CHAPTER XVI

QUARREL WITH WORDSWORTH, SECOND

COURSE OF LECTURES ON

SHAKESPEARE

[During the remainder of 1810, after the cessation of _The Friend_,

Coleridge did nothing of importance except write letters to his

acquaintances about new projects which grew up in the impetuosity of his

conversation or in answering some enquiry to a correspondent. At the

close of the year Coleridge had determined to go to London once more;

and an unfortunate occurrence took place on his arrival in London. Basil

Montagu with his wife and child were travelling from Scotland to London,

and called upon the Wordsworths at Allan Bank, where Coleridge resided

with brief intervals of absence from September 1808 to April 1810.

Montagu invited Coleridge to travel to the metropolis with him in his

chaise and stay some time at his residence. Wordsworth warned Montagu of

Coleridge's opium habit, and said something to the effect that "he had

no hope" of Coleridge, and perhaps that he had been a "nuisance" in the

Wordsworth family. On his arrival in London, Montagu informed Coleridge

that Wordsworth had commissioned him to say that Wordsworth had no hope

of him, and that certain habits of his had made him a nuisance in the

Allan Bank household (Dykes Campbell's _Life_, 179). Coleridge, of

course, left the Montagus on hearing this communication, and repaired to

7, Portland Place, Hammersmith, then the abode of his old friend John

Morgan, and his wife Mary Brent, and her sister Charlotte Brent, with

whom the father of the ladies also lived (_Letters_, 598).

Coleridge was deeply stung that Wordsworth should have said such a thing

to Montagu. Professor Knight in his _Life of Wordsworth_ gives a pretty

full narrative of the event, and believes that Wordsworth, though he

said he had no hope of Coleridge, did not utter the more offensive

assertion about Coleridge being a nuisance in his family. Henry Crabb

Robinson effected a formal reconciliation between the two poets, in

which both figure to some disadvantage. Wordsworth's proposal to

confront Coleridge, his best and closest friend, with Montagu, a

comparative stranger to both of them, for cross-examination, and thus

sift out the actual expression used by the latter to the former, seems

like very hard dealing; and Coleridge's vehemence of protestation to

believe whatever Wordsworth asserted to be the true version, in

contradistinction to anything that Montagu might say, savours of

unreality. Wordsworth's taking offence at Coleridge not going to

Grasmere on the death of his child at a juncture when it was impossible

for him to leave London while _Remorse_ was being put on the stage, does

not redound to the credit of the Bard of Rydal; and Coleridge's failure

to call on his old friend while in the Lake District for the last time

is equally against the poet of Stowey. The estrangement died down rather

than was reconciled; but the irritation against Wordsworth remained long

in Coleridge's heart, and it is more than probable that after the

excitement of the reconciliation made by Crabb Robinson was over,

Coleridge believed Montagu's rather than Wordsworth's version of what

had occurred. This is endorsed by the fact that Montagu was again taken

into favour, and he and his wife were regular guests at the Highgate

Thursdays in after times.[26]

During 1811, while in London, Coleridge again met Godwin, to whom he

softened in his opinion. The following two letters indicate that he did

not occupy the same attitude to the author of _Political Justice_ as he

did when he wrote _The Watchman_.

LETTER 147. TO GODWIN

Tuesday, March 26, 1811.

Dear Godwin,

Mr. Grattan did me the honour of calling on me, and leaving his card, on

Sunday afternoon, unfortunately a few minutes after I had gone out--and

I am so unwell, that I fear I shall not be able to return the call

to-day, as I had intended, though it is a grief even for a brace of days

to appear insensible of so much kindness and condescension. But what

need has Grattan of pride?

Ha d'uopo solo

Mendicar dall' orgoglio onore e stima,

Chi senza lui di vilipendio é degno.

CHIABRERA.

I half caught from Lamb that you had written to Wordsworth, with a wish

that he should versify some tale or other, and that Wordsworth had

declined it. I told dear Miss Lamb that I had formed a complete plan of

a poem, with little plates for children, the _first_ thought, but that

alone, taken from Gessner's _First Mariner_; and this thought, I have

reason to believe, was not an invention of Gessner's. It is this--that

in early times, in some island or part of the Continent, the ocean had

rushed in, overflowing a vast plain of twenty or thirty miles, and

thereby _insulating_ one small promontory or cape of high land, on which

was a cottage, containing a man and his wife, and an infant daughter.

This is the _one_ thought; all that Gessner has made out of it--(and I

once translated into blank verse about half of the poem, but gave it up

under the influence of a double disgust, moral and poetical)--I have

rejected; and, strictly speaking, the tale in all its parts, that one

idea excepted, would be original. The tale will contain the cause, the

occasions, the process, with all its failures and ultimate success, of

the construction of the first boat, and of the undertaking of the first

naval expedition. Now, supposing you liked the idea (I address you and

Mrs. G., and as _commerciants_, not you as the philosopher who gave us

the first system in England that ever dared reveal at full that most

important of all important truths, that morality might be built on its

own foundation, like a castle built _from_ the rock and _on_ the rock,

with religion for the ornaments and completion of its roof and upper

stories--nor as the critic who, in the life of Chaucer, has given us, if

not principles of _æsthetic_ or taste, yet more and better data for

principles than had hitherto existed in our language)if we pulling like

two friendly tradesmen together, (for you and your wife _must_ be one

flesh, and I trust _are_ one heart) you approve of the plan, the next

question is, Whether it should be written in prose or in verse, and if

the latter, in what metre--stanzas, or eight-syllable iambics with

rhymes (for in rhyme it must be), now in couplets and now in quatrains,

in the manner of Cooper's admirable translation of the _Vert-Vert_ of

Gresset. (N.B. not _the_ Cowper).

Another thought has struck me within the last month, of a school-book in

two octavo volumes, of Lives in the manner of Plutarch--not, indeed, of

comparing and coupling Greek with Roman, Dion with Brutus, and Cato with

Aristides, of placing ancient and modern together: Numa with Alfred,

Cicero with Bacon, Hannibal with Gustavus Adolphus, and Julius Cæsar

with Buonaparte--or what perhaps might be at once more interesting and

more instructive, a series of lives, from Moses to Buonaparte, of all

those great men, who in states or in the mind of man had produced great

revolutions, the effects of which still remain, and are more or less

distant causes of the present state of the world.

I remain, with unfeigned and affectionate esteem,

Yours, dear Godwin,

S. T. COLERIDGE.[27]

LETTER 148. TO GODWIN

Friday morning, March 29, 1811.

Dear Godwin,

My chief motive in undertaking _The First Mariner_ is merely to weave a

few tendrils around your destined walking-stick, which, like those of

the woodbine (that, serpent-like climbing up, and with tight spires

embossing the straight hazel, rewards the lucky schoolboy's search in

the winter copse) may remain on it, when the woodbine, root and branch,

lies trampled in the earth. I shall consider the work as a small plot of

ground given up to you, to be sown at your own hazard with your own seed

(gold-grains would have been but a bad saw, and besides have spoilt the

metaphor). If the increase should more than repay your risk and labour,

why then let me be one of your guests at Hendcot House. Your last letter

impressed and affected me strongly. Ere I had yet read or seen your

works, I, at Southey's recommendation, wrote a sonnet in praise of the

author. When I had read them, religious bigotry, the but

half-understanding your principles, and the _not_ half-understanding my

own, combined to render me a warm and boisterous anti-Godwinist. But my

warfare was open; my unfelt and harmless blows aimed at an abstraction I

had christened with your name; and at that time, if not in the world's

_favor_, you were among the captains and chief men in its admiration. I

became your acquaintance, when more years had brought somewhat more

temper and tolerance; but I distinctly remember that the first turn in

my mind towards you, the first movements of a juster appreciation of

your merits, was occasioned by my disgust at the altered tone of

language of many whom I had long known as your admirers and

disciples--some of them, too, men who had made themselves a sort of

reputation in minor circles as your acquaintances, and therefore your

echoes by authority, who had themselves aided in attaching an unmerited

ridicule to you and your opinions by their own ignorance, which led them

to think the best settled truths, and indeed _every_ thing in your

_Political Justice_, whether assertion, or deduction, or conjecture, to

have been new thoughts--downright creations! and by their own vanity,

which enabled them to forget that everything must be new to him who

knows _nothing_; others again, who though gifted with high talents, had

yet been indebted to you and the discussions occasioned by your work,

for much of their development, who had often and often styled you the

Great Master, written verses in your honour, and, worse than all, had

now brought your opinions--with many good and worthy men--into as

unmerited an odium, as the former class had into contempt, by attempts

equally unfeeling and unwise, to realize them in private life, to the

disturbance of domestic peace. And lastly, a third class; but the name

of ---- spares me the necessity of describing it. In all these there was

such a want of common sensibility, such a want of that gratitude to an

intellectual benefactor, which even an honest reverence for their past

selves should have secured, as did then, still does, and ever will,

disgust me. As for ----, I cannot justify him; but he stands in no one

of the former classes. When he was young he just looked enough into your

books to believe you taught republicanism and stoicism; ergo, that he

was of your opinion and you of his, and that was all. Systems of

philosophy were never his taste or forte. And I verily believe that his

conduct originated wholly and solely in the effects which the trade of

reviewing never fails to produce at certain times on the best

minds,--presumption, petulance, callousness to personal feelings, and a

disposition to treat the reputations of their contemporaries as

playthings placed at their own disposal. Most certainly I cannot approve

of such things; but yet I have learned how difficult it is for a man who

has from earliest childhood preserved himself immaculate from all the

common faults and weaknesses of human nature, and who, never creating

any small disquietudes, has lived in general esteem and honour, to feel

remorse, or to admit that he has done wrong. Believe me, there is a

bluntness of conscience superinduced by a very unusual infrequency, as

well as by a habit of frequency of wrong actions. "Sunt quibus cecidisse

prodesset," says Augustine. To this add that business of review-writing,

carried on for fifteen years together, and which I have never hesitated

to pronounce an immoral employment, unjust to the author of the books

reviewed, injurious in its influences on the public taste and morality,

and still more injurious on its influences on the head and heart of the

reviewer himself. The _prægustatores_ among the luxurious Romans soon

lost their taste; and the verdicts of an old prægustator were sure to

mislead, unless when, like dreams, they were interpreted into

contraries. Our reviewers are the genuine descendants of these

palate-seared taste dictators. I am still confined by indisposition, but

mean to step out to Hazlitt's--almost my next door neighbour--at his

particular request. It is possible that I may find you there.

With kind remembrances to Mrs. Godwin,

Yours, dear Godwin, affectionately,

S. T. COLERIDGE.

From 19th April to 27th September 1811 Coleridge (_Essays on his Own

Times_, 733-938) was busy contributing articles again to _The Courier_

on all subjects of the day, their irony as bright, their imagery as

fresh, their philosophy as sound as anything he had formerly written.

But Coleridge ceased to write for _The Courier_ when he discovered that

it was not an independent paper. An article on the Duke of York written

by Coleridge, after having been set up in type, was suppressed, at the

instigation of the Government. He wrote to Beaumont on 7th December

1811: "I have not been at _The Courier_ office for some months past. I

detest writing politics even on the right side; and when I discovered

that _The Courier_ was not the independent paper I had been led to

believe, and had myself over and over again asserted, I wrote no more

for it.... I will write for the _Permanent_, or not at all." (Coleorton

_Memorials_ ii, 162, 7th December 1811.)

During the winter of 1811-12 Coleridge did something for the _Permanent_

in the shape of a new course of Lectures on Shakespeare. The course

lasted from the beginning of November 1811 to 28th January 1812. The

Lectures are published in T. Ashe's edition (Bohn Library, pp. 33-165).

The finest of the Lectures is No. IX, given on 16th December 1811. The

Lectures were delivered at the London Philosophical Society's Rooms,

Fetter Lane, and were attended, according to Henry Crabb Robinson, by

enthusiastic audiences; and the course closed with _éclat_. On one

occasion Rogers and Byron were present. The following letter to Dr.

Andrew Bell, whom, it will be remembered, he corresponded with while he

was giving his first course, is a characteristic bit of Coleridge's

application of the Law of Association.

LETTER 149. TO DR. ANDREW BELL (Southey's _Life of Bell_, ii, 645)

Mr. Pople's, 67 Chancery Lane

Holborn, 30 November 1811.

My Dear Sir,

The room I lecture in is very comfortable, and of a grave academic

appearance; the company highly respectable, though (unluckily) rather

scanty; but the entrance, which is under a short passage from Fetter

Lane, some thirty doors or more from Fleet Street, is disagreeable even

to foot-comers, and far more so to carriages, from the narrowness and

bendings of the lane. This, and in truth, the very name of _Fetter_

Lane, renowned exclusively for pork and sausages, have told against me;

and I pay an exorbitant price in proportion to the receipts. I should

doubtless feel myself honoured by your attendance on some one night; but

such is your distance, and such is the weather, that I scarce dare

_wish_ it, much less ask or expect it.

I wrote a long letter to you concerning the sophistications of your

system at present in vogue, the inevitable consequences on the whole

mass of moral feelings, even of the dissenters themselves, and the

courage as well as fortitude, required for the effort to do one's duty.

But I asked myself why I should give you pain, and destroyed it. Yet

come what will, the subject shall be treated fully, intrepidly, and by

close deduction from settled first principles, in the first volume of

the recommencing _Friend_, which I hope to bring out early in the

spring, on a quarterly or four-monthly plan, in partnership with a

publisher who is personally my friend, and who will take on himself all

the _business_, and leave me exclusively occupied in the composition.

Even to this day I have not received nearly one-half of the

subscriptions for the former numbers, and am expiating the error by all

sorts of perplexities and embarrassments. A man who has nothing better

than prudence is fit for no world to come; and he who does not possess

it in full activity, is as unfit for the present world. What then shall

we say? Have both prudence and the moral sense, but subordinate the

former to the latter; and so possess the flexibility and address of the

serpent to glide through the brakes and jungles of this life, with the

wings of the dove to carry us upward to a better!

May the Almighty bless and preserve you, my dear Sir! With most

unfeigned love and honour, I remain--and till I lose all sense of my

better being, of the veiled immortal within me, ever must remain, your

obliged and grateful friend,

S. T. COLERIDGE.]

FOOTNOTES:

[26] [See _Letters_, p. 590, and Professor Knight's _Life of

Wordsworth_, ch. XXV, for full account of the misunderstanding.]

[27] [Letter CLXXXI precedes our 147.]

Biographia Epistolaris, Volume 2 being The Biographical Supplement of Coleridge's Biographia Literaria · 第 6 / 21 章