CHAPTER VI

“dull, envious, pragmatical, low-bred man.... Grown old in the service of corruption, he drivels on to the last with prostituted impotence and shameless effrontery; salves a meagre reputation for wit, by venting the driblets and spleen of his wrath on others; answers their arguments by confuting himself; mistakes habitual obtuseness of intellect for a particular acuteness; not to be imposed upon by shallow appearances; unprincipled rancour for zealous loyalty; and the irritable, discontented, vindictive, peevish effusions of bodily pain and mental imbecility for proofs of refinement of taste and strength of understanding.”[525]

Blackwood’shad accepted abstracts of Hazlitt’sLectures on the English Poets[526]from P. G. Patmore without comment and even managed a lengthy comparison of Jeffrey and Hazlitt with an approach to fair dealing. But by August, 1818, he had been identified with the “Cockney crew” and he became “that wild, black-bill Hazlitt,” a “lounge in third-rate bookshops”; and as a critic of Shakspere, a gander gabbling at that “divine swan.” In April of the following year he was christened the “Aristotle” of the Cockneys. HisTable Talkprovoked ten pages of vituperation,[527]andLiber Amoris, two reviews as coarse as the provocation.[528]In the first of these, apropos of his contributions to theEdinburgh Reviewand in particular of his article on thePeriodical Press of Britain, the downfall of the magazine and its editor is announced as certain. Hazlitt is called a literary flunky, a sore, an ulcer, a poor devil. In the second he is Hunt’s orderly, the “Mars of the Hampstead heavy dragoons.”

Hazlitt found relief for his feelings by threateningBlackwood’swith a lawsuit. Yet in July, 1824, appeared an elaborate comparison of Hunt and Hazlitt inBlackwood’schoicest manner and in March, 1825, a review of theSpirit of the Age.After 1828 the defamatory articles ceased entirely. In 1867 appeared what might be construed into an attempt at reparation by Bulwer-Lytton. Hazlitt was still spoken of as the most aggressive of the Cockneys, discourteous and unscrupulous, a bitter politician who would substitute universal submission to Napoleon for established monarchial institutions; but he is credited with strong powers of reason, of judicial criticism and of metaphysical speculation, and with perception of sentiment, truth and beauty.

Conclusion

It is curious that, in the lives of three such geniuses as Shelley, Byron and Keats a man of lesser gifts and of weaker fibre should have played so large a part as did Leigh Hunt. It is more curious in view of the fact that the period of intimate association in each case extended over only a few years. The explanation must be sought in the accident of the age and in the personality of the man himself. It was an era of stirring action and of strong feeling. Men were clamoring for freedom from the trammels of the past and were pressing forward to the new day. Through the union of some of the qualities of the pioneer and of the prophet, Leigh Hunt was thrust into a position of prominence that he might not have gained at any other time, for he lacked the vital requisites of true leadership.

His personal quality was as rare as his opportunity. He had a personal ascendancy, a strange fascination born of the sympathy and chivalry, the sweetness and joyousness of his nature. An exotic warmth and glow worked its spell upon those about him. Barry Cornwall said that he was a “compact of all the spring winds that blew.” His lovableness and very “genius for friendship” bound intimately to him those who were thus attracted. There was, besides, an elusiveness and an ethereality about him—as Carlyle expressed it—“a fine tricksy medium between the poet and the wit, half a sylph and half an Ariel ... a fairy fluctuating bark.” The “vinous quality” of his mind, Hazlitt said, intoxicated those who came in contact with him.

In the case of Shelley it was Hunt the man, rather than the writer, that held him. Charm was the magnet in a friendship that, in its perfection and deep intimacy, deserves to be ranked with the fabled ones of old—a love passing the love of woman.There is no single cloud of distrust or disloyalty in the whole story of their relations.

Second to the personal tie may be ranked Hunt’s influence on Shelley’s politics, greater in this instance than in the case of Byron or Keats. Hunt’s attitude was an important factor in forming Shelley’s political creed. With Godwin, he drew Shelley’s attention from the creation of imaginary universes to the less speculative issues of earth. Indeed, Shelley’s main reliance for a knowledge of political happenings during many years, and practically his only one for the last four years of his life, wasThe Examiner. He was guided and moderated by it in his general attitude. In the specific instances already cited, the stimulus for poems or the information for prose tracts and articles can be directly traced to Hunt.

In regard to literary art Hunt did not affect Shelley beyond pointing the way to a freer use of the heroic couplet, and in a limited degree, in four or five of his minor poems, influencing him in the use of a familiar diction. Only in his letters does Shelley show any inclination to emphasize “social enjoyments” or suburban delights. That the literary influence was so slight is not surprising when Shelley’s powers of speculation and accurate scholarship are compared with Hunt’s want of concentration and shallow attainments. Notwithstanding this intellectual gulf, strong convictions, with a moral courage sufficient to support them, and a congeniality of tastes and temperament, made possible an ideal comradeship.

Byron, like Shelley, was attracted by Hunt’s charm of personality. An imprisoned martyr and a persecuted editor appealed to Byron’s love of the spectacular. Political sympathy furthered the friendship. In a literary way, Byron influenced Hunt more than Hunt influenced him.

Their intercourse is the story of a pleasant acquaintance with a disagreeable sequel and much error on both sides. With two men of such varying caliber and tastes, the “wren and eagle” as Shelley called them, thrown together under such trying circumstances, it could hardly have been otherwise. Their love of liberty and courage of opposition were the only things in common. Byron recognized to the last Hunt’s goodqualities and Hunt, except for the bitter years in Italy and immediately after his return, proclaimed Byron’s genius; but, for all that, they were temperamentally opposed. Byron detested Hunt’s small vulgarities as much as Hunt loathed Byron’s assumed superiority.

The relation with Keats was the reverse of that in the other two cases. It was an intellectual affinity throughout. At no time were Keats and Hunt very close to each other. Nor, indeed, does Keats seem to have had the capacity for intimate friendship, except with his brothers and, possibly, Brown and Severn.

The intercourse of the two men had its disadvantages for Keats in an injurious influence on his early work and in the public association of his name with that of Hunt’s; but the latter’s literary patronage and loving interpretation when Keats was wholly unknown, the friendships made possible for him with others, the open home and tender care whenever needed, the unfailing sympathy, encouragement and admiration so freely given, the new fields of art, music and books opened up, and the pleasantness of the connection at the first, should more than compensate for the attacks which Keats suffered as a member of the Cockney School. From this view it seems very ungrateful of George Keats to have said that he was sorry that his brother’s name should go down to posterity associated with Hunt’s. Keats received far more than he gave in return.

Briefly stated, Keats’s early work shows the marked influence of Hunt in the selection of subjects, in a love of Italian and older English literature, in the “domestic” touch, in the colloquial and feeble diction, and in the lapses of taste. It is only fair to Hunt to emphasize that this was not wholly a question of influence. It was due, as Keats himself confessed, to a natural affinity of gifts and tastes, though the one was so much more highly gifted than the other. Keats soon saw his mistake.Endymionshowed a great improvement and the 1820 volume an almost complete absence of his ownbourgeoistendencies and of the effect of Hunt’s specious theories. Yet it was undoubtedly through Hunt that Keats in his later poems began to imitate Dryden.

In connection with the work of all three poets, Hunt’s criticism is a more important fact of literary history than his services of friendship. He had, as Bulwer-Lytton has remarked, the first requisite of a good critic, a good heart. He had also wonderful sympathy with aspiring authorship. His insight was most remarkable of all in the appreciation of his contemporaries. With powers of critical perception that might be called an instinct for genius, he discovered Shelley and Keats and heralded them to the public. The same ability helped him to appreciate Byron, Hazlitt and Lamb. Browning, Tennyson and Rossetti were other young poets whom he encouraged and supported. He defended the Lake School in 1814 when it still had many deriders. He anticipated Arnold’s judgment when he wrote that “Wordsworth was a fine lettuce, with too many outside leaves.” As early as 1832 he wrote of the “wonderful works of Sir Walter Scott, the remarkable criticism of Hazlitt, the magnetism of Keats, the tragedy and winged philosophy of Shelley, the passion of Byron, the art and festivity of Moore.” To value correctly such criticism it is necessary to remember that the Romantic movement was still in its first youth at the time. His criticism of the three men in question, like his criticisms in general, is distinguished by great fairness and absence of all personal jealousy, by a delicacy of feeling that will not be fully felt until scattered notes and buried prefaces are gathered together. He was animated chiefly by an inborn love of poetry and enjoyment of all beautiful things. If he sometimes fell short in understanding Homer, Dante and Shakespeare, he was perfectly sincere and independent, and pretended nothing that he did not feel. His range of information was truly remarkable, though not deep and accurate. His style was slipshod. With the exception of the essayWhat is Poetry, he fails in concentration and generalization. He never clinched his results, but was forever flitting from one sweet to another. His method was impressionistic in its appreciation of physical beauty. There is no comprehension whatsoever of mystical beauty. It is the curious instance of a man of almost ascetic habits who revelled and luxuriated in the sensuous beauties of literature. Thereader of such books asImagination and Fancyand the half dozen others of the same kind will see his wonderful power of selection. His attempt to interpret and “popularize literature”—a cause in which he laboured long and steadfastly—was one of the greatest services he rendered his age, even if his habit of italicization and running comment for the purpose of calling attention to perfectly patent beauties irritated some of his readers. His critical taste, when exercised on the work of others, was almost faultless. The occasional vulgarities of which he was guilty in his original work do not intrude here; they were superficial and were not a part of the man. Through his criticism he discovered and championed illustrious contemporaries; he instituted the Italian revival in creative literature in the early part of the century; he assisted in resuscitating the interest in sixteenth and seventeenth century literature.

Hunt’s services of friendship to Byron, Shelley and Keats, his able criticism and just defense of them, have found their reward in the inseparable association of his name with their immortal ones. They easily surpassed him in every department of writing in which they contested, yet themanwas strong and alluring enough in his relations with them to prove a determining and, on the whole, beneficent influence in their lives.

The following list includes only the most important contributions to the present study. Where the indebtedness consists merely of one or two references, such indebtedness is acknowledged in a footnote.

Alden, Raymond Macdonald.English Verse. New York, 1903.

Andrews, A.The History of British Journalism. London, 1859.

Arnold, Matthew.Essays in Criticism. London and New York, 1903.

Beers, H. A.History of English Romanticism in the Nineteenth Century. New York, 1901.

Blessington, Countess of.Conversations of Lord Byron with the Countess of Blessington. London, 1834.

Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine.

Byron, George Gordon Noel.The Works of Lord Byron. A New, Revised and Enlarged Edition, with Illustrations. Poetry. Ed. by Ernest Hartley Coleridge. 7 vols.

Letters and Journals. Ed. by Rowland E. Prothero. 6 vols. London and New York, 1898.Letters and Journals of Lord Byron: with Notices of His Life, by Thomas Moore. 2 vols. London, 1830.

Letters and Journals. Ed. by Rowland E. Prothero. 6 vols. London and New York, 1898.

Letters and Journals of Lord Byron: with Notices of His Life, by Thomas Moore. 2 vols. London, 1830.

Brandes, George.Main Currents in Nineteenth Century Literature. 6 vols. New York, 1906.

Caine, T. Hall.Cobwebs of Criticism. “The Cockney School,” pp. 123-266. London, 1883.

Carlyle, Thomas.Early Letters of Thomas Carlyle. Ed. by Charles Eliot Norton. 2 vols. London and New York, 1886.

Letters of Thomas Carlyle. Ed. by Charles Eliot Norton. 2 vols. London and New York, 1886.New Letters of Thomas Carlyle. Ed. by Alexander Carlyle. 2 vols. London and New York, 1904.

Letters of Thomas Carlyle. Ed. by Charles Eliot Norton. 2 vols. London and New York, 1886.

New Letters of Thomas Carlyle. Ed. by Alexander Carlyle. 2 vols. London and New York, 1904.

Clarke, Charles and Mary Cowden.Recollections of Writers. London, 1878.

Collins, J. Churton.Byron. In the Quarterly Review, CII, p. 429 ff.

Colvin, Sidney.Keats. (English Men of Letters.) London and New York, 1902.

Dowden, Edward.Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley. 2 vols. London, 1886.

The French Revolution and English Literature. New York, 1897.Transcripts and Studies. London, 1888.

The French Revolution and English Literature. New York, 1897.

Transcripts and Studies. London, 1888.

The Edinburgh Review.

Elze, Karl.Lord Byron. A Biography with a Critical Essay on His Place in Literature. London, 1872.

Fields, J. T.Old Acquaintance. Barry Cornwall and Some of His Friends. Boston, 1876.

Yesterdays with Authors. Boston, 1885.

Fields, Mrs. J. T.A Shelf of Old Books. In Scribner’s Magazine, Vol. III, pp. 285-305.

Fox Bourne, H. R.English Newspapers. 2 vols. London, 1887.

Galt, John.The Life of Lord Byron. London, 1830.

Gosse, Edmund.From Shakespeare to Pope. Cambridge, 1885.

Hancock, Albert Elmer.The French Revolution and English Poets. New York, 1899.

John Keats. Boston and New York, 1908.

Haydon, Benjamin Robert.Correspondence and Table Talk. Edited with a Memoir, by His Son, Frederic Wordsworth Haydon. 2 vols. London, 1876.

Life, Letters and Table Talk. (Sans Souci Series.) Ed. by Richard Henry Stoddard. New York, 1876.Life of Benjamin Robert Haydon. Ed. by Tom Taylor. 3 vols. London, 1853.

Life, Letters and Table Talk. (Sans Souci Series.) Ed. by Richard Henry Stoddard. New York, 1876.

Life of Benjamin Robert Haydon. Ed. by Tom Taylor. 3 vols. London, 1853.

Hazlitt, William.The Spirit of the Age, or Contemporary Portraits. Ed. by His Son. London, 1858.

The Plain Speaker. 2 vols. London, 1826.

Herford, C. H.The Age of Wordsworth. London, 1901.

Hogg, Thomas Jefferson.Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley. 2 vols. London, 1858.

Horne, R. H.A New Spirit of the Age. New York, 1844.

Hunt, James Henry Leigh.Autobiography. Ed. by Roger Ingpen. 2 vols. New York, 1903.

Correspondence. Ed. by His Eldest Son. 2 vols. London, 1862.The Descent of Liberty, a Mask. London, 1815.Essays and Poems. (Temple Library.) Ed. by Reginald Brimley Johnson. London, 1891.The Examiner, A Sunday Paper, On Politics, Domestic Economy, and Theatricals. London. Editor 1808-1821. Contributor 1821-1825.The Feast of the Poets; with Notes and Other Pieces in Verse, by the Editor of the Examiner. London, 1814.Foliage; or Poems Original and Translated. London, 1818.Imagination and Fancy; or Selections from the English Poets ... and an Essay in Answer to the Question “What is Poetry?” New York, 1845.The Indicator and The Companion. 2 vols. London, 1834.Juvenilia, or a Collection of Poems. Fourth Edition. London, 1803.The Liberal. 2 vols. London, 1822-1823.The Literary Examiner. London, 1823.Leigh Hunt’s London Journal. 2 vols. London, 1834-1835.Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, with Recollections of the Author’s Life, and of his Visit to Italy. 2 vols. London, 1828.Men, Women and Books. London, 1847.Poetical Works. London, 1832.Poetical Works. Ed. by S. Adams Lee. 2 vols. Boston, 1857.Leigh Hunt as Poet and Essayist. (Chandos Classics.) Ed. by W. C. M. Kent, London, 1891.The Reflector, a Quarterly Magazine, on Subjects of Philosophy, Politics, and the Liberal Arts. 2 vols. London, 1810-1811.The Story of Rimini. London, 1810.

Correspondence. Ed. by His Eldest Son. 2 vols. London, 1862.

The Descent of Liberty, a Mask. London, 1815.

Essays and Poems. (Temple Library.) Ed. by Reginald Brimley Johnson. London, 1891.

The Examiner, A Sunday Paper, On Politics, Domestic Economy, and Theatricals. London. Editor 1808-1821. Contributor 1821-1825.

The Feast of the Poets; with Notes and Other Pieces in Verse, by the Editor of the Examiner. London, 1814.

Foliage; or Poems Original and Translated. London, 1818.

Imagination and Fancy; or Selections from the English Poets ... and an Essay in Answer to the Question “What is Poetry?” New York, 1845.

The Indicator and The Companion. 2 vols. London, 1834.

Juvenilia, or a Collection of Poems. Fourth Edition. London, 1803.

The Liberal. 2 vols. London, 1822-1823.

The Literary Examiner. London, 1823.

Leigh Hunt’s London Journal. 2 vols. London, 1834-1835.

Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, with Recollections of the Author’s Life, and of his Visit to Italy. 2 vols. London, 1828.

Men, Women and Books. London, 1847.

Poetical Works. London, 1832.

Poetical Works. Ed. by S. Adams Lee. 2 vols. Boston, 1857.

Leigh Hunt as Poet and Essayist. (Chandos Classics.) Ed. by W. C. M. Kent, London, 1891.

The Reflector, a Quarterly Magazine, on Subjects of Philosophy, Politics, and the Liberal Arts. 2 vols. London, 1810-1811.

The Story of Rimini. London, 1810.

Ireland, Alexander.List of the Writings of Leigh Hunt and William Hazlitt, Chronologically Arranged. London, 1868.

Johnson, R. B.Leigh Hunt. London, 1896.

Jeaffreson, Cordy.The Real Lord Byron. 2 vols. London, 1883.

The Real Shelley. 2 vols. London, 1885.

Keats, John.Poetical Works. Ed. by William T. Arnold. London, 1884.

Poems. (Muses Library.) Ed. by G. Thorn Drury with an Introduction by Robert Bridges. 2 vols. London and New York, 1896.The Poetical Works and Other Writings. Edited by Harry Buxton Forman. 4 vols. London, 1883.Poetical Works. (Golden Treasury Series.) Edited by Francis T. Palgrave. London and New York, 1898.Poems of John Keats. Ed. by E. De Sélincourt. New York, 1905.

Poems. (Muses Library.) Ed. by G. Thorn Drury with an Introduction by Robert Bridges. 2 vols. London and New York, 1896.

The Poetical Works and Other Writings. Edited by Harry Buxton Forman. 4 vols. London, 1883.

Poetical Works. (Golden Treasury Series.) Edited by Francis T. Palgrave. London and New York, 1898.

Poems of John Keats. Ed. by E. De Sélincourt. New York, 1905.

Mac-Carthy, Denis Florence.Shelley’s Early Life. London, n. d.

Martineau, Harriet.Autobiography. Ed. by Maria Weston Chapman. 2 vols. Boston, 1877.

Masson, David.Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, and Other Essays. London, 1875.

Meade, W. E.The Versification of Pope in its Relation to the Seventeenth Century. Leipsic, 1889.

Medwin, Thomas.The Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley. London, 1847.

Journal of the Conversations of Lord Byron. New York and Philadelphia, 1824.

Milnes, Richard Moncton.(Lord Houghton.) Life, Letters and Literary Remains of John Keats. 2 vols. London, 1848.

Mitford, Mary Russell.Recollections of a Literary Life. 3 vols. London, 1852.

Monkhouse, Cosmo.Life of Leigh Hunt. (“Great Writers.”) London, 1893.

Moore, Thomas.Memoirs, Journal, and Correspondence. Ed. by the Right Honorable Lord John Russell, M. P. 8 vols. London, 1853.

Morley, John.Critical Miscellanies. London and New York, 1898.

Nichol, John.Byron. (English Men of Letters.) London and New York, 1902.

Nicoll, W. Robertson, and Wise, Thomas J.Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth Century. 2 vols. London.

Noble, J. Ashcroft.The Sonnet in England and Other Essays. London and Chicago, 1896.

Oliphant, Mrs. Margaret.The Literary History of England in the End of the Eighteenth and Beginning of the Nineteenth Century. 3 vols. London, 1822.

Patmore, Coventry.Memoirs and Correspondence. Ed. by Basil Champneys. 2 vols. London, 1900.

Patmore, P. G.My Friends and Acquaintance. 3 vols. London, 1854.

Procter, Bryan Waller.(Barry Cornwall.) An Autobiographical Fragment and Biographical Notes. London, 1877.

The Quarterly Review.

Rossetti, William Michael.Life of John Keats. (“Great Writers.”) London, 1887.

Saintsbury, George.Essays in English Literature. (1780-1860.) London, 1891.

A History of Nineteenth Century Literature. (1780-1895.) London and New York, 1899.

Schipper, Jakob M.Englische Metrik. Bonn, 1881.

Severn, Joseph.Life and Letters. By William Sharp. New York, 1892.

Sharp, William.Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley. (Great Writers.) London, 1887.

Shelley, Percy Bysshe.Works. Ed. by Harry Buxton Forman. 8 vols. London, 1880.

The Complete Poetical Works. (Centenary Edition.) Ed. by George Edward Woodberry. New York, 1892.Poetical Works. Ed. by Mrs. Shelley. 4 vols. London, 1839.

The Complete Poetical Works. (Centenary Edition.) Ed. by George Edward Woodberry. New York, 1892.

Poetical Works. Ed. by Mrs. Shelley. 4 vols. London, 1839.

Smith, George Barnett.Shelley, A Critical Biography. Edinburgh, 1877.

Trelawney, E. J.Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron. Boston, 1858.

Records of Shelley, Byron, and the Author. London, 1878.

Woodberry, George Edward.Makers of Literature. New York, 1900.

Studies in Letters and Life. Boston and New York, 1891.

Symonds, John Addington.Shelley. (English Men of Letters.) London and New York, 1902.

THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESSSTUDIES IN ENGLISHJoseph GlanvillA Study in English Thought and Letters of the Seventeenth CenturyByFerris Greenslet, Ph.D.,Cloth, 12mopp. xi + 235$1.50netThe Elizabethan LyricByJohn Erskine, Ph.D.,Cloth, 12mopp. xvi + 344$1.50netClassical Echoes in TennysonByWilfred P. Mustard, Ph.D.,Cloth, 12mopp. xvi + 164$1.25netByron and Byronism in AmericaByWilliam Ellery Leonard, Ph.D.,Paper, 8vopp. vi + 126$1.00netSir Walter Scott as a Critic of LiteratureByMargaret Ball, Ph.D.,Paper, 8vopp. x + 188$1.00netThe Early American NovelByLillie Deming Loshe, Ph.D.,Paper, 8vopp. vii + 131$1.00netStudies in New England TranscendentalismByHarold C. Goddard, Ph.D.,Paper, 8vopp. x + 217$1.00netA Study of Shelley’s Drama “The Cenci”ByErnest Sutherland Bates, Ph.D.,Paper, 8vopp. ix + 103$1.00netVerse Satire in England before the RenaissanceBySamuel Marion Tucker, Ph.D.,Paper, 8vopp. xi + 245$1.00netThe Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in EnglishByJacob Zeitlin, Ph.D.,Paper, 8vopp. viii + 177$1.00netGovernment Regulation of the Elizabethan DramaByVirginia Crocheron Gildersleeve, Ph.D.,Cloth, 8vopp. vii + 259$1.25netThe Stage History of Shakespeare’s King Richard the ThirdByAlice I. Perry Wood, Ph.D.,Cloth, 8vopp. xi + 186$1.25netThe Shaksperian StageByVictor E. Albright, Ph.D.,Cloth, 8vopp. xii + 194$1.50netThomas Carlyle as a Critic of LiteratureByFrederick W. Roe, Ph.D.,Cloth, 8vopp. xi + 152$1.25netTHE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESSColumbia University in the City of New YorkThe Press was incorporated June 8, 1893, to promote the publication of the results of original research. It is a private corporation, related directly to Columbia University by the provisions that its Trustees shall be officers of the University and that the President of Columbia University shall be President of the Press.The publications of the Columbia University Press include works on Biography, History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, Linguistics, and Literature, and the following series:Columbia University Biological Series.Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology.Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature.Columbia University Studies in English.Columbia University Geological Series.Columbia University Germanic Studies.Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series.Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History and Philology.Columbia University Oriental Studies.Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and Literature.Blumenthal Lectures.Carpentier Lectures.Hewitt Lectures.Jesup Lectures.Catalogues will be sent free on application.The Macmillan Company, Agents64-66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK

STUDIES IN ENGLISH

THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS

Columbia University in the City of New York

The Press was incorporated June 8, 1893, to promote the publication of the results of original research. It is a private corporation, related directly to Columbia University by the provisions that its Trustees shall be officers of the University and that the President of Columbia University shall be President of the Press.

The publications of the Columbia University Press include works on Biography, History, Economics, Education, Philosophy, Linguistics, and Literature, and the following series:

Columbia University Biological Series.Columbia University Studies in Classical Philology.Columbia University Studies in Comparative Literature.Columbia University Studies in English.Columbia University Geological Series.Columbia University Germanic Studies.Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series.Columbia University Contributions to Oriental History and Philology.Columbia University Oriental Studies.Columbia University Studies in Romance Philology and Literature.Blumenthal Lectures.Carpentier Lectures.Hewitt Lectures.Jesup Lectures.

Catalogues will be sent free on application.

The Macmillan Company, Agents64-66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK

Footnotes:

[1]Autobiography of Leigh Hunt, I, p. 34.

[2]Correspondence of Leigh Hunt, I, p. 332.

[3]Autobiography, I, p. 93. Compare the above quotation with Shelley’s description of his first friendship. (Hogg,Life of Percy Bysshe Shelley, pp. 23-24.)

[4]This early passion for friendship, which developed into a power of attracting men vastly more gifted than himself, brought about him besides Byron, Shelley and Keats, such men as Charles Lamb, Robert Browning, Carlyle, Dickens, Horace and James Smith, Charles Cowden Clarke, Vincent Novello, William Godwin, Macaulay, Thackeray, Lord Brougham, Bentham, Haydon, Hazlitt, R. H. Horne, Sir John Swinburne, Lord John Russell, Bulwer Lytton, Thomas Moore, Barry Cornwall, Theodore Hook, J. Egerton Webbe, Thomas Campbell, the Olliers, Joseph Severn, Miss Edgeworth, Mrs. Gaskell, Mrs. Browning and Macvey Napier. Hawthorne, Emerson, James Russel Lowell and William Story sought him out when they were in London.

[5]Correspondence, I, p. 49.

[6]Ibid., I, p. 44.

[7]Memoirs and Correspondence of Coventry Patmore, ed. Basil Champney, I, p. 32.

[8]Life, Letters and Table Talk of Benjamin Robert Haydon, ed. by Stoddard, p. 232.

[9]Correspondence, I, p. 272.

[10]On once being accused of speculation Hunt replied that he had never been “in a market of any kind but to buy an apple or a flower.” (Atlantic Monthly, LIV, p. 470.) Nor did Hunt admire money-getting propensities in others. He said of Americans: “they know nothing so beautiful as the ledger, no picture so lively as the national coin, no music so animating as the chink of a purse.” (The Examiner, 1808, p. 721.)

[11]Dickens did Hunt an irreparable injury in caricaturing him as Harold Skimpole. The character bore such an unmistakable likeness to Hunt that it was recognized by every one who knew him, yet the weaknesses and vices were greatly multiplied and exaggerated. Before the appearance ofBleak House, Dickens wrote Hunt in a letter which accompanied the presentation copies ofOliver Twistand the New American edition of thePickwick Papers: “You are an old stager in works, but a young one in faith—faith in all beautiful and excellent things. If you can only find in that green heart of yours to tell me one of these days, that you have met, in wading through the accompanying trifles, with anything that felt like a vibration of the old chord you have touched so often and sounded so well, you will confer the truest gratification on your old friend, Charles Dickens.” (Littell’s Living Age, CXCIV, p. 134.)

His apology after Hunt’s death was complete, but it could not destroy the lasting memory of an immortal portrait. He wrote: “a man who had the courage to take his stand against power on behalf of right—who in the midst of the sorest temptations, maintained his honesty unblemished by a single stain—who, in all public and private transactions, was the very soul of truth and honour—who never bartered his opinion or betrayed his friend—could not have been a weak man; for weakness is always treacherous and false, because it has not the power to resist.” (All The Year Round, April 12, 1862.)

[12]Godwin,Enquiry Concerning Political Justice, Book VIII, Chap. I.

[13]Prof. Saintsbury has very plausibly suggested that a similar attitude in Godwin, Coleridge and Southey in respect to financial assistance was a legacy from patronage days. (A History of Nineteenth Century Literature, p. 33.) The same might be said of Hunt.

[14]S. C. Hall,A Book of Memories of Great Men and Women of the Age, from Personal Acquaintance, p. 247.

[15]His feeling on the subject is set forth clearly in a letter where he is writing of the generosity of Dr. Brocklesby to Johnson and Burke: “The extension of obligations of this latter kind is, for many obvious reasons, not to be desired. The necessity on the one side must be of as peculiar, and, so to speak, of as noble a kind as the generosity on the other; and special care would be taken by a necessity of that kind, that the generosity should be equalled by the means. But where the circumstances have occurred, it is delightful to record them.” (Hunt,Men, Women and Books, p. 217.)

[16]Correspondence, II, p. 11.

[17]Ibid., II, p. 271.

[18]Hunt’s work as a political journalist had begun in 1806 withThe Statesman, a joint enterprise with his brother. It was very short-lived and is now very scarce. Perhaps it is due to this rarity that it is not usually mentioned in bibliographies of Hunt.

[19]H. R. Fox-Bourne,English Newspapers, I, p. 376.

[20]Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, XL, p. 256.

[21]Redding,Personal Reminiscences of Eminent Men, p. 184, ff.

[22]Contemporary dailies were theMorning Chronicle,Morning Post,Morning Herald,Morning Advertiser, and theTimes. In 1813 there were sixteen Sunday weeklies. Among the weeklies published on other days, theObserverand theNewswere conspicuous. In all, there were in the year 1813, fifty-six newspapers circulating in London. (Andrews,History of British Journalism, Vol. II, p. 76.)

[23]The Examiner, January 3, 1808.

[24]On the subject of military depravityThe Examinercontained the following: “The presiding genius of army government has become a perfect Falstaff, a carcass of corruption, full of sottishness and selfishness, preying upon the hard labour of honest men, and never to be moved but by its lust for money; and the time has come when either the vices of one man must be sacrificed to the military honour of the country, or the military honour of the country must be sacrificed to the vices of one man.” (The Examiner, October 23, 1808.)

[25]The Examiner, April 10, 1808.

[26]Maj. Hogan, an Irishman in the English Army, unable to gain promotion by the customary method of purchase, after a personal appeal to the Duke of York, commander-in-chief of the army, gave an account of his grievences in a pamphlet entitled,Appeal to the Public and a Farewell Address to the Army. Before it appeared Mrs. Clarke, the mistress of the Duke of York, sent Maj. Hogan £500 to suppress it. He returned the money and made public the offer. The subsequent investigation showed that Mrs. Clarke was in the habit of securing through her influence with the commander-in-chief promotion for those who would pay her for it. After these disclosures, the Duke resigned.The Examinersturdily supported Maj. Hogan as one who refused to owe promotion “to low intrigue or petticoat influence.” It likened Mrs. Clarke to Mme. Du Barry and called the Duke her tool.

[27]The Examiner, October 8, 1809.

[28]Ibid., March 31, 1811.

[29]“Surely it is too gross to suppose that the Prince of Wales, the friend of Fox, can have been affecting habits of thinking, and indulging habits of intimacy, which he is to give up at a moment’s notice for nobody knows what:—surely it cannot be, that the Prince Regent, the Whig Prince, the friend of Ireland—the friend of Fox,—the liberal, the tolerant, experienced, large-minded Heir Apparent, can retain in power the very men, against whose opinions he has repeatedly declared himself, and whose retention in power hitherto he has explicitly stated to be owing solely to a feeling of delicacy with respect to his father.” (The Examiner, February 28, 1812.)

[30]The Examiner, March 12, 1812. The contentionbetweenCanon Ainger and Mr. Gosse in respect to Charles Lamb’s supposed part in this libel is set forth inThe Athenaeumof March 23, 1889. Mr. Gosse’s evidence came through Robert Browning from John Forster, who first told Browning as early as 1837 that Lamb was concerned in it.

[31]Mr. Monkhouse says that it was then politically unjustifiable. (Life of Leigh Hunt, p. 88.)

[32]Brougham wrote of his intended defense, “it will be a thousand times more unpleasant than the libel.” For a narration of his friendship for Hunt, seeTemple Bar, June, 1876.

[33]The Examiner, February 7, 1813.

[34]The Examiner, December 10, 1809.

[35]Correspondence, I, p. 179.

[36]The Reflector, I, p. 5.

[37]Monkhouse,Life of Leigh Hunt, p. 79.

[38]Patmore,My Friends and Acquaintance, III, p. 101.

[39]TheEdinburgh Reviewof May, 1823, in an article entitledThe Periodical Pressranked Hunt next to Cobbett in talent andThe Examineras the ablest and most respectable of weekly publications, when allowance had been made for the occasional twaddle and flippancy, the mawkishness about firesides and Bonaparte, and the sickly sonnet-writing.

[40]Mazzini wrote Hunt: “Your name is known to many of my Countrymen; it would no doubt impart an additional value to the thoughts embodied in the League. [International League.] It is the name not only of a patriot, but of a high literary man and a poet. It would show at once thatnaturalquestions are questions not of merelypoliticaltendencies, but of feeling, eternal trust, and Godlike poetry. It would show that poets understand their active mission down here, and that they are also prophets and apostles of things to come. I was told only to-day that you had been asked to be a member of the League’s Council, and feel a want to express the joy I too would feel at your assent.” (Cornhill Magazine, LXV, p. 480 ff.)

[41]The Reflector, I, p. 5.

[42]Hunt accepted theMonthly Repositoryin 1837 as a gift from W. J. Fox in order to free it from Unitarian influence. Carlyle, Landor, Browning and Miss Martineau were contributors.

[43](1) “Besides, it is my firm belief—as firm as the absence of positive, tangible proof can let it be (and if we had that, we should all kill ourselves, like Plato’s scholars, and go and enjoy heaven at once), that whatsoever of just and affectionate the mind of man is made by nature to desire, is made by her to be realized, and that this is the special good, beauty and glory of that illimitable thing called space—in her there is room for everything.”Correspondence, II, p. 57.

(2) And Faith, some day, will all in love be shown. (“Abraham and the Fire-Worshipper,”Poetical Works of Leigh Hunt, 1857, p. 135.)

[44]A New Spirit of the Age, II, p. 183.

[45]Hunt wrote two religious books,ChristianismandReligion of the Heart. The second, which is an expansion of the first, contains a ritual of daily and weekly service. For the most part it contains reflections on duty and service.

[46]Correspondence, I, p. 130.

[47]Bryan Waller Proctor (Barry Cornwall),An Autobiographical Fragment and Biographical Notes, p. 197.

[48]Autobiography, I, p. 119-120.

[49]A Morning Walk and View;Sonnet on the Sickness of Eliza.

[50]It had appeared previously inThe Reflector, No. 4, article 10. In the separate edition it was expanded and 126 pages of notes were added.

[51]Poetical Works, 1832, preface, p. 48.

[52]Byron,Letters and Journals, III, p. 28, February 9, 1814.

[53]The same volume contained a preface on the origin and history of masques and anOde for the Spring of 1814. Byron said of the latter that the “expressions werebuckramexcept here and there.” The masque, he thought, contained “not only poetry and thought in the body, but much research and good old reading in your prefatory matter.” Byron,Letters and Journals, III, p. 200, June 1, 1815.

[54]See chapter V, p. 19.

[55]Nicoll and Wise,Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth Century, p. 330.

[56]

Who loves to peer up at the morning sun,With half-shut eyes and comfortable cheek,Let him, with this sweet tale, full often seekFor meadows where the little rivers run;Who loves to linger with the brightest oneOf Heaven (Hesperus) let him lowly speakThese numbers to the night, and starlight meek,Or moon, if that her hunting be begun.He who knows these delights, and too is proneTo moralize upon a smile or tear,Will find at once religion of his own,A bower for his spirit, and will steerTo alleys where the fir-tree drops its cone,Where robins hop, and fallen leaves are seer.(Complete Works of John Keats, ed by Forman, II, p. 183.)

[57]Lowell said of Hunt: “No man has ever understood the delicacies and luxuries of the language better than he.”

[58]Byron,Letters and Journals, III, p. 226, October 22, 1815.

[59]Ibid., III, p. 418.

[60]Ibid., III, p. 242, October 30, 1815.

[61]Ibid., III, p. 267, February 29, 1816.

[62]Ibid., IV, p. 237, June 1, 1818.

[63]Ibid., IV, pp. 486-487.

[64]Medwin,Journal of the Conversations of Lord Byron, p. 187.

[65]In the preface to theStory of Rimini(London, 1819, p. 16), Hunt says that a poet should use an actual existing language, and quotes as authorities, Chaucer, Ariosto, Pulci, even Homer and Shakespeare. He thought simplicity of language of greater importance even than free versification in order to avoid the cant of art: “The proper language of poetry is in fact nothing different from that of real life, and depends for its dignity upon the strength and sentiment of what it speaks, omitting mere vulgarisms and fugitive phrases which are cant of ordinary discourse.”

[66]Byron,Letters and Journals, III, p. 418.

[67]Mr. A. T. Kent in theFortnightly Review(vol. 36, p. 227), points out that Leigh Hunt in the preface to theStory of Rimini, avoided the mistake of Wordsworth in “looking to an unlettered peasantry for poetical language,” and quotes him as saying that one should “add a musical modulation to what a fine understanding might naturally utter in the midst of its griefs and enjoyments.” Kent says we have here “two vital points on which Wordsworth, in his capacity of critic, had failed to insist.”

[68]Autobiography, II, p. 24.

[69]To be found chiefly in theFeast of the Poets.

[70]In 1855, inStories in Verse, Hunt changed his acknowledged allegiance from Dryden to Chaucer.

[71]Canto, II, ll. 433-440.

[72]E. De Selincourt gives these three last as examples of Hunt’s derivation of the abstract noun from the present participle (Poems of John Keats, p. 577).

[73]De Selincourt notes that these adverbs are usually formed from present participles. (Poems of John Keats, p. 577.)

[74]Byron,Letters and Journals, III, p. 418.

[75]

“For ever since Pope spoiled the ears of the townWith his cuckoo-song verses, half up and half down,There has been such a doling and sameness,—by Jove,I’d as soon have gone down to see Kemble in love.”(Feast of the Poets.)

Hunt calls Pope’s translation of the moonlight picture fromHomer“a gorgeous misrepresentation” (Ibid., p. 35) and the whole translation “that elegant mistake of his in two volumes octavo.” (Foliage, p. 32.)

[76]Feast of the Poets, p. 38. The same opinions are expressed inThe Examinerof June 1, 1817; in the preface toFoliage, 1818.

[77]Ibid., p. 56.

[78]P. 23.

[79]Saintsbury,Essays in English Literature, 1780-1860, p. 220.

[80]Hunt,Story of Rimini, London, 1818, p. 11, 200 lines beginning with top of page. In the 1742 lines of the poem, there are 47 run-on couplets and 260 run-on lines. There are 7 Alexandrines and 21 triplets. In the edition of 1832 the number of triplets has been increased to 26. There are 46 double rhymes. In a study of the cæsura based on the first 200 lines there are 70 medial, 17 double cæsuras. The remaining 113 lines have irregular or double cæsura.

[81]Keats,Lamia, Bk. I, ll. 1-200. In the 708 lines ofLamia, there are 98 run-on couplets, 144 run-on lines, 39 Alexandrines and 11 triplets. The cæsura is handled with greater freedom than in theStory of Rimini.

[82]C. H. Herford,Age of Wordsworth, p. 83.

[83]R. B. Johnson,Leigh Hunt, p. 94.

[84]Leigh Hunt as a Poet, Fortnightly Review, XXXVI: 226.

[85]Sidney Colvin,Keats, p. 30.

[86]Garnett,Age of Dryden, p. 32.

[87]From Homer, Theocritus, Bion, Moschus, Anacreon, and Catullus.

[88]p. 13.

[89]Hunt,Correspondence, I, p. 115.

[90]Byron,Letters and Journals, IV, p. 238.

[91]Charles and Mary Cowden Clarke,Recollections of Writers, p. 132.

[92]Ibid., p. 133.

[93]Hunt,Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries; with Recollections of the Author’s Life and of his Visit to Italy, p. 247.

[94]Ibid., p. 251.

[95]Ibid., pp. 246-272.

[96]Autobiography, II, pp. 27, 59.

[97]Colvin,Keats, p. 222.

[98]This refers to Keats’s first published poem, the sonnetO Solitude, if I must with thee dwell, published (without comment) inThe Examinerof May 5, 1816.

[99]Colvin,Keats, p. 34.

[100]Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 257.

[101]Ibid., pp. 257-258.

[102]Sharp,Life and Letters of Joseph Severn, p. 163.

[103]Works, I, p. 30.

[104]Mr. Forman, after a systematic search has been able to find no proof in either direction. (Works, III, p. 8.)

[105]Works, I, p. 5.

[106]Foliage, p. 125.

[107]Colvin,Keats, p. 66.

[108]A further account of the disastrous effects of his partisanship will be found in the discussion of the Cockney School, Ch. V.

[109]TheCentury Magazine, XXIII, p. 706.

[110]Palgrave,Poetical Works of John Keats, p. 269.

[111]Autobiography, II, p. 266.

[112]Works, IV, p. 16.

[113]Haydon and Hunt had originally been very intimate, as is shown by the letters written by the former from Paris during 1814, and by his attentions to Hunt in Surrey Gaol. A letter to Wilkie, dated October 27, 1816, gives an attractive portrait of Hunt, and from this evidence it is inferred that the change in Haydon’s attitude came about in the early part of 1817, and that a small unpleasantness was allowed by him to outweigh a friendship of long standing. After two weeks spent with Hunt he had written of him as “one of the most delightful companions. Full of poetry and art, and amiable humour, we argue always with full hearts on everything but religion and Bonaparte.... Though Leigh Hunt is not deep in knowledge, moral metaphysical or classical, yet he is intense in feeling and has an intellect forever on the alert. He is like one of those instruments on three legs, which, throw it how you will, always pitches on two, and has a spike sticking for ever up and ever ready for you. He “sets” at a subject with a scent like a pointer. He is a remarkable man, and created a sensation by his independence, his disinterestedness in public matters; and by the truth, acuteness and taste of his dramatic criticisms, he raised the rank of newspapers, and gave by his example a literary feeling to the weekly ones more especially. As a poet, I think him full of the genuine feeling. His third canto inRiminiis equal to anything in any language of that sweet sort. Perhaps in his wishing to avoid the monotony of the Pope school, he may have shot into the other extreme; and his invention of obscene [sic] words to express obscene feelings borders sometimes on affectation. But these are trifles compared with the beauty of the poem, the intense painting of the scenery, and the deep burning in of the passion which trembles in every line. Thus far as a critic, an editor and a poet. As a man I know none with such an affectionate heart, if never opposed in his opinions. He has defects of course: one of his great defects is getting inferior people about him to listen, too fond of shining at any expense in society, and love of approbation from the darling sex bordering on weakness; though to women he is delightfully pleasant, yet they seem more to handle him as a delicate plant. I don’t know if they do not put a confidence in him which to me would be mortifying. He is a man of sensibility tinged with morbidity and of such sensitive organization of body that the plant is not more alive to touch than he.... He is a composition, as we all are, of defects and delightful qualities, indolently averse to worldly exertion, because it harasses the musings of his fancy, existing only by the common duties of life, yet ignorant of them, and often suffering from their neglect.” (Haydon,Life, Letters and Table Talk, ed. R. H. Stoddard, pp. 155-156.)

Haydon said that the rupture came about because Hunt insisted upon speaking of our Lord and his Apostles in a condescending manner, and that he rebelled against Hunt’s “audacious romancing over the Biblical conceptions of the Almighty.” (Haydon,Life, Letters and Table Talk, p. 65.) This view, in the light of Haydon’s general unreliability, may be mere romancing; for Keats, writing on January 13, 1818, gave the following explanation of the quarrel: “Mrs. H. (Hunt) was in the habit of borrowing silver from Haydon—the last time she did so, Haydon asked her to return it at a certain time—she did not—Haydon sent for it—Hunt went to expostulate on the indelicacy, etc.—they got to words and parted for ever.” (Keats,Works, IV, p. 58).

[114]Works, IV, p. 20.

[115]Milnes,Life, Letters and Literary Remains of John Keats, II, p. 44.

[116]Works, IV, p. 114.

[117]Ibid., V, p. 142.

[118]Life, Letters and Table Talk, p. 208.

[119]Works, IV, p. 31.

[120]Ibid., IV, p. 60.

[121]Ibid., IV, pp. 37-38.

[122]Ibid., IV, p. 38, Keats gives his argument in favor of a long poem.

[123]Ibid., IV, p. 38.

[124]Ibid., IV, p. 49.

[125]Ibid., IV, p. 193.

[126]Ibid., IV, pp. 195-196.

[127]Ibid., IV, p. 12.

[128]Ibid., IV, p. 90.

[129]Ibid., I, p. 34.

[130]Ibid., V, p. 198.

[131]Haydon attempted also to make trouble between Wordsworth and Hunt, by telling the former that Hunt’s admiration for him was only a “weather cock estimation” and by insinuations concerning his sincerity in friendships. (Haydon,Life, Letters and Table Talk, p. 197.)

[132]J. Ashcroft Noble,The Sonnet in England, and Other Essays, p. 108.

[133]Autobiography, II, p. 42.

[134]Autobiography, II, p. 44.

[135]Works, V, p. 203.

[136]Keats wrote Haydon, “There are three things to rejoice at in this age The Excursion, Your Pictures, and Hazlitt’s depth of taste.” (Works, IV, p. 56.)

Back to Index Next