DANIEL STUART AND THE COURIER
Here[28] I may best introduce the remarks which have been made, and
details which have been given, respecting Mr. Coleridge's services to
_The Morning Post_ and _The Courier_, spoken of by him in Chapter X of
the _Biographia Literaria_. That representation has been excepted
against by Mr. Stuart, who was Editor of the former Paper when my Father
wrote for it, and half proprietor of the other. The view which he takes
of the case he has already made public;[29] he seems to be of opinion,
that the language used by Mr. Coleridge in this work is calculated to
give an impression of the amount of his actual performances on behalf of
those papers beyond what the facts warrant; I have not thought it
necessary or proper to withdraw that portion of Chapter X of which he
complains, nor do I see that it must necessarily bear a construction at
variance with his own statements: but neither would I republish it,
without giving Mr. Stuart's account of matters to which it refers,
extracted from letters written by him to Mr. Coleridge's late Editor. He
writes as follows from Wykham Park, on the 7th of October, 1835.
"In August, 1795, I began to conduct _The Morning Post_, the sale of
which was so low, only 350 per day, that a gentleman at that time made a
bet with me that the Paper was actually extinct.
"At Christmas, 1797, on the recommendation of Mr. Mackintosh, Coleridge
sent me several pieces of poetry; up to the time of his going to
Germany, about 12 pieces.[30] Prose writing I never expected from him at
that time. He went to Germany in the summer of 1798.
"He returned, I believe, about the end of 1799,[31] and proposed to me
to come to London to reside near me, and write daily for the paper. I
took lodgings for him in King Street, Covent Garden. _The Morning Post_
then selling 2,000 daily. Coleridge wrote some things, particularly, I
remember, Comments on Lord Grenville's reply to Buonaparte's Overtures
of Peace, in January, 1800. But he totally failed in the plan he
proposed of writing daily on the daily occurrences."
Mr. Stuart then gives three short letters of Mr. C.'s, showing how often
he was ill and incapable of writing for the paper, and the beginning of
a long one dated Greta Hall, Keswick, 19th July, 1800,[32] in which he
promises a second part of Pitt and Buonaparte, but speaks of it as
uncertain whether or no he should be able to continue any regular
species of employment for Mr. S.'s paper.
After noting that Mr. C. left London at the end of his first half year's
engagement, Mr. S. brings forward more letters, containing excuses on
account of illness, but promising a number of essays: two on the war, as
respecting agriculture; one on the raising of rents; one on the riots
(corn riots in 1800); and one on the countenance by Government of
calumnies on the King;--promising also a second part of Pitt and
Buonaparte, which Mr. S. supposes he was constantly dunning for, the
Character of Pitt, published in _The M. P._ early in 1800, having made a
great sensation; proposing a letter to Sir F. Burdett on solitary
imprisonment, and that all these should be published in pamphlets, after
they had been divided into pieces, and published in _The M. P._, he
doubting whether they were of value for a newspaper. Some of these
essays appear to have been sent; it is not specified which or how many.
"Early in 1807," Mr. S. says, "I was confined by a violent fever.
Several weeks I was delirious, and to my astonishment, when I recovered,
Pitt was out of place, and Horne Tooke in Parliament. I did not resume
the conduct of the Paper till the spring. The Paper suffered loss."
The next letter, dated May, 1801, Keswick, speaks of ill health, and
"the habits of irresolution which are its worst consequences,"
forbidding him to rely on himself. Mr. S. had solicited him to write,
and offered terms, and it appears that he did form a new engagement for
the Paper about that time. In a letter of Sept. 1801, he says, "I am not
so blinded by authorship as to believe that what I have done is at all
adequate to the money I have received." Mr. Stuart then produces a
letter with the postmark Bridgewater, of Jan. 19, 1802.[33] These
letters show, he says, that in July and October 1800, in May 1801, on
the 30th of September 1801, Coleridge was at Keswick, that in January
1802, he was at Stowey, that he could not therefore have materially
contributed to the success of _The Morning Post_. "In this last year,"
says Mr. Stuart, "his Letters to Judge Fletcher, and on Mr. Fox, at
Paris, were published." The former were not published till 1814. The six
letters appeared in _The Courier_ on Sept. 20th, 29th, Oct. 21st, Nov.
2nd, Dec. 3rd, 6th, 9th and 10th. The latter appeared on the 4th and 9th
of Nov. 1802. Mr. Stuart speaks of it as a mistake in those who have
supposed that the coolness of Fox to Sir James Mackintosh was occasioned
by his ascribing this "violent philippic," as Lamb called it, to him
(Sir James). "On those to Judge Fletcher," he says, "and many other such
essays, as being rather fit for pamphlets than newspapers, I did not set
much value." On this subject hear Coleridge himself in a letter[34] dated
June 4th, 1811, when he was engaged with Mr. Street.
LETTER 150. TO DANIEL STUART
"Freshness of effect belongs to a newspaper and distinguishes it from a
literary book: the former being the Zenith and the latter the Nadir,
with a number of intermediate degrees, occupied by pamphlets, magazines,
reviews, etc. Besides, in a daily paper, with advertisements
proportioned to its large sale, what is deferred must four times in five
be extinguished. A newspaper is a market for flowers and vegetables,
rather than a granary or conservatory; and the drawer of its Editor a
common burial ground, not a catacomb for embalmed mummies, in which the
defunct are preserved to serve in after times as medicines for the
living."
This freshness of effect Coleridge scarcely ever gave to either _The
Morning Post_ or _The Courier_. He was occasionally in London during my
time, in _The Morning Post_ it is true, but he never gave the daily
bread. He was mostly at Keswick. * * * A few months in 1800, and a few
weeks in 1802, that was all the time he ever wasted on _The Morning
Post_, and as for _The Courier_, it accepted his proffered services as a
favour done to him," etc.
After speaking again of the former paper, he says, "I could give many
more reasons for its rise than those I gave in my former letter, and
among others I would include Coleridge's occasional writings, though to
them I would not set down more than one hundredth part of the cause of
success, much as I esteemed his writings and much as I would have given
for a regular daily assistance by him. But he never wrote a thing I
requested, and, I think I may add, he never wrote a thing I expected. In
proof of this he promised me at my earnest and endless request, the
character of Buonaparte, which he himself, at first of his own mere
motion, had promised; he promised it letter after letter, year after
year, for ten years (last for _The Courier_), yet never wrote it. Could
Coleridge and I place ourselves thirty-eight years back, and he be so
far a man of business as to write three or four hours a day, there is
nothing I would not pay for his assistance. I would take him into
partnership," (which, I think, my Father would have declined,) "and I
would enable him to make a large fortune. To write the leading paragraph
of a newspaper I would prefer him to Mackintosh, Burke, or any man I
ever heard of. His observations not only were confirmed by good sense,
but displayed extensive knowledge, deep thought and well-grounded
foresight; they were so brilliantly ornamented, so classically
delightful. They were the writings of a Scholar, a Gentleman and a
Statesman, without personal sarcasm or illiberality of any kind. But
when Coleridge wrote in his study without being pressed, he wandered and
lost himself. He should always have had the printer's devil at his elbow
with 'Sir, the printers want copy.'
"So far then with regard to _The Morning Post_, which I finally left in
August, 1803. Throughout the last year, during my most rapid success,
Coleridge did not, I believe, write a line for me. Seven months
afterwards I find Coleridge at Portsmouth, on his way to Malta." Mr.
Stuart proceeds to state that Mr. C. returned to England in the summer
of 1806, that in 1807 he was engaged with his Play at Drury Lane
Theatre, early in 1808 gave his lectures at the Royal Institution, at
the end of that year began his plan of _The Friend_, which took him up
till towards the end of 1809--in 1811 proposed to write for _The
Courier_ on a salary. Mr. Stuart mentions that the Essays on the
Spaniards were sent in the end of 1809 by Mr. Coleridge, as some return
for sums he had expended on his account, not on his (Mr. Stuart's)
solicitation. He says that Mr. C. wrote in _The Courier_ for his own
convenience, his other literary projects having failed, and that he
wrote for it against the will of Mr. Street, the Editor, who, in
accepting his services, only yielded to his (Mr. S.'s) suggestion. "_The
Courier_," he says, "required no assistance. It was, and had long been,
the evening paper of the highest circulation." In another letter, dated
7th September 1835, he speaks thus: "_The Courier_ indeed sold 8000
daily for some years, but when Street and I purchased it at a good price
in June, 1799, it sold nearly 2000, and had the reputation of selling
more. It was the apostasy of _The Sun_ in 1803, Street's good
management, its early intelligence, and the importance of public events,
that raised _The Courier_." In the same letter he says, "Could Coleridge
have written the leading paragraph daily his services would have been
invaluable, but an occasional essay or two could produce little effect.
It was early and ample accounts of domestic occurrences, as Trials,
Executions, etc. etc., exclusively early Irish news; the earliest French
news; full Parliamentary Debates; Corn Riots in 1800; Procession
proclaiming Peace; the attack on the King by Hatfield at the Theatre;
the arrest of Arthur O'Connor, respecting which I was examined at the
Privy Council: it was the earliest and fullest accounts of such things
as these, while the other papers were negligent, that raised _The
Morning Post_ from 350, when I took it in August, 1795, to 4500, when I
sold it in August, 1803, and then no other daily morning paper sold
above 3000. It was unremitting attention and success in giving the best
and earliest accounts of occurrences that made _The Morning Post_, and
not the writings of any one, though good writing is always an important
feature. I have known the Paper served more by a minute, picturesque,
lively account of the ascension of a balloon than ever it was by any
piece of writing. There is a great difference among newspapers in this
respect. Most of the Sunday Papers, calling themselves _News_papers,
have no news, only political essays, which are read by the
working-classes, and which in those papers produce astonishing success."
In other letters he says: "The reputation of the writings of any man,
the mere reputation of them, would not serve, or in the very slightest
degree serve, any daily newspaper." "Mackintosh's reputation as a
political writer was then much higher than that of Coleridge, and he was
my brother-in-law, known to have written for the Paper, especially
during one year (1795-6), and to be on good terms with me, yet I must
confess that even to the reputation of his writing for the Paper I never
ascribed any part of its success."
It does not appear from Mr. Stuart how many essays in all Mr. Coleridge
contributed to _The Morning Post_ and _The Courier_. Mr. C. himself
mentions several in the tenth chapter of the _Biographia Literaria_. All
these have been copied, and will be republished hereafter.[35] I happen
to possess also his contributions to _The Courier_ in 1811. They are
numerous, though not daily; which I have now no means of ascertaining.
The Critique on _Bertram_ first appeared in that Paper, I believe in
1816. Mr. Stuart admits that some of the poems published by Mr. C. in
_The Morning Post_ before his going to Germany made a "great
impression:" that on Mr. C.'s proposing "personally on the spot and by
daily exertion to assist him in the conduct of the Paper," he "grasped
at the engagement," and "no doubt solicited" him "in the most earnest
manner to enter upon it;" that his "writings produced a greater effect
in _The Morning Post_ than any others." In his letter of September 19,
1835, Mr. S. says "The most remarkable things Coleridge published in
_The Morning Post_ were _The Devil's Thoughts_ and the _Character of
Pitt_. Each of these made a sensation, which any writings unconnected
with the news of the day rarely did." Elsewhere he says, "Several
hundred sheets extra were sold by them, and the paper was in demand for
days and weeks afterwards. Coleridge promised a pair of portraits, Pitt
and Buonaparte. I could not walk a hundred yards in the streets but I
was stopped by inquiries, 'When shall we have Buonaparte?' One of the
most eager of these inquirers was Dr. Moore, author of _Zeluco_." In the
letter mentioned just above he says "At one time Coleridge engaged to
write daily for _The Courier_ on the news of the day, and he did attend
very regularly and wrote; but as it was in the spring, when the Paper
was overwhelmed with debates and advertisements (and Street always
preferring news, and a short notice of it in a leading paragraph to any
writing however brilliant,) little or nothing that he wrote was inserted
from want of room. Of this he repeatedly complained to me, saying that
he would not continue to receive a salary without rendering services. I
answered, 'Wait till Parliament is up; we shall then have ample room,
and shall be obliged to you for all you can give us.' When Parliament
rose Coleridge disappeared, or at least discontinued his services."
The time here spoken of was in June, 1811. In April he had proposed to
Mr. Stuart a particular plan of writing for _The Courier_, and on May 5,
he writes to that gentleman, that he had stated and particularized this
proposal to Mr. Street, and "found a full and in all appearance a warm
assent." Mr. Street, he says, "expressed himself highly pleased both at
the thought of my assistance in general, and with the specific plan of
assistance. There was no doubt, he said, that it would be of great
service to the Paper."
Mr. Stuart has been offended by Mr. Coleridge's saying that he "employed
the prime and manhood of his intellect in these labours," namely for the
Papers; that they "added nothing to his fortune or reputation;" that the
"industry of the week supplied the necessities of the week." This he has
considered as a reproach to himself, and an unjust one. It was not--Mr.
Stuart himself saw that it was not--so intended; Mr. Coleridge's only
object was to show that he had not altogether suffered his talents to
"rust away without any efficient exertion for his own good or that of
his fellow-creatures;" that he had laboured more than would appear from
the number and size of the books he had produced, and in whatever he
wrote had aimed not merely to supply his own temporal wants, but to
benefit his readers by bringing high principles in view. "For, while
cabbage-stalks rot on dunghills," says he, in a letter[36] to the late
Editor of _The Morning Post_, "I will never write what, or for what, I
do not think right. All that prudence can justify is not to write what
at certain times one may yet think." But Mr. Stuart thought that the
Public would draw inferences from Mr. C.'s language injurious to
himself, though it was not meant of him; and hence he gave the details
which I have thought it right to bring forward. I have no doubt that Mr.
Coleridge had an exaggerated impression of the amount of his labours for
_The Morning Post_ and _The Courier_, and that when he said that he had
raised the sale of the former from a low number to 7000 daily, he
mistook the sale of the latter, which, Mr. Stuart admits, may have been
7000 per day in 1811, when he wrote for it constantly, with that of
_The Morning Post_, which never sold above 4500. Mr. Stuart says truly
"Coleridge had a defective memory, from want of interest in common
things;" and of this he brings forward a strong instance. I think my
Father's example and experience go to prove that Newspaper reading must
ever be more or less injurious to the public mind; high and careful
writing for the daily journal will never answer: who could furnish noble
views and a refined moral commentary on public events and occurrences
every day of the week, or even every other day, and obtain a
_proportionate_ recompense? On the other hand, a coarse or low sort of
writing on the important subjects, with which the journal deals, must do
mischief. No one will deny that the character of Mr. C.'s articles was
such as he has described; he would naturally be more alive to marks of
the impression made by what he wrote in particular than any one else,
even the Editor; and men are apt to judge of their labours by intensity
as much as by quantity. He perhaps expended more thought on some of
those essays, of which Mr. Street and even Mr. Stuart thought lightly,
than would have served to furnish a large amount of ordinary serviceable
matter. Mr. Stuart observes, "He never had a prime and manhood of
intellect in the sense in which he speaks of it in the _Lit. Biography_.
He had indeed the great mind, the great powers, but he could not use
them for the press with regularity and vigour.[37] He was always ill."
This may have been true; yet it was during what ought to have been the
best years of his life that he wrote for the Papers, and doubtless what
he did produce helped to exhaust his scanty stock of bodily power, and
to prevent him from writing as many books as he might have done, had
circumstances permitted him to use his pen, not for procuring "the
necessities of the week," but in the manner most congenial to his own
mind, and ultimately most useful to the public. "Such things as _The
Morning Post_ and money," says Mr. S., in _The Gentleman's Magazine_,
"never settled upon his mind." I believe that such things _unsettled_
his mind, and made him, as the lampooner said, with a somewhat different
allusion, "Like to a man on double business bound, who both neglects."
This was a trouble to himself and all connected with him. _Le ciel nous
vend toujours les biens qu'il nous prodigue_, may be applied to my poor
Father emphatically.
In regard to the remuneration he received, I do not bring forward the
_particulars_ given by Mr. Stuart of his liberal dealing with Mr.
Coleridge, simply because the rehearsal of them would be tedious, and
could answer no end. Such details may be superseded by the general
declaration, that I believe my Father to have received from Mr. Stuart
far more than the market value of his contributions to the Papers which
that gentleman was concerned in. Mr. Stuart says that he "paid at the
time as highly as such writings were paid for," and to Mr. Coleridge's
satisfaction, which my Father's own letters certainly testify; and
concludes the account of sums advanced by him to Mr. C., when he was not
writing for the paper, by saying that he had "at least £700 of him
beside many acts of kindness." A considerable part of this was spent on
stamps and paper for _The Friend_; two hundred of it was given after the
publication of the _Biographia Literaria_.
Mr. Coleridge expressed his esteem for Mr. Stuart and sense of his
kindness very strongly in letters to himself, but not more strongly than
to others. He speaks of him in a letter written about the beginning of
1809, addressed to a gentleman of the Quaker persuasion at Leeds, as "a
man of the most consummate knowledge of the world, managed by a
thorough strong and sound judgment, and rendered innocuous by a good
heart"--as a "most wise, disinterested, kind, and constant friend." In a
letter to my Mother, written on his return from Malta, he says, "Stuart
is a friend, and a friend indeed."
I have thought it right to bring forward these particulars,--(I and
those equally concerned with myself)--not only out of a regard to truth
and openness, that the language of this work respecting _The Morning
Post_ and _The Courier_ may not be interpreted in any way contrary to
fact, which, I think, it _need_ not be; but also in gratitude to a man
who was serviceable and friendly to my Father during many years of his
life; who appreciated his merits as a prose writer when they were not
generally known and acknowledged; and by whose aid his principal prose
work, _The Friend_, was brought before the public. I do not complain in
the least of his stating the facts of my Father's newspaper writings; in
the _manner_ in which this was done--as was pointed out at the
time--there _was_ something to complain of. Let me add that I consider
his representation of my Father's feelings on certain occasions
altogether incredible, and deeply regret these pieces of bad construing,
dictated by resentment, in one who was once so truly his friend.
My Father certainly does not assert, as Mr. Stuart represents him as
having asserted in the _Literary Biography_, that he "made the fortunes
of _The Morning Post_ and _The Courier_, and was inadequately paid." He
speaks of his writings as having been in furtherance of _Government_. I
have no doubt he thought that they were serviceable to Government and to
his country, and that while they brought upon him the enmity of the
anti-ministerial and Buonapartean party, and every possible hindrance to
his literary career which the most hostile and contemptuous criticism of
a leading journal could effect, they were unrewarded in any other
quarter. There was truth in one half of Hazlitt's sarcasm, "his politics
turned--_but not to account_." "From Government, or the friends of
Government!" says Mr. Stuart, "Why, Coleridge was attacking Pitt and
Lord Grenville in 1800, who were at the head of the Government. In 1801,
when the Addingtons came into power, he wrote little or nothing in _The
Morning Post_; in the autumn of 1802 he wrote one or two able essays
against Buonaparte in relation to the Peace of Amiens, and he published
in that paper, at that time, a letter or two to Judge Fletcher." This
last sentence is a double mistake, as I have already shown. "At that
time the newspaper press generally condemned the conduct of Buonaparte
in the severest manner: and no part of it more severely than _The
Morning Post_ by my own writings. Cobbett attacked Fox, etc., but _The
Morning Post_ was the most distinguished on this subject, and the
increase of its circulation was great. The qualified opposition to
Government was not given to Pitt's ministry, but to Addington's. To Pitt
_The Morning Post_ was always, in my time, decidedly opposed. I
supported Addington against Buonaparte, during the Peace of Amiens, with
all my power, and in the summer of 1803 Mr. Estcourt came to me with a
message of thanks from the prime minister, Mr. A. offering anything I
wished. I declined the offer. It was not till the summer of 1804, a year
after I had finally left _The Morning Post_ that, in _The Courier_, I
supported Pitt against Buonaparte, on the same grounds I had supported
Mr. Addington, Pitt having become again prime minister, to protect Lord
Melville against the fifth clause. Coleridge confuses things. The
qualified support of the ministry, he alludes to, applies wholly to _The
Courier_." I do not see the material discrepancy between this statement
and my Father's, when he says that _The Morning Post_ was
"_anti-ministerial_, indeed, but with far greater earnestness and zeal,
both anti-jacobin and anti-gallican," and that it proved a far more
useful ally to the Government in its most important objects, in
consequence of its being generally considered moderately
_anti-ministerial_, than if it had been the avowed eulogist of _Mr._
Pitt; "that the rapid increase in the sale of _The Morning Post_ is a
pledge that genuine impartiality with a respectable portion of literary
talent will secure the success of a newspaper _without ministerial
patronage_," and that from "the _commencement of the Addington
administration_" whatever he himself had written "in _The Morning Post_
or _Courier_ was in defence of Government." In the preceding paragraph
he argues that neither Mr. Percival nor "the present administration"
pursued the plans of Mr. Pitt.
In what degree my Father's writings contributed to the reputation and
success of _The Morning Post_ cannot at this distance of time be
_precisely_ settled. It must indeed be difficult to say what occasions
success in such enterprises, if Mr. Stuart's own brother could attribute
that of _The Morning Post_ to Sir James Mackintosh, "though with less
reason even than if he had ascribed it to Coleridge." The long story
told to show that booksellers were not aware of Mr. C.'s having produced
any effect on the paper, and when they set up a rival journal, never
cared to obtain his services, but eagerly secured those of Mr. Stuart's
assistant, George Lane, does not quite decide the question; for
booksellers, though, as Mr. Stuart says, "knowing men" in such matters,
are not _omniscient_ even in what concerns their own business. If the
anti-gallican policy of _The Morning Post_ "increased its circulation,"
I cannot but think that the influence of my Father's writings,[38]
though not numerous, and indirectly of his intercourse with the
Editor,--who rates his conversational powers as highly as it is usual to
rate them--in directing the tone and determining the principles of the
paper, must have served it materially. I believe him to have been the
anti-gallican _spirit_ that governed _The Morning Post_, though he may
not have performed as much of the _letter_ as he fancied.
I shall conclude this subject with quoting part of a letter of my
Father's on the subject of _The Courier_, to which Mr. Stuart, to whom
it was addressed, declares himself to have replied, that "as long as he
actively interfered, the Paper was conducted on the independent
principles alluded to by Coleridge," but that, for reasons which he
states, he found it best, from the year 1811, to "leave Street entirely
to his own course;" and "so it gradually slid into a mere ministerial
journal--an instrument of the Treasury:" "acquired a high character for
being the organ of Government, and obtained a great circulation; but
became odious to the mob--excited by the falsehoods of the weekly
journals."
LETTER 151. TO STUART[39]
Wednesday, 8th May, 1816.
James Gillman's, Esq., Surgeon,
Highgate.
My dear Stuart,
Since you left me, I have been reflecting a great deal on the subject of
the Catholic question, and somewhat on _The Courier_ in general. With
all my weight of _faults_, (and no one is less likely to underrate them
than myself), a tendency to be influenced by selfish motives in my
friendships, or even in the cultivation of my acquaintance, will not, I
am sure, be by _you_ placed among them. When we first knew each other,
it was perhaps the most interesting period of both our lives, at the
very turn of the flood; and I can never cease to reflect with
affectionate delight on the steadiness and independence of your conduct
and principles, and how, for so many years, with little assistance from
others, and with one main guide, a sympathizing tact for the real sense,
feeling, and impulses of the _respectable_ part of the English nation,
you went on so auspiciously, and likewise so _effectively_. It is far,
very far, from being an hyperbole to affirm, that you did more against
the French scheme of Continental domination than the Duke of Wellington
has done; or rather, Wellington could neither have been supplied by the
Ministers, nor the Ministers supported by the nation, but for the tone
first given, and then constantly kept up by the plain, un-ministerial,
anti-opposition, anti-Jacobin, anti-Gallican, anti-Napoleon spirit of
your writings, aided by a colloquial style and evident good sense, in
which, as acting on an immense mass of knowledge of existing men and
existing circumstances, you are superior to any man I ever met with in
my life-time. Indeed you are the only human being, of whom I can say
with severe truth, that I never conversed with you for an hour without
rememberable instruction; and with the same simplicity I dare affirm my
belief, that my greater knowledge of _man_ has been useful to you,
though, from the nature of things, not so useful as your knowledge of
_men_ has been to me.
Now, with such convictions, my dear Stuart, how is it possible that I
can look back on the conduct of _The Courier_, from the period of the
Duke of York's restoration, without some pain? You cannot be seriously
offended or affronted with me, if, in this deep confidence and in a
letter, which, or its contents, can meet no eye but your own, I venture
to declare, that though since then much has been done, very much of high
utility to the country, by and under Mr. Street, yet _The Courier_
itself has gradually lost that sanctifying spirit which was the life of
its life, and without which, even the best and soundest principles lose
half their effect on the human mind; I mean, the faith in the _faith_ of
the person and paper which brings them forward. They are attributed to
the _accident_ of their happening to be for such a side, or for such a
party. In short, there is no longer any _root_ in the paper, out of
which all the various branches and fruits, and even fluttering leaves,
are seen or believed to grow. But it is the old tree, barked round above
the root, though the circular decortication is so small and so neatly
filled up and coloured as to be scarcely visible but in its effects,
excellent fruit still hanging on the boughs, but they are tied on by
threads and hairs.
In all this I am well aware, that you are no otherwise to be blamed than
in permitting that which without disturbance to your heart and
tranquillity, you could not, perhaps, have prevented or effectively
modified. But the whole plan of Street seems to me to have been
motiveless from the beginning, or at least affected by the grossest
miscalculations, in respect even of pecuniary interests. For, had the
paper maintained and asserted not only its independence, but its
appearance of it;--it is true that Mr. Street might not have had Mr. A.
to dine with him, or received as many nods and shakes of the hand from
Lord this or that; but at least equally true, that the ministry would
have been far more effectively served, and that (I speak from facts),
both the paper and its conductor would have been held by the adherents
of ministers in far higher respect; and after all, ministers do not
_love_ newspapers in their hearts, not even those that support them;
indeed it seems epidemic among Parliament men in general to affect to
look down upon and despise newspapers, to which they owe 999/1000 of
their influence and character, and at least 3/5ths of their knowledge
and phraseology. Enough! burn the letter, and forgive the writer, for
the purity and affectionateness of his motive."--Quoted from the
_Gentleman's Magazine_ of June, 1838.[40]
One other point connected with Mr. C.'s writings for public journals I
must advert to before concluding this chapter. Mr. Cottle finds want of
memory in some part of the narrative, contained in this work, respecting
the publication of _The Watchman_; it is as well to let him tell the
story in his own way, which he does as follows. "The plain fact is, I
purchased the whole of the paper for _The Watchman_, allowing Mr. C. to
have it at prime cost, and receiving small sums from Mr. C.
occasionally, in liquidation. I became responsible, also, with Mr. B.
for printing the work, by which means, I reduced the price per sheet, as
a bookseller (1000), from fifty shillings to thirty-five shillings. Mr.
C. paid me for the paper in fractions, as he found it convenient, but
from the imperfection of Mr. Coleridge's own receipts I never received
the whole. It was a losing concern altogether, and I was willing, and
did bear, uncomplaining, my portion of the loss. There is some
difference between this statement, and that of Mr. Coleridge, in his
_Biographia Literaria_. A defect of memory must have existed, arising
out of the lapse of twenty-two years; but my notices, made at the time,
did not admit of mistake. There were but twenty sheets in the whole ten
numbers of _The Watchman_, which, at thirty-five shillings per sheet,
came to only thirty-five pounds. The paper amounted to much more than
the printing.
"I cannot refrain from observing further, that my loss was augmented
from another cause. Mr. C. states in the above work, that his London
publisher never paid him 'one farthing,' but 'set him at defiance.' I
also was more than his equal companion in this misfortune. The thirty
copies of Mr. C.'s poems, and the six '_Joans of Arc_' (referred to in
the preceding letter)[41] found a ready sale, by this said
'indefatigable London publisher,' and large and fresh orders were
received, so that Mr. Coleridge and myself successively participated in
two very opposite sets of feeling; the one of exultation that our
publications had found _so good a sale_; and the other of _depression_,
that the time of _payment_ never arrived!"
I take this opportunity of expressing my sense of many kind acts and
much friendly conduct of Mr. Cottle towards my Father, often spoken of
to me by my dear departed Mother, into whose heart all benefits sank
deep, and by whom he was ever remembered with respect and affection. If
I still regard with any disapproval his publication of letters exposing
his friend's unhappy bondage to opium and consequent embarrassments and
deep distress of mind, it is not that I would have wished a broad
influencive fact in the history of one whose peculiar gifts had made him
in some degree an object of public interest, to be finally concealed,
supposing it to be attested, as this has been, by clear unambiguous
documents. I agree with Mr. Cottle in thinking that he would himself
have desired, even to the last, that whatever benefit the world might
obtain by the knowledge of his sufferings from opium,--the calamity
which the _unregulated_ use of this drug had been to him--into which he
first fell ignorantly and innocently, (not as Mr. De Quincey has said,
to restore the "riot of his animal spirits," when "youthful blood no
longer sustained it," but as a relief from bodily pain and nervous
irritation)--that others might avoid the rock, on which so great a part
of his happiness for so long a time was wrecked; and this from the same
benevolent feeling, which prompted him earnestly to desire that his body
should be opened after his death, in the hope that some cause of his
life-long pains in the region of the bowels might be discovered, and
that the knowledge thus obtained might lead to the invention of a remedy
for like afflictions. Such a wish indeed, on the former point, as well
as afterwards on the latter, he once strongly expressed; but I believe
myself to be speaking equally in his spirit when I say, that all such
considerations of advantage to the public should be subordinated to the
prior claims of private and natural interests. My own opinion is, that
it is the wiser and better plan for persons connected with those, whose
feats of extraordinary strength have drawn the public gaze upon them, to
endure patiently that their frailties should be gazed and wondered at
too; and even if they think, that any reflection to them of such
celebrity, on such conditions, is far more to be deprecated than
desired, still to consider that they are not permitted to determine
their lot, in this respect, but are to take it as it has been determined
for them, independently of their will, with its peculiar pains and
privileges annexed to it. I believe that most of them would be like the
sickly queen in the fairy tale of Peronella, who repented when she had
obtained the country maiden's youth and health at the loss of rank and
riches. Be this as it may, they have not a choice of evils, nor can
exchange the aches and pains of their portion, or its wrinkles and
blemishes,--for a fair and painless obscurity. These remarks, however,
refer only to the feeling and conduct of parties privately affected by
such exposures. Others are bound to care for them as they are not bound
to care for themselves. If a finished portrait of one, in whom they are
nearly concerned, is due to the world, they alone can be the debtors,
for the property by inheritance is in them. Other persons, without their
leave, should not _undertake_ to give any such portrait; _their_ duties
move on a different plane; nor can they rightly feel themselves
"entitled" (to borrow the language of Mr. De Quincey, while I venture to
dissent from his judgment), "to notice the most striking aspects of his
character, of his disposition and his manners, as so many reflex
indications of his intellectual constitution," if this involves the
publication of letters on private subjects, the relation of domestic
circumstances and other such personalities affecting the living. I am
sure at least that conscience would prohibit _me_ from any such course.
I should never think the public good a sufficient apology for publishing
the secret history of any man or woman whatever, who had connections
remaining upon earth; but if I were possessed of private notices
respecting one in whom the world takes an interest, should think it
right to place them in the hands of his nearest relations, leaving it to
them to deal with such documents, as a sense of what is due to the
public, and what belongs to openness and honesty, may demand.
* * * * *
Of all the censors of Mr. Coleridge, Mr. De Quincey is the one whose
remarks are the most worthy of attention; those of the rest in general
are but views taken from a distance, and filled up by conjecture, views
taken through a medium so thick with _opinion_, even if not clouded with
vanity and self-love, that it resembles a horn more than glass or the
transpicuous air;--The Opium eater, as he has called himself, had
sufficient inward sympathy with the subject of his criticism to be
capable in some degree of beholding his mind, as it actually existed, in
all the intermingling shades of individual reality; and in few minds
have these shades been more subtly intermingled than in my Father's. But
Mr. De Quincey's portrait of Coleridge is not the man himself; for
besides that his knowledge of what concerned him outwardly was
imperfect, the inward sympathy of which I have spoken was far from
entire, and he has written as if it were greater than it really was. I
cannot but conjecture, from what he has disclosed concerning himself,
that on some points he has seen Mr. Coleridge's mind _too much_ in the
mirror of his own. His sketches of my Father's life and character are,
like all that he writes, so finely written, that the blots on the
narrative are the more to be deplored. One of these blots is the passage
to which I referred at the beginning of the last paragraph: "I believe
it to be notorious that he first began the use of opium, not as a relief
from any bodily pains or nervous irritations--for his constitution was
strong and excellent--but as a source of luxurious sensations. It is a
great misfortune, at least it is a great pain, to have tasted the
enchanted cup of youthful rapture incident to the poetic temperament.
Coleridge, to speak in the words of _Cervantes_, wanted better bread
than was made with wheat." Mr. De Quincey mistook a constitution that
had vigour in it for a vigorous constitution. His body was originally
full of life, but it was full of death also from the first; there was in
him a slow poison, which gradually leavened the whole lump, and by which
his muscular frame was prematurely slackened and stupified. Mr. Stuart
says that his letters are "one continued flow of complaint of ill health
and incapacity from ill health." This is true of all his letters--(all
the _sets_ of them)--which have come under my eye, even those written
before he went to Malta, where his opium habits were confirmed. Indeed
it was in search of health that he visited the Mediterranean,--for one
in his condition of nerves a most ill-advised measure,--I believe that
the climate of South Italy is poison to most persons who suffer from
relaxation and tendency to low fever. If my Father sought more from
opium than the mere absence of pain, I feel assured that it was not
luxurious sensations or the glowing phantasmagoria of passive dreams;
but that the power of the medicine might keep down the agitations of his
nervous system, like a strong hand grasping the jangled strings of some
shattered lyre,--that he might once more lightly flash along
Like those trim skiffs, unknown of yore,
On winding lakes and rivers wide,
That ask no aid of sail or oar,
That fear no spite of wind or tide,--
released, for a time at least, from the tyranny of ailments, which, by a
spell of wretchedness, fix the thoughts upon themselves, perpetually
drawing them inwards, as into a stifling gulf. A letter[42] of his has
been given in this Supplement, which records his first experience of
opium: he had recourse to it in that instance for violent pain in the
face, afterwards he sought relief in the same way from the suffering of
rheumatism.
I shall conclude this chapter with a poetical sketch drawn from my
Father by a friend, who knew him during the latter years of his life,
after spending a few days with him at Bath, in the year 1815.[43]
Proud lot is his, whose comprehensive soul,
Keen for the parts, capacious for the whole,
Thought's mingled hues can separate, dark from bright,
Like the fine lens that sifts the solar light;
Then recompose again th' harmonious rays,
And pour them powerful in collected blaze--
Wakening, where'er they glance, creations new,
In beauty steeped, nor less to nature true;
With eloquence that hurls from reason's throne
A voice of might, or pleads in pity's tone:
To agitate, to melt, to win, to soothe,
Yet kindling ever on the side of truth;
Or swerved, by no base interest warped awry,
But erring in his heart's deep fervency;
Genius for him asserts the unthwarted claim,
With these to mate--the sacred Few of fame--
Explore, like them, new regions for mankind,
And leave, like theirs, a deathless name behind.
FOOTNOTES:
[28] [The whole of this chapter is by Sara Coleridge, whose
narrative is now resumed from the beginning of Chapter V.]
[29] In articles on _Mr. Coleridge, the Poet, and his Newspaper
writings_, etc., in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ of May, June,
July, August of 1838.--S. C.
[30] "Short pieces," Mr. Stuart calls them in the _Gentleman's
Magazine_. But among them was _France, an Ode_, which was first
published in the _M. P._ in the beginning of 1798, and
republished in the same Paper some years afterwards, and must
have helped to give it a decent poetical reputation, I
think.--S. C.
[31] Nov. 27, 1799.--S. C.
[32] [No. IV of _Gentleman's Magazine_.]
[33] [No. VII of _Gentleman's Magazine_.]
[34] [For the full text of this letter, see _Letters_, CLXXXII.]
[35] [In the _Essays on his Own Times_, 1850.]
[36] [Letter, 4 June 1811.]
[37] "He never could write a thing that was immediately required of
him," says Mr. S., in the _Gentleman's Magazine_, of May, 1838.
"The thought of compulsion disarmed him. I could name other
able literary men in this unfortunate plight." One of the many
grounds of argument against the sole _profession_ of
literature.--S. C.
[38] [Sir Archibald Alison, after having eulogized Sir Walter Scott,
Byron, Campbell, Southey, and Moore, and indicated their
relationship to the French Revolution, says: "But the genius of
these men, great and immortal as it was, did not arrive at the
bottom of things. They shared in the animation of passing
events, and were roused by the storm which shook the world; but
they did not reach the secret caves whence the whirlwind
issued, nor perceive what spirit had let loose the tempest upon
the earth. In the bosom of retirement, in the recesses of
solitary thought, the awful source was discovered, and the
Aeolus stood forth revealed in the original Antagonist Power of
wickedness. The thought of Coleridge, even during the whirl of
passing events, discovered their hidden springs, and poured
forth in an obscure style, and to an unheeding age, the great
moral truths which were then being proclaimed in characters of
fire to mankind."--_History of Europe_, chap. lxiv.]
[39] [No. XVII of _Gentleman's Magazine_.]
[40] [Letter CCIX is our 151.]
[41] [Letter 32.]
[42] [Letter 43.]
[43] The passage belongs to him as far as "heart's deep fervency."
It concluded, when first written, with a reference to the
unhappy thraldom of his powers, of which I have been speaking;
for at that time, says the writer, in a private communication,
"he was not so well regulated in his habits and labours
afterwards." The verses are from a _Rhymed Plea for Tolerance_:
in two dialogues, by John Kenyon. I wish that I had space to
quote the sweet lines that follow, relating to the author's own
character and feelings, and his childhood passed "in our Carib
isle." They do justice to Mr. Kenyon's humility and
cheerfulness, in what they say of himself, but not to his
powers.