3967. Robert Southey to Henry Crabb Robinson, 22 February 1823

 

Address: To/ H.C. Robinson Esqre /3. Kings Bench Walk/ Temple/ London
Stamped: KESWICK/ 298
Postmark: E/ 26 FE 26/ 1823
Endorsement: 22d Feby 1823/ Southey./ Opinion of Spain Pxxxxx/ xx xx
MS: Dr Williams’s Trust, Crabb Robinson MSS. ALS; 4p.
Previously published: Thomas Sadler (ed.), Diary, Reminiscences, and Correspondence of Henry Crabb Robinson, 2 vols (London, 1869), II, pp. 240–244.

My dear Sir

I beg your pardon for not having returned the MSS which you have left here a year & half ago, when I was unlucky enough to miss seeing you. I thought to have taken them myself to London long ere this, & therefore put off acknowledging them till a more convenient season from time to time. But good intentions are no excuse for sins of omission. I heartily beg your pardon, – & will return them to you in person in the ensuing spring.

(1)

Southey did not leave for London until 3 November 1823. It is not clear which manuscripts Robinson had left with Southey. He called on Southey in 1821 while Southey was away; see Southey to David Laing, 19 October 1821, The Collected Letters of Robert Southey. Part Six, Letter 3738.

I shall be at Norwich in the course of my travels, – & of course see William Taylor.

(2)

Southey did not visit Norwich until January 1824; there is no indication that he met William Taylor.

As for vulgar imputations, you need not be told how little I regard them. My way of life has been straight forward, – & as the inscription upon Akbars seal says, “I never saw any one lost upon a straight road.”

(3)

Southey noted down this saying concerning Akbar the Great (1542–1605; Mogul Emperor 1556–1605) in his commonplace book but did not give a source (published as Common-Place Book, ed. John Wood Warter, 4 series (London 1849–1850), IV, p. 450). He had already used it in his review of the second edition of William Coxe, Memoirs of John Duke of Marlborough, with his Original Correspondence; Collected from the Family Records at Blenheim, and Other Authentic Sources. Illustrated with Portraits, Maps and Military Plans (1818–1819), Quarterly Review, 23 (May 1820), 1–73 (6), published 27 May 1820.

To those who know me, my life is my justification: to those who do not, my writings would be, in their whole tenour, if they were just enough to ascertain what my opinions are before they malign me for advocating them.

What the plausible objection to my history

(4)

The first volume of Southey’s History of the Peninsular War (1823–1832). In response to this, Crabb Robinson had ‘written to him [Southey] on some points of general politics, &c., the propriety of writing which I had myself doubted’ (Thomas Sadler (ed.), Diary, Reminiscences, and Correspondence of Henry Crabb Robinson, 2 vols (London, 1869), II, p. 240). By this time the two men disagreed widely on European politics, with Crabb Robinson a determined supporter of constitutional regimes in the Iberian peninsula and Germany.

which you have repeated means, I cannot comprehend, – “that I have wilfully disregarded those changes in the Spanish character which might have been advantageously drawn from the spirit of the age in the more enlightened parts of Europe.” – I cannot guess at what is meant.

Of the old governments in the peninsula my opinion is expressed in terms of strong condemnation, – not in this work only, but in the Hist. of Brazil,

(5)

History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), I, pp. 3–12, which surveyed the ‘blind and inveterate despotism’ of the Spanish and Portuguese regimes before the French Revolution; Southey’s History of Brazil, 3 vols (London, 1810–1819), III, p. 874, had criticised the ‘character of oriental despotism’ in all branches of the Portuguese government in the late eighteenth century.

wherever there was occasion to touch upon the subject. They are only not so bad as a Jacobinical tyranny, which while it continues, destroys the only good that these governments left, (that is order) – & terminates at last in a stronger despotism than that which it has xxx overthrown. – I distrust the French, because whether under a Bourbon or a Buonaparte

(6)

The Bourbon dynasty ruled France 1589–1792 and 1814–1830, much of the interval being filled by Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; Emperor of the French 1804–1814, 1815).

they are French still: but if their government were upright & their people honourable, in that case I should say that their interference with Spain

(7)

A French army was preparing to invade Spain and restore royal absolutism after a liberal revolution in 1820.

was a question of expediency: & that justice, & humanity, as well as policy, would require them to put an end to the commotions in that wretched country, & restore order there, if it were probable that this could be effected. But I do not see how they can effect it. And when such men as Mina

(8)

Francisco Espoz y Mina (1781–1836), a guerrilla leader in Navarre during the Peninsular War. He supported the Revolution of 1820 and fought vigorously against the French invasion in 1823.

& Eroles

(9)

Joaquin Ibanez Cuevas y de Valonga, Baron de Eroles (1784–1825), a Spanish commander in Catalonia during the Peninsular War. He opposed the liberal regime and supported the French invasion of 1823.

are opposed to each other, I cannot but feel how desperately bad the system must be which each is endeavouring to suppress, & were it in my power by a wish to decide the struggle on one side or the other, so strongly do I perceive the evils on either side, that I confess xx I should want resolution to determine.

You express a wish that my judgement were left unshackled to its own free operation. – In God’s name, what is there to shackle it? I neither court preferment nor popularity; & care as little for the favour of the great as for the obloquy of the vulgar. – Concerning Venice I have spoken as strongly as you could desire.

(10)

Southey had strongly condemned the abolition of the Republic of Venice in 1797 and Austria’s policy towards the Republic, many of whose territories (including the city itself) it absorbed in 1797–1805. The Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) had allotted Venice to the Austrian Empire and failed to restore the Republic’s independence; for example, see Edinburgh Annual Register, for 1809, 2:1 (1811), 575, 590.

Concerning Genoa, – instead of giving it to Sardinia I wish it could have been sold to Corsica.

(11)

The Republic of Genoa was allotted to the Kingdom of Sardinia at the Congress of Vienna; Corsica remained under French rule, as it had been since 1768, when the Republic of Genoa sold the island to France.

– The Germans were originally invited to govern Italy, because the Italians were too depraved & too divided to govern themselves.

(12)

It is not clear what events Southey is referring to here. The Holy Roman Empire had theoretically included much of north Italy since its foundation in 800. Charles V (1500–1558; Holy Roman Emperor 1519–1556) had imposed Habsburg authority in northern Italy in the 1520s, being crowned King of Italy in 1530. The Austrian branch of the Habsburgs had ruled Milan from 1707 and Tuscany from 1737. The Congress of Vienna had allotted Lombardy and Venetia to Austria, while a junior branch of the Habsburgs ruled Tuscany, thus ensuring Austrian dominance in northern Italy.

You cannot wish more sincerely than I do that the same causes did not exist to render the continuance of their dominion – not indeed a good, – but certainly under present circumstances, the least of two evils: It is a bad government, & a clumsy one; – & indeed the best foreign dominion can never be better than a necessary evil.

Your last question is – what I think of the K. of Prussias utter disregard of his promises?

(13)

In a declaration of 22 May 1815 Frederick William III (1770–1840; King of Prussia 1797–1840) had promised to introduce a central assembly of representatives, drawn from the provincial estates of the Kingdom of Prussia. However, this promise had never been fulfilled.

You are far better qualified to judge of the state of his dominions than I can be. But I would ask you whether the recent experiments which have been made of establishing representative governments are likely to encourage or deter those Princes who may formerly have wished to introduce them in their states? And whether the state of England since the conclusion of the war, has been such as would recommend, or disparage, the English constitution, to those who may once have considered it as the fair ideal of a well-balanced government? – The English Liberals & the English press are the worst enemies of liberty.

It will not be very long before my speculations upon the prospects of society will be before the world.

(14)

Southey’s Sir Thomas More: or, Colloquies on the Progress and Prospects of Society (1829).

You will then see that my best endeavours for the real interests of humanity have not been wanting. Those interests are best consulted now by the maintenance of order. Maintain order, & the spirit of the age will act surely & safely upon the governments of Europe. But if the Anarchists prevail, there is an end of all freedom: a generation like that of Sylla, or Robespierre,

(15)

Lucius Cornelius Sulla (138–78 BC), the Roman general who ended the civil wars of his time and served as dictator 82–79 BC, and Maximilien Robespierre (1758–1794), the French revolutionary and leading figure during the Terror of 1793–1794. Southey probably means here that liberal reforms would lead to civil war.

will be succeeded by a despotism, appearing like a Golden age at first, but leading like the Augustan age

(16)

Augustus (63 BC–14 AD; Roman Emperor 27 BC–14 AD) restored order in Rome, but at the price of establishing his absolute rule, thus ending the Roman Republic and paving the way for much more tyrannical and dissolute rulers.

to the thorough degradation of everything.

I have answered you, tho hastily, as fully as the limits of a letter will admit, – fairly – freely, & willingly. – My views are clear & consistent, – & could they be xx inscribed on my grave-stone I should desire no better epitaph.

Wordsworth is at Coleorton, & will be in London long before me. He is not satisfied with my account of the Con. of Cintra:

(17)

In the Edinburgh Annual Register, for 1808, 1.1 (1810), 365–378, Southey had declared that the Convention of Cintra (1808), negotiated by Britain with the defeated French forces in Portugal, was ‘scandalous’ (366). Southey’s treatment of the matter in History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), I, pp. 566–594, was much more circumspect, pointing out the Convention’s military advantages, but declaring it contained ‘some political errors’ (577). Wordsworth remained much more critical of the Convention, which he had condemned in The Convention of Cintra (1809).

the rest of the book he likes well. Our difference here is, that he looks at the principle, abstractedly & I take into view the circumstances.

When you come into this country again, give me a few days. I have a great deal both within doors & without which I should have great pleasure in showing you.

farewell & believe me
yours sincerely
Robert Southey.

Notes

1. Southey did not leave for London until 3 November 1823. It is not clear which manuscripts Robinson had left with Southey. He called on Southey in 1821 while Southey was away; see Southey to David Laing, 19 October 1821, The Collected Letters of Robert Southey. Part Six, Letter 3738.[back]
2. Southey did not visit Norwich until January 1824; there is no indication that he met William Taylor.[back]
3. Southey noted down this saying concerning Akbar the Great (1542–1605; Mogul Emperor 1556–1605) in his commonplace book but did not give a source (published as Common-Place Book, ed. John Wood Warter, 4 series (London 1849–1850), IV, p. 450). He had already used it in his review of the second edition of William Coxe, Memoirs of John Duke of Marlborough, with his Original Correspondence; Collected from the Family Records at Blenheim, and Other Authentic Sources. Illustrated with Portraits, Maps and Military Plans (1818–1819), Quarterly Review, 23 (May 1820), 1–73 (6), published 27 May 1820.[back]
4. The first volume of Southey’s History of the Peninsular War (1823–1832). In response to this, Crabb Robinson had ‘written to him [Southey] on some points of general politics, &c., the propriety of writing which I had myself doubted’ (Thomas Sadler (ed.), Diary, Reminiscences, and Correspondence of Henry Crabb Robinson, 2 vols (London, 1869), II, p. 240). By this time the two men disagreed widely on European politics, with Crabb Robinson a determined supporter of constitutional regimes in the Iberian peninsula and Germany.[back]
5. History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), I, pp. 3–12, which surveyed the ‘blind and inveterate despotism’ of the Spanish and Portuguese regimes before the French Revolution; Southey’s History of Brazil, 3 vols (London, 1810–1819), III, p. 874, had criticised the ‘character of oriental despotism’ in all branches of the Portuguese government in the late eighteenth century.[back]
6. The Bourbon dynasty ruled France 1589–1792 and 1814–1830, much of the interval being filled by Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; Emperor of the French 1804–1814, 1815).[back]
7. A French army was preparing to invade Spain and restore royal absolutism after a liberal revolution in 1820.[back]
8. Francisco Espoz y Mina (1781–1836), a guerrilla leader in Navarre during the Peninsular War. He supported the Revolution of 1820 and fought vigorously against the French invasion in 1823.[back]
9. Joaquin Ibanez Cuevas y de Valonga, Baron de Eroles (1784–1825), a Spanish commander in Catalonia during the Peninsular War. He opposed the liberal regime and supported the French invasion of 1823.[back]
10. Southey had strongly condemned the abolition of the Republic of Venice in 1797 and Austria’s policy towards the Republic, many of whose territories (including the city itself) it absorbed in 1797–1805. The Congress of Vienna (1814–1815) had allotted Venice to the Austrian Empire and failed to restore the Republic’s independence; for example, see Edinburgh Annual Register, for 1809, 2:1 (1811), 575, 590.[back]
11. The Republic of Genoa was allotted to the Kingdom of Sardinia at the Congress of Vienna; Corsica remained under French rule, as it had been since 1768, when the Republic of Genoa sold the island to France.[back]
12. It is not clear what events Southey is referring to here. The Holy Roman Empire had theoretically included much of north Italy since its foundation in 800. Charles V (1500–1558; Holy Roman Emperor 1519–1556) had imposed Habsburg authority in northern Italy in the 1520s, being crowned King of Italy in 1530. The Austrian branch of the Habsburgs had ruled Milan from 1707 and Tuscany from 1737. The Congress of Vienna had allotted Lombardy and Venetia to Austria, while a junior branch of the Habsburgs ruled Tuscany, thus ensuring Austrian dominance in northern Italy.[back]
13. In a declaration of 22 May 1815 Frederick William III (1770–1840; King of Prussia 1797–1840) had promised to introduce a central assembly of representatives, drawn from the provincial estates of the Kingdom of Prussia. However, this promise had never been fulfilled.[back]
14. Southey’s Sir Thomas More: or, Colloquies on the Progress and Prospects of Society (1829).[back]
15. Lucius Cornelius Sulla (138–78 BC), the Roman general who ended the civil wars of his time and served as dictator 82–79 BC, and Maximilien Robespierre (1758–1794), the French revolutionary and leading figure during the Terror of 1793–1794. Southey probably means here that liberal reforms would lead to civil war.[back]
16. Augustus (63 BC–14 AD; Roman Emperor 27 BC–14 AD) restored order in Rome, but at the price of establishing his absolute rule, thus ending the Roman Republic and paving the way for much more tyrannical and dissolute rulers. [back]
17. In the Edinburgh Annual Register, for 1808, 1.1 (1810), 365–378, Southey had declared that the Convention of Cintra (1808), negotiated by Britain with the defeated French forces in Portugal, was ‘scandalous’ (366). Southey’s treatment of the matter in History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), I, pp. 566–594, was much more circumspect, pointing out the Convention’s military advantages, but declaring it contained ‘some political errors’ (577). Wordsworth remained much more critical of the Convention, which he had condemned in The Convention of Cintra (1809).[back]
TEI Link
TEI
Volume Editor(s)
Lynda Pratt
Ian Packer