William Godwin: his Friends and Contemporaries
Ch. I. 1800
WILLIAM GODWIN:
HIS FRIENDS AND CONTEMPORARIES.
CHAPTER I.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH COLERIDGE. 1800.
It seems well to give Godwin’s correspondence with Coleridge during 1800 without break. The play therein mentioned was
“Antonio,” represented
at Drury Lane, and damned, of which more will be said hereafter.
S. T. Coleridge to William Godwin.
“Wednesday Morning, Jan. 8, 1800.
“My dear Sir,—To-morrow and
Friday business rises almost above smothering point with me, over chin and
mouth! but on Saturday evening I shall be perfectly at leisure, and shall
calendar an evening apart with you on so interesting a subject among my
‘Noctes Atticæ.’ If this do not suit your engagements, mention any
other day, and I will make it suit mine.—Yours with esteem,
“P.S.—How many thousand
letter-writers will in the first fortnight of this month write a 7 first,
and then transmogrify it into an 8, in the dates of their letters! I like
to catch myself doing that which involves any identity of the human race.
Hence I like to talk of the weather, and in the fall never omit observing,
‘How short the days grow! How the days
shorten!’ And yet that would fall a melancholy phrase indeed
on the heart of a blind man!”
The Same to the Same.
“8, Monday Morning, Mar. 3, 1800.
“Dear Godwin,—The punch, after the wine,
made me tipsy last night. This I mention, not that my head aches, or that I
felt, after I quitted you, any unpleasantness or titubancy; but because
tipsiness has, and has always, one unpleasant effect—that of making me talk
very extravagantly; and as, when sober, I talk extravagantly enough for any
common tipsiness, it becomes a matter of nicety in discrimination to know when
I am or am not affected. An idea starts up in my head,—away I follow through
thick and thin, wood and marsh, brake and briar, with all the apparent interest
of a man who was defending one of his old and long-established principles.
Exactly of this kind was the conversation with which I quitted you. I do not
believe it possible for a human being to have a greater horror of the feelings
that usually accompany such principles as I then supposed, or a deeper
conviction of their irrationality, than myself; but the whole thinking of my
life will not bear me up against the accidental crowd and press of my mind,
when it is elevated beyond its natural pitch. We shall talk wiselier with the
ladies on Tuesday. God bless you, and give your dear little ones a kiss a-piece
from me.—Yours with affectionate esteem,
S. T. Coleridge.
“Mr
Lamb’s, No. 36 Chapel St.”
The Same to the Same.
“Wednesday, May 21, 1800.
“Dear Godwin,—I received
your letter this morning, and had I not, still I am almost confident that I
should have written to you before the end of the week. Hitherto the translation
of the Wallenstein has
prevented me; not that it so engrossed my time, but that it wasted and
depressed my spirits, and left a sense of
| CORRESPONDENCE WITH COLERIDGE. | 3 |
wearisomeness and disgust, which
unfitted me for anything but sleeping or immediate society. I say this, because
I ought to have written to you first, and as I am not behind you in
affectionate esteem, so I would not be thought to lag in those outward and
visible signs that both show and vivify the inward and spiritual grace. Believe
me, you recur to my thoughts frequently, and never without pleasure, never
without making out of the past a little day dream for the future. I left
Wordsworth on the 4th of this month.
If I cannot procure a suitable house at Stowey, I return to Cumberland, and
settle at Keswick, in a house of such a prospect, that if, according to you and
Hume, impressions and ideas
constitute our being, I shall have a tendency to become
a god, so sublime and beautiful will be the series of my visual existence. But
whether I continue here or migrate thither, I shall be in a beautiful country,
and have house-room and heartroom for you, and you must come and write your
next work at my house. My dear Godwin, I remember you with
so much pleasure, and our conversations so distinctly, that I doubt not we have
been mutually benefitted; but as to your poetic and physiopathic feelings, I
more than suspect that dear little
Fanny
and
Mary have had more to do in that
business than I.
Hartley sends his love
to Mary. ‘What? and not to
Fanny?’ ‘Yes, and to
Fanny, but I’ll
have Mary.’ He often talks
about them. My poor
Lamb! how cruelly
afflictions crowd upon him! I am glad that you think of him as I think; he has
an affectionate heart, a mind
sui generis; his taste
acts so as to appear like the unmechanic simplicity of an instinct—in brief, he
is worth an hundred men of
mere talents. Conversation
with the latter tribe is like the use of leaden bells—one warms by exercise,
Lamb every now and then
irradiates, and the beam, though single and fine as a hair, is yet
rich with colours, and I both see and feel it. In Bristol I was much with
Davy, almost all day; he always talks
of you with great affection. . . . If I settle at Keswick, he will be with me
in the fall of the year, and so meet you. And let me tell you,
Godwin, four such men as you, I,
Davy, and Wordsworth, do not meet
together in one house every day of the year. I mean, four men so distinct with
so many sympathies.
“I received yesterday a letter from Southey. He arrived at Lisbon, after a
prosperous voyage, on the last day of April. His letter to me is dated May-Day.
He girds up his loins for a great history of Portugal, which will be translated
into the Portuguese in the first year of the Lusitanian Republic.
“Have you seen Mrs
Robinson lately? How is she? Remember me in the kindest and most
respectful phrases to her. I wish I knew the particulars of her complaint. For
Davy has discovered a perfectly new
acid, by which he has restored the use of limbs to persons who had lost them
for years (one woman 9 years) in cases of supposed rheumatism. At all events,
Davy says it can do no harm in Mrs
Robinson’s case, and if she will try it, he will make up a
little parcel, and write her a letter of instructions, &c. . . .
“God bless you.—Yours sincerely affectionate,
“S. T.
Coleridge.
“Mr T.
Poole’s,
“N.
Stowey, Bridgewater.
“Sara
desires to be kindly remembered to you, and sends a kiss to Fanny and ‘dear meek little
Mary.’”
William Godwin to S. T. Coleridge.
“Dublin [September 1800.]
“Dear Coleridge,—You
scarcely expected a letter from me of the above date. But I received last
September an invitation from John Philpot
Curran, the Irish barrister, probably the first advocate in
Europe, then in London, to spend a few weeks with him in Ireland this summer,
which I did not feel in myself philosophy enough to resist. Nor do I repent my
compliance. The advantages one derives from placing the sole of one’s
foot on a foreign soil are extremely great. Few men, on such an occasion, think
it worth their while to put on armour for your encounter. I know Fox and Sheridan, but can scarce consider them as my acquaintance. Your
next door neighbour, before he admits you to his familiarity, considers how far
he should like to have you for his familiar for the next seven years. But
familiarity with a foreign
guest
involves no such consequences, and so circumstanced, you are immediately
admitted on the footing of an inmate. I am now better acquainted with
Grattan and Curran, the
Fox and Sheridan of Ireland,
after having been four weeks in their company, than I can pretend ever to have
been with their counterparts on my native soil.
“Curran I
admire extremely. There is scarcely the man on earth with whom I ever felt
myself so entirely at my ease, or so little driven back, from time to time, to
consider of my own miserable individual. He is perpetually a staff and a
cordial, without ever affecting to be either. The being never lived who was
more perfectly free from every species of concealment. With great genius, at
least a rich and inexhaustible imagination, he never makes me stand in awe of
him, and bow as to my acknowledged superior, a thing by-the-by which,
de temps à d’autre, you
compel me to do. He amuses me always, astonishes me often, yet naturally and
irresistibly inspires me with confidence. I am apt, particularly when away from
home, to feel forlorn and dispirited. The two last days I spent from him, and
though they were employed most enviably in tête à
tête with Grattan, I began to feel dejected and home-sick. But
Curran has joined me to-day, and poured into my bosom
a full portion of his irresistible kindness and gaiety.
“You will acknowledge these are extraordinary traits.
Yet Curran is far from a faultless and
perfect character. Immersed for many years in a perpetual whirl of business, he
has no profoundness or philosophy. He has a great share of the Irish
character—dashing, étourdi, coarse,
vulgar, impatient, fierce, kittenish. He has no characteristic delicacy, no
intuitive and instant commerce with the sublime features of nature. Ardent in a
memorable degree, and a patriot from the most generous impulse, he has none of
that political chemistry which Burke so
admirably describes (I forget his words), that resolves and combines, and
embraces distant nations and future ages. He is inconsistent in the most
whimsical degree. I remember, in an amicable debate with Sheridan, in which
Sheridan far outwent him in refinement, penetration,
and taste, he three times surrendered his arms, acknowledged
his error, yea, even began to declaim (for declamation is
too frequently his mania) on the contrary side: and as often, after a short
interval, resumed his weapons, and renewed the combat. Now and then, in the
career of declamation, he becomes tautological and ineffective, and I ask
myself: Is this the prophet that he went forth to see! But presently after he
stumbles upon a rich vein of imagination, and recognises my willing suffrage.
He has the reputation of insincerity, for which he is indebted, not to his
heart, but to the mistaken, cherished calculations of his practical prudence.
He maintains in argument that you ought never to inform a man, directly or
indirectly, of the high esteem in which you hold him. Yet, in his actual
intercourse, he is apt to mix the information too copiously and too often. But
perhaps his greatest fault is, that though endowed with an energy the most
ardent, and an imagination the most varied and picturesque, there is nothing to
which he is more prone, or to which his inclination more willingly leads him,
than to play the buffoon.”
S. T. Coleridge to William Godwin.
“Monday, [Sep.
11, 1800.]
“Dear Godwin,—There are
vessels every week from Dublin to Workington, which place is 16 miles from my
house, through a divine country, but these are idle regrets. I know not the
nature of your present pursuits, whether or no they are such as to require the
vicinity of large and curious libraries. If you were engaged in any work of
imagination or reasoning, not biographical, not historical, I should repeat and
urge my invitation, after my wife’s confinement. Our house is situated on
a rising ground, not two furlongs from Keswick, about as much from the Lake
Derwentwater, and about two miles from the Lake Bassenthwaite—both lakes and
mountains we command. The river Greta runs behind our house, and before it too,
and Skiddaw is behind us—not half a mile distant, indeed just distant enough to
enable us to view it as a Whole. The garden, orchards, fields, and immediate
country all delightful. I have, or have the use of, no inconsiderable
collection of books. In my library you will find all the
Poets and
Philosophers, and
many of the best old writers. Below, in our parlour, belonging to our landlord,
but in my possession, are almost all the usual trash of
Johnsons,
Gibbons,
Robertsons,
&c., with the
Encyclopedia
Britannica, &c.
Sir Wilfred
Lawson’s magnificent library is some 8 or 9 miles distant,
and he is liberal in the highest degree in the management of it. And now for
your letter. I swell out my chest and place my hand on my heart, and swear
aloud to all that you have written, or shall write, against lawyers, and the
practice of the law. When you next write so eloquently and so well against it,
or against anything, be so good as to leave a larger space for your wafer; as
by neglect of this, a part of your last was obliterated. The character of
Curran, which you have sketched most
ably, is a frequent one in its moral essentials, though, of course among the
most rare, if we take it with all its intellectual accompaniments. Whatever I
have read of Curran’s, has impressed me with a deep
conviction of his genius. Are not the Irish in general a more eloquent race
than we? Of North Wales my recollections are faint, and as to Wicklow I only
know from the newspapers that it is a mountainous country. As far as my memory
will permit me to decide on the grander parts of Caernarvonshire, I may say
that the single objects are superior to any which I have seen elsewhere, but
there is a deficiency in combination. I know of no mountain in the North equal
to Snowdon, but then we have an encampment of huge mountains, in no harmony
perhaps to the eye of a mere painter, but always interesting, various, and, as
it were, nutritive. Height is assuredly an advantage, as it connects the earth
with the sky, by the clouds that are ever skimming the summits, or climbing up,
or creeping down the sides, or rising from the chasm, like smoke from a
cauldron, or veiling or bridging the higher parts or lower parts of the
waterfalls. That you were less impressed by N. Wales I can easily believe; it
is possible that the scenes of Wicklow may be superior, but it is certain that
you were in a finer irritability of spirit to enjoy them. The first pause and
silence after a return from a very interesting visit is somewhat connected with
languor in all of us. Besides, as you have
observed,
mountains, and mountainous scenery, taken collectively and cursorily, must
depend for their charms on their novelty. They put on their immortal interest
then first, when we have resided among them, and learned to understand their
language, their written characters, and intelligible sounds, and all their
eloquence, so various, so unwearied. Then you will hear no ‘twice-told
tale.’ I question if there be a room in England which commands a view of
mountains, and lakes, and woods, and vales, superior to that in which I am now
sitting. I say this, because it is destined for your study, if you come. You
are kind enough to say that you feel yourself more natural and unreserved with
me than with others. I suppose that this in great measure arises from my own
ebullient unreservedness. Something, too, I will hope may be attributed to the
circumstance that my affections are interested deeply in my opinions. But here,
too, you will meet with
Wordsworth,
‘the latch of whose shoe I am unworthy to unloose,’ and
five miles from Wordsworth,
Charles Lloyd has taken a house.
Wordsworth is publishing a second volume of the
‘
Lyrical
Ballads,’ which title is to be dropped, and his
‘Poems’ substituted. Have you seen
Sheridan since your return? How is it with your tragedy? Were
you in town when
Miss
Bayley’s tragedy was represented? How was it
that it proved so uninteresting? Was the fault in the theatre, the audience, or
the play? It must have excited a deeper feeling in you than that of mere
curiosity, for doubtless the tragedy has great merit. I know not indeed how far
Kemble might have watered and
thinned its consistence; I speak of the printed play. Have you read the
‘
Wallenstein?’ Prolix and crowded and dragging as it is, it is yet
quite a model for its judicious management of the sequence of the scenes, and
such it is held in German theatres. Our English acting plays are many of them
wofully deficient in this part of the dramatic trade and mystery.
“Hartley is
well, and all life and action.—Yours, with unfeigned esteem,
“Kisses for Mary and Fanny. God
love them! I wish you would come and look out for a house for yourself
here. You
know, ‘I
wish’ is privileged to have something silly to follow it.”
The Same to the Same.
“Dear Godwin,—I received
your letter, and with it the enclosed note, which shall be punctually
re-delivered to you on the 1st October.
“Your tragedy to be exhibited at Christmas! I have indeed merely read
your letter, so it is not strange that my heart still continues beating out of
time. Indeed, indeed, Godwin, such a stream of hope and
fear rushed in on me, when I read the sentence, as you would not permit
yourself to feel. If there be anything yet undreamed of in our
philosophy; if it be, or if it be possible, that thought can impel
thought out of the visual limit of a man’s own skull and heart; if the
clusters of ideas, which constitute our identity, do ever connect and unite
with a greater whole; if feelings could ever propagate themselves without the
servile ministrations of undulating air or reflected light—I seem to feel
within myself a strength and a power of desire that might dart a modifying,
commanding impulse on a whole theatre. What does all this mean? Alas! that
sober sense should know no other to construe all this, except by the tame
phrase, I wish you success. . . .”
[In a previous letter not here given he had begged Godwin to stand godfather to his child. The
compliment was of course declined.]
“Your feelings respecting Baptism are, I suppose, much
like mine! At times I dwell on Man with such reverence, resolve all his follies
and superstitions into such grand primary laws of intellect, and in such wise
so contemplate them as ever-varying incarnations of the Eternal Life—that the
Llama’s dung-pellet, or the cow-tail which the dying Brahmin clutches
convulsively, become sanctified and sublime by the feelings which cluster round
them. In that mood I exclaim, my boys shall be christened! But then another fit
of moody philosophy attacks me. I look at my doted-on Hartley—he moves, he lives, he finds impulses
from within
and from without, he is the darling of the
sun and of the breeze. Nature seems to bless him as a thing of her own. He
looks at the clouds, the mountains, the living beings of the earth, and vaults
and jubilates! Solemn looks and solemn words have been hitherto connected in
his mind with great and magnificent objects only: with lightning, with thunder,
with the waterfall blazing in the sunset. Then I say, shall I suffer him to see
grave countenances and hear grave accents, while his face is sprinkled? Shall I
be grave myself, and tell a lie to him? Or shall I laugh, and teach him to
insult the feelings of his fellow-men? Besides, are we not all in this present
hour, fainting beneath the duty of Hope? From such thoughts I stand up, and vow
a book of severe analysis, in which I will tell
all I
believe to be truth in the nakedest language in which it can be told.
“My wife is now quite comfortable. Surely you might
come and spend the very next four weeks, not without advantage to both of us.
The very glory of the place is coming on. The local Genius is just arranging
himself in his highest attributes. But above all, I press it, because my mind
has been busied with speculations that are closely connected with those
pursuits which have hitherto constituted your utility and importance; and
ardently as I wish you success on the stage, I yet cannot frame myself to the
thought that you should cease to appear as a bold moral
thinker. I wish you to write a book on the power of the words, and the
processes by which the human feelings form affinities with them. In short, I
wish you to philosophize Horne
Tooke’s system, and to solve the great questions, whether
there be reason to hold that an action bearing all the semblance of
pre-designing consciousness may yet be simply organic, and whether a series of
such actions are possible? And close on the heels of this question would
follow, Is Logic the Essence of Thinking? In other
words, Is Thinking impossible without arbitrary signs?
And how far is the word ‘arbitrary’ a misnomer? Are not words,
&c., parts and germinations of the plant? And what is the law of their
growth? In something of this sort I would endeavour to destroy the old
antithesis of Words and Things; elevating, as it were, Words into
Things, and living things too. All
the nonsense of vibrating, &c., you would of course dismiss. If what I have
written appear nonsense to you, or commonplace thoughts in a harlequinade of
outré expressions, suspend your judgment till we see
each other.—Yours sincerely,
“I was in the country when Wallenstein was published.
Longman sent me down
half-a-dozen. The carriage back, the book was not worth.”
The Same to the Same.
“Dear Godwin,—I have been
myself too frequently a grievous delinquent in the article of letter-writing to
feel any inclination to reproach my friends when peradventure they have been
long silent. But, this is out of the question. I did not expect a speedier
answer, for I had anticipated the circumstances which you assign as the causes
of your delay.
“An attempt to finish a poem of mine for insertion in
the second volume of the ‘Lyrical Ballads’ has thrown me so fearfully back in my
bread-and-beef occupations, that I shall scarcely be able to justify myself in
putting you to the expense of the few lines which I may be able to scrawl on
the present paper; but some parts in your letter interested me deeply, and I
wished to tell you so. First, then, you know Kemble, and I do not. But my conjectural judgments concerning
his character lead me to persuade an absolute, passive obedience to his
opinions; and this, too, because I would leave to every man his own trade. Your
trade has been in the present instance, 1st, To furnish a wise pleasure to your
fellow-beings in general; and 2dly, to give to Mr Kemble
and his associates the means of themselves delighting that part of your
fellow-beings assembled in a theatre. As to what relates to the first point, I
should be sorry indeed if greater men than Mr Kemble could
induce you to alter a ‘but’ to a ‘yet,’ contrary to
your own convictions. Above all things, an author ought to be sincere to the
public; and when William Godwin stands
in the
title page, it is implied that W.
G. approves that which follows. Besides, the mind and finer
feelings are blunted by such obseqiousness. But in the theatre, it is as
Godwin & Co.
ex
professo. I should regard it almost in the same light as
if I had written a song for
Haydn to
compose and
Mara to sing. I know indeed
what is poetry, but I do not know so well as he and she what will suit his
notes and her voice. That actors and managers are often wrong is true; but
still their trade is their trade, and the presumption is in favour of their
being right. For the Press, I should wish you to be solicitously nice, because
you are to exhibit before a larger and more respectable multitude than a
theatre presents to you, and in a new part—that of a poet employing his
philosophical knowledge.
“If it be possible, come therefore, and let us discuss
every page and every line. The time depends of course on the day fixed for the
representation of the piece.
“Now for something which I would fain believe is still
more important, namely the property of your philosophical speculations. Your
second objection, derived from the present ebb of opinion, will be best
answered by the fact that Mackintosh and
his followers have the flow. This is greatly in your
favour, for mankind are at present gross reasoners. They reason in a perpetual
antithesis; Mackintosh is an oracle, and Godwin therefore a fool. Now it is morally
impossible that Mackintosh and the sophists of his school
can retain this opinion. You may well exclaim with Job, ‘O that my
adversary would write a book!’ When he publishes, it will be all
over with him, and then the minds of men will incline strongly to those who
would point out in intellectual perceptions a source of moral progressiveness.
Every man in his heart is in favour of your general principles. A party of
dough-baked democrats of fortune were weary of being dissevered from their
fellow rich men. They want to say something in defence of turning round.
Mackintosh puts that something into their mouths, and
for awhile they will admire and be-praise him. In a little while these men will
have fallen back into the ranks from which they had stepped out, and life is
too
melancholy a thing for men
in general for the doctrine of unprogressiveness to remain popular. Men cannot
long retain their faith in the Heaven
above the blue
sky, but a Heaven they will have, and he who reasons best on the side of that
universal wish will be the most popular philosopher. As to your first
objection, that you are no logician, let me say that your habits are analytic,
but that you have not read enough of Travels, Voyages, and Biography,
especially of men’s lives of themselves, and you have too soon submitted
your notions to other men’s censures in conversation. A man should nurse
his opinions in privacy and self-fondness for a long time, and seek for
sympathy and love, not for detection or censure. Dismiss, my dear fellow, your
theory of Collision of Ideas, and take up that of Mutual Propulsions. I wish to
write more to state to you a lucrative job, which would, I think, be eminently
serviceable to your own mind, and which you would have every opportunity of
doing here. I now express a serious wish that you would come and look out for a
house.
“I would gladly write any verses, but to a
prologue or epilogue I am utterly incompetent. . . . .”
The Same to the Same.
“Saturday night, [Dec. 9th, 1800.]
“Dear Godwin.—The cause
of my not giving you that immediate explanation which you requested, was merely
your own intimation that you could attend to nothing until the fate of your
‘Melpomene,’ was decided. The plan was this: a system of
Geography, taught by a re-writing of the most celebrated Travels into the
different climates of the world, choosing for each climate one Traveller, but
interspersing among his adventures all that was interesting in incident or
observation from all former or after travellers or voyagers: annexing to each
travel a short essay, pointing out what facts in it illustrate what laws of
mind, &c. If a bookseller of spirit would undertake this work, I have no
doubt of its being a standard school-book. It should be as large
as the last edition of
Guthrie—12 or 1400 pages. I mentioned it to you because I
thought this sort of reading would be serviceable to your mind: but if you
reject the offer, mention it to no one, for in that case I will myself
undertake it. The ‘Life of Bolingbroke’
will never
do in my opinion, unless you have many
original unpublished papers, &c. The
good people
will cry it down as a Satan’s
Hell-broth, warmed up a-new by Beelzebub.
Besides,
entre nous, my
Lord Bolingbroke was but a very shallow
gentleman. He had great, indeed amazing, living talents, but there is
absolutely nothing in his writings, his philosophical writings to wit, which
had not been more accurately developed before him. All this, you will
understand, goes on the supposition of your being possessed of no number of
original letters. If you are, and if they enable you to explain the junction of
intellectual power and depraved appetites, for heaven’s sake go on
boldly, and dedicate the work to your friend
Sheridan. For myself, I would rather have written the
‘
Mad Mother’
than all the works of all the Bolingbrokes and
Sheridans, those brother meteors, that have been
exhaled from the morasses of human depravity since the loss of Paradise. But
this, my contempt of their intellectual powers as worthless, does not prevent
me from feeling an interest and a curiosity in their moral temperament, and I
am not weak enough to hope or wish that you should think or feel as I think or
feel.
“One phrase in your letter distressed me. You say that
much of your tranquillity depends on the coming hour. I hope that this does not
allude to any immediate embarrassment. If not, I should cry out against you
loudly. The motto which I prefixed to my tragedy when I sent it to the manager,
I felt, and I continue to feel.
“‘Valeat res scenica, si me
‘Palma negata mærum, donata reducit
opimum.’ |
“The success of a tragedy in the present size of the
theatres (‘Pizarro’ is a pantomime) is in my humble opinion rather
improbable than probable. What tragedy has succeeded for the last 15 years? You
will probably answer the question by
| COLERIDGE’S ILL-HEALTH. | 15 |
another. What tragedy has deserved to
succeed? and to that I can give no answer. Be my thoughts therefore sacred to
hope. If
every wish of mine had a pair of hands, your
play should be clapped through 160 successive nights, and I would reconcile it
to my conscience (in part) by two thoughts: first, that you are a good man; and
secondly, that the divinity of
Shakespere would remain all that while unblasphemed by the
applauses of a rabble, who, if he were now for the first time to present his
pieces, would tear them into infamy. Κόυρον γτορ εχει τό πλειστον άνθρώτων. The
mass of mankind are blind in heart, and I have been almost blind in my eyes.
For the last five weeks I have been tormented by a series of bodily grievances,
and for great part of the time deprived of the use of my poor eyes by
inflammation, and at present I have six excruciating boils behind my right ear,
the largest of which I have christened Captain Robert, in
honour of
De Foe’s
‘Captain Robert Boyle.’
Eke, I have the rheumatism in my hand. If therefore there be anything fitful
and splenetic in this letter, you know where to lay the fault, only do not
cease to believe that I am interested in all that relates to you and your
comforts. God grant I may receive your
tragedy with the πότνια νίχη in the title
page!
“My darling Hartley has been ill, but is now better. My youngest is a fat
little creature, not unlike your Mary.
God love you and
“P.S.—Do you continue to
see dear Charles Lamb often? Talking
of tragedies, at every perusal my love and admiration of his play rises a peg.
C. Lloyd is settled at Ambleside,
but I have not seen him. I have no wish to see him, and likewise no wish
not to see him.”
The Same to the Same.
“Wednesday night, Dec. 17th, 1800.
“Dear Godwin.—I received
the newspaper with a beating heart, and laid it down with a heavy one. But
cheerily, friend! it is worth something to have learnt what will not please.
Kemble, like Saul,
is among the prophets. The account in the
Morning Post, was so unusually well
written, and so unfeelingly harsh, that it induced suspicions in my mind of the
author.
“If your interest in the theatre is not ruined by the
fate of this, your first piece, take heart, set instantly about a new one, and
if you want a glowing subject, take the death of Myrza as
related in the Holstein Ambassador’s Travels into Persia, in p. 93, vol
ii. of ‘Harris’s
Collections.’ There is crowd, character, passion, incident and
pageantry in it; and the history is so little known that you may take what
liberties you like without danger.
“It is my present purpose to spend the two or three
weeks after the Christmas holidays in London. Then we can discuss all and
everything. Your last play
wanted one thing which I believe is almost indispensable in a play—a proper rogue, in the cutting of whose throat the
audience may take an unmingled interest.
“We are all tolerably well. God love you, and
“S. T.
Coleridge.
“Greta Hall, Keswick.
“P.S.—There is a paint, the
first coating of which, put on paper, becomes a dingy black, but the second
time to a bright gold colour. So I say—Put on a second coating,
friend!”
Joanna Baillie (1762-1851)
Scottish poet and dramatist whose
Plays on the Passions
(1798-1812) were much admired, especially the gothic
De Montfort,
produced at Drury Lane in 1800.
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Irish politician and opposition leader in Parliament, author of
On the
Sublime and Beautiful (1757) and
Reflections on the Revolution
in France (1790).
Hartley Coleridge [Old Bachelor] (1796-1849)
The eldest son of the poet; he was educated at Merton College, Oxford, contributed essays
in the
London Magazine and
Blackwood's, and
published
Lives of Distinguished Northerns (1832).
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)
English poet and philosopher who projected
Lyrical Ballads (1798)
with William Wordsworth; author of
Biographia Literaria (1817),
On the Constitution of the Church and State (1829) and other
works.
John Philpot Curran (1750-1817)
Irish statesman and orator; as a Whig MP (from 1783) he defended the United Irishmen in
Parliament (1798).
Sir Humphry Davy, baronet (1778-1829)
English chemist and physicist, inventor of the safety lamp; in Bristol he knew Cottle,
Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Southey; he was president of the Royal Society (1820).
Daniel Defoe (1660-1731)
English novelist and miscellaneous writer; author of
Robinson
Crusoe (1719),
Moll Flanders (1722) and
Roxanna (1724).
Charles James Fox (1749-1806)
Whig statesman and the leader of the Whig opposition in Parliament after his falling-out
with Edmund Burke.
Edward Gibbon (1737-1794)
Author of
The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire
(1776-1788).
Fanny Imlay Godwin (1794-1816)
The daughter of Mary Wollstonecraft and Gilbert Imlay; she lived in the Godwin household
and died a suicide.
William Godwin (1756-1836)
English novelist and political philosopher; author of
An Inquiry
concerning the Principles of Political Justice (1793) and
Caleb
Williams (1794); in 1797 he married Mary Wollstonecraft.
Henry Grattan (1746-1820)
Irish statesman and patriot; as MP for Dublin he supported Catholic emancipation and
opposed the Union.
William Guthrie (1708 c.-1770)
Scottish-born political writer and historian; author, among other titles, of
General History of the World, 12 vols (1764-67),
General History of Scotland, 10 vols (1767), and
Geographical,
Historical, and Commercial Grammar (1770).
Franz Joseph Haydn (1732-1809)
German composer; his popular oratorio
The Seasons set texts by the
poet James Thomson.
David Hume (1711-1776)
Scottish philosopher and historian; author of
Essays Moral and
Political (1741-42),
Enquiry concerning Human Understanding
(1748) and
History of Great Britain (1754-62).
Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
English man of letters, among many other works he edited
A Dictionary
of the English Language (1755) and Shakespeare (1765), and wrote
Lives of the Poets (1779-81).
John Philip Kemble (1757-1823)
English actor renowned for his Shakespearean roles; he was manager of Drury Lane
(1783-1802) and Covent Garden (1803-1808).
Charles Lamb [Elia] (1775-1834)
English essayist and boyhood friend of Coleridge at Christ's Hospital; author of
Essays of Elia published in the
London
Magazine (collected 1823, 1833) and other works.
Sir Wilfrid Lawson, tenth baronet (1764 c.-1806)
Of Braighton, the son of Gilfrid Lawson (d. 1796); he was Sheriff of Cumberland (1801)
and an art collector and patron of the arts.
Charles Lloyd (1775-1839)
Quaker poet; a disciple of Coleridge and friend of Charles Lamb, he published
Poetical Essays on the Character of Pope (1821) and other
volumes.
Thomas Norton Longman (1771-1842)
A leading London publisher whose authors included Southey, Wordsworth, Scott, and
Moore.
Sir James Mackintosh (1765-1832)
Scottish philosopher and man of letters who defended the French Revolution in
Vindiciae Gallicae (1791); he was Recorder of Bombay (1803-1812) and
MP for Knaresborough (1819-32).
William Robertson (1721-1793)
Educated at Edinburgh University of which he became principal (1762), he was a
highly-regarded historian, the author of
History of Scotland in the Reign
of Queen Mary and of King James VI (1759) and
The History of the
Reign of Charles V (1769).
Mary Robinson [née Darby] [Perdita] (1758-1800)
English actress and poet; shortly after her marriage she became the mistress of the young
Prince of Wales, who afterwards supplied her with a pension. She was a prominent Della
Cruscan poet, crippled in her later years.
Henry St. John, first viscount Bolingbroke (1678-1751)
English politician and writer, friend of Alexander Pope; author of
The
Idea of a Patriot King (written 1738), and
Letters on the Study
and Use of History (1752).
Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley [née Godwin] (1797-1851)
English novelist, daughter of William Godwin and Mary Wollstonecaft, and the second wife
of Percy Bysshe Shelley. She is the author of
Frankenstein (1818)
and
The Last Man (1835) and the editor of Shelley's works
(1839-40).
Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816)
Anglo-Irish playwright, author of
The School for Scandal (1777),
Whig MP and ally of Charles James Fox (1780-1812).
Robert Southey (1774-1843)
Poet laureate and man of letters whose contemporary reputation depended upon his prose
works, among them the
Life of Nelson, 2 vols (1813),
History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (1823-32) and
The Doctor, 7 vols (1834-47).
John Horne Tooke (1736-1812)
Philologist and political radical; member of the Society for Constitutional Information
(1780); tried for high treason and acquitted (1794).
William Wordsworth (1770-1850)
With Coleridge, author of
Lyrical Ballads (1798), Wordsworth
survived his early unpopularity to succeed Robert Southey as poet laureate in 1843.
Morning Post. (1772-1937). A large-circulation London daily that published verse by many of the prominent poets of
the romantic era. John Taylor (1750–1826), Daniel Stuart (1766-1846), and Nicholas Byrne
(d. 1833) were among its editors.
Encyclopædia Britannica; or, a Dictionary of Arts and Sciences, compiled upon
a new plan. 3 vols (Edinburgh: Colin Macfarquhar, 1771). 3 vols, 1768-1771, ed. William Smellie; 10 vols, 1777–1784, ed. James Tytler; 18 vols,
1788–1797, ed. Colin Macfarquhar and George Gleig; supplement to 3rd, 2 vols, 1801; 20
vols, 1801–1809, ed. James Millar; 20 vols, 1817, ed. James Millar; supplement to 5th, 6
vols, 1816–1824, ed. Macvey Napier; 20 vols, 1820–1823, ed. Charles Maclaren; 21 vols,
1830–1842, ed. Macvey Napier and James Browne.