3963. Robert Southey to John Taylor Coleridge, 10 February 1823

 

Endorsements: 10 Feb 1823; 1823/ Febry 15th / R. Southey, Keswick –
MS: British Library, Add MS 47553. ALS; 4p.
Previously published: W. Braekman, ‘Letters by Robert Southey to Sir John Taylor Coleridge’, Studia Germanica Gandensia, 6 (1964), 127–130.

My dear Sir

Your letter enters upon many interesting topics. – At Ottery, no doubt all will be as it should be.

(1)

Southey’s sister-in-law Sara Coleridge was on an extended visit to friends and relations with her daughter, Sara. They reached Ottery St Mary in Devon, the home of many of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s family, in May 1823.

I can very well understand Mr G. Coleridges feelings, & xxxx doubt not that when he has once seen his niece he will be pleased to find there is one branch from that stock which he may regard without any disapprobation. – The most remarkable thing about her is that she has not been spoilt by her mother & her brothers, who

(2)

Hartley and Derwent Coleridge.

have done all that could possibly be done for spoiling her.

With regard to a reunion I do not think it would be desirable on any other account than that of affording a sort of home & rallying place for Hartley & Derwent, while they stand in need of one. In the separation Mrs C. was wholly passive; she had in no manner or degree provoked or deserved it. All that her husband could allege against her would be that she did not conceal her unhappiness at seeing him habitually neglect the fulfillment of every engagement which he undertook, & of every duty which he was bound to perform. She importuned him to make those exertions which were absolutely <necessary> for their subsistence (unless they were to live by borrowed means) – & this he could not bear. If she had broken her heart in silence he might perhaps have been satisfied with her.

I believe that there is no wish for a reunion on either side. He considers nothing but his own ease; & well knowing how little he can rely upon himself, will prefer the mode of life which he has followed so many years, – that is of living with any person who will house him, & collecting auditors about him. On her part, it would be an entire sacrifice of what comforts are left her; – his habits (which would be uncontrolled of course, if he had an establishment of his own) are destructive of all comfort & domestic order. She has anxieties enough now for her sons, – but then she would have a perpetual anxiety concerning her own means of subsistence. And Saras happiness would be compleatly destroyed; – she would then know what her father is, which she is very far from understanding at present.

With regard to Hartleys money,

(3)

Hartley Coleridge’s Fellowship at Oriel College, Oxford had been terminated in 1820, at the end of his probationary year. The College offered Hartley a gift of £300 in compensation, which had initially been refused. However, John Taylor Coleridge had maintained contact with Oriel and, without informing Hartley, collected the money on his cousin’s behalf. Faced with this situation, Hartley agreed to accept the money. He paid off some debts and gave the remainder to his mother.

that matter must be left wholly to his Mother, who I dare say will consider that he is likely to want it himself. As far I hear he goes on contentedly & regularly at Ambleside.

(4)

Hartley Coleridge had taken up a position as an assistant master at his old school in Ambleside.

He spent a week here in December, & appeared to be as happy as if his prospects had been the best in the world – & his conduct irreproachable. There is no relying on him, & yet I believe his feelings are good.

If Lady Beaumont has formed any indiscreet scheme of showing off Sara,

(5)

Sara Coleridge and her daughter, Sara, had visited Sir George and Lady Beaumont at Coleorton Hall, Leicestershire in 1822 on their way to London.

I am afraid Mrs C. would enter into it too readily, & set down any caution which might come from me, to a wrong xxxx motive. Most probably her warm manner of speaking has been interpreted more literally than it was meant. But I believe the Wordsworths

(6)

William and Mary Wordsworth. They visited Coleorton in March 1823 on their way to Oxford.

are going to Coleorton, & they will prevent this kind of mischief

Murray has not written a line to me since the publication of my book,

(7)

The first volume of Southey’s History of the Peninsular War (1823–1832).

– nor Gifford since his illness. I despair of any amendment in the Review while it is in Giffords hands; but it must drop from them ere long.

(8)

Gifford was considering resigning as editor of the Quarterly Review. When he did so, he was briefly succeeded by John Taylor Coleridge.

A concern of that kind will not bear continued procrastination – & Murray will feel this in that part which is the Booksellers sensorium, – his pocket. I should look upon its transfer to you as a great public good, & in that case would put my shoulder heartily to the wheel. Two numbers under proper management would obtain for the review a character which it has never yet reached.

Murray would do wisely to act upon your advice, & secure to himself the profits of an abridgement, which otherwise will be done in a vile manner for some dirty bookseller.

(9)

Southey’s History of the Peninsular War (1823–1832) was not abridged by Murray.

– The fact has not yet been brought forward as it deserves, that there is no other trade in which a certain part of its members are avowedly scoundrels. I should be very glad to see it put into a form for boys, & for those who have little time & less money, – as you would do it. I do not foresee much difficulty in comprizing the whole within the xxx intended limits There is nothing <more> to require such detail as the entrapping the royal family, – & the affairs of Portugal.

(10)

History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), I, pp. 72–148 and pp. 425–525, described the French invasion of Portugal in 1807 and the Portuguese insurrection in 1808; pp. 149–237 dealt with the abdication of Charles IV (1748–1819; King of Spain 1788–1808) and his heir, Ferdinand VII (1784–1833; King of Spain 1808, 1813–1833), under pressure from Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; Emperor of the French 1804–1815) and their replacement by Napoleon’s older brother, Joseph Bonaparte (1768–1844; King of Spain 1808–1813).

The second volume will take in Massenas retreat,

(11)

André Massena (1758–1817) commanded the invasion of Portugal in 1810–1811. Southey did not deal with his retreat until History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), III, pp. 127–154.

& for the latter years the greatest events are not those which stand in need of the fullest relation.

(12)

A somewhat disingenuous comment by Southey, whose History of the Peninsular War was heavily weighted towards the years 1808–1811 because it allowed him to reuse material he had contributed to the Edinburgh Annual Register, for 1808–1811 (1810–1813).

The second volume will (if that be possible) exhibit the atrocious wickedness of the French more strongly than the first, it will also record with what sympathy the Whigs regarded the Spaniards then.

(13)

History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), II, pp. 66–67, 168, 186, 200–202, 230, 329, 387, recounted numerous examples of French war crimes; the sceptical attitude of the Whig opposition towards the conflict in Spain was dealt with extensively, for example at pp. 246–249, 254–255, 257–260, 576–577, 581–583, 660–661, 782–784.

The very men who would now goad the Government into a war for their defence, in the hope of spreading revolution abroad & producing it at home,

(14)

Ferdinand VII had been forced to re-adopt the liberal Constitution of 1812 by a military revolt in 1820. However, France was preparing to send an army to restore Ferdinand’s absolute power. The Whigs sympathised with the Spanish liberals and urged the British government to pressurise France not to invade Spain.

– xdxd did every thing in their power then to make us abandon them to the tender mercies of Buonaparte. Brougham above all men; for he it was who gave the Edinburgh Review xx a tone, which it would not have taken had Lord Holland at than time been in England.

(15)

The Edinburgh Review (1802–1929), the main Whig quarterly journal, was consistently critical of British involvement in the Peninsular War. Brougham was one of the main contributors to the journal. Lord Holland, though a Whig, was an Hispanophile and supported the Spanish cause. He was travelling in Spain in 1808–1809 and thus unable to influence the content of the Edinburgh Review.

Lord Holland, I hear, is offended with my book. When I come to town it will be seen whether he is offended with me also, which I think will not be the case. The person who advised Sir J Moore to capitulate at Coruña is also sorely displeased, I am told.

(16)

The British Army commanded by Sir John Moore (1761–1809; DNB) had retreated to Corunna in January 1809, but successfully held off French attacks and embarked for Britain, though Moore was killed. History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), I, pp. 797–798, related how Moore was advised by some of his officers to come to terms with the French forces. Southey did not name any of these officers.

Who this person is I know not, nor desire to know. I had supposed that more than one was concerned (which indeed Sir Johns language implies) & in my own mind had conceived that Sir D Baird & Sir J Hope must have been the parties.

(17)

Sir David Baird, 1st Baronet (1757–1829; DNB) and Sir John Hope (1765–1823; DNB), later 4th Earl of Hopetoun. They had succeeded to the command of British forces at Corunna after Sir John Moore’s mortal injury.

Sir H Burrards advisers too are sore, – with less reason, as there was a salve for them.

(18)

History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), I, pp. 564–565, was critical of the conduct of Sir Harry Burrard (1755–1813; DNB) in not following up the British victory at Vimeiro (1808), but accepted that Burrard had ‘sacrificed his own feelings to his judgement’.

I am glad you find benefit from the leathern jerkin, which is certainly an excellent defence. We have been blocked up here by the snow, & it is now only slowly retreating. Your letter was detained three days on the road, – that xx is, it was five days in reaching me. We are thank God, well at present, but not without anxiety, for the croup is more prevalent here, & more fatal, than it is ever remembered to have been in these parts. Of course we are exceedingly careful, but my best hope of escaping it is that Cuthbert had an attack of the spurious kind about Xmas, & therefore I would fain persuade myself is more liable to it in that, than in its Malignant & less frequent form.

(19)

Croup is a respiratory infection, whose main symptom is a barking cough. It is usually caused by a virus and affects many young children. It was known at this time as ‘false croup’, to distinguish it from laryngeal diphtheria, formerly known as ‘true croup’, a much more serious bacterial infection that also produced a barking cough.

I wish very much to bring Edith with me to town, but doubt whether she can be spared from her mother & sisters.

(20)

Edith May’s younger sisters, Bertha, Isabel and Kate. Southey’s journey was delayed until November 1823–February 1824 and Edith May Southey accompanied him.

This partly depends upon what time the travellers

(21)

Sara Coleridge and her daughter.

may return. The B. of the Church

(22)

Southey’s The Book of the Church (1824).

will delay my departure till late April. I am sorry for this on two accounts: it would have been more accordant with my wishes to have moved earlier & returned so as to have the whole summer here, – & the book itself would go good service against the Catholic question,

(23)

The dispute over whether Catholics should be allowed to hold public office. This was not resolved until 1829.

– which some of the best men in the country are bent upon carrying, – “Blind wretches, over whom the ruin hangs!”

(24)

Here Southey misquotes himself: ‘Blind wretches, over whom the ruin hung!’ (Roderick, the Last of the Goths (1814), Book 23, line 144).

– The sure consequences of carrying it are the throwing open all corporations to the Dissenters, & an united attack upon the Tithes & Church property.

(25)

Southey feared the success of the ‘Catholic question’ would mean the repeal of the Test Act (1673), which stipulated that only members of the Church of England could hold public office. This would allow Nonconformists to gain control of many Corporations, or local borough councils, and lead to calls to remove property from the Church of England, including its rights to taxes such as tithes.

Remember us to John May. I am sorry to learn from Saras letter that he has got the gout. –

God bless you –
Yrs affectionately
RS.

Keswick. 10 Feby. 1823.

Notes

1. Southey’s sister-in-law Sara Coleridge was on an extended visit to friends and relations with her daughter, Sara. They reached Ottery St Mary in Devon, the home of many of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s family, in May 1823.[back]
2. Hartley and Derwent Coleridge.[back]
3. Hartley Coleridge’s Fellowship at Oriel College, Oxford had been terminated in 1820, at the end of his probationary year. The College offered Hartley a gift of £300 in compensation, which had initially been refused. However, John Taylor Coleridge had maintained contact with Oriel and, without informing Hartley, collected the money on his cousin’s behalf. Faced with this situation, Hartley agreed to accept the money. He paid off some debts and gave the remainder to his mother.[back]
4. Hartley Coleridge had taken up a position as an assistant master at his old school in Ambleside.[back]
5. Sara Coleridge and her daughter, Sara, had visited Sir George and Lady Beaumont at Coleorton Hall, Leicestershire in 1822 on their way to London.[back]
6. William and Mary Wordsworth. They visited Coleorton in March 1823 on their way to Oxford.[back]
7. The first volume of Southey’s History of the Peninsular War (1823–1832).[back]
8. Gifford was considering resigning as editor of the Quarterly Review. When he did so, he was briefly succeeded by John Taylor Coleridge.[back]
9. Southey’s History of the Peninsular War (1823–1832) was not abridged by Murray.[back]
10. History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), I, pp. 72–148 and pp. 425–525, described the French invasion of Portugal in 1807 and the Portuguese insurrection in 1808; pp. 149–237 dealt with the abdication of Charles IV (1748–1819; King of Spain 1788–1808) and his heir, Ferdinand VII (1784–1833; King of Spain 1808, 1813–1833), under pressure from Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821; Emperor of the French 1804–1815) and their replacement by Napoleon’s older brother, Joseph Bonaparte (1768–1844; King of Spain 1808–1813).[back]
11. André Massena (1758–1817) commanded the invasion of Portugal in 1810–1811. Southey did not deal with his retreat until History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), III, pp. 127–154.[back]
12. A somewhat disingenuous comment by Southey, whose History of the Peninsular War was heavily weighted towards the years 1808–1811 because it allowed him to reuse material he had contributed to the Edinburgh Annual Register, for 1808–1811 (1810–1813).[back]
13. History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), II, pp. 66–67, 168, 186, 200–202, 230, 329, 387, recounted numerous examples of French war crimes; the sceptical attitude of the Whig opposition towards the conflict in Spain was dealt with extensively, for example at pp. 246–249, 254–255, 257–260, 576–577, 581–583, 660–661, 782–784.[back]
14. Ferdinand VII had been forced to re-adopt the liberal Constitution of 1812 by a military revolt in 1820. However, France was preparing to send an army to restore Ferdinand’s absolute power. The Whigs sympathised with the Spanish liberals and urged the British government to pressurise France not to invade Spain.[back]
15. The Edinburgh Review (1802–1929), the main Whig quarterly journal, was consistently critical of British involvement in the Peninsular War. Brougham was one of the main contributors to the journal. Lord Holland, though a Whig, was an Hispanophile and supported the Spanish cause. He was travelling in Spain in 1808–1809 and thus unable to influence the content of the Edinburgh Review.[back]
16. The British Army commanded by Sir John Moore (1761–1809; DNB) had retreated to Corunna in January 1809, but successfully held off French attacks and embarked for Britain, though Moore was killed. History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), I, pp. 797–798, related how Moore was advised by some of his officers to come to terms with the French forces. Southey did not name any of these officers.[back]
17. Sir David Baird, 1st Baronet (1757–1829; DNB) and Sir John Hope (1765–1823; DNB), later 4th Earl of Hopetoun. They had succeeded to the command of British forces at Corunna after Sir John Moore’s mortal injury.[back]
18. History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (London, 1823–1832), I, pp. 564–565, was critical of the conduct of Sir Harry Burrard (1755–1813; DNB) in not following up the British victory at Vimeiro (1808), but accepted that Burrard had ‘sacrificed his own feelings to his judgement’.[back]
19. Croup is a respiratory infection, whose main symptom is a barking cough. It is usually caused by a virus and affects many young children. It was known at this time as ‘false croup’, to distinguish it from laryngeal diphtheria, formerly known as ‘true croup’, a much more serious bacterial infection that also produced a barking cough. [back]
20. Edith May’s younger sisters, Bertha, Isabel and Kate. Southey’s journey was delayed until November 1823–February 1824 and Edith May Southey accompanied him.[back]
21. Sara Coleridge and her daughter.[back]
22. Southey’s The Book of the Church (1824).[back]
23. The dispute over whether Catholics should be allowed to hold public office. This was not resolved until 1829.[back]
24. Here Southey misquotes himself: ‘Blind wretches, over whom the ruin hung!’ (Roderick, the Last of the Goths (1814), Book 23, line 144).[back]
25. Southey feared the success of the ‘Catholic question’ would mean the repeal of the Test Act (1673), which stipulated that only members of the Church of England could hold public office. This would allow Nonconformists to gain control of many Corporations, or local borough councils, and lead to calls to remove property from the Church of England, including its rights to taxes such as tithes.[back]
TEI Link
TEI
Volume Editor(s)
Lynda Pratt
Ian Packer