—M.
[58] Somewhat otherwise in the memoir mentioned in last note, where the date of his discharge is given as 10th April 1794, and the place as Hounslow. He returned to Cambridge for a few months, and then, after shifting about a little, settled in Bristol with Southey, where he married, 4th October 1795, Sara Fricker, the sister of Southey's wife. De Quincey seems to misdate his first visit to Germany.—M.
[58] In the memoir referenced in the previous note, the date of his discharge is noted as April 10, 1794, and the location as Hounslow. He went back to Cambridge for a few months, and after moving around a bit, he settled in Bristol with Southey, where he married Sara Fricker, Southey's wife's sister, on October 4, 1795. De Quincey appears to have the date of his first visit to Germany incorrect.—M.
[59] Which, however, his brother denied as a pure fable. On reading this account, he wrote to me, and in very courteous terms assured me that I had been misinformed. I now retain the story simply as a version, partially erroneous, no doubt, of perhaps some true anecdote that may have escaped the surviving Mr. Wedgwood's knowledge; my reason for thinking thus being that the same anecdote essentially but varied in the circumstances, has reached me at different periods from parties having no connexion whatsoever.
[59] However, his brother completely dismissed it as a made-up story. After reading this account, he wrote to me and politely assured me that I had been misled. I now keep the story as a version that is likely partly incorrect, of possibly a true story that may have gone unnoticed by the surviving Mr. Wedgwood; my reasoning for this is that the same anecdote, essentially, but with different details, has come to me at various times from people who have no connection to each other.
[60] He was absent on this tour in Germany from September 1798 to November 1799.—M.
[60] He was not present on this trip to Germany from September 1798 to November 1799.—M.
[61] Published in Richardson's Correspondence.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Published in Richardson's Correspondence.
[62] It was in 1800 that Coleridge removed from London to Keswick, Wordsworth being then at Grasmere.—M.
[62] In 1800, Coleridge moved from London to Keswick, while Wordsworth was at Grasmere.—M.
[63] This peculiar usage of an unrelated participle is pretty frequent with De Quincey, and is perhaps the only recurring peculiarity of his grammar to which a purist would object.—M.
[63] This strange use of an unrelated participle happens quite often with De Quincey, and it's probably the only consistent grammatical oddity that a purist might take issue with.—M.
[64] i.e.—A 'Statesman elliptically for an Estatesman,—a native dalesman possessing and personally cultivating a patrimonial landed estate.
[64] i.e.—A 'Statesman' is basically an 'Estatesman'—someone from the countryside who owns and personally manages a family-owned estate.
[65] "Waiter":—Since this was first written, social changes in London, by introducing females very extensively into the office (once monopolized by men) of attending the visitors at the tables of eating-houses have introduced a corresponding new word—viz., waitress; which word, twenty-five years back, would have been simply ludicrous; but now is become as indispensable to precision of language as the words traitress, heiress, inheritrix, &c.
[65] "Waiter":—Since this was first written, social changes in London have led to a significant number of women taking on roles that were once exclusively held by men, specifically in serving visitors at restaurants. This shift has brought about a new term—namely, waitress; a word that, twenty-five years ago, would have seemed ridiculous, but has now become essential for clarity in language, just like the terms traitress, heiress, inheritrix, etc.
[66] My doubt is founded upon the varying tenure of these secluded chapels as to privileges of marrying or burying. The mere name of chapel, though, of course, in regular connexion with some mother church, does not of itself imply whether it has or has not the power to solemnize a marriage.
[66] My uncertainty is based on the different roles these remote chapels play when it comes to marriage and burial rights. Just the term "chapel," although it is clearly linked to a main church, doesn't automatically indicate whether it has the authority to perform marriages.
[67] At Carlisle, 3d September 1803. His marriage with Mary Robinson, the Beauty of Buttermere, had been on 3d October 1802, when he was forty-three years of age. Originally he had been a commercial traveller; and his early marriage with an illegitimate daughter of a younger son of an English nobleman seems to have had much to do with his subsequent career. Deserting this wife and her children in 1782, he had lived a life of swindling ever since, had married a second wife and deserted her, and was wooing a young Irish lady at the very time when the Buttermere girl became his victim. "His manners were extremely polished and insinuating, and he was possessed of qualities which might have rendered him an ornament of society," is the pleasant character I find of him in one Newgate Calendar compendium.—M.
[67] At Carlisle, September 3, 1803. He married Mary Robinson, the Beauty of Buttermere, on October 3, 1802, when he was forty-three years old. He started out as a commercial traveler, and his early marriage to an illegitimate daughter of a younger son of an English nobleman seems to have influenced his later life. After abandoning this wife and their children in 1782, he lived a life of fraud ever since, married a second wife whom he also abandoned, and was courting a young Irish woman at the same time that he made Mary Robinson his victim. "His manners were very polished and charming, and he had qualities that could have made him a valuable member of society," is the flattering description I found of him in one Newgate Calendar collection.—M.
[68] In connexion with this mention of "suburban" and minor theatres, it is but fair to cite a passage expressly relating to Mary of Buttermere from the Seventh Book (entitled "Residence in London") of Wordsworth's "Prelude":—
[68] In connection with this mention of "suburban" and smaller theatres, it is only fair to quote a passage specifically about Mary of Buttermere from the Seventh Book (titled "Residence in London") of Wordsworth's "Prelude":—
Rough and bold, like what’s shown in Greek comedy. When Art was young, the dramas of real people, And recent events still alive with energy; a naval battle,
Shipwreck or domestic incident Revealed by Truth and amplified by Fame;
Like the bold brotherhood of recent times
Presenting, a rather serious theme for such a light setting—
I mean, oh distant friend! a story taken From our own area—the Maid of Buttermere,
And how, disloyal to a faithful wife,
Abandoned and tricked, the saboteur arrived
And courted the innocent daughter of the hills,
And married her, in cruel mockery
Of love and marriage ties. These words to you
We really need to remember the moment when we first,
Before the entire world echoed with the maiden's name,
I saw her working at the cottage inn,
Both affected, whether she was entering or leaving,
With appreciation for her humble demeanor And a carriage, marked by unmatched elegance.
Since that time, we have become quite familiar. I've seen her—I've noticed her discretion,
Her opinions, gentle restraint, Her patience and humble mindset, Untainted by praise and the excess Public notice—an offensive light To a humble soul going through inner struggles.
The "distant friend" here apostrophized is Coleridge, then at Malta. But it is fair to record this memorial of the fair mountaineer—going perhaps as much beyond the public estimate of her pretensions as my own was below it. It should be added that William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (to whom the writer appeals as in general sympathy with himself) had seen Mary more frequently, and had conversed with her much more freely, than myself.
The "distant friend" mentioned here is Coleridge, who was in Malta at the time. It's worth noting this tribute to the beautiful mountaineer—perhaps going as far beyond what the public thought of her as my own opinion was short of it. It's important to add that William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (whom the writer calls upon as generally sympathetic to him) had seen Mary more often and had talked with her much more openly than I had.
[69] In April 1804.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ In April 1804.—M.
[70] "Ball and Bell"—"Bell and Ball":—viz. Sir Alexander Ball, Governor of Malta, and Dr. Andrew Bell, the importer into England from Madras of that machinery for facilitating popular education which was afterwards fraudulently appropriated by Joseph Lancaster. The Bishop of Durham (Shute Barrington) gave to Dr. Bell, in reward of his Madras services, the princely Mastership of Sherborne Hospital. The doctor saved in this post £125,000, and with this money founded Trinity College, Glenalmond, in Perthshire. Most men have their enemies and calumniators: Dr. Bell had his, who happened rather indecorously to be his wife—from whom he was legally separated, or (as in Scotch law it is called) divorced; not, of course, divorced à vinculo matrimonii (which only amounts to a divorce in the English sense—such a divorce as enables the parties to contract another marriage), but simply divorced à mensâ et thoro. This legal separation, however, did not prevent the lady from persecuting the unhappy doctor with everlasting letters, indorsed outside with records of her enmity and spite. Sometimes she addressed her epistles thus:—"To that supreme of rogues, who looks the hang-dog that he is, Doctor (such a doctor!) Andrew Bell." Or again:—"To the ape of apes, and the knave of knaves, who is recorded to have once paid a debt—but a small one, you may be sure, it was that he selected for this wonderful experiment—in fact, it was 4 1/2d. Had it been on the other side of 6d., he must have died before he could have achieved so dreadful a sacrifice." Many others, most ingeniously varied in the style of abuse, I have heard rehearsed by Coleridge, Southey, Lloyd, &c.; and one, in particular, addressed to the doctor, when spending a summer at the cottage of Robert Newton, an old soldier, in Grasmere, presented on the back two separate adjurations: one specially addressed to Robert himself, pathetically urging him to look sharply after the rent of his lodgings; and the other more generally addressed to the unfortunate person, as yet undisclosed to the British public (and in this case turning out to be myself) who might be incautious enough to pay the postage at Ambleside. "Don't grant him an hour's credit," she urged upon the person unknown, "if I had any regard to my family." "Cash down!" she wrote twice over. Why the doctor submitted to these annoyances, nobody knew. Some said it was mere indolence; but others held it to be a cunning compromise with her inexorable malice. The letters were certainly open to the "public " eye; but meantime the "public" was a very narrow one; the clerks in the post-office had little time for digesting such amenities of conjugal affection; and the chance bearer of the letters to the doctor would naturally solve the mystery by supposing an extra portion of madness in the writer, rather than an extra portion of knavery in the reverend receiver.
[70] "Ball and Bell"—"Bell and Ball":—namely, Sir Alexander Ball, Governor of Malta, and Dr. Andrew Bell, who brought educational machinery from Madras to England, later wrongfully claimed by Joseph Lancaster. The Bishop of Durham (Shute Barrington) rewarded Dr. Bell for his work in Madras with the prestigious Mastership of Sherborne Hospital. The doctor saved £125,000 in this role and used that money to start Trinity College, Glenalmond, in Perthshire. Like many, Dr. Bell had his critics and detractors: his wife, from whom he was legally separated, or as it's called under Scottish law, divorced; not, of course, divorced à vinculo matrimonii (which would be a divorce in the English sense allowing remarriage), but simply divorced à mensâ et thoro. This legal separation didn’t stop her from relentlessly harassing the unfortunate doctor with ceaseless letters, marked with her hostility and bitterness on the outside. Sometimes she sent her letters addressed: “To that supreme rogue who looks like the fool he is, Doctor (that kind of doctor!) Andrew Bell.” Or again: “To the greatest fool and the biggest scam artist, who is noted to have once paid a debt—but a small one, you can bet, because that’s what he chose for this impressive feat—in fact, it was 4 1/2d. Had it been more than 6d., he would have died before managing such a horrible sacrifice.” Many other creatively nasty letters were shared by Coleridge, Southey, Lloyd, etc.; and one in particular was sent to the doctor while he was spending a summer at Robert Newton's cottage, an old soldier's place in Grasmere, featuring two separate instructions on the back: one specifically urging Robert to closely monitor the rent of his lodgings; and the other more generally directed at the unfortunate person, still unknown to the British public (who happened to be myself), that might foolishly pay the postage in Ambleside. “Don't give him an hour's credit,” she insisted to the unknown person, “if I cared about my family.” "Cash down!" she wrote twice. No one knew why the doctor put up with this harassment. Some believed it was just laziness; others thought it was a clever tactic to deal with her relentless hostility. The letters were certainly visible to the “public,” but at the time, the “public” was quite limited; the post-office clerks had little time to dwell on such displays of marital affection; and anyone delivering the letters to the doctor would likely conclude that the writer had an extra bit of madness, rather than the reverend recipient having an extra dose of deceit.
[72] Coleridge had long been a contributor to the Morning Post.—M.
[72] Coleridge had been writing for the Morning Post for a long time.—M.
[73] Paris Revisited in 1815 by way of Brussels is the title of this publication in 1816 of the Aberdonian John Scott. He had previously published A Visit to Paris in 1814. He wrote other things, and was editor of the London Magazine from January 1820 till his death, February 1821, the result of a duel.—M.
[73] Paris Revisited in 1815 via Brussels is the title of this 1816 publication by John Scott from Aberdeen. He had previously published A Visit to Paris in 1814. He wrote other works and served as editor of the London Magazine from January 1820 until his death in February 1821, which resulted from a duel.—M.
[74] The very accurate memoir prefixed to Messrs. Macmillan's four-volume edition of Coleridge's Poetical Works states that Stuart, who had been proprietor of the Morning Post, and had become proprietor of the Courier, gave Coleridge apartments in the Courier office to save expense in his contributorship to that newspaper.—M.
[74] The highly accurate memoir included in Messrs. Macmillan's four-volume edition of Coleridge's Poetical Works states that Stuart, who was the owner of the Morning Post and later became the owner of the Courier, gave Coleridge an apartment in the Courier office to help cut costs for his contributions to that newspaper.—M.
[75] The first number of this celebrated but unfortunate periodical, "printed on stamped paper by a printer of the name of Brown at Penrith," was issued, the already cited memoir of Coleridge informs us, on Thursday, 1st June 1809, and the last on 15th March 1810.—M.
[75] The first issue of this well-known but tragic magazine, "printed on stamped paper by a printer named Brown in Penrith," was released, as the previously mentioned memoir of Coleridge tells us, on Thursday, June 1, 1809, and the final one on March 15, 1810.—M.
[76] Alexander Blair, LL.D., Professor of English Literature in University College, London, from 1830 to 1836.—M.
[76] Alexander Blair, LL.D., Professor of English Literature at University College, London, from 1830 to 1836.—M.
[77] Bishop Richard Watson (1737-1816) is perhaps best remembered now for his Apology for the Bible; of which George III said, when he heard of it, "What, what! Apology for the Bible! Didn't know that it needed an apology." There were, however, two Apologies, published together in 1806,—one for Christianity against Gibbon, the other for the Bible against Thomas Paine.—M.
[77] Bishop Richard Watson (1737-1816) is perhaps best remembered today for his Apology for the Bible; when George III heard about it, he said, "What, what! An apology for the Bible! I didn't know it needed one." However, there were actually two Apologies published together in 1806—one defending Christianity against Gibbon, and the other defending the Bible against Thomas Paine.—M.
[78] Chemical Essays, in 5 vols., published 1781-7.—M.
[78] Chemical Essays, in 5 volumes, published 1781-1787.—M.
[79] It was Lady Holland. I know not how I came to make such a mistake. And the friend was Wordsworth.
[79] It was Lady Holland. I don’t know how I made such a mistake. And the friend was Wordsworth.
[80] This supposed falsehood respected the sect called Brownists, and occurs in the "Defensio pro Pop. Anglicano." The whole charge is a blunder, and rests upon the bishop's own imperfect Latinity.
[80] This alleged falsehood concerns the group known as Brownists and is found in the "Defensio pro Pop. Anglicano." The entire accusation is a mistake and is based on the bishop's own flawed Latin.
[81] Basil Montagu (1770-1851) and his wife were celebrities in London society for many years. Among his publications, besides legal treatises, were an edition of Bacon's Works and a volume of selections from the older English Prose-writers.
[81] Basil Montagu (1770-1851) and his wife were well-known figures in London society for many years. In addition to his legal writings, he published an edition of Bacon's Works and a collection of selections from older English prose writers.
[82] Inquiry into the Effects of Fermented Liquors. By a Waterdrinker. London. 1814.—M.
[82] Inquiry into the Effects of Fermented Liquors. By a Waterdrinker. London. 1814.—M.
[83] "Birmingham Doctor":—This was a sobriquet imposed on Dr. Parr by "The Pursuits of Literature," that most popular of satires at the end of the eighteenth and opening of the nineteenth centuries. The name had a mixed reference to the Doctor's personal connexion with Warwickshire, but chiefly to the Doctor's spurious and windy imitation of Dr. Johnson. He was viewed as the Birmingham (or mock) Dr. Johnson. Why the word Birmingham has come for the last sixty or seventy years to indicate in every class of articles the spurious in opposition to the genuine, I suppose to have arisen from the Birmingham habit of reproducing all sorts of London or Paris trinkets, bijouterie, &c., in cheaper materials and with inferior workmanship.
[83] "Birmingham Doctor":—This was a nickname given to Dr. Parr by "The Pursuits of Literature," which was a very popular satirical work at the end of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the nineteenth century. The name referred partly to the Doctor's personal connection with Warwickshire, but mostly to his fake and pretentious imitation of Dr. Johnson. He was seen as the Birmingham (or fake) Dr. Johnson. The reason the term Birmingham has come to signify something fake over the last sixty or seventy years, across various types of products, likely stems from Birmingham's tradition of producing all kinds of London or Paris trinkets, bijouterie, etc., using cheaper materials and lower-quality craftsmanship.
[84] It is at this point that De Quincey's revised reprint in 1854 of his Recollections of Coleridge stops. What follows is from the unrevised sequel in Tait's Magazine for January 1835. See note, ante, p. 138.—M.
[84] This is where De Quincey’s updated 1854 reprint of his Recollections of Coleridge ends. What comes next is from the unedited sequel in Tait's Magazine for January 1835. See note, ante, p. 138.—M.
[85] The Mr. M—— of this sentence was Mr. John Morgan. He had known Coleridge and Southey in Bristol, and now lived in London.—M.
[85] The Mr. M—— mentioned here was Mr. John Morgan. He had met Coleridge and Southey in Bristol and was now living in London.—M.
[86] Coleridge died at Highgate, 25th July 1834, in the sixty-second year of his age, and the eighteenth of his residence with Mr. Gillman.—M.
[86] Coleridge passed away at Highgate on July 25, 1834, at the age of sixty-two, and after living with Mr. Gillman for eighteen years.—M.
[87] "Esemplastic":—A writer in "Blackwood," who carried a wrath into the discussion for which I and others found it hard to account, made it a sort of charge against myself, that I had overlooked this remarkable case. If I had, there would have been no particular reason for anger or surprise, seeing that the particular German work in which these plagiarisms were traced had been lent to me under most rigorous limitations as to the time for returning it; the owner of the volume was going out of London, and a very few hours (according to my present remembrance only two) were all that he could allow me for hunting through the most impracticable of metaphysical thickets (what Coleridge elsewhere calls "the holy jungle of metaphysics"). Meantime I had not overlooked the case of esemplastic; I had it in my memory, but hurry of the press and want of room obliged me to omit a good deal. Indeed, if such omissions constituted any reproach, then the critic in "Blackwood" was liable to his own censure. For I remember to this hour several Latin quotations made by Schelling, and repeated by Coleridge as his own, which neither I nor my too rigorous reviewer had drawn out for public exposure. As regarded myself, it was quite sufficient that I had indicated the grounds, and opened the paths, on which the game must be sought; that I left the rest of the chase to others, was no subject for blame, but part of my purpose; and, under the circumstances, very much a matter of necessity.—In taking leave of this affair, I ought to point out a ground of complaint against my reviewer under his present form of expression, which I am sure could not have been designed. It happened that I had forgotten the particular title of Schelling's work; naturally enough, in a situation where no foreign books could be had, I quoted it under a false one. And this inevitable error of mine on a matter so entirely irrelevant is so described that the neutral reader might suppose me to have committed against Coleridge the crime of Lauder against Milton—that is, taxing him with plagiarism by referring, not to real works of Schelling, but to pretended works, of which the very titles were forgeries of my own. This, I am sure, my unknown critic never could have meant. The plagiarisms were really there; more and worse in circumstances than any denounced by myself; and, of all men, the "Blackwood" critic was the most bound to proclaim this; or else what became of his own clamorous outcry? Being, therefore, such as I had represented, of what consequence was the special title of the German volume to which these plagiarisms were referred?—[The reference in this footnote, written by De Quincey in 1854, is to an article on "The Plagiarisms of S. T. Coleridge," which had appeared in Blackwood for March 1840, the writer of which had animadverted on De Quincey's previous disclosures on the subject in his Tait papers of 1834-5.—M.]
[87] "Esemplastic":—A writer from "Blackwood," who seemed to carry a lot of anger into the discussion that I and others struggled to understand, accused me of neglecting this remarkable case. If I had, there wouldn’t have been any reason for anger or surprise, especially since the specific German work where these plagiarisms were found was lent to me under very strict conditions for returning it; the owner was leaving London, and I had only a few hours (if I remember correctly, just two) to search through the most convoluted metaphysical ideas (what Coleridge calls "the holy jungle of metaphysics"). Meanwhile, I had not overlooked the case of esemplastic; I remembered it well, but the urgency of publication and space limitations forced me to leave out a lot of information. In fact, if missing any details was a point of criticism, then the "Blackwood" reviewer should also face his own scrutiny. I still remember several Latin quotes from Schelling that Coleridge repeated as his own, which neither I nor my overly strict reviewer had brought to light for public discussion. For me, it was sufficient to indicate the reasons and paths that needed to be explored; leaving the rest of the pursuit to others was not a reason for blame, but part of my objective, and under the circumstances, a necessity. In wrapping up this matter, I must point out a flaw in my reviewer’s current wording, which I am sure was unintentional. I had forgotten the exact title of Schelling's work; understandably, in a situation where I had no access to foreign books, I quoted it incorrectly. This unintentional mistake on such a minor issue is presented in such a way that a neutral reader might think I accused Coleridge of plagiarism by referencing, not real works of Schelling, but fake ones, with titles I made up myself. I'm sure that my unknown critic did not intend this. The plagiarisms were genuinely present; even more so than I had mentioned; and, of all people, the "Blackwood" critic should have highlighted this; otherwise, what was the point of his loud protest? Since they were indeed what I described, why did the specific title of the German book that contained these plagiarisms matter?—[The reference in this footnote, written by De Quincey in 1854, refers to an article on "The Plagiarisms of S. T. Coleridge," which appeared in Blackwood in March 1840. The author of that article commented on De Quincey’s earlier disclosures on the topic in his Tait papers from 1834-5.—M.]
[88] Composed of articles in Tait's Magazine for January, February, and April 1839, as revised and recast by De Quincey, published, with some additions, for the second volume of the Collective Edinburgh Edition of his writings in 1854.—M.
[88] Made up of articles from Tait's Magazine for January, February, and April 1839, updated and restructured by De Quincey, published, with some additions, for the second volume of the Collective Edinburgh Edition of his writings in 1854.—M.
[89] Ante, p. 59.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Before, p. 59.—M.
[90] At the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, where the town is viewed as a mere ministerial appendage to the numerous colleges—the civic Oxford, for instance, existing for the sake of the academic Oxford, and not vice versâ—it has naturally happened that the students honour with the name of "a man" him only who wears a cap and gown.
[90] At Oxford and Cambridge, where the town is seen as just a minor addition to the many colleges—the civic Oxford, for example, exists for the benefit of academic Oxford, and not the other way around—it makes sense that students only refer to someone as "a man" if he's wearing a cap and gown.
[91] See the divine passage (in the Sixth Book of "The Excursion") beginning—
[91] See the sacred section (in the Sixth Book of "The Excursion") starting—
[92] All which inimitable graces of nature have, by the hands of mechanic art, by solid masonry, by whitewashing, &c., been exterminated, as a growth of weeds and nuisances, for thirty years.—August 17, 1853.
[92] All these unique beauties of nature have been wiped out by human effort, through construction, painting, and so on, like weeds and unwanted things, for thirty years.—August 17, 1853.
[93] That most accomplished, and to Coleridge most pious daughter, whose recent death afflicted so very many who knew her only by her writings. She had married her cousin, Mr. Serjeant Coleridge, and in that way retained her illustrious maiden name as a wife. At seventeen, when last I saw her, she was the most perfect of all pensive, nun-like, intellectual beauties that I have seen in real breathing life. The upper parts of her face were verily divine. See, for an artist's opinion, the Life of that admirable man Collins, by his son.
[93] That incredibly talented and deeply admired daughter of Coleridge, whose recent passing has saddened many who only knew her through her writings. She married her cousin, Mr. Serjeant Coleridge, which allowed her to keep her distinguished maiden name after marriage. The last time I saw her at seventeen, she was the most stunning example of a thoughtful, almost nun-like, intellectual beauty I have ever encountered in real life. The upper part of her face was truly divine. For an artist's perspective, see the biography of that remarkable man Collins, by his son.
[94] Mary Hutchinson, who became Wordsworth's wife in October 1802, had been known to him since 1777, when she was his fellow-pupil in a Dame's school at Penrith.—M.
[94] Mary Hutchinson, who married Wordsworth in October 1802, had known him since 1777, when they were both students at a Dame's school in Penrith.—M.
[95] Once for all, I say—on recollecting that Coleridge's verses to Sara were made transferable to any Sara who reigned at the time. At least three Saras appropriated them; all three long since in the grave.
[95] Once and for all, I say—remembering that Coleridge's lines to Sara could be applied to any Sara in power at the time. At least three Saras claimed them; all three are long gone.
[96] Vol. iv. p. 793 (Dec. 1837).—So De Quincey notes; but I may add that the paper in Tait referred to was a Review of Books of the Season, one of them being "Tilt's Medallion Portraits of Modern English Authors, with Illustrative notices by H. F. Chorley." The reviewer's words were "The finest head, in every way, in the series, is that of Charles Lamb."—M.
[96] Vol. iv. p. 793 (Dec. 1837).—So De Quincey points out; but I should mention that the article in Tait was a review of the season's books, one of which was "Tilt's Medallion Portraits of Modern English Authors, with Illustrative notices by H. F. Chorley." The reviewer's comment was, "The best portrait, in every way, in the series, is that of Charles Lamb."—M.
[97] Lockhart's famous publication of 1819 under the name of Peter's Letters to his Kinsfolk.—M.
[97] Lockhart's well-known book from 1819 titled Peter's Letters to his Kinsfolk.—M.
[98] Jonathan Richardson (born about 1665, died 1745) published in 1734 a volume of Explanatory Notes and Remarks on Paradise Lost, with a Life of Milton, containing particulars which Richardson had collected about Milton personally.—M.
[98] Jonathan Richardson (born circa 1665, died 1745) published a book in 1734 titled Explanatory Notes and Remarks on Paradise Lost, which included a biography of Milton and details that Richardson had gathered about Milton's personal life.—M.
[99] It was between 1721 and 1725, when Mrs. Deborah Clarke, Milton's youngest and only surviving daughter, was living in old age and in very humble circumstances in Moorfields, London, that the engraver Vertue and others went to see her for the special purpose of consulting her about portraits of her father. Some that were shown her she rejected at once; but one "crayon drawing" moved her in the manner which De Quincey reports. This is the portrait which came into Richardson's possession; and after Richardson's death in 1745 it was acquired by Jacob Tonson tertius, of the Tonson publishing family. There seems to be little doubt that it was a drawing of Milton from the life by Faithorne about 1670, when Milton's History of Britain appeared with that portrait of him by Faithorne which is the only authentic print of him in later life, and worth all the other current portraits put together. Faithorne seems to have made two drawings, closely resembling each other, of Milton,—that (now lost) from which the engraving was made for the History of Britain, and this other "crayon drawing" which Richardson possessed. Richardson's reproduction of it in his book is spoilt by a laureate wreath and other flummery about the head; and the only genuine copy of it known to me is a beautiful one prefixed to Mr. Leigh Sotheby's sumptuous volume entitled Ramblings in Elucidation of the Autograph of Milton, published in 1871. The face there is identically the same in essentials as that in the Faithorne engraving of 1670, though somewhat less sad in expression; and the two drawings must have been by the same hand.—M.
[99] Between 1721 and 1725, Mrs. Deborah Clarke, Milton's youngest and only surviving daughter, was living in her old age in very modest circumstances in Moorfields, London. During this time, the engraver Vertue and others visited her specifically to consult her about portraits of her father. She immediately rejected some of the portraits shown to her, but one "crayon drawing" deeply affected her, as De Quincey reported. This portrait eventually came into Richardson's possession, and after Richardson passed away in 1745, it was acquired by Jacob Tonson tertius from the Tonson publishing family. There's little doubt that it was a drawing of Milton created from life by Faithorne around 1670, coinciding with the release of Milton's History of Britain, which included a portrait of him by Faithorne that is the only authentic print of him from his later years and is worth more than all the other existing portraits combined. Faithorne seems to have made two drawings of Milton that closely resembled each other: one (now lost) that was used for the engraving in the History of Britain, and this other "crayon drawing" which Richardson had. However, Richardson's reproduction of it in his book is marred by a laureate wreath and other embellishments around the head, and the only authentic copy I know of is a beautiful one included in Mr. Leigh Sotheby's lavish volume titled Ramblings in Elucidation of the Autograph of Milton, published in 1871. The face depicted there is essentially the same as the one in the Faithorne engraving from 1670, though it appears somewhat less sad; and both drawings must have been created by the same artist.—M.
[100] Into his 81st only.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Into his 81st year.—M.
[102] Not many months ago, the blind hostility of the Irish newspaper editors in America forged a ludicrous estimate of the Irish numerical preponderance in the United States, from which it was inferred, as at least a possibility, that the Irish Celtic language might come to dispute the pre-eminence with the English. Others anticipated the same destiny for the German. But, in the meantime, the unresting career of the law-courts, of commerce, and of the national senate, that cannot suspend themselves for an hour, reduce the case to this dilemma: If the Irish and the Germans in the United States adapt their general schemes of education to the service of their public ambition, they must begin by training themselves to the use of the language now prevailing on all the available stages of ambition. On the other hand, by refusing to do this, they lose in the very outset every point of advantage. In other words, adopting the English, they renounce the contest—not adopting it, they disqualify themselves for the contest.
[102] A few months ago, the intense hostility of Irish newspaper editors in America led to a ridiculous estimate of the Irish population in the United States. From this, it was suggested, even if just possibly, that the Irish Celtic language could challenge English's dominance. Some even expected the same fate for German. However, the relentless pace of the courts, commerce, and the national government, which can't pause for even an hour, simplifies the situation to this: If the Irish and Germans in the United States want their education systems to support their public aspirations, they need to start by learning the language that currently dominates all avenues of ambition. On the flip side, by refusing to do this, they forfeit any initial advantages. In other words, by adopting English, they give up the fight—not adopting it means they disqualify themselves from the competition.
[103] 7th April 1770.—M.
[104] "The present":—This was written about 1835, when the present Earl of Lonsdale meant the late Earl.
[104] "The present":—This was written around 1835, when the current Earl of Lonsdale referred to the former Earl.
[105] Who must now (1854) be classed as the late Earl.
[105] Who must now (1854) be referred to as the late Earl.
[106] "Eicon Basilike":—By the way, in the lamented Eliot Warburton's "Prince Rupert," this book, by a very excusable mistake, is always cited as the "Eicon Basilicon": he was thinking of the "Doron Basilicon," written by Charles's father: each of the nouns Eicon and Doron, having the same terminal syllable—on—it was most excusable to forget that the first belonged to an imparisyllabic declension, so as to be feminine, the second not so; which made it neuter. With respect to the great standing question as to the authorship of the work, I have myself always held that the natural freedom of judgment in this case has been intercepted by one strong prepossession (entirely false) from the very beginning. The minds of all people have been pre-occupied with the notion that Dr. Gauden, the reputed author, obtained his bishopric confessedly on the credit of that service. Lord Clarendon, it is said, who hated the Doctor, nevertheless gave him a bishopric, on the sole ground of his having written the "Eicon." The inference therefore is that the Prime Minister, who gave so reluctantly, must have given under an irresistible weight of proof that the Doctor really had done the work for which so unwillingly he paid him. Any shade of doubt, such as could have justified Lord Clarendon in suspending this gift, would have been eagerly snatched at. Such a shade, therefore, there was not. Meantime the whole of this reasoning rests upon a false assumption: Dr. Gauden did not owe his bishopric to a belief (true or false) that he had written the "Eicon." The bishopric was given on another account: consequently it cannot, in any way of using the fact, at all affect the presumptions, small or great, which may exist separately for or against the Doctor's claim on that head.—[So far De Quincey; but let not the reader trust to him too much in this matter. The evidence is overwhelming that Clarendon gave Gauden his bishopric after the Restoration because he believed Gauden to have been the author of the Eikon Basilike and dared not face Gauden's threats of revelations on the subject if promotion were refused him; and the evidence is conclusive, all Dr. Wordsworth's arguments notwithstanding, that Gauden was the real author of the book.—M.]
[106] "Eicon Basilike":—By the way, in the much-missed Eliot Warburton's "Prince Rupert," this book is mistakenly cited as the "Eicon Basilicon." He meant the "Doron Basilicon," written by Charles's father. Since both nouns Eicon and Doron end with the same syllable—on—it’s easy to confuse them, especially since the first is feminine and the second is neuter. Regarding the ongoing debate about who actually authored the work, I have always believed that people's judgment has been clouded by a strong misconception from the start. Everyone seems pre-occupied with the idea that Dr. Gauden, the supposed author, got his bishopric based on that reputation. It's said that Lord Clarendon, who didn’t like Gauden, still gave him the bishopric solely because he wrote the "Eicon." The implication is that the Prime Minister, who was reluctant to give it, must have been convinced by compelling evidence that Gauden truly wrote the work for which he was so unwillingly rewarded. If there had been any doubt that could have justified Lord Clarendon in withholding this gift, he would have jumped on it. Thus, that doubt did not exist. However, this whole line of reasoning is based on a false premise: Dr. Gauden did not earn his bishopric because anyone believed (whether correctly or incorrectly) that he wrote the "Eicon." The bishopric was awarded for a different reason, so it can’t influence the arguments for or against the Doctor's claim on this matter. —[So far De Quincey; but don't rely too heavily on him for this issue. The evidence clearly shows that Clarendon gave Gauden his bishopric after the Restoration because he believed Gauden was the author of the Eikon Basilike and was afraid of Gauden’s threats to reveal details on the subject if he was denied promotion. The evidence is conclusive, despite all of Dr. Wordsworth's arguments, that Gauden was the actual author of the book.—M.]
[107] The following is the passage to which De Quincey refers, as it now stands in Wordsworth's autobiographical poem The Prelude; which, though begun in 1799 and completed in 1805, was not published till 1850:—
[107] The following is the passage that De Quincey mentions, as it currently appears in Wordsworth's autobiographical poem The Prelude; which, even though it started in 1799 and was finished in 1805, wasn't published until 1850:—
Confederate, mimicking the hunt And woodland pleasures—the echoing horn, The pack is loudly howling, and the hunted hare. So we flew through the darkness and the cold,
And not a single voice was quiet; with the noise Smitten, the cliffs rang loud; The bare trees and every frozen cliff Tinkled like iron; while distant hills Into the chaos came an unfamiliar sound Of sadness not ignored, while the stars
To the east, the skies were sparkling clear, while to the west The orange evening sky faded away.
Often, I withdrew from the chaos. Into a quiet bay, or playfully Glanced sideways, leaving the chaotic crowd,
To break through the response of a star That ran away, and still flying ahead of me, shone. On the smooth surface.
M.
[108] Wordsworth has told the story himself in his Prelude, thus:—
[108] Wordsworth shared the story himself in his Prelude, like this:—
Whom chance had placed in the very room Honored by Milton's name. Oh, moderate Bard!
It is acknowledged that, for the first time, sitting In your innocent lodge and prayer space,
In a cheerful gathering, I poured out Drinks, poured in your honor, until pride And gratitude became overwhelming in the mind. Never thrilled by the smell of wine Before that time, or since then, I ran out. From the meeting; across a stretch of streets
I ran, like an ostrich, to get to our chapel door. In neither a desperate nor shameful time,
Even though it was long after the persistent bell Stopped, with a tiring Cassandra voice
No longer lingering in the dark winter night....
Call back, O Friend! take a moment to think back The location and the way the rituals are performed.
With flashy showiness shouldering up I pushed through the crowd in my surplice. Of the ordinary citizens who were present in the audience On the outer edges of their allowed territory,
Under the ringing organ.
M.
[109] The reference is to the Fifth Book of The Prelude.—M.
[109] This refers to the Fifth Book of The Prelude.—M.
[110] On comparing these quotations with the original passages in The Prelude, one finds that De Quincey, quoting from memory, is not exact to the text in any of them save the last.—M.
[110] When you compare these quotes with the original passages in The Prelude, you'll notice that De Quincey, who is quoting from memory, doesn't match the text exactly in any of them except for the last one.—M.
[111] Descriptive Sketches during a Pedestrian Tour on the Italian, Swiss, and Savoyard Alps. London, 1793.—M.
[111] Descriptive Sketches during a Walking Tour in the Italian, Swiss, and Savoyard Alps. London, 1793.—M.
[112] An Evening Walk: an Epistle in Verse. London, 1793.—M.
[112] An Evening Walk: a Letter in Verse. London, 1793.—M.
[113] The reader, who may happen not to have seen Coleridge's "Biographia Literaria," is informed that Coleridge tells a long story about a man who followed and dogged himself and Wordsworth in all their rural excursions, under a commission (originally emanating from Mr. Pitt) for detecting some overt acts of treason, or treasonable correspondence, or, in default of either, some words of treasonable conversation. Unfortunately for his own interests as an active servant, even in a whole month that spy had collected nothing at all as the basis of a report, excepting only something which they (Coleridge and Wordsworth, to wit) were continually saying to each other, now in blame, now in praise, of one Spy Nosy; and this, praise and blame alike, the honest spy very naturally took to himself, seeing that the world accused him of having a nose of unreasonable dimensions, and his own conscience accused him of being a spy. "Now," says Coleridge, "the very fact was that Wordsworth and I were constantly talking about Spinosa." This story makes a very good Joe Miller; but, for other purposes, is somewhat damaged. However, there is one excellent story in the case. Some country gentleman from the neighbourhood of Nether Stowey, upon a party happening to discuss the probabilities that Wordsworth and Coleridge might be traitors, and in correspondence with the French Directory, answered thus:—"Oh, as to that Coleridge, he's a rattlebrain, that will say more in a week than he will stand to in a twelvemonth. But Wordsworth—that's the traitor: why, bless you, he's so close, that you'll never hear him open his lips on the subject from year's end to year's end!"
[113] The reader, who may not have seen Coleridge's "Biographia Literaria," is informed that Coleridge tells a long story about a man who followed and closely observed himself and Wordsworth during all their countryside outings, under a mission (originally coming from Mr. Pitt) to detect any overt acts of treason, treasonable correspondence, or, failing that, some treasonable conversation. Unfortunately for his own interests as an active agent, that spy collected nothing at all as a basis for a report in a whole month, except for something that they (Coleridge and Wordsworth, specifically) were constantly saying to each other, sometimes in blame and sometimes in praise, about one Spy Nosy; and this, both praise and blame, the well-meaning spy naturally took to heart, given that the world accused him of having an unreasonable nose, and his own conscience accused him of being a spy. "Now," says Coleridge, "the truth is that Wordsworth and I were always talking about Spinosa." This story makes for a great joke; however, for other purposes, it is somewhat compromised. Nonetheless, there is one excellent story in this scenario. A local gentleman from the vicinity of Nether Stowey, upon a gathering discussing the possibilities that Wordsworth and Coleridge might be traitors and in communication with the French Directory, replied: “Oh, as for Coleridge, he’s a scatterbrain who will say more in a week than he’ll stick to in a year. But Wordsworth—that’s the real traitor: I swear, he’s so secretive that you’ll never hear him say a word on the subject from one year’s end to the next!”
[114] How little has any adequate power as yet approached this great theme! Not the Grecian stage, not "the dark sorrows of the line of Thebes," in any of its scenes, unfold such tragical grouping of circumstances and situations as may be gathered from the memoirs of the time. The galleries and vast staircases of Versailles, at early dawn, on some of the greatest days—filled with dreadful faces—the figure of the Duke of Orleans obscurely detected amongst them—the growing fury—the growing panic—the blind tumult—and the dimness of the event,—all make up a scene worthy to blend with our images of Babylon or of Nineveh with the enemy in all her gates, Memphis or Jerusalem in their agonies. But, amongst all the exponents of the growing agitation that besieged the public mind, none is so profoundly impressive as the scene (every Sunday renewed) at the Chapel Royal. Even in the most penitential of the litanies, in the presence when most immediately confessed of God himself—when the antiphonies are chanted, one party singing, with fury and gnashing of teeth, Salvum fac Regem, and another, with equal hatred and fervour, answering Et Reginam (the poor queen at this time engrossing the popular hatred)—the organ roared into thunder—the semi-chorus swelled into shouting—the menaces into defiance—again the crashing semi-choir sang with shouts their Salvum fac Regem—again the vengeful antiphony hurled back its Et Reginam—and one person, an eye-witness of these scenes, which mounted in violence on each successive Sunday, declares that oftentimes the semi-choral bodies were at the point of fighting with each other in the presence of the king.
[114] How little power has truly tackled this great theme so far! Not the Greek stage, nor "the dark sorrows of the line of Thebes," in any of its scenes, reveal such a tragic mix of circumstances and situations as can be found in the memoirs of that time. The galleries and grand staircases of Versailles, at dawn on some of the most significant days—filled with horrifying faces— the Duke of Orleans barely visible among them—the rising anger—the growing panic—the chaos—and the gloom of the events—all create a scene that could be compared to images of Babylon or Nineveh with enemies at every gate, Memphis or Jerusalem in their suffering. But, among all the signs of the mounting agitation that overwhelmed the public, none is as strikingly impressive as the scene (repeated every Sunday) at the Chapel Royal. Even in the most penitential of the litanies, in the immediate presence of God himself—when the antiphonies are sung, with one group chanting, fiercely and with gritted teeth, Salvum fac Regem, and another, equally filled with hatred and passion, responding Et Reginam (the poor queen at this moment the target of popular disdain)—the organ roared like thunder—the semi-chorus erupted with loud shouts—the threats turned to defiance—again the crashing semi-choir sang their Salvum fac Regem with shouts—once more the vengeful antiphony shot back its Et Reginam—and one person, an eyewitness of these increasingly violent scenes each successive Sunday, states that often, the semi-choral groups were on the verge of fighting with each other in front of the king.
[115] That tract of the lake country which stretches southwards from Hawkshead and the lakes of Esthwaite, Windermere, and Coniston, to the little town of Ulverstone (which may be regarded as the metropolis of the little romantic English Calabria called Furness), is divided from the main part of Lancashire by the estuary of Morecamb. The sea retires with the ebb tide to a vast distance, leaving the sands passable through a few hours for horses and carriages. But, partly from the daily variation in these hours, partly from the intricacy of the pathless track which must be pursued, and partly from the galloping pace at which the returning tide comes in, many fatal accidents are continually occurring—sometimes to the too venturous traveller who has slighted the aid of guides—sometimes to the guides themselves, when baffled and perplexed by mists. Gray the poet mentions one of the latter class as having then recently occurred, under affecting circumstances. Local tradition records a long list of such cases.
[115] The area of the lake country that stretches south from Hawkshead and the lakes of Esthwaite, Windermere, and Coniston to the small town of Ulverston (which can be seen as the center of the charming little English area known as Furness) is separated from the main part of Lancashire by the Morecambe estuary. The sea recedes at low tide, pulling back far enough to leave the sands accessible for a few hours for horses and carriages. However, due to the daily changes in these hours, the confusing path that must be taken, and the rapid speed at which the tide comes back in, many tragic accidents keep happening—sometimes to the overly adventurous traveler who ignores the guides' help, and sometimes to the guides themselves when they are lost and confused by the fog. The poet Gray mentions one such instance as having happened recently under sad circumstances. Local lore has a long list of these types of incidents.
[116] I do not, on consideration, know when they might begin to keep house together: but, by a passage in "The Prelude," they must have made a tour together as early as 1787.
[116] I honestly don't know when they might start living together, but based on a section in "The Prelude," they must have traveled together as early as 1787.
[117] In the Memoir of Coleridge prefaced to Messrs. Macmillan's four-volume edition of his poetical works (1880) one reads:—"In the summer of 1797 Coleridge and Wordsworth, if they did not actually meet for the first time, first became familiarly acquainted with each other at Racedown in Dorsetshire. Wordsworth was then in his twenty-eighth and Coleridge in his twenty-fifth year."—M.
[117] In the Memoir of Coleridge that introduces Messrs. Macmillan's four-volume edition of his poetry (1880), it says:—"In the summer of 1797, Coleridge and Wordsworth, if they didn't actually meet for the first time, became well acquainted with each other at Racedown in Dorsetshire. Wordsworth was then twenty-eight and Coleridge was twenty-five."—M.
[118] Now entitled Resolution and Independence.—M.
[119] I do not mean to insinuate that Wordsworth was at all in the dark about the inaccuracy and want of authentic weight attaching to Plutarch as a historian; but his business with Plutarch was not for purposes of research: he was satisfied with his fine moral effects.
[119] I'm not suggesting that Wordsworth was unaware of the inaccuracies and lack of genuine credibility in Plutarch as a historian; however, Wordsworth's engagement with Plutarch wasn't for research purposes: he was content with the strong moral impact it had.
[120] "The Ruth of her brother's creation":—So I express it; because so much in the development of the story and situations necessarily belongs to the poet. Else, for the mere outline of the story, it was founded upon fact. Wordsworth himself told me, in general terms, that the case which suggested the poem was that of an American lady, whose husband forsook her at the very place of embarkation from England, under circumstances and under expectations, upon her part, very much the same as those of Ruth. I am afraid, however, that the husband was an attorney; which is intolerable; nisi prius cannot be harmonized with the dream-like fairyland of Georgia.
[120] "The Ruth of her brother's creation":—That’s how I see it; because so much of the story and the situations are really due to the poet. Otherwise, the basic outline of the story is based on real events. Wordsworth himself mentioned to me, in general terms, that the inspiration for the poem came from the story of an American woman whose husband left her right at the point of departure from England, under circumstances and with expectations very similar to those of Ruth. I’m afraid, though, that the husband was a lawyer, which is just unacceptable; nisi prius cannot fit into the dreamlike fairyland of Georgia.
[121] Of course, therefore, it is essentially the same name as Theodora, the same elements being only differently arranged. Yet how opposite is the impression upon the mind! and chiefly, I suppose, from the too prominent emblazonment of this name in the person of Justinian's scandalous wife; though, for my own part, I am far from believing all the infamous stories which we read about her.
[121] Of course, it's basically the same name as Theodora, just with the elements arranged differently. Yet the impression it leaves is so different! This is mainly, I think, due to the negative spotlight on this name in connection with Justinian's scandalous wife; however, personally, I don't believe all the notorious stories we hear about her.
[123] Viz., "Calypso ne savoit se consoler du départ," &c. For how long a period (viz., nearly two centuries) has Calypso been inconsolable in the morning studies of young ladies! As Fénélon's most dreary romance always opened at one or other of these three earliest and dreary pages, naturally to my sympathetic fancy the poor unhappy goddess seemed to be eternally aground on this Goodwin Sand of inconsolability. It is amongst the standing hypocrisies of the world, that most people affect a reverence for this book, which nobody reads.
[123] That is, "Calypso can't console herself for the departure," etc. For how long (almost two centuries) has Calypso been unable to move on in the morning studies of young women! Since Fénélon's gloomy romance always started with one of these three earliest and bleak pages, naturally, to my empathetic imagination, the poor, unhappy goddess seemed stuck forever on this Goodwin Sand of inability to console herself. It's one of the world's ongoing hypocrisies that most people pretend to respect this book, which no one actually reads.
[124] It was published in full in 1874, with the title Recollections of a Tour made in Scotland, A.D. 1803, by Dorothy Wordsworth. Edited by J. C. Shairp, LL.D.—M.
[124] It was published in full in 1874, under the title Recollections of a Tour made in Scotland, CE 1803, by Dorothy Wordsworth. Edited by J. C. Shairp, LL.D.—M.
[125] Mrs. Johnstone (1781-1857) was the authoress of several novels, a contributor to various periodicals, and editor of Tait's Magazine through a portion at least of De Quincey's connexion with it.—M.
[125] Mrs. Johnstone (1781-1857) was the author of several novels, a contributor to various magazines, and served as the editor of Tait's Magazine during part of De Quincey’s time there.—M.
[126] In the recast by De Quincey, for the collective edition of his writings in 1853, of his Tait articles on Wordsworth in 1839, there were some omissions of matter that had appeared in the magazine. One was this concluding paragraph in the article for April 1839:—"I have traced the history of each [i.e. of William and Dorothy Wordsworth] until the time when I became personally acquainted with them; and, henceforwards, anything which it may be interesting to know with respect to either will naturally come forward, not in a separate narrative, but in connexion with my own life; for in the following year I became myself the tenant of that pretty cottage in which I found them; and from that time, for many years, my life flowed on in daily union with theirs."—M.
[126] In the version by De Quincey for the complete edition of his writings in 1853, the articles he wrote for Tait about Wordsworth in 1839 had some content removed that was originally published in the magazine. One omission was this final paragraph from the April 1839 article:—"I've traced the story of each [i.e. of William and Dorothy Wordsworth] up until I personally met them; and from then on, any interesting details about either of them will come up naturally, not as a separate story, but connected to my own life; because the following year, I became the tenant of that lovely cottage where I found them; and from that point on, for many years, my life intertwined with theirs."—M.
[127] From Tait's Magazine for July 1839. See explanation in Editor's Preface to this volume.—M.
[127] From Tait's Magazine for July 1839. See explanation in Editor's Preface to this volume.—M.
[128] A curious dissertation might be written on this subject. Meantime, it is remarkable that almost all modern nations have committed the blunder of supposing the Latin word for supper to be cœna, and of dinner prandium. Now, the essential definition of dinner is, that which is the main meal—(what the French call the great meal). By that or any test (for example, the time, three P.M.) the Roman cœna was dinner. Even Louis XII, whose death is partly ascribed to his having altered his dinner hour from nine to eleven A.M. in compliment to his young English bride, did not sup at three P.M.
[128] An interesting essay could be written on this topic. Meanwhile, it’s notable that almost all modern nations have made the mistake of thinking that the Latin word for supper is cœna and for dinner is prandium. The essential definition of dinner is the main meal—(what the French call the great meal). By that or any standard (for example, the time, 3 P.M.), the Roman cœna was dinner. Even Louis XII, whose death is partly attributed to changing his dinner hour from 9 to 11 AM to please his young English bride, did not sup at 3 P.M.
[129] It is not known to the English, but it is a fact which I can vouch for, from my six or seven years' residence in Scotland [written in 1839], that the Scotch, one and all, believe it to be an inalienable characteristic of an Englishman to be fond of good eating. What indignation have I, and how many a time, had occasion to feel and utter on this subject? But of this at some other time. Meantime, the Man of Feeling had this creed in excess; and, in some paper (of The Mirror or The Lounger), he describes an English tourist in Scotland by saying—"I would not wish to be thought national; yet, in mere reverence for truth, I am bound to say, and to declare to all the world (let who will be offended), that the first innkeeper in Scotland under whose roof we met with genuine buttered toast was an Englishman."
[129] The English might not realize this, but I can confirm from my six or seven years living in Scotland [written in 1839] that all Scots believe it’s an inescapable trait of an Englishman to love good food. How often have I felt outraged by this, and how many times have I expressed my feelings? But that’s a topic for another time. For now, the Man of Feeling took this belief to an extreme, and in some publication (of The Mirror or The Lounger), he describes an English tourist in Scotland saying—"I wouldn’t want to seem nationalistic; however, just out of respect for the truth, I have to say, and let everyone know (whoever may be offended), that the first innkeeper in Scotland who served us real buttered toast was an Englishman."
[130] Meantime, if it did not disturb him, it ought to disturb us, his immediate successors, who are at once the most likely to retrieve these losses by direct efforts, and the least likely to benefit by any casual or indirect retrievals, such as will be produced by time. Surely a subscription should be set on foot to recover all books enriched by his marginal notes. I would subscribe; and I know others who would largely.
[130] In the meantime, if it doesn’t bother him, it should bother us, his immediate successors, who are both the most likely to recover these losses through direct efforts and the least likely to benefit from any random or indirect recoveries that might happen over time. We should definitely start a subscription to recover all the books that have his marginal notes. I would contribute; and I know others who would contribute a lot.
[131] In De Quincey's imperfect reproduction of this paper in his collective edition, he adds here:—"One single paper, for instance—viz. a review of Nelson's life, which subsequently was expanded into his very popular little book on that subject—brought him the splendid honorarium of £150."—M.
[131] In De Quincey's incomplete version of this essay in his collected works, he adds here:—"One particular paper, for example—a review of Nelson's life, which was later developed into his widely read little book on that topic—earned him the impressive fee of £150."—M.
[132] See the Evidence before the House of Commons' Committee. [De Quincey does not give the date, nor the occasion.—M.]
[132] Check out the evidence presented to the House of Commons' Committee. [De Quincey doesn’t provide the date or the context.—M.]
[133] See note, Southey and the Edinburgh Annual Register, appended to this chapter.—M.
[133] See note, Southey and the Edinburgh Annual Register, appended to this chapter.—M.
[134] Sir Watkin, the elder brother, had a tongue too large for his mouth; Mr. C. Wynne, the younger, had a shrill voice, which at times rose into a scream. It became, therefore, a natural and current jest, to call the two brothers by the name of a well-known dish, viz. bubble and squeak.
[134] Sir Watkin, the older brother, had a tongue that was too big for his mouth; Mr. C. Wynne, the younger one, had a high-pitched voice that sometimes turned into a scream. So, it became a common joke to refer to the two brothers by the name of a popular dish, namely bubble and squeak.
[135] Why he was called Herbert, if my young readers inquire, I must reply, that I do not precisely know; because I know of reasons too many by half why he might have been so called. Derwent Coleridge, the second son of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and first cousin of Herbert Southey, was so called from the Lake of Keswick, commonly styled Derwent Water, which gave the title of Earl to the noble, and the noble-minded, though erring, family of the Radcliffes, who gave up, like heroes and martyrs, their lives and the finest estates in England for one who was incapable of appreciating the service. One of the islands on this lake is dedicated to St. Herbert, and this might have given a name to Southey's first-born child. But it is more probable that he derived this name from Dr. Herbert, uncle to the laureate.
[135] If my young readers are wondering why he was named Herbert, I have to say that I don’t really know for sure. There are plenty of reasons why he could have been given that name. Derwent Coleridge, the second son of Samuel Taylor Coleridge and first cousin of Herbert Southey, was named after Derwent Water, the lake in Keswick, which provided the title of Earl to the noble—and sometimes misguided—Radcliffe family, who sacrificed their lives and impressive estates in England for someone who didn’t value their loyalty. One of the islands on this lake is named after St. Herbert, and that could have been the inspiration for Southey's first-born child’s name. However, it’s more likely that he got the name from Dr. Herbert, the laureate's uncle.
[137] From Tait's Magazine for August 1839. See explanation in Preface to this volume.—M.
[137] From Tait's Magazine for August 1839. See explanation in Preface to this volume.—M.
[138] "Into two distinct apartments":—The word apartment, meaning, in effect, a compartment of a house, already includes, in its proper sense, a suite of rooms; and it is a mere vulgar error, arising out of the ambitious usage of lodging-house keepers, to talk of one family or an establishment occupying apartments in the plural. The Queen's apartment at St. James's or at Versailles—not the Queen's apartments—is the correct expression.
[138] "Into two distinct rooms":—The word room, which refers to part of a house, already implies a set of spaces; and it’s just a common mistake, stemming from the pretentious language of landlords, to say a family or an establishment occupies rooms in the plural. The Queen's room at St. James's or at Versailles—not the Queen's rooms—is the proper term.
[139] It illustrated the national sense of Southey's comprehensive talents, and of his political integrity, that Lord Radnor (the same who, under the courtesy title of Lord Folkestone, had distinguished himself for very democratic politics in the House of Commons, and had even courted the technical designation of radical) was the man who offered to bring in Southey for a borough dependent on his influence. Sir Robert Peel, under the same sense of Southey's merits, had offered him a baronetcy. Both honours were declined, on the same prudential considerations, and with the same perfect disregard of all temptations from personal vanity.
[139] It showed the national recognition of Southey's wide-ranging talents and his political integrity that Lord Radnor (the same person who, under the courtesy title of Lord Folkestone, had made a name for himself with very democratic politics in the House of Commons, and had even embraced the label of radical) was the one who offered to bring Southey into a borough reliant on his influence. Sir Robert Peel, understanding Southey's value, had also offered him a baronetcy. Both honors were turned down for the same practical reasons, and with a complete disregard for any temptation from personal pride.
[140] "Polemic skill":—The word polemic is falsely interpreted by the majority of mere English readers. Having seldom seen it used except in a case of theological controversy, they fancy that it has some original and etymological appropriation to such a use; whereas it expresses, with regard to all subjects, without restriction, the functions of the debater as opposed to those of the original orator; the functions of him who meets error and unravels confusion or misrepresentation, opposed to those of him who lays down the abstract truth: truth absolute and without relation to the modes of viewing it. As well might the word Radical be limited to a political use as Polemic to controversial divinity.
[140] "Polemic skill":—Most English readers misunderstand the term polemic. Since they've mostly seen it used in the context of theological debates, they think it only applies to that. In reality, it refers to the role of a debater in relation to all topics, without limitations. It describes the person who addresses falsehoods and clears up confusion or misrepresentation, contrasting with the one who presents abstract truths: absolute truths that stand independent of different perspectives. Just as it would be incorrect to limit the term Radical to a political context, it is equally wrong to restrict Polemic to religious controversy.
[141] Reported at length in a small quarto volume, of the well known quarto size so much in use for Tracts, Pamphlets, &c., throughout the life of Milton—1608-74.
[141] Detailed extensively in a small quarto book, typical of the quarto format often used for tracts, pamphlets, etc., during Milton's lifetime—1608-74.
[142] In fact, the exposure is as perfect in the case of an individual as in that of a nation, and more easily apprehended. Levy from an individual clothier £1000 in taxes, and afterwards return to him the whole of this sum in payment for the clothing of a regiment. Then, supposing profits to be at the rate of 15 per cent, he will have replaced £150 of his previous loss; even his gains will simply reinstate him in something that he had lost, and the remaining £850 will continue to be a dead loss; since the £850 restored to him exactly replaces, by the terms of this case, his disbursements in wages and materials; if it did more, profits would not be at 15 per cent, according to the supposition. But Government may spend more than the £1000 with this clothier; they may spend £10,000. Doubtless, and in that case, on the same supposition as to profits, he will receive £1500 as a nominal gain; and £500 will be a real gain, marked with the positive sign (+). But such a case would only prove that nine other taxpayers, to an equal amount, had been left without any reimbursement at all. Strange that so clear a case for an individual should become obscure when it regards a nation.
[142] In fact, the situation is just as clear for an individual as it is for a nation, and it's easier to grasp. If you take £1000 in taxes from a clothier, then later give him back that same amount for the clothing of a regiment, assuming a profit rate of 15 percent, he will have recovered £150 of his initial loss. His gains simply bring him back to where he was, and the remaining £850 will still be a total loss; since the £850 returned to him just covers his expenses for wages and materials. If it covered more, profits wouldn't be at 15 percent, as we assumed. But the government can spend more than £1000 with this clothier; they could spend £10,000. In that case, with the same profit assumption, he would show a nominal gain of £1500, and £500 would be a real gain, marked with a positive sign (+). However, this would only mean that nine other taxpayers, for the same amount, would have received no reimbursement at all. It's strange how such a straightforward example for an individual becomes confusing when it comes to a nation.
[143] From Tait's Magazine for December 1839.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ From Tait's Magazine for December 1839.—M.
[144] The Castle of Indolence was first published in 1748, the year of the poet's death. The following is the stanza of the poem referred to by De Quincey:—
[144] The Castle of Indolence was first published in 1748, the year the poet passed away. Below is the stanza of the poem mentioned by De Quincey:—
Here rested the thoughtful, sad mind; Easily obtained. No more required. But off to the side of the softly blowing wind To set the finely tuned instrument down, From which, with light and breezy fingers, Beyond every human touch lies the most refined; The god of winds created sounds of deep joy;
"From where, with good reason, it is called the Harp of Æolus."—M.
[145] The usual Scottish word is kenspeckle.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ The common Scottish term is kenspeckle.—M.
[147] It may be supposed, not literally, for the swallow (or at least that species called the swift) has been known to fly at the rate of 300 miles an hour. Very probably, however, this pace was not deduced from an entire hour's performance, but estimated by proportion from a flight of one or two minutes. An interesting anecdote is told by the gentleman (I believe the Rev. E. Stanley) who described in Blackwood's Magazine the opening of the earliest English railway, viz. that a bird (snipe was it, or field-fare, or plover?) ran, or rather flew, a race with the engine for three or four miles, until, finding itself likely to be beaten, it then suddenly wheeled away into the moors.
[147] It's said—not literally—that the swallow (or at least the swift species) can fly at speeds of up to 300 miles per hour. However, it's likely that this speed wasn't determined by a full hour of flight but rather estimated based on a one or two-minute flight. There's an interesting story shared by a gentleman (I think it was the Rev. E. Stanley) who wrote in Blackwood's Magazine about the launch of the first English railway, where a bird (was it a snipe, a fieldfare, or a plover?) raced against the engine for three or four miles, but when it saw it might lose, it quickly veered off into the moors.
[148] From Tait's Magazine for January 1840.—M.
From Tait's Magazine for January 1840.—M.
[149] The idea of the picturesque is one which did not exist at all until the post-Christian ages; neither amongst the Grecians nor amongst the Romans; and therefore, as respects one reason, it was, that the art of landscape painting did not exist (except in a Chinese infancy, and as a mere trick of inventive ingenuity) amongst the finest artists of Greece. What is picturesque, as placed in relation to the beautiful and the sublime? It is (to define it by the very shortest form of words) the characteristic pushed into a sensible excess. The prevailing character of any natural object, no matter how little attractive it may be for beauty, is always interesting for itself, as the character and hieroglyphic symbol of the purposes pursued by Nature in the determination of its form, style of motion, texture of superficies, relation of parts, &c. Thus, for example, an expression of dulness and somnolent torpor does not ally itself with grace or elegance; but, in combination with strength and other qualities, it may compose a character of serviceable and patient endurance, as in the cart-horse, having unity in itself, and tending to one class of uses sufficient to mark it out by circumscription for a distinct and separate contemplation. Now, in combination with certain counteracting circumstances, as with the momentary energy of some great effort, much of this peculiar character might be lost, or defeated, or dissipated. On that account, the skilful observer will seek out circumstances that are in harmony with the principal tendencies and assist them; such, suppose, as a state of lazy relaxation from labour, and the fall of heavy drenching rain causing the head to droop, and the shaggy mane, together with the fetlocks, to weep. These, and other circumstances of attitude, &c., bring out the character of prevailing tendency of the animal in some excess; and, in such a case, we call the resulting effect to the eye—picturesque: or in fact, characteresque. In extending this speculation to objects of art and human purposes, there is something more required of subtle investigation. Meantime, it is evident that neither the sublime nor the beautiful depends upon any secondary interest of a purpose or of a character expressing that purpose. They (confining the case to visual objects) court the primary interest involved in that (form, colour, texture, attitude, motion) which forces admiration, which fascinates the eye, for itself, and without a question of any distinct purpose: and, instead of character—that is, discriminating and separating expression, tending to the special and the individual—they both agree in pursuing the Catholic, the Normal, the Ideal.
[149] The concept of the picturesque didn’t exist at all until after the Christian era; not among the Greeks or the Romans. Because of this, the art of landscape painting was nonexistent (except in a very early Chinese form and as a simple clever trick) among the greatest artists of Greece. So, what is picturesque when compared to the beautiful and the sublime? In the simplest terms, it’s a characteristic taken to an extreme. The main character of any natural object, regardless of how unappealing it may be in terms of beauty, is always interesting in its own right, as it represents the intentions of Nature in determining its shape, movement, texture, relationships of its parts, and so on. For example, a look of dullness and sleepy sluggishness doesn’t go with grace or elegance; however, combined with strength and other qualities, it can create a character of useful and patient endurance, like a cart-horse, which has unity and is designated for a specific class of uses that distinguishes it for focused observation. Now, if certain opposing circumstances arise, such as a brief burst of energy from a significant effort, a lot of this distinct character might be lost or diminished. For this reason, a skilled observer will look for conditions that align with the primary traits and enhance them. For instance, suppose there is a state of lazy relaxation after hard work, with heavy rainfall causing the horse’s head to droop and its shaggy mane and legs to look sorrowful. These and other indicators highlight the dominant trait of the animal in an exaggerated manner, and in this case, we describe the outcome as picturesque, or in fact, characteresque. When we apply this idea to art and human creations, a deeper analysis is needed. Meanwhile, it’s clear that neither the sublime nor the beautiful relies on any secondary interest related to a purpose or a character expressing that purpose. They (limiting our discussion to visual objects) seek the primary interest found in aspects like form, color, texture, position, and movement that compel admiration and captivate the eye on their own, without any consideration of a specific purpose. Instead of focusing on character—that is, on distinguishing and individual expression—they both aim to pursue the universal, the normative, and the ideal.
[150] "Travels in Italy, Greece, and the Ionian Islands," vol. i. pp. 74, 75.
[150] "Travels in Italy, Greece, and the Ionian Islands," vol. i. pp. 74, 75.
[151] Wraie is the old Danish or Icelandic word for angle. Hence the many "wrays" in the Lake district.
[151] Wraie is the old Danish or Icelandic word for angle. That's why there are so many "wrays" in the Lake District.
[152] William Cullen (1712-1790), Professor of the Institutes of Medicine and the Practice of Physic in the University of Edinburgh from 1766 to 1790.—M.
[152] William Cullen (1712-1790) was a Professor of Medicine and the Practice of Physic at the University of Edinburgh from 1766 to 1790.—M.
[153] John Millar (1735-1801), author of The Origin Of the Distinction of Ranks in Society and Historical View of the English Government.—M.
[153] John Millar (1735-1801), author of The Origin of the Distinction of Ranks in Society and Historical View of the English Government.—M.
[154] Robert Cullen was a Scottish judge, with the courtesy title of Lord Cullen, from 1796 to 1810.—M.
[154] Robert Cullen was a Scottish judge, known as Lord Cullen, from 1796 to 1810.—M.
[157] She was Jeffrey's second wife, married to him in 1813.—M.
[157] She was Jeffrey's second wife, married to him in 1813.—M.
[158] The pathetic story told in De Quincey's paper entitled Early Memorials of Grasmere.—M.
[158] The sad story recounted in De Quincey's piece called Early Memorials of Grasmere.—M.
[159] From Tait's Magazine for March 1840.—M.
[160] The name was Charles Lloyd, and we shall fill up De Quincey's blanks in the sequel.—M.
[160] The name was Charles Lloyd, and we will fill in De Quincey's gaps later. —M.
[161] Blank Verse by C. L. and Charles Lamb, 1798. Poetical Essays on Pope, and Desultory Thoughts on London, &c., 1821.—M.
[161] Blank Verse by C. L. and Charles Lamb, 1798. Poetical Essays on Pope, and Random Thoughts on London, etc., 1821.—M.
[162] In using the term Quakers, I hoped it would have been understood, even without any explanation from myself, that I did not mean to use it scornfully or insultingly to that respectable body. But it was the great oversight of their founders not to have saved them from a nickname by assuming some formal designation expressive of some capital characteristic. At present one is in this dilemma: either one must use a tedious periphrasis (e.g. the young women of the Society of Friends), or the ambiguous one of young female Friends.
[162] When I say Quakers, I hoped it would be clear that I don't mean it in a disrespectful or insulting way towards that respected group. However, it was a big mistake by their founders not to choose a formal title that clearly represented their main characteristics to avoid a nickname. Currently, we're stuck in a situation where we either have to use a long-winded phrase like the young women of the Society of Friends or the vague term young female Friends.
[163] This break of asterisks occurs in the original magazine article.—M.
[163] This break of asterisks appears in the original magazine article.—M.
[164] Miss Jane Penny.—M.
Miss Jane Penny.—M.
[165] From Tait's Magazine for June 1840.
[166] The approach from Ambleside or Hawkshead, though fine, is far less so than from Grasmere, through the vale of Tilberthwaite, to which, for a coup de théâtre, I recollect nothing equal. Taking the left-hand road, so as to make for Monk Coniston, and not for Church Coniston, you ascend a pretty steep hill, from which, at a certain point of the little gorge or hawse (i.e. hals, neck or throat, viz. the dip in any hill through which the road is led), the whole lake of six miles in length, and the beautiful foregrounds, all rush upon the eye with the effect of a pantomimic surprise—not by a graduated revelation, but by an instantaneous flash.
[166] The routes from Ambleside or Hawkshead are nice, but they're not as stunning as the one from Grasmere through the Tilberthwaite valley, which I can't think of anything that compares to for a dramatic effect. If you take the left road towards Monk Coniston instead of Church Coniston, you’ll climb a fairly steep hill. At a certain spot in the little gorge or hawse (meaning the dip in any hill where the road passes), the entire six-mile-long lake and the gorgeous surroundings suddenly come into view, hitting you like a surprise in a play—not revealed gradually, but all at once.
[167] Miss Elizabeth Smith (1776-1806), authoress of a translation of a Life of Klopstock from the German, and also of a translation of the Book of Job from the Hebrew, and a Hebrew, Arabic, and Persic vocabulary, all published after her death. Two volumes of her Fragments in Prose and Verse were published at Bath in 1809, with a memoir of her by H. M. Bowdler.—M.
[167] Miss Elizabeth Smith (1776-1806), author of a translation of a Life of Klopstock from German, as well as a translation of the Book of Job from Hebrew, and a vocabulary of Hebrew, Arabic, and Persian, all published after her passing. Two volumes of her Fragments in Prose and Verse were published in Bath in 1809, along with a memoir of her by H. M. Bowdler.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ See previous footnote 167, p.__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.—M.
[169] The Rev. T. Randolph, D.D., editor of Miss Smith's Translation of Job, 1810.—M.
[169] The Rev. T. Randolph, D.D., editor of Miss Smith's translation of Job, 1810.—M.
[171] It is entitled "To the Spade of a Friend: composed while we were labouring together in his pleasure ground"; and it begins—
[171] It's called "To the Spade of a Friend: written while we were working together in his garden"; and it starts—
It was written in 1804.—M.
It was written in 1804. —M.
[172] Elizabeth Hamilton (1758-1816), though now remembered chiefly by her Scottish story, The Cottagers of Glenburnie, which appeared in 1808, was the author of many other writings.—M.
[172] Elizabeth Hamilton (1758-1816) is mostly known today for her Scottish story, The Cottagers of Glenburnie, published in 1808, but she also wrote many other works.—M.
[173] And, in allusion to this circumstance, the house afterwards raised on a neighbouring spot, at this time suggested by Miss Smith, received the name of Tent Lodge.
[173] And, referring to this situation, the house that was later built nearby, suggested at this time by Miss Smith, was named Tent Lodge.
[174] Addressing Wilkinson's spade in the poem mentioned at p. 413 ante, Wordsworth says—
[174] Referring to Wilkinson's spade in the poem noted on p. 413 ante, Wordsworth states—
You have long served a man who thinks clearly; Whose life blends the best of both high and low,
"The working majority and the resting minority." — M.
[175] "Mighty Fairfield":
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ "Mighty Fairfield":
"Of echoes, still keeping time."—Wordsworth's "Waggoner."
I have retained the English name of Fairfield; but, when I was studying Danish, I stumbled upon the true meaning of the name, unlocked by that language, and reciprocally (as one amongst other instances which I met at the very threshold of my studies) unlocking the fact that Danish (or Icelandic rather) is the master-key to the local names and dialect of Westmoreland. Faar is a sheep: fald a hill. But are not all the hills sheep hills? No; Fairfield only, amongst all its neighbours, has large, smooth, pastoral savannas, to which the sheep resort when all the rocky or barren neighbours are left desolate.
I kept the English name of Fairfield, but while I was studying Danish, I discovered the true meaning of the name, revealed by that language. This also showed me, alongside other examples I encountered at the very start of my studies, that Danish (or more accurately, Icelandic) is the key to understanding the local names and dialect of Westmoreland. Faar means sheep, and fald means hill. But aren’t all the hills sheep hills? No; only Fairfield, among all its neighbors, has large, smooth, grassy savannas where the sheep gather when all the rocky or barren areas are left desolate.
[176] From Tait's Magazine for August 1840.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ From Tait's Magazine for August 1840.—M.
[177] Potter is the local term in northern England for a hawker of earthen ware; many of which class lead a vagrant life, and encamp during the summer months like gipsies.
[177] Potter is the local term in northern England for a seller of pottery; many in this group live a nomadic lifestyle and set up camp during the summer months like gypsies.
[178] This brutal boast might, after all, be a falsehood, and, with respect to mere numbers, probably was so.
[178] This harsh claim might actually be a lie, and, in terms of actual numbers, probably was.
[179] Byron's letter was not to Hogg, but to Moore, concerning a letter received from Hogg; and the extract from it in Lockhart to which De Quincey refers was as follows:—"Oh! I have had the most amusing letter from Hogg, the Ettrick Minstrel and Shepherd. I think very highly of him as a poet; but he and half of those Scotch and Lake troubadours are spoilt by living in little circles and petty coteries. London and the world is the only place to take the conceit out of a man." The letter is dated 3d August 1814.—M.
[179] Byron's letter wasn't to Hogg, but to Moore, about a letter he received from Hogg; and the excerpt from it in Lockhart that De Quincey mentions was as follows:—"Oh! I’ve received the most entertaining letter from Hogg, the Ettrick Minstrel and Shepherd. I think very highly of him as a poet; but he and a lot of those Scottish and Lake troubadours are ruined by being in small circles and petty groups. London and the world are the only places to take the arrogance out of a person." The letter is dated August 3, 1814.—M.
[180] Scott, at all events, who had been personally acquainted with Wordsworth since 1803,—when Wordsworth and his sister Dorothy in the course of their Scottish tour visited Scott and his wife at Lasswade,—had always been an admirer of Wordsworth, even while dissenting from his poetical views. Scott and his wife had paid a return visit to Wordsworth at Grasmere in 1805; and the two poets had corresponded occasionally since then,—Scott decidedly more deferential to Wordsworth than Wordsworth was to Scott.—M.
[180] Scott, who had known Wordsworth personally since 1803—when Wordsworth and his sister Dorothy visited Scott and his wife at Lasswade during their Scottish tour—had always admired Wordsworth, even while disagreeing with his poetic opinions. Scott and his wife returned the visit to Wordsworth in Grasmere in 1805, and the two poets kept in touch occasionally afterward—Scott was clearly more respectful towards Wordsworth than Wordsworth was towards Scott.—M.
[181] The story will appear in a future volume.—M.
[181] The story will be included in a future volume.—M.
[182] It is entitled "Characteristics of a Child Three Years Old"; and is dated at the foot 1811, which must be an oversight, for she was not so old until the following year. I may as well add the first six lines, though I had a reason for beginning the extract where it does, in order to fix the attention upon the special circumstance which had so much fascinated myself, of her all-sufficiency to herself, and the way in which she "filled the air with gladness and involuntary songs." The other lines are these:
[182] It’s titled "Characteristics of a Child Three Years Old," and it's dated 1811 at the bottom, which must be a mistake since she wasn’t that old until the following year. I might as well include the first six lines, although I had a reason for starting the excerpt where I did, to highlight the particular aspect that fascinated me the most: her complete self-sufficiency and how she "filled the air with joy and spontaneous songs." The other lines are these:
And clever tricks; and the nice round Of offenses, aimed to provoke Playful teasing and teamwork.
[183] The paper in Tait's Magazine for August 1840 does not end here, but includes all the matter of the next short chapter. As that matter changes the scene from the Lakes, however, better to put it in a chapter by itself.—M.
[183] The article in Tait's Magazine from August 1840 doesn’t stop here; it actually includes everything from the next short chapter. Since that content shifts the setting away from the Lakes, it’s better to place it in a separate chapter.—M.
[184] From Tait's Magazine for August 1840.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ From Tait's Magazine for August 1840.—M.
[185] Hannah More's residence.—M.
Hannah More's home.—M.
[186] At the time mentioned Hannah More was verging on her seventieth year and Mrs. Siddons on her sixtieth.—M.
[186] At that time, Hannah More was approaching her seventieth year, and Mrs. Siddons was nearing her sixtieth.—M.
[187] A privileged guest at Windsor. Mrs. Siddons used to mention that, when she was invited to Windsor Castle for the purpose of reading before the Queen and her royal daughters, on her first visit she was ready to sink from weariness under the effort of standing for so long a time; but on some subsequent visit I have understood that she was allowed to sit, probably on the suggestion of one of the younger ladies.
[187] A privileged guest at Windsor. Mrs. Siddons often mentioned that when she was invited to Windsor Castle to perform for the Queen and her royal daughters, during her first visit, she felt exhausted from standing for such a long time. However, on a later visit, I’ve heard she was allowed to sit down, likely thanks to a suggestion from one of the younger ladies.
[188] It was in 1783, the last year but one of Dr. Johnson's life, that Mrs. Siddons, then twenty-eight years of age, and already the most famous actress of her day, visited Johnson in his rooms in Bolt Court, Fleet Street. "When Mrs. Siddons came into the room, there happened to be no chair ready for her, which he observing, said with a smile, 'Madam, you who so often occasion a want of seats to other people will the more easily excuse the want of one yourself.'" So Boswell reports.—M.
[188] It was in 1783, the year before Dr. Johnson passed away, that Mrs. Siddons, who was twenty-eight and already the most famous actress of her time, visited Johnson in his rooms in Bolt Court, Fleet Street. "When Mrs. Siddons entered the room, there was no chair available for her. Noticing this, he smiled and said, 'Madam, you who so often create a need for seats for others will more easily understand the lack of one for yourself.'" So reports Boswell.—M.
[189] Published in 1777.—M.
__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ Published in 1777.—M.
[190] I saw her, however, myself upon the stage twice after this meeting at Barley Wood. It was at Edinburgh; and the parts were those of Lady Macbeth and Lady Randolph. But she then performed only as an expression of kindness to her grandchildren. Professor Wilson and myself saw her on the occasion from the stage-box, with a delight embittered by the certainty that we saw her for the last time.
[190] I saw her again on stage twice after meeting her at Barley Wood. It was in Edinburgh, and she played the roles of Lady Macbeth and Lady Randolph. However, she was only performing out of kindness for her grandchildren. Professor Wilson and I watched her from the stage box, feeling delighted yet saddened by the certainty that it was the last time we would see her.
Download ePUB
If you like this ebook, consider a donation!