Barnette Miller

STUDIES IN ENGLISH

Joseph Glanvill A Study in English Thought and Letters of the Seventeenth Century
By Ferris Greenslet, Ph.D.,
Cloth, 12mo		pp. xi + 235		$1.50 net
The Elizabethan Lyric
By John Erskine, Ph.D.,
Cloth, 12mo		pp. xvi + 344		$1.50 net
Classical Echoes in Tennyson
By Wilfred P. Mustard, Ph.D.,
Cloth, 12mo		pp. xvi + 164		$1.25 net
Byron and Byronism in America
By William Ellery Leonard, Ph.D.,
Paper, 8vo		pp. vi + 126		$1.00 net
Sir Walter Scott as a Critic of Literature
By Margaret Ball, Ph.D.,
Paper, 8vo		pp. x + 188		$1.00 net
The Early American Novel
By Lillie Deming Loshe, Ph.D.,
Paper, 8vo		pp. vii + 131		$1.00 net
Studies in New England Transcendentalism
By Harold C. Goddard, Ph.D.,
Paper, 8vo		pp. x + 217		$1.00 net
A Study of Shelley’s Drama “The Cenci”
By Ernest Sutherland Bates, Ph.D.,
Paper, 8vo		pp. ix + 103		$1.00 net
Verse Satire in England before the Renaissance
By Samuel Marion Tucker, Ph.D.,
Paper, 8vo		pp. xi + 245		$1.00 net
The Accusative with Infinitive and Some Kindred Constructions in English
By Jacob Zeitlin, Ph.D.,
Paper, 8vo		pp. viii + 177		$1.00 net
Government Regulation of the Elizabethan Drama
By Virginia Crocheron Gildersleeve, Ph.D.,
Cloth, 8vo		pp. vii + 259		$1.25 net
The Stage History of Shakespeare’s King Richard the Third
By Alice I. Perry Wood, Ph.D.,
Cloth, 8vo		pp. xi + 186		$1.25 net
The Shaksperian Stage
By Victor E. Albright, Ph.D.,
Cloth, 8vo		pp. xii + 194		$1.50 net
Thomas Carlyle as a Critic of Literature
By Frederick W. Roe, Ph.D.,
Cloth, 8vo		pp. xi + 152		$1.25 net

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, Agents
64-66 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 of Bleak House, Dickens wrote Hunt in a letter which accompanied the presentation copies of Oliver Twist and the New American edition of the Pickwick 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 with The 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 the Morning Chronicle, Morning Post, Morning Herald, Morning Advertiser, and the Times. In 1813 there were sixteen Sunday weeklies. Among the weeklies published on other days, the Observer and the News were 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 depravity The Examiner contained the following: “The presiding genius of army government has become a perfect Falstaff, a carcass of corruption, full of sottishness and selfishness, preying upon the hard labour of honest men, and never to be moved but by its lust for money; and the time has come when either the vices of one man must be sacrificed to the military honour of the country, or the military honour of the country must be sacrificed to the vices of one man.” (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 Examiner sturdily supported Maj. Hogan as one who refused to owe promotion “to low intrigue or petticoat influence.” It likened Mrs. Clarke to Mme. Du Barry and called the Duke her tool.[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 contention between Canon Ainger and Mr. Gosse in respect to Charles Lamb’s supposed part in this libel is set forth in The Athenaeum of March 23, 1889. Mr. Gosse’s evidence came through Robert Browning from John Forster, who first told Browning as early as 1837 that Lamb was concerned in it.[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, see Temple 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] The Edinburgh Review of May, 1823, in an article entitled The Periodical Press ranked Hunt next to Cobbett in talent and The Examiner as the ablest and most respectable of weekly publications, when allowance had been made for the occasional twaddle and flippancy, the mawkishness about firesides and Bonaparte, and the sickly sonnet-writing.[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 that natural questions are questions not of merely political tendencies, but of feeling, eternal trust, and Godlike poetry. It would show that poets understand their active mission down here, and that they are also prophets and apostles of things to come. I was told only to-day that you had been asked to be a member of the League’s Council, and feel a want to express the joy I too would feel at your assent.” (Cornhill Magazine, LXV, p. 480 ff.)[41] The Reflector, I, p. 5.[42] Hunt accepted the Monthly Repository in 1837 as a gift from W. J. Fox in order to free it from Unitarian influence. Carlyle, Landor, Browning and Miss Martineau were contributors.[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, Christianism and Religion 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 in The 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 an Ode for the Spring of 1814. Byron said of the latter that the “expressions were buckram except here and there.” The masque, he thought, contained “not only poetry and thought in the body, but much research and good old reading in your prefatory matter.” Byron, 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 seek
For meadows where the little rivers run;
Who loves to linger with the brightest one
Of Heaven (Hesperus) let him lowly speak
These numbers to the night, and starlight meek,
Or moon, if that her hunting be begun.
He who knows these delights, and too is prone
To moralize upon a smile or tear,
Will find at once religion of his own,
A bower for his spirit, and will steer
To 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 the Story 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 the Fortnightly Review (vol. 36, p. 227), points out that Leigh Hunt in the preface to the Story 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 the Feast of the Poets.[70] In 1855, in Stories 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 town
With 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 from Homer “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 in The Examiner of June 1, 1817; in the preface to Foliage, 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 of Lamia, there are 98 run-on couplets, 144 run-on lines, 39 Alexandrines and 11 triplets. The cÆsura is handled with greater freedom than in the Story 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 sonnet O Solitude, if I must with thee dwell, published (without comment) in The Examiner of 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] The Century 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 in Rimini is equal to anything in any language of that sweet sort. Perhaps in his wishing to avoid the monotony of the Pope school, he may have shot into the other extreme; and his invention of obscene [sic] words to express obscene feelings borders sometimes on affectation. But these are trifles compared with the beauty of the poem, the intense painting of the scenery, and the deep burning in of the passion which trembles in every line. Thus far as a critic, an editor and a poet. As a man I know none with such an affectionate heart, if never opposed in his opinions. He has defects of course: one of his great defects is getting inferior people about him to listen, too fond of shining at any expense in society, and love of approbation from the darling sex bordering on weakness; though to women he is delightfully pleasant, yet they seem more to handle him as a delicate plant. I don’t know if they do not put a confidence in him which to me would be mortifying. He is a man of sensibility tinged with morbidity and of such sensitive organization of body that the plant is not more alive to touch than he.... He is a composition, as we all are, of defects and delightful qualities, indolently averse to worldly exertion, because it harasses the musings of his fancy, existing only by the common duties of life, yet ignorant of them, and often suffering from their neglect.” (Haydon, 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.)[137] Works, II, p. 187.[138] Ibid., V, p. 116.[139] Ibid., V, p. 180.[140] Ibid., V, p. 175.[141] Ibid., V, p. 174.[142] That he needed better attention than he could receive in lodgings is seen from an account of Keats’s condition given in Maria Gisborne’s Journal (Ibid., V, p. 182), which says that when she drank tea there in July, Keats was under sentence of death from Dr. Lamb: “he never spoke and looks emaciated.”[143] Works, V, p. 183-184. The quotation follows Keats’s punctuation.[144] Ibid., V, p. 185.[145] Cornhill Magazine, 1892.[146] Works, V, p. 194.[147] Ibid., V, p. 193.[148] Correspondence, I, p. 107.[149] P. 248.[150] The Examiner, June 1st, July 6th, and 13th, 1817.[151] Lines 181-206.[152] Works, IV, p. 64.[153] Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries, p. 257.[154] May 10, 1820.[155] Cf. with Poe’s sonnet, Science, true daughter of Old Time thou art.[156] Haydon, Life, Letters and Table Talk, p. 201.[157] In connection with Hyperion, it is interesting to note that the manuscript in Keats’s handwriting recently discovered, survived through the agency of Leigh Hunt. From him it passed into the ownership of his son Thornton, and later to the sister of Dr. George Bird. It has been purchased from her by the British Museum. (AthenÆum, March 11, 1905.)[158] This is, of course, a mistake.[159] For other criticism of the 1820 poems by Hunt, see Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries, pp. 258-268.[160] I stood tiptoe, l. 16.[161] Ibid., l. 20.[162] Ibid., l. 81.[163] To some Ladies, l. 15.[164] Ibid., l. 117.[165] I stood tiptoe, l. 215.[166] Ibid., l. 61.[167] Calidore, l. 132. Also pointed out by Mr. Colvin, Keats, p. 53.[168] To my brother George, l. 7.[169] I stood tiptoe, l. 144.[170] Hunt quotes this with approbation, as showing a “human touch.” (Specimen of an Induction to a Poem, ll. 13-14.)[171] Specimen of an Induction to a Poem, l. 48.[172] Calidore, l. 66.[173] Ibid., l. 80 ff.[174] To ..., l. 23 ff.[175] Mr. De Selincourt in Notes and Queries, Feb. 4, 1905, dates the Imitation of Spenser “1813.” He does not produce documentary evidence, however. The discovery of the hitherto unpublished poem, Fill for me a brimming bowl, in imitation of Milton’s early poems, dated in the Woodhouse transcript Aug. 1814, is of considerable interest in determining the date of Keats’s earliest composition of verse. A sonnet On Peace found in the same MS. is a second discovery of an unpublished poem of the same period.[176] Works, I, p. 26.[177] Ibid., I. p. 16. Mr. W. T. Arnold, Poetical Works of John Keats, London, 1884, has remarked upon the similar use of so by Hunt and Keats. He compares the “so elegantly” of this passage with the line from Rimini “leaves so finely suit.”[178] To Charles Cowden Clarke, l. 88.[179] Calidore, ll. 34-35.[180] Story of Rimini, p. 35.[181] Colvin, Keats, p. 31.[182] References to Hunt in the sonnets and other poems of 1817 are the following:

1. “He of the rose, the violet, the spring
The social smile, the chain for Freedom’s sake:”

(Addressed to the Same [Haydon].) This sonnet did not appear in 1817, although it belongs to this period.

2. “... thy tender care
Thus startled unaware
Be jealous that the foot of other wight
Should madly follow that bright path of light
Trac’d by thy lov’d Libertas; he will speak,
And tell thee that my prayer is very meek
······
Him thou wilt hear.”

(Specimen of an Introduction, l. 57 ff.) Mrs. Clarke is the authority that “Libertas” was Hunt.

3. “With him who elegantly chats, and talks—
The wrong’d Libertas.”
(Epistle to Charles Cowden Clarke, l. 43-44.)

4. “I turn full-hearted to the friendly aids
That smooth the path of honour; brotherhood,
And friendliness the nurse of mutual good.
The hearty grasp that sends a pleasant sonnet
Into the brain ere one can think upon it;
The silence when some rhymes are coming out;
And when they’re come, the very pleasant rout:
The message certain to be done tomorrow.
’Tis perhaps as well that it should be to borrow
Some precious book from out its snug retreat,
To cluster round it when we next shall meet.”
(Sleep and Poetry.)

Lines 353-404 of the same, nearly one fifth of the entire poem, are a description of Hunt’s library. Mr. De Selincourt calls it “a glowing tribute to the sympathetic friendship which Keats had enjoyed at the Hampstead Cottage and an attempt to express in the style of the Story of Rimini something of the spirit which had informed the Lines Written Above Tintern Abbey.” (Poems of John Keats. Introduction p. 34.)

(a) Of this room Hunt wrote: “Keats’s Sleep and Poetry is a description of a parlour that was mine, no bigger than an old mansion’s closet.” Correspondence I, p. 289. See also Lord Byron and Some of his Contemporaries, p. 249.

(b) Further description of the same room is to be found in Shelley’s Letter to Maria Gisborne, ll. 212-217.

(c) Clarke refers to it in the Gentleman’s Magazine, February, 1874, and in Recollections of Writers, p. 134. In the letter he says that a bed was made up in the library for Keats and that he was installed as a member of the household. Here he composed the framework of the poem. Lines 325-404 are “an inventory of the art garniture of the room.”

(d) The most intresting record in regard to the room is that given by Mrs. J. T. Fields in a Shelf of old Books, who says that her husband saw the library treasures which had inspired Keats—Greek casts of Sappho, casts of Kosciusko and Alfred, with engravings, sketches and well-worn books. Among the books collected by Mr. Fields was a copy of Shelley, Coleridge and Keats bound together, with an autograph of all three men, formerly owned by Hunt. The fly leaf “at the back contained the sonnet written by Keats on the Story of Rimini.”[183] The two sonnets were published in The Examiner of September 21, 1817; Keats’s had been included previously in the Poems of 1817; Hunt’s appeared later in Foliage, 1818.[184] This did not appear in 1817, but belongs to this period. See Works, II, p. 257. For a comparison of these two sonnets with Shelley’s on the same Subject, see Rossetti’s Life of Keats, p. 110.[185] Works, II, p. 166.[186] Compare with A Dream, after Reading Dante’s Episode of Paolo and Francesca, 1819. (Works, III, p. 16.)[187] A pocket-book given Keats by Hunt and containing many of the first drafts of the sonnets belonged to Charles Wentworth Dilke. It is still in the possession of the Dilke family.[188] For instances of Keats’s interest in politics, see To Kosciusko, To Hope, ll. 33-36, and scattered references to Wallace, William Tell and similar characters. Most of these references have already been called attention to by others.[189] Works, IV, pp. 60-61. The poem follows.[190] Colvin, Keats, p. 107.[191] Endymion, Bk. II, ll. 129-130.[192] Ibid., Bk. IV, l. 863 ff.[193] Ibid., Bk. II, l. 756 ff.[194] Ibid., Bk. II, l. 938 ff.[195] Keats, p. 169.[196] Stanza 23, l. 7.[197] Hero and Leander and Bacchus and Ariadne, 1819, p. 45.[198] Mr. W. T. Arnold makes the mistake of thinking that Keats imitated Hunt’s Gentle Armour. Mr. Colvin corrects this statement. (Keats, Poetical Works, p. 59.)[199] (a) W. T. Arnold, Keats, Poetical Works, p. 128. (b) J. Hoops, Keats’s Jungend und Jugendgedichte, Englische Studien, XXI, 239. (c) W. A. Read, Keats and Spenser.[200] Works, V, p. 121.[201] This same expression occurs in Hero and Leander, 1819, in the phrase, “Half set in trees and leafy luxury.” Keats’s dedication sonnet in which it occurs was written in 1817. Therefore Mr. W. T. Arnold makes a mistake when he says (in his edition of Keats, p. 129) it was taken direct from Hunt’s poem, although the two separate words are among his favorites and Keats probably took them from him and combined them.[202] Mr. Arnold says “delicious” is used sixteen times by Keats. (Keats, Poetical Works, p. 129). He quotes a passage from one of Hunt’s prefaces in which the latter comments on Chaucer’s use of the word: “The word deliciously is a venture of animal spirits which in a modern writer some critics would pronounce to be too affected or too familiar; but the enjoyment, and even incidental appropriateness and relish of it, will be obvious to finer senses.” In Rimini this line occurs: “Distils the next note more deliciously.”[203] Palgrave, Poetical Works of John Keats, p. 261, notices Leigh Hunt’s misuse of this word in his review of I stood tiptoe, quoted on p. 107. See his use of the same on p. 76. In Bacchus and Ariadne it occurs in this passage “all luxuries that come from odorous gardens.”[204] This is used in Hyperion, II, l. 45. The expression “plashy pools” occurs in the Story of Rimini.[205] November 11, 1820.[206] Life of Percy Bysshe Shelly, II, p. 36.[207] Imagination and Fancy, p. 231.[208] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, pp. 252-3.[209] Palgrave, Poetical Works of John Keats, p. 274.[210] Poetical Works, 1832, p. 36.[211] The poem is reported to have brought £100, more than any poem sold during his lifetime. It is now lost.[212] Mac-Carthay, who has fully treated this incident, thinks that the account Hunt gave of the matter many years later is so incoherent as to indicate that he did not receive the letter until after he met Shelley, or perhaps not at all. He also points out that two passages in the letter to Hunt of March 2, 1811, important in their bearing upon Shelley’s political theories at this time, are identical with passages in a letter of February 22 of the same year, addressed to the editor of The Statesman, presumably Finnerty. (Shelley’s Early Life, pp. 1-106.)[213] Hancock, The French Revolution and English Poets, pp. 50-77.[214] Letter to Miss Hitchener, June 25, 1811.[215] G. B. Smith, Shelley, A Critical Biography, p. 88.[216] See the Letter to Lord Ellenborough.[217] Smith, Shelley, A Critical Biography, p. 110.[218] For Shelley’s opinion on the coincidence of their political views, see the last paragraph of the dedication of The Cenci.[219] Hunt, Autobiography, II, p. 103.[220] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 176.[221] Autobiography, II, p. 36.[222] Pp. 122, 123.[223] December 27, 1812.[224] II, p. 13.[225] Autobiography, II, p. 27.[226] Atlantic Monthly, February, 1863.[227] December 8, 1816, Shelley wrote to Hunt: “I have not in all my intercourse with mankind experienced sympathy and kindness with which I have been so affected, or which my whole being has so sprung forward to meet and to return.... With you, and perhaps some others (though in a less degree, I fear) my gentleness and sincerity find favour, because they are themselves gentle and sincere: they believe in self-devotion and generosity because they are themselves generous and self-devoted.” (Nicoll and Wise, Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth Century, p. 328.)[228] December 15, 1816, Shelley wrote Mary Godwin: Hunt’s “delicate and tender attentions to me, his kind speeches of you, have sustained me against the weight of the horror of this event.” (Dowden, Life of Shelley, II, p. 68.)[229] (a) The Examiner, January 26, 1817. (b) Ibid., February 12, 1817. (c) Ibid., August 31, 1817. (d) Hunt, Correspondence, I, p. 114; August 27, 1817.[230] Shelley said of Horace Smith: “but is it not odd that the only truly generous person I ever knew, who had money to be generous with, should be a stockbroker.” (Hunt, Autobiography, I, p. 211.) See also Letter to Maria Gisborne, ll. 247-253; Forman, Works of Shelley, III, p. 225 ff.[231] Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 3; March 22, 1818.[232] Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 141; November 13, 1819.[233] Professor Masson says that one of Shelley’s first acts was to offer Hunt £100. It is probable he refers to the occasion already discussed. (Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats and Other Essays, p. 112.)[234] Dowden, Life of Shelley, II, p. 61.[235] Nicoll and Wise, Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth Century, p. 331; December 8, 1816.[236] Ibid., p. 336; August 16, 1817.[237] Rogers, Table Talk, p. 236.[238] Hunt, Correspondence, I, p. 146; September 12, 1819.[239] Hunt, Autobiography, II, p. 36; Correspondence, I, p. 126.[240] Medwin, Life of Shelley, II, p. 137.[241] Mitford, Life, I, p. 280. Jeaffreson, The Real Shelley, II, p. 357.[242] Nicoll and Wise, Literary Anecdotes, p. 348; April 5, 1820. He assumed the debt for Hunt’s piano as naturally as he did for his own. Prof. Dowden says that John Hunt expected Shelley to become responsible for all of his brother’s debts. (Life of Shelley, II, p. 458.)[243] Hunt, Correspondence, I, p. 158; November 11, 1820.[244] Nicoll and Wise, Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth Century, p. 342.[245] See Chapter IV, p. 89.[246] Dowden, Life of Shelley, II, p. 456; also Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 252.[247] (a) Nicoll and Wise, Literary Anecdotes, pp. 352, 356. (b) Byron, Letters and Journals, VI, p. 11.[248] Dowden, Life of Shelley, II, p. 489.[249] Hunt, Autobiography, II, pp. 36-37. In August, 1819, Hunt importunes Shelley to give no thought to his affairs (Correspondence, I, p. 136). Hunt wrote Mary Shelley on September 7, 1821: “Pray thank Shelley or rather do not, for that kind part of his offer relating to the expenses. I find I have omitted it; but the instinct that led me to do so is more honorable to him than thanks.” (Correspondence, I, p. 171.)[250] Jeaffreson, The Real Shelley, II, p. 355.[251] W. M. Rossetti, Complete Poetical Works of Percy Bysshe Shelley, I, p. 75.[252] Letters and Journals, VI, p. 96.[253] Kent, Leigh Hunt as Poet and Essayist, p. 28.[254] Autobiography, II, p. 60.[255] Atlantic Monthly, February, 1863.[256] Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 283. June 19, 1822.[257] Built by Michaelangelo and situated on the Arno.[258] The Liberal, I, p. 103.[259] Brandes attributes the inscription to Mary Shelley. (Main Currents in Nineteenth Century Literature, IV, p. 208.)[260] Correspondence, I, p. 269.[261] After Shelley’s death, Mary Shelley decided to remain in Italy in order to assist with The Liberal. She considered Hunt “expatriated at the request and desire of others,” and, in helping him, she thought to fulfil any obligation that Shelley might have assumed in the scheme. For her services she received thirty-three pounds. She lived for some time in the same house with the Hunts after they separated from Lord Byron, but the arrangement was an unhappy one. Disagreements, beginning with a misunderstanding concerning the possession of Shelley’s heart, dragged through the winter. Fortunately everything was adjusted before they separated. July, 1823, she wrote of Hunt: “he is all kindness, consideration and friendship—all feeling of alienation towards me has disappeared to its last dregs.” (Marshall, The Life and Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin, London, 1889, II, p. 81.) And again: “But thank heaven we are now the best friends in the world.... It is a delightful thing, my dear Jane, to be able to express one’s affection upon an old and tried friend like Hunt, and one so passionately attached to my Shelley as he was, and is.... He was displeased with me for many just reasons, but he found me willing to expiate, as far as I could, the evil I had done; his heart again warmed, and if when I return you find me more amiable, and more willing to suffer with patience than I was, it is to him that I owe this benefit.” (Ibid., II, p. 85.)[262] Jeaffreson assigns the cause of Hunt’s neglect to his ignorance of the fact that he could suck money out of Shelley. The Real Shelley, II, p. 352.[263] Mac-Carthay in Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth Century, p. 302.[264] Shelley was deeply wounded by the attack. He wrote Hunt: “As to what relates to yourself and me, it makes me melancholy to consider the dreadful wickedness of the heart which would have prompted such expressions as those with which the anonymous writer gloats over my domestic calamities and the perversion of understanding with which he paints your character.” (Nicoll and Wise, Literary Anecdotes, p. 340; December 22, 1818.)[265] Shelley at first attributed the article in the Quarterly to Southey on the grounds of his enmity to The Examiner which, Shelley declared, had been the “crown of thorns worn by this unredeemed Redeemer for many years.” Southey denied the authorship. (Nicoll and Wise, Literary Anecdotes, p. 341; December 22, 1818.)[266] The Examiner, September 26, October 3 and 10, 1819. See also Correspondence, I, pp. 125-126.[267] Correspondence, I, p. 169.[268] Ibid., I, p. 166.[269] See Hunt, Correspondence, I, p. 130.[270] For Shelley’s desire for Hunt’s good opinion, see Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 167. Hunt’s collection of poems, published during 1818, under the title of Foliage was dedicated to Shelley: “Had I known a person more highly endowed than yourself with all the qualities that it becomes a man to possess, I had selected for this work the ornament of his name. One more gentle, honorable, innocent and brave; one of more exalted toleration of all who do and think evil; one who knows better how to receive, and how to confer a benefit though he must ever confer far more than he can receive; one of simpler, and in the highest sense of the word, of purer life and manners I never knew: and I had already been fortunate in friendships when your name was added to the list.”[271] Correspondence, I, p. 153.[272] Ibid., I, p. 154.[273] Ibid., I, p. 179; March 26, 1822.[274] In an article on the Suburbs of Genoa and the Country about London, pp. 118-119.[275] Dated August 4, 1823.[276] The second part of the sketch was in answer to the Quarterly Review’s attack on the Posthumous Poems, which Mrs. Shelley, aided by Hunt, had published in 1824. This account was reworked in 1850 for the Autobiography and was taken in part for the preface to an edition of Shelley’s works in 1871. Hunt wrote another biographical sketch of Shelley for S. C. Hall’s Book of Gems (p. 40). He gave a fine description of his physical appearance not often quoted.[277] It was considered by the Athaneum to be the best part of the book, and to be the “powerful portrait of a benevolent man.” (VI, p. 70.)[278] Letter to Ollier, February, 1858.[279] Atlantic Monthly, February, 1863.[280] Forman, Shelley Library, p. 113, says that the motto from Laon and Cythna was added by Hunt.[281] Pt. 2, p. 37.[282] P. 217.[283] A Shelf of Old Books, p. 291.[284] Hunt’s Book of the Sonnet, which appeared posthumously, contained a criticism of Shelley’s sonnet on Ozymandyas (I, p. 87).[285] August 13 and 20, 1859.[286] The Examiner, December 28, 1817.[287] Ibid., July 15, 1821.[288] Literary Pocket Book, London, 1819. Shelley’s signature was [Greek: D] and [Greek: S]. See Hunt, Correspondence, I, 125.[289] Literary Pocket Book, 1821. (Works of Shelley, III, p. 150.)[290] Literary Pocket Book, 1821. (Works of Shelley, III, p. 380.)[291] Literary Pocket Book, 1822. (Works of Shelley, IV, p. 32.)[292] Ibid., 1822. (Works of Shelley, IV, p. 49.)[293] Ibid., 1823. (Works of Shelley, IV, p. 63.)[294] Ibid., 1823. (Works of Shelley, IV, p. 41.)[295] Ibid., 1823. Mr. Forman thinks that the poem refers to Harriet Shelley’s death and that the date is a disguise. (Works of Shelley, III, p. 146.)[296] The Indicator, December 22, 1819.[297] Chapter IV.[298] Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 291; November 3, 1819.[299] Works of Shelley, IV, p. 359.[300] Six months later, December 6, 1812, Hunt addressed a letter to Lord Ellenborough on the same subject in regard to his own sentence.[301] June 11, 18, 25, July 2, 9, August 27, September 3, 10, October 1, 8, 15, 22, December 3, 10, 17; in 1821, February 4, August 12, 19, and September 9. The last three articles were written after the Queen’s death.[302] Keats’s The Cap and Bells deals with the same.[303] Shelley gave directions that the poem should be printed like Hunt’s Hero and Leander. Works of Shelley, III, p. 101.[304] Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 116; August 15, 1819. The letter instructs Hunt to throw the poem into the fire or not as he sees fit and requests him, in preference to Peacock, to correct the proofs. “Can you take it as a compliment that I prefer to trouble you?”[305] Forman wrongly attributes the review of Reynolds’ Peter Bell in The Examiner of April 25, 1819, to Hunt and says that this “flippant notice” by Hunt inspired Shelley’s poem. Ibid., II, p. 288. Reynolds asked Keats to request Hunt to review his poem. Keats did it himself. (Keats, Works, III, pp. 246-249.)[306] Works of Shelley, III, p. 235.[307] Hunt, Correspondence, I, p. 116, 141; April 24, 1818, and September 6, 1819. Cf. with Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 121; September 3, 1819. (Editor says dated wrongly.)[308] Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 127; September 27, 1819.[309] Correspondence, I, p. 123; August 4, 1818.[310]

“You will see Hunt—one of those happy souls
Which are the salt of the earth, and without whom
This world would smell like what it is—a tomb;
Who is what others seem; his room no doubt
Is still adorned by many a cast from Shout,
With graceful flowers tastefully placed about,
And coronals of bay from ribbons hung,
And brighter wreaths in neat disorder flung,—
The gifts of the most learned among some dozens
Of female friends, sisters-in-law and cousins.
And there he is with his eternal puns,
Which beat the dullest brain for smiles, like duns
Thundering for money at a poet’s door;
Alas! it is no use to say ‘I’m poor!’”[311] Mr. Forman thinks that it may be part of the original draft of Rosalind and Helen; if so, it is still a very close approximation of Shelley’s opinion of Hunt (Works of Shelley, III, p. 403). William Rossetti and Felix Rabbe think that it was addressed to Hunt.[312] Wise’s edition of Adonais, p. 2. London, 1887.[313] To his wife. Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 288; July 4, 1822.[314] Nicoll and Wise, Literary Anecdotes, p. 350; April 5, 1820.[315] Hunt, Correspondence, I, p. 136. Professor George Edward Woodberry says that Shelley had the “kindest feeling of gratitude and respect ... but nothing more” towards Hunt. (Studies in Letters and Life, p. 153.)[316] Ibid., I, p. 158. November 11, 1820. Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 150; November 23, 1819.[317] Sir Walter Scott has given a good estimate of them: “Our sentiments agreed a good deal, except on the subject of religion and politics, upon neither of which I was inclined to believe that Lord Byron entertained very fixed principles.... On Politics he used sometimes to express a high strain of what is now called Liberalism; but it appeared to me that the pleasure that it afforded him as a vehicle of displaying his wit and satire against individuals in office was at the bottom of his habit of thinking. At heart I would have termed Byron a patrician on principle.” (Moore, Letters and Journals of Lord Byron, I, p. 616.)[318] Hancock, The French Revolution and English Poets, p. 84.[319] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 128.[320] Ibid., p. 1; Autobiography, II, p. 85.[321] The Real Lord Byron, I, p. 277.[322] Letters and Journals, III, pp. 29-31. The article was not published.[323] Nichol, Life of Bryon, p. 84, incorrectly gives 1812 as the date.[324] Correspondence, I, p. 88, May 25, 1813.[325] Autobiography, II, p. 85.[326] The Champion, April 7, 14, 21, 1816.[327] Letters and Journals of Lord Byron, p. 402.[328] Byron, Letters and Journals, II, p. 157, December 1, 1813.[329] Ibid., II, pp. 296-297.[330] Page 36.[331] The Examiner, April 21, 1816.[332] Letters and Journals, VI, pp. 2-3.[333] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 6.[334] Letters and Journals, III, p. 265.[335] In 1820 Byron translated the Rimini episode of the Divine Comedy.[336] Trelawney, Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron, p. 109.[337] Letters and Journals, V, pp. 590-591.[338] Letters and Journals, V, p. 217. This passage is omitted from the letter in which it occurs in Moore’s Letters and Journals of Lord Byron, II, p. 437.[339] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 8.[340] Hunt wrongly gives Byron’s date of birth as 1791. The article is accompanied with a woodcut.[341] See Blackwood’s, X, pp. 286, 730.[342] Letters and Journals, V, pp. 143-144.[343] Medwin, Journal of the Conversations of Lord Byron, p. 186.[344] Jeaffreson, The Real Lord Byron, II, p. 186, says that Byron through Shelley’s mediation could secure Hunt as editor.[345] Ibid., Letters and Journals of Lord Byron, II, p. 626.[346] Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron, p. 157.[347] See p. 103.[348] The Real Lord Byron, II, p. 186.[349] Dictionary of National Biography.[350] Leigh Hunt as Poet and Essayist, p. 30.[351] Life of Byron, pp. 266-267.[352] Leigh Hunt, p. 37, note.[353] Life of Leigh Hunt, p. 154.[354] The Sonnet in England, pp. 118-119.[355] Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 255.[356] Correspondence, I, p. 161.[357] Autobiography, II, p. 59.[358] Autobiography, II, p. 59.[359] After Shelley’s meeting with Byron in Switzerland in 1816, before they met again in Venice, there had been a lapse of two years bridged only by a not always pleasant correspondence relating to Allegra, Byron’s natural daughter. Shelley occupied the unenviable position of mediator between him and Jane Clairmont, the child’s mother. Yet when the two men met again in August, 1818, it was at first on the terms recorded in Julian and Maddalo. Byron’s influence served as a stimulus to this and to other poems of the same period. By December of that year Shelley’s opinion of Byron had changed; on the 22d, he wrote to Peacock of Childe Harold in terms that show how quickly his views could alter: “The spirit in which it is written, is, if insane, the most wicked and mischievous insanity that was ever given forth. It is a kind of obstinate and self-willed folly, in which he hardens himself. I remonstrated with him in vain on the tone of mind from which such a view of things alone arises.... He (Byron) associates with wretches who seem to have lost the gait and physiognomy of man, and who do not scruple to avow practices, which are not only not named, but I believe seldom even conceived in England. He says he disapproves, but he endures. He is heartily and deeply discontented with himself; and contemplating in the distorted mirror of his own thoughts the nature and destiny of man, what can he behold but objects of contempt and despair? But that he is a great poet, I think the address to Ocean proves. And he has a certain degree of candour while you talk to him, but unfortunately it does not outlast your departure. No, I do not doubt, and for his own sake, I ought to hope, that his present career must soon end in some violent circumstance.” (Works of Shelley, VIII, pp. 80-81.)

From the close of 1818 until 1821, they were again separated. Their correspondence, as previously, related chiefly to Allegra and was of a still less agreeable nature. Byron had refused to deal directly with Jane Clairmont and all communications had to pass through Shelley’s hands. In the interval, as though in retaliation, Byron had believed the Shiloh story, a fabrication by a nurse of the Shelleys that Jane Clairmont was Shelley’s mistress, but he does not seem to have condemned such a state of affairs. (Letters and Journals, V, p. 86, October, 1820.) Yet he testified in his letters his great admiration of Shelley’s poetry (Ibid., VI, p. 387), and after his death he called him “The best and least selfish man I ever knew.” (Ibid., VI, p. 98; August 3, 1822.) But before 1821, a reversal of the opinion formed in Shelley’s mind at the time of Byron’s Venetian excesses, came about. November 11, 1820, he wrote to Mrs. Hunt: “His indecencies, too, both against sexual nature, and against human nature in general, sit very awkwardly upon him. He only affects the libertine; he is, really, a very amiable, friendly and agreeable man, I hear.” (Hunt, Correspondence, I, p. 139.) This corroborates Thornton Hunt’s statement that Byron had risen in Shelley’s estimation before 1821 and that otherwise The Liberal would never have been started. (Atlantic Monthly, February, 1863.)

At Byron’s invitation they met again in Ravenna. Shelley’s letters dated from there show unstinted admiration of Byron’s genius and of the man himself. He wrote in August, 1821, that he was living a “life totally the reverse of that which he led at Venice.... (Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 211, August 7, 1821.) L. B. is greatly improved in every respect. In genius, in temper, in moral views, in health, in happiness.... He has had mischievous passions, but these he seems to have subdued, and he is becoming what he should be, a virtuous man.... (Ibid., VIII, p. 217, August 10, 1821.) Lord Byron and I are excellent friends, and were I reduced to poverty, or were I a writer who had no claims to a higher station than I possess—or did I possess a higher than I deserve, we should appear in all things as such, and I would freely ask him any favour. Such is not now the case. The daemon of mistrust and pride lurks between two persons in our station, poisoning the freedom of our intercourse. This is a tax and a heavy one, which we must pay for being human.” Of Don Juan he wrote: “It sets him not only above, but far above, all the poets of the day—every word is stamped with immortality. I despair of rivalling Lord Byron, as well I may, and there is no other with whom it is worth contending. (Ibid., VIII, p. 219, August 10, 1821.) During the visit Shelley served as ambassador to the Countess Guiccioli in persuading her not to go to Switzerland, and in the same capacity to Byron in the arrangement of Allegra’s affairs. It was then settled that Byron should reside for the winter at Pisa. Shelley had misgivings about such an arrangement on his own and on Miss Clairmont’s account, for he had previously intended to settle in the same vicinity. He finally decided not to let it make any difference in his plans. In January, 1822, Shelley wrote from Pisa to Peacock: “Lord Byron is established here, and we are his constant companions. No small relief this, after the dreary solitude of the understanding and the imagination in which we passed the first years of our expatriation, yoked to all sorts of miseries and discomforts.... if you before thought him a great poet, what is your opinion now that you have read Cain?” (Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 249; January 11, 1822.) During the same month he wrote to John Gisborne: “What think you of Lord Byron now? Space wondered less at the swift and fair creations of God, when he grew weary of vacancy, than I at this spirit of an angel in the mortal paradise of a decaying body.” (Ibid., VIII, p. 251, January, 1822.)

A letter to Leigh Hunt gives the first intimation of the return of the ill-feeling toward Byron: “Past circumstances between Lord B. and me render it impossible that I should accept any supply from him for my own use, or that I should ask for yours if the contribution could be supposed in any manner to relieve me, or to do what I could otherwise have done.” (Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 253, January 25, 1822.) This referred to more entanglements with Byron about Allegra. Shelley wrote to Jane Clairmont: “It is of vital importance, both to me and yourself, to Allegra even, that I should put a period to my intimacy with Lord Byron, and that without Éclat. No sentiments of honour and of justice restrain him (as I strongly suspect) from the basest suspicion, and the only mode in which I could effectually silence him I am reluctant (even if I had proof) to employ during my father’s life. But for your immediate feelings, I would suddenly and irrevocably leave the country which he inhabits, nor even enter it but as an enemy to determine our differences without words.” (The Nation, XLVIII, p. 116.)[360] Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 258.[361] Ibid., VIII, p. 235, August 26, 1821.[362] Correspondence, I, p. 172, September 21, 1821.[363] Ibid., I, p. 174, November 16, 1821.[364] Byron, Letters and Journals, IV, p. 129, June 4, 1817.[365] Ibid., VI, pp. 117, 122, 127, 129, 134, 138, 158.[366] Ibid., VI, p. 156.[367] In 1814 Moore showed considerable pride in being included as one of the four poets to sup with Apollo in the Feast of the Poets and said that he was “particularly flattered by praise from Hunt, because he is one of the most honest and candid men” that he knew. (Memoirs, Journal and Correspondence, II, p. 159.) In 1819 Hunt had urged upon Perry, the editor of the Morning Chronicle, the necessity of a public subscription for Moore. (Ibid., II, p. 340). An unfavorable review of Moore’s political principles in The Examiner during the same year may have done something to bring about the change in Moore’s feelings, though he was eulogized in a later issue of January 21, 1821.[368] B. W. Procter, An Autobiographical Fragment, p. 153.[369] Letters and Journals of Lord Byron, II, p. 583.[370] Ibid., II, p. 582.[371] Ibid., II, p. 584.[372] Jeaffreson, The Real Lord Byron, II, p. 188.[373] Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron, p. 111.[374] Nicoll, Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth Century, p. 353, March, 1822.[375] Ibid., p. 356.[376] Fortnightly, XXIX, p. 850.[377] Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron, p. 112.[378] Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 288-289.[379] Life of Shelley, II, p. 459.[380] Autobiography, II, p. 94.[381] Correspondence, I, p. 86.

[382] Monkhouse, Life of Leigh Hunt, p. 156.[383] Hunt refuted the statement that Byron had walled off part of his dwelling and furnished it handsomely. (Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 14 ff.)[384] Works of Shelley, VIII, pp. 242, 253.[385] Nicoll and Wise, Literary Anecdotes of the Nineteenth Century, p. 342, December 22, 1818.[386] Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 286.[387] Correspondence, I, p. 190.[388] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 18.[389] Ibid., p. 18.[390] “I could always procure what I wanted from Lord Byron, and living here is divinely cheap.” (Correspondence, I, p. 198, November 7, 1822.)[391] Life of Byron, p. 242.[392] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 6.[393] Works of Shelley, VIII, p. 257.[394] She used no tact in her dealings with Lord Byron. She let him see that she had no respect for rank or titles. She even went beyond the limits of courtesy in her remarks to him. On Byron’s saying, “What do you think, Mrs. Hunt? Trelawny had been speaking of my morals! What do you think of that?” “It is the first time,” said Mrs. Hunt, “I ever heard of them.” (Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 27). Of his portrait by Harlowe she said “that it resembled a great schoolboy, who had had a plain bun given him, instead of a plum one,” a facetious speech indiscreetly repeated by Hunt to Byron.[395] Letters and Journals, VI, p. 124.[396] Ibid., VI, pp. 119-120. Hunt’s view was quite different. Byron was, he thought, intimidated “out of his reasoning” by his children and their principles. (Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 28.)[397] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 32.[398] Ibid., p. 30.[399] Letters and Journals, VI, pp. 157, 167.[400] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 64.[401] Medwin, Conversations of Lord Byron, p. 58.[402] Monkhouse, Life of Leigh Hunt, pp. 64-65.[403] II, pp. 145-146.[404] Autobiography, II, p. 24.[405] Correspondence, I, p. 188, July 8, 1822. Letter to his sister-in-law.[406] Letters and Journals, VI, p. 97, July 12, 1822.[407] Recollections of the Last Days of Shelley and Byron, I, p. 174.[408] Correspondence, I, p. 192. October (?), 1822.[409] Letters and Journals, VI, p. 160. January 8, 1823.[410] Ibid., VI, pp. 171-173.[411] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, pp. 50, 63.[412] Ibid., p. 48.[413] “Blackwood’s Magazine overflowed, as might be expected, with ten-fold gall and bitterness; the John Bull was outrageous; and Mr. Jerdan black in the face at this unheard-of and disgraceful union. But who would have supposed that Mr. Thomas Moore and Mr. Hobhouse, those staunch friends and partisans of the people, should also be thrown into almost hysterical agonies of well-bred horror at the coalition between their noble and ignoble acquaintance, between the Patrician and the ‘Newspaper-Man’? Mr. Moore darted backwards and forwards from Cold-Bath-Fields’ Prison to the Examiner-Office, from Mr. Longman’s to Mr. Murray’s shop, in a state of ridiculous trepidation, to see what was to be done to prevent this degradation of the aristocracy of letters, this indecent encroachment of plebeian pretensions, this undue extension of patronage and compromise of privilege. The Tories were shocked that Lord Byron should grace the popular side by his direct countenance and assistance—the Whigs were shocked that he should share his confidence and councils with any one who did not unite the double recommendations of birth and genius—but themselves!” (Hazlitt, The Plain Speaker, II, p. 437 ff.)[414] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 52.[415] Galt in his Life of Byron says: “Whether Mr. Hunt was or was not a fit co-partner for one of his Lordship’s rank and celebrity, I do not undertake to judge; but every individual was good enough for that vile prostitution of his genius, to which in an unguarded hour, he submitted for money.” (P. 244.)[416] The Literary Gazette of October 19, 1822, was one of the notable opponents.[417] Life of Byron, p. 239.[418] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 52.[419] Ibid., p. 53.[420] Byron, Letters and Journals, VI, p. 183.[421] Ibid., VI, p. 124.[422] Ibid., VI, p. 174, p. 182. (Letters to Mrs. Shelley.)[423] Ibid., VI, p. 124.[424] Ibid., V, p. 157, December 25, 1822.[425] Ibid., VI, pp. 167-168.[426] Ibid., V, p. 588.[427] Lady Blessington, Conversations of Lord Byron, p. 77.[428] Letters and Journals, VI, pp. 182-183, April 2, 1823.[429] Hunt’s only means of support were the income from his contributions to Colburn’s New Monthly Magazine, from the Wishing Cap Papers in The Examiner, and an annuity of £100. (Correspondence, I, p. 227.)[430] Correspondence, I, p. 233-234.[431] Correspondence, I, p. 228. See Hazlitt’s account of Hunt in Italy given in a letter from Haydon to Miss Mitford. (Haydon, Life, Letters and Table Talk, pp. 223-225.)[432] Moore, Memoirs, IV, p. 220; V, p. 182.[433] Letters and Journals, VI, p. 174, 1823.[434] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, preface, p. 3.[435] Clarke, Recollection of Writers, p. 230.[436] But compare Hunt’s own remarks on p. 40.[437] The biographers of the two men have taken various attitudes toward the value of Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries. Galt says that the pains Hunt took to elaborate faults of Byron make one think Hunt was treated according to his deserts, and that the troubles he labored under may have caused him to misapprehend Byron’s jocularity for sarcasm, and caprice for insolence. (Life of Byron, p. 260.) Garnett considers the book a “corrective of merely idealized estimates of Lord Byron,” and its “reception more unfavorable than its deserts.” (EncyclopÆdia Britannica, “Byron,” Ninth Edition.) Nichol thinks that while the book was prompted by uncharitableness and egotism, Byron’s faults were only slightly magnified: that the poetic insight, the cosmopolitan sympathy and courage of Hunt have given a view that nothing else could have done. (Life of Byron, p. 165.) R. B. Johnson thinks that it was a correct estimate written in self-justification. Undoubtedly it should not have come from Hunt, yet if it had not been written Hunt would not have been defended nor Byron so well known. He says there is “no reason to regret any part of the affair but the heated and persistent abuse with which one of the most sensitive and humane of men has been loaded on account of it.” (Leigh Hunt, p. 50.) Noble says that “Byron’s friends met unpleasant truths by still more unpleasant falsehoods.” (The Sonnet in England, p. 115.) Alexander Ireland, says the book was the great blunder of Hunt’s life, “ought not to have been written, far less published.” (Dictionary of National Biography.)[438] Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, p. 89.[439] Ibid., pp. 20-21.[440] Byron, Letters and Journals, II, p. 208.[441] Ibid., II, p. 461.[442] Thornton Hunt, in his edition of his father’s Correspondence, 1862, in this connection defended Byron, and credited him with “a strong sympathy with all that was beautiful and generous, with a desire to do right,[443] P. 14. For an apology made six years earlier see a letter from Hunt to Thomas Moore. (Correspondence, II, p. 38.)[444] Hunt, A Jar of Honey from Mt. Hybia, p. 155.[445] II, pp. 90-93.[446] Charles Lamb and Some of His Companions in the Quarterly Review of January, 1867.[447] A New Spirit of the Age, p. 182.[448] Near the close of his life Hunt wrote: “The jests about London and the Cockneys did not affect me in the least, as far as my faith was concerned. They might as well have said that Hampstead was not beautiful, or Richmond lovely; or that Chaucer and Milton were Cockneys when they went out of London to lie on the grass and look at the daisies. The Cockney School is the most illustrious in England; for, to say nothing of Pope and Gray, who were both veritable Cockneys, ‘born within the sound of Bow Bell,’ Milton was so too; and Chaucer and Spenser were both natives of the city. Of the four greatest English poets, Shakespeare only was not a Londoner.” (Autobiography, II, p. 197.)[449] Recollections of Writers, p. 19. Other accounts of these suppers are to be found in Hazlitt’s On the Conversations of Authors; in the works dealing with Charles Lamb; and in the Cornhill Magazine, November, 1900.[450] The Life of Mary Russell Mitford. Edited by A. J. K. L’Estrange, New York, 1870, I, p. 370, November 12, 1819.[451] Sharp, The Life and Letters of Joseph Severn, p. 33.[452] Notes, pp. 57-61.[453] Ibid., pp. 62-68.[454] Other controversies, such as the one with Antoine Dubost, show Hunt’s aggressiveness. Dubost had sold a painting of Damocles to his patron, a Mr. Hope. The latter became convinced that the author was an imposter and tore the signature from the picture. In retaliation Dubost painted and exhibited Beauty and the Beast, a caricature of the whole incident. The Examiner accused him of forgery and rank ingratitude. Hunt does not seem to have had any particular proof or knowledge on the subject, yet he employed scathing denunciation in writing of it. Dubost replied and asserted that Hunt was Hope’s hireling, and that he had “ransacked the whole calendar of scurrility, and hunted for nick-names through all the common places of blackguardism.” (Dubost, An Appeal to the Public against the Calumnies of the Examiner, London, n. d., p. 9.)[455] He undertook a vindication of the Cockney School in a series of four articles, in which he pointed out the “mean insincerity,” the “vulgar slander,” the “mouthing cant,” the “shabby spite,” the falsehoods and the recantations of Blackwood’s. The description of the conditions, under which Scott pictured the articles of his enemies to have been written, smacks of the mocking humor of Blackwood’s itself: “a redolency of Leith-ale, and tobacco smoke, which floats about all the pleasantry in question,—giving one the idea of its facetious articles having been written on the slopped table of a tavern parlour in the back-wynd, after the convives had retired, and left the author to solitude, pipe-ashes, and the dregs of black-strap.”[456] Published in Edinburgh in 1820 and signed by “An American Scotchman.”[457] Published in Newcastle in 1821.[458] The School was thus described in Blackwood’s: “The chief constellations, in this poetical firmament, consist of led captains, and clerical hangers-on, whose pleasure, and whose business, it is, to celebrate in tuneful verse, the virtues of some angelic patron, who keeps a good table, and has interest with the archbishop, or the India House. Verily they have their reward.” In other words this group was composed of diners-out or parasites, and sycophants for livings and military appointments.[459] Published in London, 1824.[460] Published in London also in 1824.[461] Keats, Works, IV, p. 66.[462] C. C. Clarke, Recollections of Writers, p. 147.[463] Keats, Works, IV, p. 66.[464] Life of Benjamin Robert Haydon, p. 349.[465] Dowden, Life of Shelley, II, p. 302.[466] I, p. 133.[467] Keats, p. 120.[468] Life in Poetry: Law in Taste, pp. 21-23.[469] Age of Wordsworth, p. 58.[470] Blackwood’s, November, 1820.[471] Ibid., May, 1821.[472] Quarterly, April, 1822.[473] Ibid., January, 1823.[474] Blackwood’s, April, 1819.[475] Life, Letters and Table Talk of Benjamin Robert Haydon, p. 69.[476] Blackwood’s, May, 1823, pp. 558-566.[477] Memoirs and Correspondence of Coventry Patmore, I, p. 23.[478] Letters and Journals, V, p. 588.[479] St. James Magazine, XXXV, p. 387 ff.[480] Blackwood’s, December, 1821.[481] Letters and Journals, V, pp. 587-590. March 25, 1821.[482] Ibid., V, pp. 362-363. September 12, 1821.[483] Letters of Timothy Tickler, Esq., July, 1823.[484] September, 1824.[485] Hunt, Correspondence, I, p. 136.[486] Daniel Maclise, A Gallery of Illustrious Literary Characters (1830-1838). London, n. d., p. 132.[487] William Dorling, Memoirs of Dora Greenwell, London, 1885, p. 75.[488] Epistle to Barnes.[489] This accusation has been made still more recently by Mr. Palgrave, who speaks of the “slipshod morality of Rimini and Hero.” Poetical Works of John Keats, p. 263.[490] In 1844, however, he refashioned the whole poem, now representing Giovanni as deformed and as the murderer of his wife and brother, whereas in the version of 1816 Paolo had been slain in a duel and Francesca had died of grief. In 1855, he made a second change and went back to the 1816 version. The duel he preserved in the fragment, Corso and Emilia. Hunt’s translation of Dante’s episode appeared in Stories of Verse, 1855. In 1857 he made a third change and restored the version of 1844.[491] The editor of Blackwood’s in a letter dated April 20, 1818, offered space to P. G. Patmore for a favourable critique of Hunt’s poetry, reserving to himself the privilege of answering such an article. He stated further that if Hunt had employed less violent language towards the reviewer of Rimini he might have been given a friendly explanation. Memoirs and Correspondence of Coventry Patmore, II, p. 438.[492] This charge was renewed in a review of Hunt’s Autobiography in 1850 in the Eclectic Review, XCII, p. 416.[493] Byron greatly resented Southey’s article: “I am glad Mr. Southey owns that article on Foliage which excited my choler so much. But who else could have been the author? Who but Southey would have had the baseness, under the pretext of reviewing the work of one man, insidiously to make it nest work for hatching malicious calumnies against others?... I say nothing of the critique itself on Foliage; with the exception of a few sonnets, it was unworthy of Hunt. But what was the object of that article? I repeat, to villify and scatter his dark and devilish insinuation against me and others.” (Medwin, Conversations of Lord Byron, p. 102.) Again Byron wrote of Southey in 1820: “Hence his quarterly overflowings, political and literary, in what he has termed himself ‘the ungentle craft,’ and his special wrath against Mr. Leigh Hunt, not withstanding that Hunt has done more for Wordsworth’s reputation as a poet (such as it is), than all the Lakers could in their interchange of praises for the last twenty-five years.” (Letters and Journals, V, p. 84.)[494] London Magazine, October, 1823.[495] September, 1823.[496] Reprinted in the Museum of Foreign Literature, XII, p. 568.[497] August, 1834, XXVI, p. 273.[498] C. C. Clarke, Recollections of Writers, p. 244. The year in which the letter was written is not given, but it must fall within the years 1833-1840, the period of Hunt’s residence at Chelsea.[499] The Victorian Age, I, pp. 94-101.[500] Hunt, Autobiography, II, p. 267.[501] Critical, Historical and Miscellaneous Essays, New York and Boston, 1860, IV, p. 350.[502] The first preface to Endymion was rejected by Keats on the advice of his friends who thought that it was in the vain yet deprecating tone of Hunt’s prefaces. To this charge Keats replied: “I am not aware that there is anything like Hunt in it (and if there is, it is my natural way, and I have something in common with Hunt).” The second preface justifies the charge.[503] London Journal, January 21, 1835.[504] Of Southey’s attack on Hunt and others in May, 1818, Keats wrote: “I have more than a laurel from the Quarterly Reviewers, for they have smothered me in ‘Foliage.’” (Works, IV, p. 115.)[505] Shelley wrote also a letter to the Quarterly Review remonstrating against its treatment of Keats but the letter was never sent. (Milnes, Life, Letters and Literary Remains of John Keats, I, p. 208 ff.)[506] In Lord Byron and Some of His Contemporaries, Hunt states that he informed Byron of his mistake and received a promise that it would be altered, but that the rhyme about article and particle was too good to throw away (p. 266).[507] Just before leaving England, Keats with Hunt visited the house where Tom had died. He told Hunt in this connection that he was “dying of a broken heart.” (Literary Examiner, 1823, p. 117.)[508] Works, IV, pp. 42-43, 169-171, 174, 177, 194; V, pp. 27, 29.[509] Atlantic Monthly, XI, p. 406.[510] October 11, 1818. It included two reprints from other papers. The first was a letter taken from the Morning Chronicle signed J. S. It predicted that if Keats would “apostatise his friendship, his principles, and his politics (if he have any) he may even command the approbation of the Quarterly Review.” This was followed by extracts from an article by John Hamilton Reynolds in the Alfred Exeter Paper praising Keats for his power of vitalizing heathen mythology and for his resemblance to Chapman and calling Gifford “a Lottery Commissioner and Government Pensioner” who persecuted Keats by “intrigue of literature and contrivance of political parties.”[511] Dante Gabriel Rossetti suggests this possibility in a letter to Mr. Hall Caine. (Caine, Recollections of Dante Gabriel Rossetti, p. 179.)[512] Cobwebs of Criticism, p. 137.[513] Autobiography, II, p. 43.[514] See p. 50 ff.[515] Imagination and Fancy, p. 230.[516] Dowden, Life of Shelley, II, p. 274.[517] Other hostile reviews of The Cenci appeared in the Literary Gazette of April 1, 1820; the Monthly Magazine of the same month; and the London Magazine of May of the same year.[518] Blackwood’s, January, 1822.[519] Alexander Ireland has pointed out curious correspondences in the lives and intrests of Hazlitt and Hunt. (Memoir of Hazlitt, pp. 474-476.)[520] Quarterly, May, 1818.[521] Ibid., December, 1818.[522] Ibid., July, 1819.[523] Ibid., October, 1821.[524] Birrell, William Hazlitt, New York, 1902, p. 147.[525] The Examiner of March 7 and 14, 1819, contained extracts from the Letter and comments by Hunt upon this “quint-essential salt of an epistle,” as he called it. Lamb’s Letter to Southey, already referred to, contained a defense of Hazlitt as well as of Hunt.[526] February, 1818-April, 1819.[527] August, 1822.[528] August, 1823; October, 1823.

Transcriber’s Notes:

Pages 118, 119, and 120 are numbered consecutively in the text, but there appears to be a page or more missing from the original.

Footnote 442 (on page 118) ends with a comma in the original.

Some quotes are opened with marks but are not closed. Obvious errors have been silently closed while those requiring interpretation have been left open.

Punctuation has been corrected without note.

Other than the corrections noted by hover information, inconsistencies in spelling and hyphenation have been retained from the original.