4074. Robert Southey to John Taylor, 24 October 1823

 

Address: To/ John Taylor Esqre/ at Mrs Taylors/ Market-Place/ Retford
Stamped: KESWICK/ 298
Seal: red wax, design illegible
MS: Beinecke Library, Osborn MSS File ‘S’, Folder 14181. ALS; 4p.
Unpublished.

Keswick. 24 Oct. 1823
Dear Sir

The three sheets H. J. K. require a great deal of pruning.

(1)

This refers to: Dialogue VI of Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, pp. 93–113, between Pericles (c. 495–429 BC), Athenian statesman, and Sophocles (c. 497/6 BC–c. 406/5 BC), Athenian playwright; Dialogue VII of Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, pp. 115–129, between Louis XIV (1638–1715; King of France 1643–1715) and Francoise de la Chaise (1624–1709), the king’s confessor; and Dialogue VIII of Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, pp. 131–151, between ‘Cavali…

It is a safe principle to say that every thing should be cut out in which the author, writing under the influence of personal feelings has expressed himself in a manner which may very possibly be injurious to others & hurtful in its consequences to himself. Upon this principle I would strike out the passage part of the speech of Sophocles pp. 109–10. from “Chlorus grew rich – to – the less for Sophocles.”

(2)

This passage was removed. ‘Chlorus’ was a thinly disguised portrait of Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (1769–1822; DNB), Foreign Secretary 1812–1822. Landor criticised him here for his rejection of Landor’s appeal to him to reprimand Edward Dawkins (1792–1865), a British diplomat, whom Landor believed had insulted his wife, Julia.

Personal as what precedes it is, it may I think stand, because its application will not be understood even by the parties themselves.

I would strike also out also the first paragraph in the speech of Pericles p111.

(3)

This passage was removed; it remarked on the insanity of all royal families.

The second sentence of that paragraph is true, but the first is not, & would be deservedly deemed mischievous.

I hardly know what to say respecting the seventh Conversation,

(4)

Dialogue VII of Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, pp. 115–129, between Louis XIV (1638–1715; King of France 1643–1715) and Francoise de la Chaise (1624–1709), the king’s confessor.

which is altogether such as Voltaire

(5)

Francois-Marie Arouet (1694–1778), the French philosopher and writer and religious sceptic.

would have written, – & yet the difference between Voltaire & Landor is as great in every thing as between French & Englishman. Had the characters of the Dialogue been imaginary, the satire would not be exaggerated; I know enough of Catholic casuistry to say this: but <it> is so as applied to Louis 14. & appears even more so than it is. Xxx I should rather not lose the whole, & yet know not how to preserve it. Might it pass with the following corrections?

P 121 dele – on much slighter we read in the Old Testament.

(6)

This passage was retained in Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, p. 119.

122 line 7 – for God Almighty, read their Deity, – or omit the sentence.

(7)

This passage was retained in Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, p. 120.

125. for a clyster, read an enema – & omit the note, for the Latin hymn contains nothing in its meaning to justify the ridicule.

(8)

These changes were made in Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, p. 123.

If you think these alterations insufficient – as I fear they are, to remove xx serious objections against the whole Conversation, – let the whole be omitted: as the safest, & I believe the best course. What is really just in it, the author may introduce in an unobjectionable form.

p. 140 insert asterisks or lines – in place of the words Edinburgh, Valpy, & Classical.

(9)

Dialogue VIII of Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, pp. 131–151, was between ‘Cavaliere Puntomichino’ and ‘Denis Eusebius Talcranagh’. The passage indicated here on p. 138 was replaced in the published version.

142. We must begin to expunge from One of these worthies – where to end I know not, whether at x xx “the same patriot? p. 144, or if what may follow in the ensuing sheet will require farther pruning.

(10)

This passage was omitted on p. 140. It again referred to Edward Dawkins (1792–1865), a British diplomat in Italy, whom Landor believed had insulted his wife, Julia.

I have not seen Charles Lambs letter to me,

(11)

Southey had commended Lamb’s Essays of Elia (1823) in Quarterly Review, 28 (January 1823), 524, published 8 July 1823, but commented that the book ‘wants only a sounder religious feeling, to be as delightful as it is original’. Lamb took offence and responded with ‘Letter of Elia to Robert Southey, Esquire’, London Magazine, 8 (October 1823), 400–407.

but have just heard in what temper it is written. When I reach London I shall if it requires <from me> any thing like explanation, or vindication xxxxxxx xxxxx say what is fitting at the end of the next Q Review. If any part needs a personal reply, that must be made in private.

(12)

Southey did not refer to this matter in the Quarterly Review, but wrote to Lamb; see Southey to Charles Lamb, [19 November 1823], Letter 4088.

But I hope & trust that no intemperance or injustice on his xxxxxx <part> will provoke in me a feeling of anger toward one whose genius I have always so heartily admired, & whose goodness of heart I have always so thoroughly respected. My disposition (thank God) is not irritable, – & with me at least, kindly feelings of nearly thirty years standing, are not easily cast off.

I remain Sir
Yrs faithfully
Robert Southey.

Notes

1. This refers to: Dialogue VI of Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, pp. 93–113, between Pericles (c. 495–429 BC), Athenian statesman and Sophocles (c. 497/6 BC–c. 406/5 BC), Athenian playwright; Dialogue VII of Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, pp. 115–129, between Louis XIV (1638–1715; King of France 1643–1715) and Francoise de la Chaise (1624–1709), the king’s confessor; and Dialogue VIII of Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, pp. 131–151, between ‘Cavaliere Puntomichino’ and ‘Denis Eusebius Talcranagh’.[back]
2. This passage was removed. ‘Chlorus’ was a thinly disguised portrait of Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh (1769–1822; DNB), Foreign Secretary 1812–1822. Landor criticised him here for his rejection of Landor’s appeal to him to reprimand Edward Dawkins (1792–1865), a British diplomat, whom Landor believed had insulted his wife, Julia.[back]
3. This passage was removed; it remarked on the insanity of all royal families.[back]
4. Dialogue VII of Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, pp. 115–129, between Louis XIV (1638–1715; King of France 1643–1715) and Francoise de la Chaise (1624–1709), the king’s confessor.[back]
5. Francois-Marie Arouet (1694–1778), the French philosopher and writer and religious sceptic.[back]
6. This passage was retained in Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, p. 119.[back]
7. This passage was retained in Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, p. 120.[back]
8. These changes were made in Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, p. 123.[back]
9. Dialogue VIII of Imaginary Conversations of Literary Men and Statesmen, 2 vols (London, 1824), II, pp. 131–151, was between ‘Cavaliere Puntomichino’ and ‘Denis Eusebius Talcranagh’. The passage indicated here on p. 138 was replaced in the published version.[back]
10. This passage was omitted on p. 140. It again referred to Edward Dawkins (1792–1865), a British diplomat in Italy, whom Landor believed had insulted his wife, Julia.[back]
11. Southey had commended Lamb’s Essays of Elia (1823) in Quarterly Review, 28 (January 1823), 524, published 8 July 1823, but commented that the book ‘wants only a sounder religious feeling, to be as delightful as it is original’. Lamb took offence and responded with ‘Letter of Elia to Robert Southey, Esquire’, London Magazine, 8 (October 1823), 400–407.[back]
12. Southey did not refer to this matter in the Quarterly Review, but wrote to Lamb; see Southey to Charles Lamb, [19 November 1823], Letter 4088.[back]
TEI Link
TEI
Volume Editor(s)
Lynda Pratt
Ian Packer