Leigh Hunt's Relations with Byron, Shelley and Keats Part 1

Leigh Hunt's Relations with Byron, Sh.e.l.ley and Keats.

by Barnette Miller.

PREFACE

The relations of Leigh Hunt to Byron, Sh.e.l.ley and Keats have been treated in a fragmentary way in various works of biography and criticism, and from many points of view. Yet hitherto there has been no attempt to construct a whole out of the parts. This led Professor Trent to suggest the subject to me about five years ago. The publication of the results of my investigation has been unfortunately delayed for nearly four years after the work was finished.

I am indebted to Mr. S. L. Wolff for reading the first and second chapters; to Professors G. R. Krapp, W. W. Lawrence, A. H. Thorndike, of Columbia University, and Professor William Alan Nielson, now of Harvard, for suggestions throughout. I am especially glad to have this opportunity to record my grat.i.tude to Prof. Trent, whose inspiration and guidance and kindness from beginning to end have alone made completion of the study possible.

B. M.

CONSTANTINOPLE, TURKEY.

March 21, 1910.

CHAPTER I

Revolutionary tendencies of the age--The Reaction--Counter Reform movement--Leigh Hunt--His Ancestry--School days--Career as a Journalist--Imprisonment--Finances--Politics--Religion--Poetry.

Since contemporary social conditions played an important part in the relations of Leigh Hunt with Byron, Sh.e.l.ley, and Keats, a brief survey of the period in question is necessary to an understanding of the forces at play on their intellect and conduct. The English mind had been admirably prepared for the principles of the French Revolution by the progressive tendency since the Revolution of 1688. The new order promised by France was acclaimed in England as one destined to right the wrongs of humanity; through unending progress mankind was to attain unlimited perfection. Upon such a prospect both parties were agreed, and the warnings of Burke were vain when Pitt, rationalizing, led the Tories, and Fox, rhapsodizing, led the Whigs. In 1793, G.o.dwin's _Political Justice_, with its anarchistic doctrines of individual perfectibility and of individual self-reliance, rallied more recruits to the standard of liberty, though his theories of community of property and annulment of the marriage bond were somewhat charily received. The early writings of Wordsworth, Southey and Coleridge were colored with enthusiasm for the new movement. The agitation and the enactment of reform measures made actual advances towards the expected millennium.

But the excesses of the Revolutionary regime in France bred in England, ever inclined to order, an opposition in many conservative minds that resulted in positive panic at the menace to state and church and property.

The reaction swung the pendulum far in the opposite direction from justice and philanthropy. The first two decades of the new century continued to suffer from a counter-reform movement when the actual fright had subsided.

During that period, anything which savored of reform was labelled as seditious. At the very beginning of this reaction William Pitt's efforts for the extension of the franchise were summarily put an end to, and the House of Commons remained as little representative of the English people as formerly. Catholics and Non-Conformists were denied, from the period of the union of Ireland with England in 1800 until 1829, the right to vote and to hold office. Pitt's efforts to frustrate such discrimination in Ireland were as unavailing as in his own country, for the prejudices and obstinacy of George III, in both instances, neutralized the good intentions of the liberal Ministry. The corrupt influence of the Crown in Parliament was undiminished except by the disfranchis.e.m.e.nt of persons holding contracts from the crown and of inc.u.mbents of revenue offices. The wars with America and with France greatly increased the public debt, threatened the national credit and burdened with taxes an already overburdened people. Oppressive industrial conditions made the life of the ma.s.ses still more unendurable. The rise of manufacturing and the consequent adoption of inventions that dispensed with much hand labor decreased the number of the employed and reduced wages, while the enormous increase in population during the eighteenth century multiplied the number of the idle and the poor. It is true that the wealth of the country became much greater through the development of new resources, but the profits were distributed among the few and gave no relief to the majority. The government was indifferent to the sufferings of the poor, to the severity of the penal code, to the horrors of the slave traffic. In Great Britain the Habeas Corpus act was suspended, public a.s.semblies were forbidden, the press was more narrowly restricted, right of pet.i.tion was limited, and the legal definition of treason was greatly extended; in Scotland the barbarous statute of transportation for political offenses was revived; in Ireland industry and commerce were discouraged.

The re-accession of the Tories to power in 1807, followed by their long ascendancy and abuse of power, led inevitably to a revival of the questions of revolution and of reform. Lord Byron, Sh.e.l.ley and Leigh Hunt were among the leaders of this second band of agitators, the "new camp,"

as Professor Dowden has designated them. It was their love of humanity, perhaps to a greater degree than their poetic genius and their aesthetic ideals, that made these men akin. Of the four poets with whom we deal Keats alone was comparatively indifferent to the strife about him.

Besides the political background of the times, personal influence and literary imitation enter into consideration in the present study.

Especially in the case of Hunt, whose unique personality has been so variously interpreted, a brief biographical review is necessary. James Henry Leigh Hunt was born October 19, 1784, in the village of Southgate, Middles.e.x. He was descended on the father's side from "Tory cavaliers" of West Indian adoption, and on the mother's from American Quakers of Irish extraction--an exotic combination of Celtic and Creole strains which never coalesced but in turn affected his temperament. His father was an engaging and gifted clergyman who quoted Horace and drank claret--a sanguine, careless child of the South who made the acquaintance alike of good society and of debtor's prisons. This parent's cheerfulness and courage were his most fortunate legacies to his son; a speculative turn in matters of religion and government and a general financial irresponsibility const.i.tuted his most unfortunate legacy. His mother was as shrinking as his father was convivial, but, like her husband, possessed a strong sense of duty and of loyalty. Her son inherited her love of books and of nature.

Of his heritage from his parents Leigh Hunt wrote: "I may call myself, in every sense of the word ... a son of mirth and melancholy;... And, indeed, as I do not remember to have ever seen my mother smile, except in sorrowful tenderness, so my father's shouts of laughter are now ringing in my ears."[1]

As Leigh Hunt was heir to his ancestry in an unusual degree, so in an extraordinary measure was the child father of the man. The atmosphere of the home, tense with discussions of theology and politics and bitter with hards.h.i.+ps of poverty and prisons, gave him a precocious acquaintance with weighty matters and with many miseries. In 1791 he entered Christ's Hospital. Like Sh.e.l.ley he rebelled against the time-honored custom of f.a.gging, and chose instead a beating every night with a knotted handkerchief. He avoided personal encounters in self-defense, but was valiant enough where others were concerned, or where a principle was involved. Haydon said: "He was a man who would have died at the stake for a principle, though he might have cried like a child from physical pain, and would have screamed still louder if he put his foot in the gutter! Yet not one iota of recantation would have quivered on his lips, if all the elysium of all the religions on earth had been offered and realized to induce him to do so."[2]

His wonderful power of forming friends.h.i.+ps--a power with which the present study is so much concerned--was first developed at Christ's Hospital. As he sentimentally expressed it, "the first heavenly taste it gave me of that most spiritual of the affections. I use the word 'heavenly'

advisedly; and I call friends.h.i.+p the most spiritual of the affections, because even one's kindred, in partaking of our flesh and blood, become, in a manner, mixed up with our entire being. Not that I would disparage any other form of affection, wors.h.i.+pping as I do, all forms of it, love in particular, which in its highest state, is friends.h.i.+p and something more.

But if I ever tasted a disembodied transport on earth, it was in those friends.h.i.+ps which I entertained at school, before I dreamt of any maturer feeling."[3] Like Sh.e.l.ley, Hunt had so great an inclination to sentimentalize and idealize friends.h.i.+p that sometimes after the first brief rhapsody of fresh acquaintance he suffered bitter disillusionment.

The majority, however, of the ties formed were lasting.[4]

The abridgements of the _Spectator_, set Hunt as a school task, instilled a dislike of prose-writing that may account for his preference through life for verse composition, although he was by nature less a poet than an essayist. From Cooke's edition of the _British Poets_ he learned to love Gray, Collins, Thomson, Blair and Spenser--influences responsible in part for his dislike of eighteenth century convention and for his historical prominence in the romantic movement. Spenser later became the literary pa.s.sion of his life. Other books which he read at this period were Tooke's _Pantheon_, Lempriere's _Cla.s.sical Dictionary_, and Spence's _Polymetis_, three favorites with Keats; _Peter Wilkins_, _Thalaba_ and _German Romances_, three favorites with Sh.e.l.ley. Later Hunt and Sh.e.l.ley's reading was closely paralleled in G.o.dwin's _Political Justice_, _Lucretius_, _Pliny_, _Plato_, _Aristotle_, _Voltaire_, _Condorcet_ and the _Dictionnaire Philosophique_. With the years Hunt's list swelled to an almost incredible degree. It was through books that he knew life.

He left Christ Hospital in 1799. The eight years spent there were his only formal preparation for a literary profession. He greatly regretted his lack of a university education, but he consoled himself by quoting with true c.o.c.kney spirit Goldsmith's saying: "London is the first of Universities."[5] Through his father's connections he met many prominent men in London and was made much of. This premature a.s.sociation accounts for some of the arrogance so conspicuous in his early journalistic work, which, in middle life, sobered down into a harmless vanity.

In 1808 Hunt started a Sunday newspaper, _The Examiner_. The letter tendering his resignation[6] of a position in the office of the Secretary of War, coming from an inexperienced man of twenty-four is pompous in tone and heavy with the weight of his duty to the English nation. His subsequent a.s.surance and boldness resulted in 1812 in his being indicted for a libel of the Prince Regent, afterwards George IV, and in an imprisonment for two years dating from February 15, 1813. His elder brother John, the publisher of the paper, served the same sentence in a separate prison. They shared between them a fine of 1,000. By special dispensation Hunt's family was allowed to reside with him in prison and, stranger still, he was allowed to continue his work on the libellous journal. At the same time he wrote in jail the _Descent of Liberty_ and part of the _Story of Rimini_. He transformed his prison yard into a garden and his prison room into a bower by papering the walls with trellises of roses and by coloring his ceiling like the sky. His books and piano-forte, his flowers and plaster casts surrounded him as at home. Old friends gathered about and new ones sought him as a martyr to the liberal cause.

But the picture has a darker side which it is necessary to notice in order to understand Hunt's personal relations. An imaginative and over-sensitive brain in a feeble body had peopled his childhood with creatures of fear, the precursors of the morbid fancies of later years. From 1805 to 1807 he suffered from a trouble that seems to have been mental rather than physical, probably a form of melancholia or hypochondria. He tortured himself with problems of metaphysics and philosophy. He was haunted with the hallucination that he was deficient in physical courage, and therefore subjected himself to all kinds of tests. At the beginning of his imprisonment he was suffering from a second attack of his malady. The injurious effects upon his health of close confinement at this time can be traced to the end of his life. After his release his morbid fear of cowardice and his habit of seclusion were so strong upon him that for months at a time he would not venture out upon the streets. Yet in spite of all this and of frequent illnesses, his animal spirits were invincible.

His optimism was proverbial; indeed, it was a part of his religion.

Coventry Patmore tells us that on entering a room and being presented to Hunt for the first time, he received the greeting "This is a beautiful world, Mr. Patmore."[7] His wonderful fancy colored his life as it colored his poetry. With his flowers and his friends and his fancies he turned life into a perpetual Arcadia. It has been many times a.s.serted that Leigh Hunt was morally weak. His self-depreciation is largely responsible for such a.s.sertions. It is true that he fell short of great accomplishment and that he was guilty of small foibles which Haydon exaggerated into "petticoat twaddling and Grandisonian cant."[8] Yet the struggle and the suffering of his life show more virility and n.o.bility than he is generally credited with, and prove that beneath a veneer of affectation lay strong and healthy qualities.

A second lasting and disastrous result that followed Hunt's incarceration and that greatly affected his relations with Byron and Sh.e.l.ley was the crippling of his finances. While it cannot be said that he ever showed any real business ability, yet, at the beginning of the trials for libel, his money matters were in fair condition. The heavy fine and costs permanently disabled him. In 1821 his affairs were in such a bad state that, with the hope of bettering them, he left England on a precarious journalistic venture, an injudicious step, the cause of which can be traced to the lingering effects of his labors in the cause of liberalism. From 1834 to 1840 his misfortunes reached a climax. He sold his books to get something to eat. The pain of giving up his beloved _Parnaso Italiano_ was like that of a violinist parting with his instrument. He lived in continual fear of arrest for debt. At the same time, family troubles and ill-health combined to torment him.

In 1844 Sir Percy Sh.e.l.ley gave him an annuity of 120, and in 1847, the same year of the benefit performance of _Every Man in His Humour_, he was granted through the efforts of Lord John Russell, Macaulay and Carlyle, an annual pension of 200 on the Civil List. There were also two separate grants of 200 each from the Royal Bounty, one from William IV, and the other from Queen Victoria. In his last years there is no mention made of want.[9]

Hunt's att.i.tude in respect to money obligations was unique, but well-defined and consistent. It was not, as is often inferred, either puling or unscrupulous.[10] He was absolutely incapable of the Skimpole vices.[11] His dilemmas were not due to indolence. On the contrary, he labored indefatigably as results show. The trouble was his "hugger-mugger"

management, as Carlyle expressed it. He adopted William G.o.dwin's doctrine that the distribution of property should depend on justice and necessity, and thought with him that the teachers of religion were pernicious in treating the practice of justice "not as a debt, but as an affair of spontaneous generosity and bounty. They have called upon the rich to be clement and merciful to the poor. The consequence of this has been that the rich, when they bestowed the slender pittance of their enormous wealth in acts of charity, as they were called, took merit to themselves for what they gave, instead of considering themselves delinquents for what they withheld."[12] G.o.dwin held grat.i.tude to be a superst.i.tion.

Consequently, when in need, Hunt thought he had a right to a.s.sistance from such friends as had the wherewithal to give. He accepted obligations, as will be shown in the following chapters, much as a matter of course.[13]

But even in his worst distresses, he never desired nor accepted promiscuous charity; and he did not always willingly accept aid even from his friends. He refused offers of help from Trelawney. He returned a bank bill sent him by his sister-in-law, 5 sent by De Wilde as part of the Compensation Fund, and $500 presented by James Russell Lowell. In 1832 Reynell forfeited 200 as security for Hunt. Twenty years later, on the payment of the first installment of the Sh.e.l.ley legacy, Hunt discharged the debt.[14] He rejected several offers to pay his fine at the time of his imprisonment.[15] Mary Sh.e.l.ley, who more than any one had cause to complain of Hunt's att.i.tude in money matters, wrote in 1844 in announcing to him the forthcoming annuity from her son: "I know your real delicacy about money matters."[16]

In the _Correspondence_ there are mysterious allusions made by Hunt and by his son Thornton to a veiled influence on Hunt's life, to some one who acted as trustee for him and who, without his knowledge or consent, made indiscriminating appeals in his behalf. The discovery of refusals and repulses led him to write the following to William Story, through whom came Lowell's offer: "Nor do I think the man truly generous who cannot both give and receive. But, my dear Story, my heart has been deeply wounded, some time back, in consequence of being supposed to carry such opinions to a practical extreme.... It gave me a shock so great that, as long as I live, it will be impossible for me to forego the hope of outliving all similar chances, by conduct which none can misinterpret."[17]

Leigh Hunt's work which comes into the period of his a.s.sociation with Byron, Sh.e.l.ley and Keats falls into four divisions: his theatrical criticism, his political journals, his poetry and his miscellaneous essays. The first and the last, although important in themselves, do not enter into his relations with the three men in question and will not be considered here. His political activity is important in his relations with Byron and Sh.e.l.ley; his poetry in his relations with Keats and Sh.e.l.ley.

In Leigh Hunt's career, the step most significant in its far-reaching effects was the establishment of _The Examiner_.[18] Its professed object was the discussion of politics. It contained, in addition to foreign and provincial intelligence, criticism of the theatre, of literature, and of the fine arts. Full reports were given of the proceedings in Parliament.

At different times, various series of articles appeared, such as the _Essays on Methodism_ by Hunt, and _The Round Table_ by Hunt and Hazlitt.

Fox-Bourne says that previous to Hunt's _Examiner_ there had been weeklies or "essay sheets" such as Defoe, Steele, Addison and Goldsmith had developed, and that there had been dailies or "news sheets" which gave bare facts, but that _The Examiner_ was the first to give the news faithfully in essay style.[19] It soon raised the character of the weeklies. During the first year the circulation reached 2,200, a large number at that time. Carlyle said: "I well remember how its weekly coming was looked for in our village in Scotland. The place of its delivery was besieged by an eager crowd, and its columns furnished the town talk till the next number came."[20] Redding says "everybody in those days read _The Examiner_."[21]

The prospectus contained a severe criticism of contemporary journalism:[22]

"mean in its subserviency to the follies of the day, very miserably merry in its fuss and stories, extremely furious in politics, and quite as feeble in criticism. You are invited to a literary conversation, and you find nothing but scandal and commonplace. There is a flourish of trumpets, and enter Tom Thumb. There is an earthquake and a worm is thrown up.... The gentleman who until lately conducted the THEATRICAL DEPARTMENT in the _News_ will criticise the Theatre in the EXAMINER; and as the public have allowed the possibility of IMPARTIALITY in that department, we do not see why the same possibility may not be obtained in POLITICS."

Then followed a declaration against party as a factor in politics: party, it was declared, should not exist "abstracted from its utility"; in the present day every man must belong to some cla.s.s; "he is either Pitt.i.te or Foxite, Windhamite, Wilberforcite or Burdett.i.te; though, at the same time, two thirds of these disturbers of coffee-houses might with as much reason call themselves Hivites, or Shunamites, or perhaps Bedlamites."[23]

Although _The Examiner_ thus firmly announced its intentions, nevertheless in the heat of political contest it soon became the organ of a group of men known as "reformers," who were laboring and clamoring for const.i.tutional and administrative improvement. It became the avowed enemy of the Tory party and its journals, and in particular of the ministry during the long Tory ascendancy; the enemy, at times, of royalty itself.

The prospectus likewise announced an intention to reform the manners and morals of the age. Hunt could write a sermon with the same ease as a song or a satire. Horse-racing, c.o.c.k-fighting and prize-fighting were condemned; most of all the publication of scandal and crime. A pa.s.sage on advertis.e.m.e.nts is humorous and still of living interest:

"the public shall neither be tempted to listen to somebody in the shape of wit who turns out to be a lottery-keeper, nor seduced to hear a magnificent oration which finishes by retreating into a peruke, or rolling off into a blacking ball ... and as there is perhaps about one person in a hundred who is pleased to see two or three columns occupied with the mutabilities of cotton and the vicissitudes of leather, the proprietors will have as little to do with bulls and raw-hides, as with lottery-men and wig-makers."

The editorials, which occupied the foremost columns of the paper, attacked corruption and injustice of every kind without respect of persons, currying favor with neither party nor individual, and laboring above all for the people. International relations and continental conditions were kept track of, but chief prominence was given to domestic affairs. The editor warred against all abuses of power in the cabinet and in all offices under the crown. In particular he attacked with merciless persistence the Prince Regent in regard to his private life and his public conduct, and his brother Frederick the Duke of York, for his inefficiency as Commander-in-Chief of the army.[24] His definition of the English Army was "a host of laced jackets and long pigtails."[25] He condemned the numerous subsidies of the crown, the royal pensions and salaries for nominal service. He ridiculed the divine right of kings and exposed court scandal and immorality. The chief measures for which he labored were Catholic Emanc.i.p.ation; reform of Parliamentary representation; liberty of the press; reduction and equalization of taxes; greater discretion in increasing the public debt; education of the poor and amelioration of their sufferings; abolition of child-labor and of the slave trade; reform of military discipline, of prison conditions, and of the criminal and civil laws, particularly those governing debtors.

It is not a matter of marvel that the paper made hosts of enemies on every side. Charges of libel quickly followed its onslaughts. Before the paper was a year old a prosecution was begun in connection with the Major Hogan and Mrs. Clarke case,[26] but it was dropped when an investigation was begun by the House of Commons. Within a year's time after this prosecution a second indictment was brought because of the sentence: "Of all monarchs since the Revolution the successor of George the Third will have the finest opportunity of becoming n.o.bly popular."[27] The _Morning Chronicle_ copied it, and was indicted, but both cases were dismissed. The third offense was the quotation of an article by John Scott on the cruelty of military flogging[28] but, like the others, this prosecution came to nothing.

The fourth and most disastrous misdemeanor was libel of the Prince Regent, a man of shocking morals and of unstable character. Before his appointment as Regent he had leaned to the Whig party and advocated Catholic Emanc.i.p.ation, but at his accession to power he retained the Tory ministry.

The Whigs were greatly angered in consequence, and _The Examiner_ took it upon itself to voice their indignation.[29] At a dinner given at the Freemason's Tavern on St. Patrick's day, March 22, 1812, Lord Moira, an old friend of the Prince's, omitted mentioning him in his speech. Later, when a toast was proposed to the Prince, it was greeted with hisses. Mr.

Sheridan, because of Lord Moira's omission, spoke later in the evening in defense of the Regent, but he, too, was received with hisses. The _Morning Chronicle_ reported the dinner; the _Morning Post_ replied with fulsome praise of the Prince; _The Examiner_ with its usual alacrity joined in the fray and took sides with the _Chronicle_, dissecting, phrase by phrase, the adulation heaped upon the Prince by the _Post_. The following is the bitterest part of the polemic against him:

"What person, unacquainted with the true state of the case, would imagine, in reading these astounding eulogies, that this 'Glory of the people' was the subject of millions of shrugs and reproaches!--that this 'Protector of the arts' had named a wretched foreigner his historical painter, in disparagement or in ignorance of the merits of his own countrymen!--that this 'Maecenas of the age'

patronized not a single deserving writer!--that this 'Breather of eloquence' could not say a few decent extempore words, if we are to judge, at least, from what he said to his regiment on its embarkation for Portugal!--that this 'Conqueror of hearts' was the disappointer of hopes!--that this 'Exciter of desire' [bravo! Messieurs of the Post!]--this 'Adonis in loveliness', was a corpulent man of fifty!--in short, this _delightful_, _blissful_, _wise_, _pleasurable_, _honourable_, _virtuous_, _true_ and _immortal_ prince, was a violator of his word, a libertine over head and ears in disgrace, a dispiser of domestic ties, the companion of gamblers and demireps, a man who has just closed half a century without one single claim on the grat.i.tude of his country, or the respect of posterity!"[30]