TH OMAS L OVE PEA COCK

A C R I T I C A L S T U D Y

BY

' Az MARTIN FREEMAN

N EW Y ORK MITCHELL KENNERLEY

T O

F. A . H .

N OTE

My thanks are due to Professor Dowden for permission to make use of biographical matter contained in his Life of Shelley and to Mes r a s ren h Tr ne nd . rs . Kegan Paul, T c , ub Co , Ltd s or r t e rmi sion . . ,f confi ming h pe There is in the British Museum a privately issu d T si B un entitled The e he s r . . Yo by D A . g, ” Li T is e a Peacock . h w r nd s . L o k f N ovel of T . contains a good deal of collected information ,and ’ has a considerable space devoted to Peacock s oliti a s s Althou h p c l and literary critici m . g I have made little or no use of this work,not having r d ea it u il s . and . were nt my chapter I V. , V VI , except for excisions for the sake of shortening,in their resent or it is l air t Dr Youn p f m, on y f o . g, especially as his book has never been published in England,to state here that he was the first to write anything like a complete study of Peacock from this oint o vie p f w. M F A . . .

C O N TE N T S

EARLY INFLUENCES Y OUTHFUL COMPOSITIONS PSUEDO - CLASSICISM BEGINNINGS OF SATIRE SHELLEY IN ENGLAND SHELLEY IN ITALY “ THE AUTHOR OF HEADLONG HALL w & THE EAST INDIA HOUSE PERIOD GRY LL GRANGE

I

EARLY INFLUENCES

N one of his letters from Italy, Shelley mentions an early belief of his own, I h hi that anyt ing w ch a man does, spe aks, thinks, suffers, may be i nterpreted as an allegory or image of his whole life . The investigation of this theory with regard to an entertaining biography might conceivably lead to interesting developments and m odific a tions, and these, in addition to the many in stances that might be found of its absolute truth,woul d doubtless afford an amusing if not

a li overwhelmingly instructive study. Its pp cation to the life of Thomas Love Peacock is not possible except in a very fragmentary The d manner. published recor s are so broken, and the references of his contemporaries are of such disparate interest and of such varying degrees of biographical importance, that it is difficul t to see his life as a whole or to recognise

- In in it any well developed scheme . tracing the course of the Thames, on that romantic 13 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

expedition which he made in order to provide himself with material for his anti - Romantic poem ,hi s only difficul ty was in locating exactly T m its source . hat once acco plished,the towing path and the barge brought him easily and

o inevitably to the sea. But the c urse of his life is that of a remote and lonely stream, approachable only at certain points,the greater part of its channel being hidden in impenetrable

mystery. His career, unl ike those of many men of his time, with whom h e was acquainted at

r w as l va ious periods, what is called uneventfu . He h ad not the popularity as an author nor the fondness for society which might bring him into newspaper notoriety,or cause him to figure prominently in the journal s of the more notable

men of his day. His favourite pursuits were solitary ; the occupation of his mature years made him almost completely anonymous ; hi s wanderings took him ,generally alone,to remote parts of England or Wales,and were not diver sified even by that most fashionable of the

da Co amusements of the y,a visit to the ntinent. He was neither a modish nor a voluminous writer, and was not constantly called upon by publishers for reminiscences or articles of a To personal nature for the magaz ines . write a 14 EARLY INFLUENCES full and satisfactory account of hi s life would consequently only be practicable if there were a large m ass of detailed material available ; and it would then resolve itself into a chronicle of study and rambling,of boating and walking, of c onversations and theorising, of work and of gradually accumul ated knowledge and widening

s m interests . It would lowly unfold the inti ate and reflective progress of a personality so pro nounce d that the slightest anecdote seems to add something vital to it s effect, of a writer of such intense individuality that his shortest fragments of prose possess a tantalising interest, and whose thoughts and fancies coul d never l fai to charm . But in the extreme scarcity ( so far as is yet known) of letters or journals, it seems highly improbable that such an account can ever be put together. Our knowledge of his life is limited to a number of scattered unconnected facts . His writings are not con tinuous . There are long intervals of time b e tween m any of his books—years during which his commentary on public affairs is sil ent and the course of hi s life disappears like a sunken stream . Young m e n who read Crotchet Ca stle, the sixth of his novels,m arried and had chil dren, and the childr en grew up to manh ood and read Gryll Grange, his seventh and last, when their 15 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

h ad h fathers forgotten its author. Between t e publication of his first and last poem sixty years h ad elapsed ; but t he records of his existence would, if placed in close juxtaposition, hardly

fill out t e n years . Yet as w e piece together the scanty and ln ’ sufii cient notices, Shelley s discarded theory hovers near and obtrudes itself at intervals, now callin g for confirmation, now emphasising a remarkable contradiction, and anon arresting the attention at some hardl y noticeable cir cumst ance , asking whether or no this is a true m t instance of the anifesta ion of the principle. There is a strange congruence, a harmonious cohesion in some of his otherwise unrelated actions, utterances and aspirations, as though Nature and Fortun e, making use of him some times as a confederate and at other moments as an un conscious agent, were striving to impart

‘ to his fe ,with its experiences and accomplish ments, that unity which he as a philo sopher woul d have approved, and which seems so signally lacking in the careers of most men, whose history more often presents a uniformity of aiml essness . For the purposes of our criticism we have to notice the influences of his early y so far as they can be traced, and in so 16 EARLY INFLUENCES they have any recognisable bearing on his intellectual and artistic development ; his first productive period,when he attem pted to storm the citadel of Fame with volumes of antiquated descriptive and philosophical verse ; the years passed in contact with Shelley,and his first four satires the years following,when he wrote his three romances and the conversation-novel of his matur ity. An occasional glance is all that can be obtained of the long succeeding portion of his life, sparsely scattered over with some interesting reviews, some charming articles of more personal interest, includin g his re colle c tions of Shelley, and culminating in the con

- - versation romance epilogue of his old age. It is at least noticeable that,being the son of a merchant who h ad married into a naval family, he developed great aptitude both for

e To t busin ss and navigation . tha extent his nativity seems to lend support to the theory of unity and plan in his life. But there imme diately arises to combat this presumption a consideration, which appears at first sight seriously to invalidate it. His first employ ’ ment was in a merchant s office, his second on board a man- of- war : both were very soon

s abandoned as hopelessly un uitable . His final and permanent appointment however may lead 17 B THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

a i again to the origin l po nt of view. The East India House was the sphere in which he found a compromise between a common clerkship and a governm ent appointment while the work of his department, chiefly administrative and financial, afforded a good opportunity for the exercise of a union of the aristocratic and commercial qualities . But we have skipped

His father was Samuel Peacoc k, a glass ’ his merchant, carrying on trade in St. Paul s

o Chur chyard. N thing of any interest seems m m to be known of his fa ily or hi self. A frag ment of an old day- book proves that he was in

Th e business in the year 1768 . birth of his only child took place at Weymouth in October, 1785, but as he had him baptised in London at the end of the year,it is to be presumed that

s he was still in bu iness at that date . He died

r His about three years afte wards . wife was Sarah, daughter of Thomas Love, a naval

d - five captain. She survived her husban thirty ’ years,and was her son s best and most intimate

e friend. He loved her, says the writ r of an article in the N orth British R eview, with a mm love beyond that of co on natures . He consul ted her judgment in all that he wrote, and some time after her death he remarked to 18 EARLY INFLUENCES a friend that he had never written with any z eal ” o m since . Her death d es in truth see to have affected him more than any other event of his

For - five o life. more than twenty years fr m that date he wrote no thing longer than a

M of magaz ine article . any the fragmentary beginnings of satires and romances among his manuscripts belong to that period, and it was very likely owing to the want of her encourage

s ment that they were left unfini hed .

Mr After the death of her husband, s. Peacock and her son lived with her father in Chertsey. At this house the b oy no doubt heard daily talk of the se a,not o nl y from his grandfather, but from his mother as well, whose brother and nephew were also in the navy . Letters from them would afford the most interesting and welcome topic of conversation, and give rise to questions by his mother and explanations by his grandfather, constituting his early m ff education in mariti e a airs . Thus the e n vironment of his early years w as added t o the influence of heredity t o produce in him a keen interest in every form of seamanship, a passion for which he provided an outlet at all times of hi s life, taking advantage of whatever scope and vehicle chance threw in his path . In this way the first impressions of childh ood 19 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK may safely be said to have had considerable influence on the tastes and abilities developed

s in his maturer ve ar . But it is possible also that at this impressionable age he made his first acquaintance with a number of fanciful state ments, passing current as facts of natural history, which were subsequently forced upon his attention by a curious fatality, until he exalted them to their proper sphere in imagina tive literature and embodied them in a satirical If i romance . we are to bel eve the authorities, he may be said to have begun to collect material

For for his novels at the age of three . we are told that his grandfather was the original of

Captain Hawlt aught in Melincourt . If there were no motive for this character- sketch, other than the desire to perpetuate the memory of his jovial relative,certainly no write r ever made less use of what must have been unusually rich

Th e opportunities . brief account of Captain Haw lt aught is vivid enough, but trul y remark ‘f able as an in memoriam. It is related that a dangerous wound compelled the old captain to renounce his darling element, and lay himself

di his up in or nary for the rest of days. He retired on hi s half- pay and the produce of his priz e- money to a little vill age in the west of England, where he employed himself very 20

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK act e risation is entirely restricte d to the account

his of convivial habits . At that time, over a hun dr ed years ago , these were onl y considered reprehensible by a small minority of people ; still , it is hardly to be imagine d that Peacock put hi s grandfather into one of his books for the sole purpose of commemorating his habitual

m M hi s inte perance . oreover, attachm ent to the bottle, like the circum stances of his service and retirement, was not singular enough to di him m ul stinguish fro a m titude of others . Th e clue then to t h e identity of Captain Love and Captain Haw lt aught , if it exist, must be sought in the onl y remaining piece of informatio n which is given regarding the latter, namely,

Mr that it was he who introduced Sir Oran to .

i s ru f l Foreste r . Is th a t th u fable, a mystical ’ acknowledgment of the author s early - contracted

‘ Mr F re re debt 2 R emembering that . orester p sents Peacock, and taking Captain Hawlt aught as meaning Captain Love, it is not diffi cult to see in the two pages of Melincourt in which the old gentlem an appears, an indirect statement of the fact that the young Thom as Love Peacoc k was made acquainted by his grandfather, not ’ with Sir Oran in person,but with the sailors tales and legends about him . Such sto ries, though possibly m ore lively in detail , could not easily 22 EARLY INFLUENCES have been more romantic in substance than what was related of him in the philo so phical literature

D m ss dl of the day. is i ed as i e tales,they would have been vividl y recalled by the learned bo oks

which were read later on . Proof is of course impossible, but such a reference to his fir st ’ s authority was quite in Peacock m anner. In Melincourt almost every character can be ao counted for, no t only for his part in the story

o T but for an extrane us reason as well . his supposition would explain the introduction of h Captain Hawlt aug t . He is not necessary either to the story, the theories, or the satire,

and is brought in merely because he firs t in

t r d e d o uc Mr. Oran (as he then was) t o civilisation

Mr . F and to orester. ’ With the arrival of Peacock s school- days

Th e conjecture happily gives way to evidence . first and most interesting is contained in Some Recollections of Childhood by the Author of Hea l l d ong Hal . Written when he was fifty,

’ and published in the fir st number of Bentley s Miscellany,they record some of his impressions

n o his at the begi ning of this second peri d of life . Together with the descriptive sketch called The Last Day of Windsor F orest and one or two small poems, they are remarkable among the mass of his finished writings as being ostensibly 23 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK autobiographical, and approaching more nearly to personal and intimate utterance than any t hing else intended by him to reach the public . And even this description of them needs qualify

ing. It would indeed be surprising if a man so habitually and consistently ironical,so completely r estrained and reserved whenever he is not indulging in pure b ufloone ry or objective des c ript ion, should be foun d writing a series of c onfessions for the amusement of the critics or T e ven for the delectation of posterity. hese are not so much recollections of his own chil dhood as childish memories of other peo ple and external

things. They must be read as strictly true to ’ fact,for there is no reason to doubt the author s intention and they woul d lose all point if they were fabricated ; such is their brevity and, in

s pite of the great charm of style,their incoherence. Yet they are by no means rich in actual informa tion, and are chiefly interesting because they are reminiscent, in almost every line, of his

his novels . He has kept own personality as much as possible in the background, and has given us a minute chapte r, a paragraph, con cerning some of those early impressions which

The were to be reproduced in his writings. name of the place in which the scene is laid, Th e Abbey House, brings the reader imme 24 EARLY INFLUENCES diate ly into the familiar atmosphere,and another characteristic touch is added by the description

The of the house and gardens . article is through out an excellent example of his style, and were it not for the use of the first personal pronoun might well be the introductory chapter of a book like H eadlong Hall or N ightmare Abbey. The house had been built near the site of one of those ancient abbeys, whose demesnes the pure devotion of Henry VIII. transferred from their former occupants (who foolishl y imagined they had a right to them , though they lacked the might which is its essence) to the members of his convenient parliamentary chorus,who helped

his him to run down Scotch octave of wives . The ruins were left in that state which most admirably fitted them to become the subject of a description by Peacock . With the exception of a gateway and a piece of wall,the only remains were those of the fishponds, a kind of pisca t orial panopticon, where all approved varieties of freshwater fish had been classified, each in its own pond,and kept in good order,clean and fat, for the mortificat ion of the flesh of the

o s monastic br therhood on fast day . Though not so large as most of the country mansions at which the entertainments and symposia of the novels take place,the house was 25 THOMA S LOVE PEACOCK sufficiently dignified to have a pair of massy iron gates, which gave entrance to a circular gravel road,encompassing a large smooth lawn ” with a sundial in the centre, a broad flight of stone steps, a ponderous portal, and a great l T antique hal . his contained a recess with a porter’ s chair and was paved with chequered black and white m arble it gave access to the ’ principal ro oms, the servants win g and the

s great stairca e . Among other notable features of the large old -fashioned gardens were two groves of trees with a wide glade between them , running from a po int Opposite the garden steps at the back of the house to the limit of the property,and thus affording a view of the open

he country beyond . T darker of the groves was naturally mysterious, and one evening seemed on the point of yieldin g up some of it s secrets,

s or at lea t calling attention to their existence . Peacock,aged seven years,w as enr aptured to be the discoverer of the fact that the grove was

s li haunted . Such a pos ibi ty had often been

s e discussed,but now at last he had e n the ghost. He immediately communicated the news,which

s ~ The was treated with becoming seriou ness. whole household assembled, and proceeded in a

body to investigate the scene of the apparition. The Th e resul t w as sadl y di sillusioning . grove 26 EARLY INFLUENCES had not spoken,o r if it had,it w as in a frivolous

s i and unworthy manner. A tall blo soming l ly, gron on the outskirts of the trees,was gently swaying to and fro in the wind,so that from the point where the child had stood it was alternately visible and hidden. Besides this incident, only two others are recorded ,and of these Peacock himself was onl y

Th e concerned directly with one . first is, that he once wrenched away fro m the nursery maid the garden carriage, containing the baby,

' and se t o ff at full speed ; and had not run many yards before I overturned the carriage

e il and rolled out the little girl . Th ch d cried li ke Alice Fell, and woul d not be pacified. Luckily she ran to her sister, who let m e o ff with an admonition and the exaction of a promise never to meddl e again with the child’ s ” T e s d m o carriage . h second, more ober an re shadowy, is his successful inte rcession for Charles, the son of the house, who had be en confined to his room in disgrace for some mis demeanour to wards an elderly relative,to whose

authority he had a rooted objection . I found him in his chamber sitting by the fir e with a pile of ghostly tales,and an accumul ation of lead

d s in o ld which he was casting into ump a m u . He was determined not to make any submission, 27 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

and his captivity was likely to last till the end ” his li For i of ho days . some reason th s scene m ade a deep and lasting impression on Peacock . He says that in later life he could never hear of any one being in the dumps without having it vividl y recalled to hi s memory ; and when he first read the lines in Don Juan

I pass my evenings in long galleries solely, ’ ’ And that s the reason I m so melancholy, he was immediately transported in thought to this room , at the end of a long corridor, of ’ his f l c school el ow s aptivity. The grown - ups of the establishment had none of the salient peculiarities that might have tempted Peacock to ente r upon a detailed

T - hi d description of them . hey were old fas one people living an exceedingly quiet and retired life, and as such they receive his warm appro

t i Th e m os b a on . other and eldest daughter p sessed all the solid qualities which were con ” side re d female virtues in the dark ages, and seldom left the grounds except to go to church

e and to take their daily drive . Th daugh ter played the harpsichord and made exquisite

preserves . Peacock enjoyed listening to her music, but often incurred her mild displeasure by playing th e be upon the instrument so Th e re vigorously as to put it out of tune. p 28

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK ve ars of comparative poverty which he passed

through as a young m an . It is not to be wondered at that the scene of so m any of hi s stories

mi s should be located in si lar mansion . They were but the castles in Spain wherein he indulged his tastes for good living and ingenious con

is s versation . It of cour e true that a large and hospitable country house provided the most h s obvious and easy setting for stories such as i . Caring little or nothing for preliminaries, he is only anxious to bring together, with as short a delay as possible, his co mpany o f crank s and fo ols and scholars, and m ake them talk and dance, perform their antics and display their incongruous peculiarities, for his own amuse

a o f s it s c o ment and th t his reader . Yet n veni ence as a background would in itself be inadequate to account for the amount of atten tion devoted to the country house in most of

o his tales. In his b oks, superfluous description m m ay al ost be said not to exist. There are a fe w passages of terse though enthusiastic d e s c ript ion o f natural scenery, though thi s is often in immediate connection with the situatio n of the house : personal appearance and dr ess are very sparingly indicated,especially in the earlier works towns,villages,inns,and other o bjects, appearing but as item s of travel or discussion, 30 EARLY INFLUENCES

m receive no individual treat ent whatever. But — the houses R edrose Abbey, Melincourt Castle, — Nightmare Abbey and the rest are, if no t elaborately,yet carefully and lo vingly described, and their treatment gives to his books an at mo sph e re which they would otherwise lack, and which is moreover that of this house of hi s i early memories . Th s is only one instance of the homogeneousness o f his writings, and their

s o clo e c rrespondence with his own experience . Charles,co mforting himself in his isolated room with ghost stories and leaden dumps, might be a youthful study of Scyt hrop in his tower, surrounded with weird novels and myste rious appliances the gardens, with their groves and large old- fashioned flowers, lilies, hollyhocks, sunflowers, seem to chall enge the criticism of

Mr M s . ile tone : the simple and orderly life of the inmates of The Abbey House invokes the

R r D . blessing of the everend Opimian. YOUTHFUL. COMPOSITIONS

HE R ecollections of Childhood refer to ’ the beginning of Peacock s school life . From this time to about the e nd of his thirte enth year he was at a boarding school at Engle field Green,kept by a m an whose D name is variously given as icks and Wicks . He is said to have been proud of his pupil,

l ur s hl him whi e Peacock in t n peaks hig y of . Their mut ual respect was founded on something

broader than proficiency in Latin grammar. Some of those who knew Peacock assert that in spite of his wide reading he was never an exact scholar,and this is precisely the criticism which he afterwards m ade of his master,though pr aising him highly for his enthusiasm and sympathy, and for his success in making the boys take interest and pleasure in what he taught

The all al them . latter are after the most vit and valuable qualities of a teacher,and were of especial benefit to Peacock,for in the few years at Engle field Green he received the only educa 32 YOUTHFUL COMPOSITIONS

tion which he was ever forced or helped to acquire . In that short time, learning itself could hardl y have been brought within his reach, but the love of learning could be and undoubtedl y was

m al o imparted . In his case, encourage ent ne di was needed . His stu ous turn of mind was already declaring itself, and when he had a holiday he o ften preferred to spend it in reading by the riverside,showing thus e arly the love o f books and the o pen air, enjoyed if possible together, that lasted throughout his

Five or six short pieces, letters and copies of verses, written before he left school, are in

h e s existence. T fir t is perhaps an epitaph, dated from the school house and therefore

h o presumably for one of the boys . fl v longer and more ambitious attempts are preserved

m s among his anu cripts . A letter in verse to his cousin Robert Walrond,then in Madr id,is dated m 25t h 1 5 Chertsey, Septe ber , 79 . Peacock was then within a month of his tenth birthday,and th e letter must have been written towards the

s m close of the um er holidays . After protesta tions of friendship and a few items of family news,he indul ges in a little o rnamental writ ’ ing on the subject of hi s cousin s expected

33 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Calm when you sail may Neptune keep The surgy billows of the deep Ah shoul d old Davi ope hi s jaw And lodge you in his hungry m aw Sorrow pale woul d fill my breast, To m r loose y friend would loose my est. Let not Aeolus vex the waves, ’ Lo ck d be the winds in roaring caves .

e Mr Thirt en years later . Walrond received a

The Genius o the Thames presentation copy of f . To us, as possibly to him , this early effort is the more entertaining of the two . We can

r D imagine that the delight of M . icks or Wicks woul d not have been unbounded if he h ad se en the line about Aeolus ; but the epistle is no mean achievement considered as a self- imposed fif holiday task . It is ty lines in length,and the state of the punctuation suggests that some of them were written at white heat. The second document,written at school from one to two years later,is in prose,and contains

o s m T high and seri u atter. hough folded in the same way as the letter to Madr id,it has no ” address outside . It begin s Dear Sir, and ”

c T. . s m &c . & . end I a L P. It was therefore probably never intended to be sent by post,and

s s m ay have been a chool exerci e. Full of rhetorical exaggeration, it is still interesting I as showing that public affairs were already . 34 Y OUTHFUL COMPOSITIONS beginning to attract the write r,and the subjec t, ” the present alarming state of the country, is curiously like that of an essay, now lost and perhaps never finished, mentioned in his diary some twenty years late r, On the probable ” The Resul t of the Present State of Things . letter w as compose d in 1796, during the scare i of a French invasion . At th s time, says the chil d of eleven, threatened by a powerful and victorious enemy,and bending under a load of severe exactions, I take up my pen to give ” you my sentiments . Th e tone marks a sad descent from that of The the preceding letter. childish manner has disappeared,with the ingenuous communication

is of spontaneous sentiments. In their stead an attempt to reproduce grown - up habits of

r speech and writing in their most absu d aspe ct.

Precocity has taken the place of originality.

The mi m i tative period has co menced . Yet such an exhibition of budding political feeling and assertive patriotism,of the God save the King and God damn the French type, may well have given great satisfaction to teachers and elders,w ho are often inordinately gratified at seeing their charges begin to grow up and become h like themselves . T e preservation of thedocument

o m hl g es to prove that so e one thought hig y of it. 35 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

’ Peac ock s childhood w as in fact drawing t o a office at an age when boys more favoured by fortune are just realising, at a public school,

The that cricket is a very serious thin g. exact date of his leaving school and rem o val to London is not known but at the beginning of the year 1800he is seen to be in the employment of a firm in Throgmorton Street,who vouch on their own respons ibility for his having attained the age of

r t Thi s fou een in the previous October. s pha e of hi s life remained unknown or unrecorded until a few years ago, when an article in The ’ Library brought it to light. A children s maga z ine called the Monthly Preceptor,st arted in 1800, o ffered priz es for essays on set subjects ; and t he first number contains the announ cement

T . co is s f that Master . L Pea ck one of the succe s ul

” Th e subject on which the children were asked to write was Is Histo ry or Bio graphy the more immoving Study The first and second priz es were won by boys of four te en and fifteen with essays which, at the present time , woul d

m m ns s prove the o ter of precocity. The fourth w as awarded to Master Henry Leigh Hunt, ’ aged 15, educated at Christ s Hospital, who ’

Dr . w as prese nted with Knox s Essays. In 36

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

He shrinks away to nought and hides his head ’ Tis thus Biography,whose humblest pace ’ Pursues one only through life s eager race, ’ ’ Before bright Hist ry s open,daring ray, l She dwind es into nought,and shr inks away.

T nl T ul heir o y quality is ambition . hey wo d be praiseworthy as the production of a child, e xcept th at they ought never to have been w T ritten by any one. hey belong to that school whose best poet could take up the work of its w o orst,and correct it into his wn . Perhaps a boy who w as fourte en in 1800 and fond of re ading coul d hardly b e expected to write in any other style, unl ess he had been nurtured e xclusively on Blake and the less polite poems c o f Burns . But they are unfortunately propheti o f what w as to come,and form a prelude,in an e xaggerated manner, to the series of poetical mistakes by which Peacock attempte d to make a reputation in hi s first period of authorship . We have no means of knowing how long or how seriously he studied the Monthly Preceptor ,

The nor is it a question of any consequence. absurd pretention and attempted completeness o f the scheme no doubt pro vo ked a revul sion in hi s enthusiasm before he hadread many numbers, and the memory of this early illusion probably added point and bitterness t o his ridicule of the 38 YOUTHFUL COMPOSITIONS

march of intellect and the spread of education . But it may be safely presumed that hi s ardour had not been quenched by the time he came to the second article in the first number,inaugurat ing the course of instruction in the Natural

History of Animals . In this he was supplied with a second set of statements, in formal and authoritative shape, regarding the structure, habits and character of that being who was to

eli urt become the hero of M nco . Leading off with the divisions of the animal kingdom according to the Linnaean system, the writer explains that the class Primates includes m n man, the monk ey, and the bat . But a , he says,will receive special treatment in that part of the course devoted to the Manners and Customs of Nations ; and after this summ ary clearing of the ground he passes immediately to the second genus, the ape or monkey or rather, as he significantly expresses it, to the di most extraor nary species of the ape kind . Th e copper plate illustration shows a shape of a an d ni st tely win ng aspect . He is of command

- Th e ing stature,and chestnut brown in colour. long hair of his head is accurately parte d down the centre ; his ears are long and shaped like those of a satyr ; his eyebrows are arched, his s eye sunken . His grey moustache is trimmed 39 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK short and neatly twisted up at each extremity, and he has a slight fringe of beard under his

His ul chin. sho ders are bowed and his coun t en nce The his a melancholy. upper part of body is bare but below,his long fur makes hi m a natural and decent pal r of trousers,extending

his to ankle . In his outstretched hand he grasps the thickest part of an untrimme d branch which he carries as a staff,t he other end resting T on the ground near his feet . his is the true blood relation of Sir Oran, who m ade such a sensation in English drawing- rooms some se ven teen years later, and was finally chosen to re

e present the borough of One vot e at Westminst r. Turning from the illustration to the te xt, Peacock read that the claim of the species to be regarded as part of the human race is dis allowed for two reasons these apes possess an extra rib in addition to the twelve of man, and t h they are dumb . Yet the tongue and all e T r vo cal organs are perfect . heir hair much mo e

s u e re embles that of man than the fur of br t s . “ Moreover in the palms of his hands are re m arkable those lines which are usually taken notice of in palmistry, and at the tips of his ” fingers, those spiral lines observed in man . But of this tall, pensive and attractive being the writer speaks with a curiously personal 40 YOUTHFUL COMPOSITIONS

c animus and dislike . His haracterisation, how ever,though unflatterin g,is remarkably human . ” This redoubtable rival o f m ankind, he writes, is as tall,or taller than a m an active,strong ” and intrepid, cunning, lascivious and cr uel . These animals are extremely swift of foot and possessed of extraordinary strength they build huts to live in,use clubs as weapons of offence, and make some attempt to bury their dead . But it must not be thought, because the Orang has so m any human qualities, that he is therefore

o f s m to human . N : in spite o any re e blance the higher creation, he remains a helpless, hopeless beast, under the general ban of God ; and, in so far as ability to provide for hi s own comfort and safety is concerned,he is m arkedl y f in erior to the elephant and the beaver. In fact, it has been sagely conjectured that in hi s natural st ate he goes on all four s, and only learns to k u i wal pright by mitation of m ankind . The discouraging, jealous, goody - goody tone of the latter part of the article coul d contribute

. nothing to . the conception of Sir Oran It was wisely discarded and forgotte n in the collection

The of material . third and most compelling appeal for immortality from this deniz en of the confines of hum anity reached Peaco ck when, ’ as a grown man, he studied Lord Monb o ddo s 41 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

A ncient Metaphysics, which rem ained one of hi s favourite books to the end of his life,and the ’ s r Pro ress ame author s O igin and g of Language. In these works he found additional matter, amplifying, idealising, humanising the early sketch of his hero, and affording a potent e or rect ive to the disill usioning tendency of the writer in the Monthly Preceptor . With this encourage ment,he made up his mind to ente r upon a full investigation of the subject (as is shown by the list of names and works quoted in the notes to Melincourt) and embody the results of his labour s in a synthetic study. Lord Monb oddo is firmly convinced of the humanity of the Orang Outangs . He speaks of ” them as a whole nation, which has been found to be, strangely, without the use of speech, though they have made some progress with the

s arts of life . They are,he say ,further advanced than m anv of the savages found in other parts of the world, and even of Europe, inasmuch as they invariably walk upright,while many of the latter walked on all four s . He gives instances of the immense difficul ty of teaching the dumb to speak, and proceeds And this very well accounts for what seems so strange at first,that tho se Orang Outangs that have been brought from Africa or Asia, and many of those solit arv 42 YOUTHFUL COMPOSITIONS

savages that have been catched in Europe , ’ never learned to speak,tho they had the organs of pronunciation as perfect as we : for, as it is well known, savages are very indolent, at least with respect to any exercise of the mind,and are hardly excited to any c uriosity or desire of learn

ml hi s ing. He held fir y to faith ; and when eleven years had elapsed fro m the writing of the sente nce just quoted,he had collected additional evidence to show that the Orang possessed not only the faculties alr eady ascribed to him,but w as capable of using a stick for defence as well as for attack,coul d learn the business of a common sailor, coul d be taught to play on the flute, was capable of great attachment to particul ar persons, and was orderly and dignified in behaviour, having an intense loathing for the habits of restlessness and destruction which are ” m nk characteristic of the o ey. If, says he, such an Animal is not a Man,I shoul d desire to know in what the essence o f a Man consists, and what it is that distinguishes a Natural Man from the Man of Art

Oranism The was now all but complete . French authorities gave a few additional facts, interesting in themselves and corroborative,but

n diff sl othing essentially erent in quality. A y hit at these writers is contained in the remarks 43 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

. Mrs Pinmone of the Hon . y on meeting the Baronet and hearing his name Haut - ton & F m rench extraction,no doubt . And now I co e to think of it,there is something very French in ” m s his physiogno y . But the fini hing touch w as brought from the Systema N aturaz of Linc naeus : He has an upright gait and a hissing speech he believes that the world was created for him , and that he will one day rul e over it ” again . Peacock adopted t he character as he found it, adding nothing but the suggested identification of hi s hero with the sylvan deities of classical antiquity . In the novel this point of view is attributed to the learned mythologist and ~ antiquarian to whom Mr . Forester had intro duce d Sir Oran, and who, having reviewed the evidence of science and legend, use d to rem ark that he had kno wn many profound philo sophical and mythological systems founded on ” s e much slighter analogie . Thus Peacock ent red as the first pioneer into this strange unexploited tract of the imagination .

For how long did Peacock remain in a state of servitude in the house of Ludlow, Fraser and Company The date of his leaving Chertsey for London used to be given as 1802,so possibly the 44

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

’ b e en preserved . He versifie d the Lord s Prayer, a feat which has been performed better and worse, both before and after his time he made a trans lation of some lines of Guacini he wrote to a lady on her recovery some stanz as that are as carefully fabricated as the drugs which may e m have helped or hind red the event com emorated. In the September of 1804, when he was nearly ninete en, he composed the first piece showing — t h e characteristics of his later mannere The

Mar Monks of St. k, a rollicking ballad in the anapaestic measure of Browning’ s I sprang to ” d the stirrup . Exten ing to some eighty or ninety lines, it is an account of drinking and ree ling, falling and bawling ghostly brothers, and would give complete satisfaction to the most

- furious anti teetotaller. It is extremely youth ful in tone,and exaggerated in incident but it

Pe aco ckian is a genuine ballad. The year 1806 saw the publication of his first volume, Palmyra and other Poems, chiefly re markable in being prefaced by a cento out of ” s o f s R the work Shake peare, To eviewers . This is perhaps the only non - vituperative passage ever written by him to or concerning the jour ” nalist s, trading critics, as he generally called

them . Some of the tribe were sincerely touched by it as an unusually courteous treatment of their 46 YOUTHFUL COMPOSITION S

To profession . attempt to procure a fair hearing by this means seems sufficiently childish and ingenuous yet it was by no means an unch arac t e ristic action . Precocious in learning,Peacock still grew up slowly in other respects . His genius w as of a decidedl y late blossoming : hi s taste and critical faculty matured gradually. In some of the letters written at the age of twenty - two or twenty- three he shows a strange delight in a pun,in an elementary misuse of language or an evident contradiction in logic,such as we should rather expect to find in a promising boy of six teen or sevente en . Th e title - poem is a formal ode upon the splendour and decadence of Palmyra,the city of Syria identified with the Tadmor of the Old

Th e is Testament. theme thus conventional though recondite— not a promising combination

dl s of qualities . It is har y nece sary to remark that the sources of the poem are entirely literary ’ they are supplied by classical writings,Gibbon s history and the accounts o f modern explorers, ’ and are all quoted, with the author s regular scrupul ousness in this respect, in full and

ff s o f T su icient note at the back the book. hus it is easily seen at the outset that none but a genius could, out of material of this nature, produce a poem giving the effect of personal 47 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

vision or experience . An effort to do so by deliberate means would lead inevitably to that vagueness and sentimentality, that forcible feeble exaggeration into which uninspired writers, especially of verse, can hardly escape falling when trying to appear earnest about what has never been a reality to them . It is to the credit of Peacock’ s good sense that he kept clear

Th e z of this pitfall . opening stan as dwell,with barely suggested description, on the desolation of the site : then follows immediately a com memoration of the events that led up to the sub jugation and d estruction of the city under Aurelian ; and lastly a lament for Palmyra, with reflections on the t ransit orv doom of men,

Th e nations and cities . qualities which in part redeem the poem from the unreadableness to which it seems foredoomed,are a certain dignity and restraint of the language and the sincerity

T o t of the emotion . h ugh it cannot be said o have auv great poetical merit, it is saturated ’ with Peacock s curiously passi onate regret for the m past . He has been bla ed for unreasonably obtruding this in so me of his later works ; but T its genuineness is indubitable . his quality alone enabled him to strike occasional sparks o f poetry out of the flint y substance of

alm ra P y . 48 YOUTHFUL COMPOSITIONS

Some readers of Shelley’ s letters may have had the curiosity to turn to the conclus ion of this poem,to find what Shelley considered the finest If piece of poetry that he had ever read . any have done this, their am az ement will have been at least equal to their trouble, though hardly an adequate reward . Shelley was of course very yo ung when he made this statement mo re than four years were to elapse between the date of the letter containing it and the publi f M hi cation o Alastor . oreover in s private cor respondence he wrote hastily, as the mood of the moment dictated, and this passage, occur ring in a letter of thank s,was not composed with the deliberation that he might have bestowed on a criticism intended to be sent forth as his final m and considered opinion . But, ore important than all these factors,it was the second edition that Shelley read, and this has never been re hi printed . In t s,issued six years after the first publication, Palmyra is largely rewritten, and

Th e the conclusion entirely changed. second termination is of course not the finest piece of poetry that Shelley had ever read up to the year 1812 ut ,b it is a distinct improvement on the first . It is to be regretted that the reprints all give Palmyra in it s first form, if only because the present arrangement encourages this wrong 49 D THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK confrontation, and so does injustice bot h to

Shelley and to Peacock. author is see n trying his prentice - hand at other

d oe r recognise p tical themes of the past gene ation . The swain,prepared to die of sentime nt b e cause his lady refuses to be kind, is missing ; but a kindred subject is supplied in the over flowings of Maria, who will peri sh in the snow be cause ’ ’ Henry hid a demon s so ul Beneath an angel s mi beauty . The best of these scellaneous piece s is Fiolfar, King of N orway, a spirit e d tale founded on Norse legend, telling how Fiolfar overcame and slew Y rrodore , who h ad stolen away Nit alph a when he was absent on an expedition, and , having discovered his brid e, broke the spell of the magic sleep in whic h she

Th e f lay, guarded by the dwarfs . vo ume co n tains also a few translations and imitations from classic al, Italian and Ossianic pieces, and one or two burlesques,including the light- hearted ’ - and felicitous Slender s Love Elegy. Speaking of the publication some years h ter, Peacock says that it may be said to have been strangled at birth ; yet two at least of the reviewe rs showed themselves friendlily disposed The Monthl Review March towards it. y for and the Critical Review for February eac h devoted 50 YOUTHFUL COMPOSITIONS nearly two pages to notices of the little volume, Th e e con sisting mostly of encouragement . writ rs of both these are far more m arkedl y than Peacock T s me n of the former age . heir chariness of prai e and jealousy for the preeminence of the older writers, their hesitation and uncertainty, make di l them appear in a solemnly ri cu ous light . Their reasoning is implicit, but not concealed

o ru by the elegant robe f words . It ns in this

e manner. Gray was a good poet,and wrot on Norse subjects here is a young poet who treats similar themes, and o ccasionally reminds us of Gray ; therefore he is a good poet, or as near good as it is po ssible for a person of hi s inferior hi years, and t s degenerate age, to be . We will ” s encour age him,but cautiou ly . So the highest praise is awarded to him in the sentence We almost see m to hear the lvre of Gray resoundin g ’ ” at times in this young writer s verse, followed

z li o m F iol ar by half a do en nes fr f . This kind of criticism was probably quite acceptable to Peacock, especially when it was

sm m favourable . Critici in the odern sense was but recently born . The writers in the smaller reviews, who alone noticed his works, woul d not have been so vexatious as to inquire of any poet what he had to say . A pleasant passage in verse,to lerably smooth and not outraging the 51 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK canons de ducible from the productions of the poets who flourishe d in the age of authority,was good poetry . A work which offended them b y innovation,irregularity,waywardn ess,in a word, by want of resemblance to what they considered the best po ems that had been or could be written, was bad . Th e write r in the Critical R eview is weighed down by a great anxiety, lest by praising too

ul s hi s di much he sho d lose ome of gnity . He assures the author,to start with,that the cento To R eviewers has not swayed his critical judgment ; at the same time the volume is really so pleasing that we feel inclin ed to dilate upon it beyond the narrow bounds we usually prescribe to ourselves on these occasions, ni mea ng presumably,in revien first attempts . ’ He cann ot help saying that Maria s Return will at least put modern lyri cal poems to the ” s a i blu h . He is not really comfort ble unt l he falls to reprim anding the author for having l included a vu gar Je w song in the collection . We can assure the author, he writes in a sen tence that shoul d have killed the plural unity of _ reviewers, that we are not Jews but we can by no means approve the illiberality,b uffoo ne ry i ” and nonsense of this portion of the book . Th e offending poem required the wrath of a 52

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK m n s o f s inute e s ver ion and luxury of typography . The phr ase at a word calls for his ofi cial censure, and he declares that buttress, plinth and crypt shoul d b e banished from the dict ionary ” of the Muses . He seems to credit Sir Walter, or rather to reproach him, with the authorship of the hymn Dies Irw, from which he quotes two lines, adding that they woul d make a ’ ” fi D u capital gure in runken Barnaby s Jo rnal . But the true critical standpoint is manife st in all frank ness and simplicity in the article on Miss ’ Th ’ Baillie s plays . e write r s tone is gene rally appreciative ; but he advises the author that, t o obtain greater success,the fashion of he r wo rk instead o f attempting ambitious irregularity,

e o old should be copi d from s me goo d artist . It is perhaps impossible to effect more than our best dramatic writers have already accomplished, let this fair author, then, be conte nted trying to imitate instead of deviating

s iu the most uccess ful efforts of human gen s . These s hort extracts will make it plain no one possessed o f a modicu need have be en very seriously disturbe d by what the Monthly Review might have to say o f his

difficult fo r an author to rem ain absolute ly nu 54 YOUTHFUL COMPOSITIONS move d by them,however contemptuous he m ay u saw feel. When he opened this n mber,and the large space allotted to Scott,Baillie,Nelson and An Essay on Man,upon principle s opposite to ” those of Lord Bolin gbroke, it must have given no small gratification to the youn g author to read the final dictum of the critic Fenced and barricaded as Helicon is, a few individuals o cca sionally contrive to clambe r over th e inclosure,

Mr. and to get a sip from the sacred fountain. Peacock appears to be one of this favoured ” m minority. As a sum ary criticism of all ’ Peacock s poetical work and an indication of his place among the poets,this pronouncement might

e as - se m re onable enough to day. As a judgment

and if we coul d discuss with the critic his reaso ns for arriving at it we should probably disagree with him in every instance, and conclude, that if his favourite passages were in fact the best in the b ook, its only destination w as the dus t heap. PSEUDO - CLASSICISM

OR the next two years of Peacock’ s life the record is broken, and it is im

ss m po ible to give uch account of them . We learn from a letter written at the end of this period that imm edi ately on attaining his majority he went on one of those long tour s

hi hi o w ch were always his c ef delight . His wn words supply the only available facts and the ” only possible co mment . You went, he writes, over the same ground on which I wandered

18 s alone in the autumn of 06. You vi ited m Dalkeith . Is not the Esk a ost delightful

‘ stream 2 Did you se e that enchanting spot where th e North and South Esk unite Did you think of the lines of Sir Walter Scott, His wanderin g feet And classic H awt ho m den Did you visit the banks of the sweet silver Teviot, and that most lo vely of rivers,the indescribably fascinating Tweed ‘2 Did you sit by moonlight in the ruins of Melrose ? Did you stand at twilight in that romantic wood which overhangs the Teviot on the sight of R oxburgh Castle 56 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM

s 1 0 This letter must erve as the chronicle for 8 6. Some time in this year or in the fir st half of the next he moved back to Cherts ey ; and about this time, probably before his migration, he m ade the ac quaintance of Edward Ho okh am , who with his bro ther Thom as carried on in Bond Street the publishing business and circul ating

c library founded by their father. Ho kham ’ became one o f Peaco ck s most intimate friends, and published all his books with the exceptio n

o al ra l of the first editi n of P my . Both She ley and Peacock borrowed extensively from the library when they were away from Londo n,and the m eeting between the t w o w as almost certainly

o mm n brought about by their c on acquainta ce . Hookh am deserves the gratitude of posterity for having preserved a number of letters from Peacock which, in addition to their intrinsic interest, constitute almost the only evidence for

s s about three years of hi life . Thi series, now in the British Museum ,comprises onl y a part of those in existence . But they are a good selec

i m o tion . They throw l ght on the ti e Peac ck spent at sea,in exploring the Thames,and part

s T of that passed afterwards in Wale . hey cover the period from the first project of his poem, The Genius of the Thames , to its completion T and the first notices of it in the press. hey 57 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK thus enable us, as it were, to watch Peacoc k at work, and to learn something of his method of

hi s composition and attitude towards literature . Some eight years later we have a similar oppor t unity of looking over his shoul der while he was i engaged upon an unfin shed prose work . It is not at all clear how this important lite rary friendship originate d but from the first preserved letter it seems probable that Hoo kh am

t s Palm ra had offered o is ue y in a revised form . He can hardly have been induced to make this proposal by the reception accorded to the volume by the public possibly he thought it a work of more promise than achievement, and conside red it advisable to se cure the rights of publis hing t he ’ Th e author s work . letter in question is dated from Chertsey,August 3rd,1807,and shows that at that time the acquaintance was still quite new,though the two m en were not un known to

s Hoo kh am as each other. Peacock addres es ” My dear Sir, and signs himself Yours ” e s sincerely . H begin I shall avail myself of your generous offer, and put my little ve ssel ” e again on the st ocks . As this sent nce is followed ’ by a request for Volney s Voyage en Syrie and Montesquieu Sur la Grandeur et D ecadence des Romains,it is pretty obvious that he refers to the rewriting of Palmyra, and is desirous of 58 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM

consulting his authorities afresh . Yet he runs on, with no break or paragraph in the writing, to say that the poem may possibly be arranged in four divisions, though perhaps he has undertaken more than he can perform, and will be obliged to leave it unfinished . This can not refer to Palmyra, but to the contemplated nl poem on the Thames . Such slove iness and ambiguity, even though the meaning woul d be perfectly clear to his correspondent, are exceed ’ ingly unl ike Peacock s usual style in letter writing . Th e explanatio n is probably to be found in the circumstance to which he attributes the brevity of the note I am writing in a great hurry, and after dinn er, a time at which I am

- The not very fond of flourishing a goose quill . point is not of great importance, and not very clear ; but it must be left as it is. We shall h ear no more of Peacock for another fifteen months,whe n the lette r quoted at the beginning

s of this chapter w a written . During the se years, of which so meagre an account can be given, Peacock seems to have nl written next to nothing . There is o y one finished composition which may with great

e t he probability be assigned to this p riod . In absence of actual proof,internal evidence points to a date not later than the early part of 1808 59 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK for The Circle of Loda, a romantic drama o f N orse and Irish chieftains of the heroic age. This piece,with his two comedies of contemporary life, The Dilettanti and The Three Doctors, re mained unpublished, although beautiful fair copies,which would have delighted the printers,

m T s were ade of all of them . hey were i sued last year in a small volume, with a preface by

Dr . . s . The Circle o Loda A B Young. f is obviou ly t the earlies of the three . The historical foun dation of the play— the feuds between the Irish — and Norse is the same as that of Fiolfar,King of N orway, and there is a general resemblance

The in the two plots and in their treatment . lyrics, plentifully interspersed throughout t he ’ play, show Peacock s tal ent in that direction in a very early stage of developm ent, many of them recalling such pieces as R omance and The

i ils o V g f F ancy,both belonging to 1806 . Written in blank verse, the dialogue of this first play has a great advantage in style and dic tion over the poems of that year but this differ ence,great as it is from an artistic point of view, is no argument for assigning the composition t o m t o a later date . It erely tends show that in writing a piece intended t o be spoken on the stage, Peacock saw the value of simplicity and directness of language, which he had not yet 60

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

‘ e e e pt ion . On of the cause s of the to tal 1111 suitability of his play for the stage is its extreme shortness . It can hardly contain more than 850lines,and out of this total 150are accounted

m e for in the lyrics . It is little or than a dramatic

h e a m outline . T tre t ent is bare, the sc enes are brief, the situations are undeveloped . Like all hi s writings it is carefully fin ished, and there is a sincerity and directness in the manner,making i the read n g ple asant and easy . But after turning over its forty small pages an impression is left, as of a complete hi story having been bre athl essly

s vi us t poured into our ear , and lea ng as onished . It seems the story of little people,whose day and night succeed each other rapidly,whose emotions work quickly and have not time to ramify,whose speech is terse and lim pid,and who have but an inkling of the complications of our life, with its diverse mood s, long hesit ations and fateful

m s m — precipitancy. It is co pre sed dra a M a with its activities restricted and its promises l un fu filled . Much as he loved the theatre, Peac ock w as never to make use o f the dram atic form as a successful or characteristic m edium of expres i sion . He was to write better plays than th s,

s hi s but in a different tyle . In two c omedies is to be found the beginning o f his work as a 62 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM

Th e Circle o Loda is satiri cal novelist. f a work of promise onl y in so far as he at tains in it to a large measure of emancipation from hi s poetical

his trammels . He has genuinely conceived subject,and consequently finds for it a far be tter vestment of expression than he coul d provide for those poe ms which were the outcome merely of reading and a desire to write corre ct and highly

e e di hi s polis hed verse . In an cl ctic e tion of works, excluding the mistaken efforts of his early years,whi ch led up to nothing of subsequent interest or value,it might be possible t o claim a

o place for this little dramatic sketch . F r although in itself it possesses none of the charac te rist ic excellences of his satiri cal writings, and is not jewelled with the fin e lyr ics which e n hance the value o f his later work,it is the first of his plays,and as such m ay b e considered to b e the very m odest fountain - head of his best known

productions in the art of conversation.

Th e stanz as Re member Me and the Circle of Loda were all that Pe acock had to show for more than two years following the publication of

Palm r T y a. hese compositio ns coul d hardly have satisfied other people that he was making hi s m the best use of time . If he ade any money out of his first volume it must have been sw al 63 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

di lowed up imme ately by the Scotch tour. He was not leadin g the life of an author,nor had he any remunerative employment . He was by no means well o ff ; but he was undoubte dl y better contented to live without an advance in wo rldly position, at liberty to read and ramble at the bidding of his alternating moods, than to sacrifice his freedom in exchange for more s 1808 money. Yet toward the autumn of he yielded to pressure on the part of some of hi s friends and accepted the post of under- secretary to Sir Hope Popham, then in command of l H M. . enerab e di . S V on the Walcheren expe tion. Family influence n o doubt procured him this

him di c position . It did not take long to s over that the ship was a floating Inferno on which it was impossible to write poetry or do anything else which is rat iona He writes I woul d give the whole world now to be at home, and devote the who le winter to the writing of a

s comedy . He feels hopeles ly out of his element, and inveighs in a rather petulant manner against the well - meant endeavours of hi s friends to procure advancement for him . England, he says,is the modern Carthage and the worship of gold is grown to such an extent, that people cannot imagine any state of well - being uncon ll ne ct e d with wealth . Sti ,he has to put up with 64 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM the sad business upon whi ch he h as started, at

s any rate for a time . In this strain he unburden his soul to Ho okh am , who is now no longer ” addressed as My dear Sir, but My dear ” s m m Edward . He ends kindest re e brances to To m by this time he is evidently an

s intim ate of the family . Copious supplie of literatur e are ordered from the library, to cheer

is him in h uncongenial surroundings . The ’ first batch includes Lew is R omantic Tales , the Romance of the F orest, The Ring and the Well, Adelmorn the Outlaw, The Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border, and something very elegantly romantesque in the poetical department, if yo u can find anything of that description which I ” have not yet seen . Thus at the age of twenty two he was saturating himself in that kind of literature which a few years later became, and remained for a long period,the object of hi s mo st violent abuse . It is curious,too, to notice how in t h e next sentences of the letter from which we are now quoting (February he inquires tenderly after so me of the authors whom he was very soon to do his best to ridicul e and dis ’ credit . Is another volume of Mis s Baillie s tragedies forthcoming ? Has Gifford under taken to edit Beaumont and Fletcher ? What is Walter Scott about ? Is anything

65 a THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK n ew expe cted from the pen of the incomparable Southey How is poor Campbell His lyre breathed the very soul of poetry : must it re main unstrung for ever Then co me the writers whom he had never liked, or who had already disappointed him Is Wordsworth sleeping in peace on hi s bed of mud in the profundity of the Bathos,or will he again awake to dole out a lyrical ballad ? His last work

irr e ra l t o all appearance has damned him e cov b v. What is the last act of folly of Pratt, Mason, ' Miss Seward, Hayley, or any other of Phillips fo rmidable host of inanity In March he writes a letter which cruelly throws the light of common day upon hi s own poetical attitude and method of composition . He begins, ’ I have been very busy with Forsyth s Moral Science and my own little poem of the Thames, which I have just finished,and now send to you ” h such as it is . He t en proceeds to discuss ’ details of publication, and to rail against Carr s

c Tour r Scot h , which he had just ead . Having arrived at this point, he evidently turned over t h e pages of his poem again, and felt sudden

s c ompunction . He di covered that he had been guilty of a horrible piece of Vandalism in ’ omitting to mention R unnym e ad and Cooper s

s Hill . He promptly composed pas ages referring 66 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM to those place s and copied them in a second post- script, adding, One or two corrections are ne cessary throughout the poem,with regard

This is to the recurrence of epithets . how he accounted in private for the local inspiration under which,in the o pening stanz as of the poem,

hi s he claims to be writing. Yet thoughts were trul y with the Thames dur ing the months of his hated employment on board the Venerable. It is evident that he believed, with his friends, that if he co ul d have prevailed upon himself to stick to hi s work he would have attained to further advancement and profit . But by April, 1809, having been absent from home a little more than six months, he had had more than enough of it,and left his ship on the third of that

s month . A note crawled hastily at R amsgate ann ounces that he had walked there from Deal, and inte nded t o proceed next day round the North Foreland to Margate, and thence t o

r o s Canterbu y. S his first day ashore were spent

m as s hi r in e ph i ing s f eedom . Th e Genius of the Thames, which he had imagined as done with, was to occupy him for m m so e time to co e . He had not been back at Chertsey long before he m ade up hi s mind that it was to be an extensive poem in two parts, and that in order to gather ideas for the ac com 67 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK plishment of the larger design he would trace the course of the river from its source to Chertsey, a very decent walk of a hundr ed

m s s ff and eighty ile . Before tarting he su ered a temporary disquietude on being told by some o ne that To m Warton had written a poem on

T s m s the Thames . hi u t have been an inaccurate description of The Triumph of Isis, a blame worthy lucubratio n co nnected with the Isis of

of M h the pedants . By the end ay is arrange

o m Th e - m ents for the trip were c plete . week end is to be spent with Hook h am in visiting Virginia Water, a haunt of theirs and a favo urite spot

s Y o with Peacock, then and alway . u will ” pass the Sunday with me at the Wheatsheaf, he writes, and early on Monday morning,when you se t o ff for London, I shall walk over to Slo ugh and moun t the rostrum of one of the

o s Glo ucestershire c ache . On June 2nd he is at Cricklade, and for the

s h as m f moment at a stand till . He co e in o r b ad

s o f weather, with tempe ts wind and rain . He is sho cked that the peasants take no interest in the classic river, and cann ot inform him which of the various streams which come together

T m o s there is the Thames . hey are the t perfect se t of Vandals I ever m e t with in their vulgar ideas, the canal is the most interesting 68

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

all,t hat the crime of wat er - sucking were t he worst t hat could b e laid t o the charge o f co mme rcial navigat ion : b ut we have only t o advert t o the conduct o f t he Spanish Christ ians in So ut h America,th e English Christ ians in t he East Indies,and t o the Christ ians of all nat ions in the south of Africa,t o disco ver the de eper die of it s

- blood sucking at ro cit ies . A panegyrist ,on t he cont rary, aft er e xpat iat ing on t he be nefit s o f co mme rcial navigat ion, and o f t hat great e ffort of human ingenuity,the Thames and Se vern Canal,which as cends t he hill, sinks int o t he valli es, and pe ne t rat es t he bo som of t he e arth,to unit e t h e t wo noblest rivers o f t his wealt hy,prosperous ,happy,

. c . ge nerous, loyal,pat riot ic,&c ,&c . ,& ,kingdom of Eng land,might say An d yet t his splendid unde rtaking would b e in co mplet e ,t hrough th e failur e of wat er in the summer m ont hs,did not t his no ble river,t his beaut iful e mble m, and powe rful inst rum ent of the co mmercial great ness o f England,co nt ribut e t o t hat great ne ss e ve n at the mo ment o f it s birt h, by supplying t his mag nifice nt chain o f con e ct o t t he me s of er et t l n i n wi h an p p ual u i ity. This is merely an unpublished conversation

Mr s F Mr . s between . o ter and E cot . Before the end of June,Peacock w as back in Chertsey,and remained there till the end of the a ni i He ye r, fi sh ng and correcting his poem . promises more lette rs on the Thames when he

s m can pare the ti e . If these were ever writte n

they are not preserved, or not available . They would certainl y be full of interest,which is more than can honestly be said o f the poem, the

o m s di n inal cau e of the expe tion . A valuable b y - product has been wasted, something analo 70 PSEUDO -CLASSICISM

gous, though on a smaller scale, to what might have been recorded if Drayton had kept a diary of his w ande rmgs in search of materials for his

The Genius of the Thames was a great trouble

s to Peacock . He worried because the econd part w as shorter than the first ; then, because he could not find a good subject for an Episode then he h as hit upon a suitable theme in the fall of Carthage, t o be introduced among re fle c ” tions on the mutability of Empire, a subject which he considers highl y susceptible of poetical ” s s ornament. He make up his mind to fini h the poem , provisionally, without an episode, leaving a place where one may or may not be M did h inserte d. eanwhile he not neglect is reading, which was as miscellaneous and de sul m tory as usual . Among the books entioned during these months are the Description of ’ Latium by Cornelia Knight, Southey s Jcan of ’ ’ Ark C s tala M t in s , hateaubriand A , m e . Co ’ Matilde, Godwin s Political Justice, Cook On ’ Forest Trees, Park s Travels in Africa, the ’ emains o Kirke te R f H . Whi , Knight s Progress ’ of Civil Society, part of Hume s history, and di the ssertations of Locke and Bryant. Some of these were used for the purpo se of m anufac n turing otes for his poems . Visits to Virginia 71 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Water we re very salutary and refreshing during his struggle with the refractory poem and the learned authorities. In Palmyra and the pieces accompanying it Peacock was seen composing on some of the , o m fav urite the es of the eighteenth century. Certain of these had been so commonly and r egularly treated by the verse - writers that they

e r m ay legitimately be considered as g n es . If the Riddle, the Reba s, and t he Imitation of H orace be o mitted as unfair instances, there still rem ain a number of classic forms and subjects which were repeated from the early years of the century, down to the gradual sup pression o f the old conventions by the fresher and freer spirit o f the great poets, whose revo lut ionary work is generally dated from the pub

r al licat ion of Ly ic Ballads . Such well defined c lasses included the F able,the Ode, the Eclogue, the Anacreontic (one of the m o st de pressing as a rule), the Elegy, the Inscription for a Grotto —’ in Lord s Park,the biblical paraphrase, the

r o enser The Ballad or Poem in the Manne f Sp . , Lament, of the Betrayed Maiden was exceedingly popular, especially if there was an un welcome ll M c hild, which she generally ki ed. oreover, almost every ve rsifie r of the later age wrote pieces addressed to definite localities,classifiable 72 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM as flatte ring,if the place in question were the seat of a fri end o r patron ; lite rary, if it were near the scene of any battle or impo rtant event, o r if any author had live d in o r near it ; o r finally regretful , if it were a mere rural scene, river,

e fu c o f c oun t r hill or meado w. Th n tion the v ’ was es pec ially to bring back a po et s mind t o his lost youth and to receive the facile o ver

o s o f s m s o t fl wing his enti ent on that ubject . N gaz e dup on so gro ssly,but inwardly contemplated, it was useful as a background for the des cript ions of the ideal existence which the poet woul d desire t o lead, alo ne with hi s charmer ; an existe nce satisfactorily employed by the elegant reading and walking indul ged in b v the gentleman, and for the lady, by the pure and

m o bla eless ccupations of knitting and m ilking . It was also fas hi onable to write verses claiming ” t o be in the Eastern m anner, or assuming great familiarity with eas te rn, northern or

s m o o clas ical yth l gy . Judged by it s table of contents, Pal myra cannot be said to show any serious divergence

r m s o f o the writing of the previous age . N r does an examination of the poem s reveal much

m o f m originality in the treat ent the old the es . A prolonged absence and complete change in habits and occupation, occurring as they did 73 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK during two of the most impressionable years of ’ a man s life, between the ages of twenty- one and twenty- three, might have been expected to leave remarkable and important traces in his writings immediately after the break in their c i nl ontinu ty . Yet it is u ikely that any reader, not biassed by knowledge of the facts,woul d be able to detect any such influence at work in the

Genius M m of the Thames . ore a bitious and considerably more mature, it is yet of the same

m s T e kind as the poe in the early volume . her is no alteration,but a di stinct advance in style and this is all there is to suggest that Peacock had not passed from Palmyra to the later poem as tranquilly as he might lay aside a full sheet

old and take up a new one . It is on one of the

m , s familiar the es but “ on a much larger cale than anything he had attempted before . His direct predecessors were illustrious, and the celebrity of their work,with the m any l ml t at ions of it, had long caused these poems of locality to be regarded as a regul ar class by themselves among possible poetical subjects. Definition woul d be difficul t but we may per haps adequately describe the Poem of Locality as a composition primarily descriptive, having for its subject some one spot, region or natural feature . It might be of almost any length, 74 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM ac cording to the extent and spaciousness of the chosen subject, the m inuteness with which it was conceived at the time of writing, and the more or less latitude in the treatment . A sonnet, for instance, to the Thames at London will contain one thought,a prayer for the safe ’ Passage of hi s Mistress Spenser s Prothala mion t akes in a long stretch of two rivers and ’ s e m contains elaborate description . B au ont s line s on the Tombs in Westm inster Abbey are short, pointed and to a single pur pose ; so are ’ R ichard Corbett s Upon F airford Windows Carew went to Saxham in the winte r,and being disgusted with the frost and snow, probably

e The a spent his time by the fir . outcome is bare little poem, setting forth with a wonderful

e s li t rse exaggeration the ho pita ty of the house . Ben Jonson, writing with a full knowledge and personal love of Penshurst,describes the grounds in detail, the house and the owners of it, and introduces the episode o f Kin g James straying in the neighbourho od while hunting, and dl dropping in unexpecte y. It would perhaps be far fetched to reckon the ’ author of the Ruins of Time among Peacock s

s of s precursors in this genu poetical compo ition . The poem is too purely elegiac, has too little description,and t oo soon leaves its first subject, 75 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

to be considered as really typical of the kind . Th e true originators of the poem of lo cality in its extended form are Marvel, Denham (un D improved by Pope) and yer . Marvel ro am s from point to point, from view to view, in the estate round Nun apple t on House, luxuriating in every sight which pleases the eye or suggests

m s an i age of beauty or a fantastic compari on . It is perhaps t h e most intensely local in feeling of all poems in the language, not excepting D many by rayton . Even its historical digression, dealing entirely with affairs of the place and of the family,seem s t o keep the grounds and build ings always in view the rest is supplied by the ’ poet s passionate delight in the fields and streams and woods, and by his fashionable

s s s m attachment to trange ymboli m and i agery . ’ But Marvell s poem coul d only have been written for Nunapple t on House and if it does not create the place for us, as a prose writer might be able t o d o by careful and detailed description,it yet creates the effect of the place, in its power of inspiring emo tion, and contains unfading pictures of summer scenes in its meadows and parks . ’ Cooper s Hill, leaving aside the question of relative poetical excellence, is essentially dif ferent from N unappleton H ouse, in that the 76

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Ever charming,ever new, When will the landscape tire the view ’ ’ Th e fountain s fall,the river s flow, Th e woody valleys,warm and low, Th e windy summit,wild and high, R oughl y rushing on the sky And although he began The Ruins of Rome with the words Enough of Grongar they only prove that he was undul y lacking in grati tude to its Muse ; for he never surpassed or equalled the little poem written a doz en years

The R before . oman work betrays no local feeling, and though it grows to an unwieldy length its descriptions are entirely negligible, historical reminiscences and moral generalisations

t s and forming i substance ,if it have any,its soul. From this time ( 1740) o nwards,poems on places continued to be produced, but without adding

any fresh quality to the common stock . Its

s popularity increa ed as its vitality diminished. . ’ Wo rdsworth s Tintern Abbey belongs to an e n

s T tirely different cla s . hough it begins lik e one of these poems and contains a little descriptive writing, it is in reality a personal utterance, a ” confession, and might have been evoked by almost any scene so revisited, after an absence which had brought change and development to ’ the poet s irmer life . But Wordsworth had been touched by influences which had passed Peacock 78 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM

Genius o the Thames m by . His f ust be con side red as a composition in the old style, b e longing to this well defined class . As he mockingly said of a reviewer that h e had made the best possible criticism of a new work,because his article contained all the jokes made by his predecessors,so this poem might have won praise

for uniting all the qualities of its kind . To the first edition there was prefixed a short ’ introductory ode, a fair example o f Peacock s

l m s - technica attain ent as a verse writer. Open ing with a lament for the golden age,when dryads and genii haunted the countryside, it is in a ’ lyrical key thro ughout, in t h e tone of Tasso s ’ ’ O bell e t adell oro These ethereal beings vanished when mank ind became corrupt and introduced war, cruelty and crime to the once

innocent life of the fields . Peacock was one of

s to the last poet sing of the country in this style.

He was also one of the best . He returns to the country,he tells us,not fo r any new or mystical message it may have for him , but because in its most congenial scenes he can catch glimpses of

the rural deities . His mood in the presence of wild nature is always that of Wordsworth’ s

The t o o world is much with us . He valued contemporary progress and civilisation very little,and felt that modern men h ad given their 79 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

hearts away . It was precisely for sights to m ake him less fo rlo rn that he sought solitude in his love of nature w as embodied his love o f the

no t o hi s past . But it was al ne for t that he

m it s loved the Tha es . He loved it too for own beauty and assoc iations, as the river by whose banks most o f his life h ad been spent ; its neighbourhood w as delightful t o him ,and on its waters he never tired of rowing and sailing . Unfortunately hi s poetical ideas and emotional experiences were kept in separate and um

m is conn ected departments of his ind . H poem is a deliberate and conventional fabrication on a theme whi ch,however dear to him in reality, was not permitted to become the source of any F m genuine inspiration . ro beginnin g to end it suggests no personal relation to his subject,

s n o adequate cau e for his lyrism . We will not

fo llow him through. his amplification of Oh, coul d I flow like thee his flattery of the stream for the scenery on its bank s, for its position as chief river o f the land of Freedom, for the wealth of its po rt his comparison of it with other rivers ; hi s ancient R o man - British

His di d episode . reverence for tra tion at Go stowe, for learning at Oxford, for literature at ’ ” it nam s Tw , hall be taken for granted . Let ” Fancy lead, he says, when engaged upon the 80 PSEUDO- CLASSICISM

’ contemplation of the river s course, from its spring, where through brill iant green Thy infant waters softly creep , all the way to t h e confluence with the Medway and the giant ’ un sire s embrace . But why, we may not justifiably ask, should Fancy be called upon t o lead ? The author had walked it . The only answer is,that he was writing a poem of a certain type, and a thousand such walks would not b e all owed to interfere with its form or traditions . Experience w as to be kept rigidl y in its place as a modest contributor to the stock of ideas, so long as what it had to offer woul d fit into the poetical scheme, and as a useful check on mere l fine writing. Stil it is certainly re sponsible for a few lines occurring at this point, whose absence would rob the poem of a piece of true observation and delicate description

’ W here Ke mb le s wood- embosomed spire Above the tranquil valley swells W here w ild - flow e rs wave, in rich attire, Their pendent cups and starry bells In fields,with softest beauty bright, Thy crystal sources rise to light While many an infant Naiad brings The treasures o f her subject springs And simply flows thy new - born stream, Where brighter verdure streaks the meads, Half veil ed from the meridian beam

- By spear grass tall and whispering reeds .

81 r THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

But it is immediately pocketed again,and there follows a passage in which the course of the river is considered as emblematic of a lifetime, the mystery of the future and the transitoriness

li , of possessions and civi sations . Th e poem closes with ancient and honourable reflections on the flight of time . Six years of new and varied experience were t o H eadlon Ha pass before the writing of g ll. Yet even so, a reader who knew Peacock only in his novels might excusably refuse to believe

The d ll t hat this was his work . isi usioned critic is here shown as a respectful and gullable follower of tradition . His occasional success is accidental and owing to qualities which he thought negligible and effects which he did not aim at producing. Th e second part is of very dubious value to

The di dl t he whole . ad tional length can har y be co un ted as a benefit,since it introduces no really new idea,and the description of the river,which might have brought refreshment, is minimised. ’ Indeed the artist s hand trembled more here than in the first,and it contains some repetitions, both of itself and of earlier passages,which the poem,in spite of it s length ,is too highl y polished

s to stand . I olated passages are readable, but not markedly superior to similar patches in the 82 PSEUDO- CLASSICISM

first part,while the general tone is certainly no ’ is i s s higher. It sign ficant of the author poetic that some of his best work was the least satis

Th e z factory to him . stan a quoted above, for instance, describing the infant Thames, was ac t uallv altered in the second edition,and made to resemble more closely than it did before some lines in Ariosto, to the manifest loss, not of euphonic beauty,his main object,but of fidelity and pictorial effect . It is difficult at the present day to treat the Genius of the Thames with the serious considera m tion bestowed upon it by conte po rary critics . It h as an elaborate finish and includes passages l which if not original are stil fresh and genuine .

s But a a whole it was stale before it was written . It will perhaps be a help toward putting ourselves in tone with the time,just a hundred years ago, to remember that in this year was produced ’ di D Scott s e tion of ryden . In this work the criticism is summed up and rounded off on the last page of the Life by the assertion that Dryden was the greatest poet from Shakespeare m to the ti e of writing . It is probable that in a great productive age the artists are always in advance of the critics : it is certainly amusing, and almost instructive, to observe the attitude of the lite rary gentlemen of 1810 towards the 83 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

h works which t ey were called upon to appraise . The British Critic, in a retrospect of the b ooks reviewed during the last half of the year,singles out for special praise the Earl of Carysfort,who receives a twofold gratul ation, first on his high poetic achievement,and second because we are happy to know that the prl vat e virtues of the noble writer are at least equal to his literary

s o f hi s attainment . In the review volume on another page it is said that The Bower of Melissa posses se s every requisite which ought to charac ” terise a composition of this kind, and that it will endure a comparison with the best effusions of the kind,either from Dryden or Pope . The British Critic, therefore, though he has shaken our confidence not a little by his extravagance, is yet true to his principles of taste in stating that The Genius of the Tham es claims very high ” and almost unqualified applause . He blames the author’ s warmth of imagination for leading him into some expressions that will not bear ” T i . . the test of sound [ e. verbal&criticism here were m anv other reviews of the poem, but all the write rs approach it in the same attitude . Its substance and stylistic basis are taken fo r granted,and linguistic criticism is alone indulged

Th is fo r in . e author rebuked using the epithet ” thirst - craz ed, and he is warned that the phrase 84

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK material for some of the finest portions of his

fiction. For instance, almost the first name to occur is that of Trem adoc , immediately calling to mind the embankments,one of them finished and the other in process of building at this time, the subject of a passage of stately beauty in

a l r t h He d ong Hall . The T ae Mawr embank ment m was approaching co pletion . It had been built simultaneously from each end,and only a narrow gap remained in the middl e . The scene which enchanted the three philosophers of his first novel was precisely that which Peacock was one of the last visitors to see . His interest in the subject of embank ments being thus awakened, he was le d to st udy the tradition of the inundation of Gw aelod,which he used as the foundation of the first part, really the prologue, of The

l ' The d dl d Misfortune s of Elphin . rugge woo an

o country completely satisfied his prevailing m od . He became intimate with it, attached to it ; and it is such scenery that he introduces most often and with the best effect in his tales. In January he has arrived at Maentwrog, eight miles from Tremadoc, and has taken the i onl y available lodgings . This is a del ghtful ” spot, he write s, enchanting even in the gloom of winter : in summer it must be a terrestrial f e paradise . It is a beauti ul narrow vale,sev ral 86 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM miles in length, extending in one direction to th e se a, and t ot all v embosomed in m o untains, the sides of whi ch are covered in many parts with

M - o b o w large woods of oak . y sitting ro m has a window, looking out on a lovely river which

c flows through the vale . In the vi inity are many deep glens,along which copious moun tain streams of inconceivable clearness roar over rock v channels , and numerous waterfall s of the most ” r m T o antic character. here were only seven houses in the place,which yet boaste d a lawyer, a doctor and a parson, de scribe d as a little ” dumpy, drunken m ountain - goat , and drawn upon subsequently for the characters of Dr .

G o s c f Cali re aster and the pars n do .

Th e next lette r, written a month late r, encloses an order for about thirty volumes in the five languages that he habitually read, and contains a short des criptive pass age, afte rwards almost reproduced in the rhyme d couplets of the Philosophy of Melancholy,and e choed,nearly twenty years late r, in the third stanz a of the Brilliancies of Winter in the Misfortun es “ of Elphin I wish I co ul d fin d language ‘ sufli cie ntly powerful to convey to you an idea of the sublime magnificence of the wate rfalls in the frost—when the old overhanging oaks are spangled with icicle s ; the rocks she eted 87 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK w ith froz en foam, formed by the flying spray ; and the water that ooz es from their sides m ll ” congealed into innu erable pi ars of crystal . He was looking forward to a visit from Ho okh am at the end of the opera season,and remarks that ” t hey will then be able to c rack an egg together, a more philosophical operation than cracking ” a bottle .

This last phrase may appear startling to the ’ majority of Peacock s readers, among whom t here seems to be a general idea that he w as given to excessive drinking . It may be as well t o review at this point what little evidence there

is is for the assumption . It found to rest c hiefly on the orgies of eating and drink ing

The described with such gusto in the novels . r easoning,whether explicit or not,can generally be analysed and reduced to the really incoherent argument How well and h o w fondly Peacock describes bacchanalian scenes He must have been a rare drinker himself Now it is obvious that the same logic would lead to the conclusion that Peacock was himself an example of not o nly gluttony and deb auchery, but of religious intolerance and insincerity, political pigheaded ness and quackery, artistic cant, philosophical flumm e ry , financial knavery, social jealousy a nd ambition, literary priggishness and dis 88 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM hones ty, in fact, all the qualities which furnish o bj e ctive s for his satire : he who ridicule s

drunkards mus t himse lf be drunk . N o time

is u ne ed be waste d in refuting th arg ment . Yet it is only just to se t against it, as an appeal to readers w h o judg e wholly by the evidence of the novels, the co nsideration that mos t of the char act e rs with w hom Pe acock assoc iate s his own — o pinio ns and prac tice perhaps all with the

r Folliot t o exception of D . ,who,th ugh a perso nal favourite , w as yet a membe r o f that profe ssio n — for which Peacoc k had but scant respect are f the soberest members o the party . Again, in t h e fragment of Calidore, the drunkennes s and glutto ny of t h e Welsh clergymen is presented

om d e i i as unacc panied by any re em ng qual ty . And in a strange little poem written on t aking leave of Wale s, and railing at the unenlighte ne d society of Merionethshire, such lin es oc cur as “ Bacchus reels through all t h y fields,Her brand fanatic frenz y wi elds, And ignorance with falsehood dwells, And folly shakes her jingling ” bell s , and again Long as disgusted virtu e flie s R om folly, drunkenne ss and lies : Lo ng as insul ted science shuns Th e ste ps of t hv degrade d

so s s in s e n s n . In the e l e , writt in the pirit of ’ He rrick s Dean Bourn F arewell, an d other verse s simil arlv reprobating the Devonshire 89 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

people,Peacock is speakin g directly and simply, k and not mas ing his sentiments in ironic form . He here shows that he considers the conduct of the parsons of Calidore and other devotees of

s the bottle to be as di gusting as it is ridicul ous . Turning to personal evidence, the first and perhaps the strongest is the phrase just quoted from his lette r to Hoc kham . Th e next in order ’ is Mary Shelley s ill iberal and bad - natured refer

his i i Bisho ate ence to d ning every even ng at pg , ” dr his to ink bottle . She accuses him of bad temper, boasts that she does not speak to him, and woul d sur ely have be en only too glad to add the sin of drunkenness to swell her grievance,

if he had given her the smallest chance . Her

silence therefore is eloquent . In his diary, written at a time between the composition of N ightmare Abbey and Maid Marian, a re found such disgraceful entries as Went in the boat to R obin’ s Island with some cold lamb and ale and the Dionysiaca and one morning, after ” a day similarly spent on the river with Nonnus, he writes, Very ill this morning,which I at t ri

bute to the combination of ale and heat. l l tt Specu ate on dr inking water . It wou d be di i cult to construe these jottings as confessions of excess, though the second might delight t he

rs t eetotalle . Sir Edward Strachey, who knew 90 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM

Peacock ab out the time that Crotchet Castle was written,says that he was in the habit of talk ing as if he w ere much attached t o good living, though the only incident he ever noticed tending to prove this attachment w as , that Peacock once at e a sweet which he kn ew was T likely to disagree with him . his evidence is very important,for in Crotchet Castle more than in any of his books he seems to glo rify eating ll R h and drinking . Sti later obert Buc anan, who knew him in his old age,says that he enjoyed a good dinner,but that he spent as little time as possible over it, and that the strongest drink they h ad to gether w as cowslip wine made by his adopted daughter ; though Peacock told Thackeray about the same time that his favourit e

o f his wine w as Mad eira . One latest writings, ’ contributed to F raser s Magaz ine wit hin a few — weeks of his seventy - second birthday when, so me might say,he ought to have known better was the article called Th e Flash of Crat inus , the avowed theme of which is the depe ndence of good po etry on good liquor. An cient drun kards are here warmly eul ogise d, and the writer manife sts a boyish delight in the fact that E schylus introduces Jas on and his companions

gloriously drunk on the stage . If severe moralists will not liste n to the plea that this 9 1 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK piece is a playful exhibition of curious learning, they must accept the discriminating fact that he quotes Lo rd Monb oddo on the advisability o f mixing water with wine, and concludes with the advice Be sober. Thus the evidence, such as it is, all points to one conclusion, that Peacock was a moderate man ; and this is confirm ed by What we know m n n of his tastes and pursuits . A a so consta tly engaged in active physical exercise and h ard study cann ot have had much time left for cul m t ivat ing the bottle . Allowance ust of course be made for the ch ange in habits which has taken place in the last hundr ed years, and no attempt is here made to prove that Peacock was what would now be called a very moderate

w as dr inker . No doubt he as good a judge of a bottle of wine as any gentlem an in the kingdom , and would have been the first to take offence if his qualification in that respect h ad been

se e questioned . If we could him among the ’ company which he had in his m ind s eye when describing so me of the dinners and diners in his bo oks, we should probably put him down as a go o d drinker, surro unded b v companions most m of who were drunkards .

M The But to return to aentwrog . next letter

o is l ng and full of information . He has evidently 92

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

s to devine,no tays . In short she is like a Greek statue,only in thicker but still fine and graceful m drapery ; and all her ovements are graceful . Her features are as regular as sculpture could make them . Her complexion is, I imagine, naturally fair, but slightly embrowned by air and exercise and there is over it - a pure roseate h m glow of ealth,that akes her literally radiant . Her hair is very fine, and slightly darker than her eyes, which are haz el and there is a bril lian cy of expression about the m that seems to m hi emanate fro a very gh order of mind. Her voice in speaking is at once soft and full , sweet and di stinct,the natural articulation of graceful ’ s and unruffle d thoughts . I imagine that he sings and th at her singing voice is no le ss charm ” s in g . Everything in these letter is redolent of Crotchet Castle the novels . is again recalled by

s his descriptions of the cenery. He quotes here o ne of the bardic triads,placed afterwards at the head of the sixth chapter in the Misfortunes of

i e culiarl Elph n . One passage is p v remarkable, relating an adventure of his future father- ih - law, afterwards inserted,with variations,in Headlong

s his Hall. It deserve to be told in own words Th e other day I prevailed on my new ao

Dr Gr fl dh quaintance, . y y , to accompany me at ’ midnight to the Black Cataract, a favourite 94 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM haunt of mine, about two and a half miles fro m

m m en Mr. here . Lloyd, who I believe I have t ione d to y ou m o re than once,volunteered to be of the party ; and at twenty minutes past eleven,lighted by the full - orbed moon,we sallie d forth, to the no small as tonishment of mine host,who protested he never expected to see us

Th e ff l ni . all again . e ect was tru y mag ficent Th e water descends from a m ountain glen down a winding rock, and then precipitates itself in one sheet of foam o ver it s black base into a capacious bason, the sides of which are al most pe rpendicul ar and covered w ith hanging oak and

Cambrian Itinerar haz el . Evans, in the y, des crib e s it as an abode of damp and horror, and adds that the whole cataract canno t be seen in one view,as the sides are too steep and slippery to admit of climbing up,and the top of the upper

Mr s is m . m fall invisible fro below . Evans ee s to have laboured under a small degree of alarm, which prevente d accur ate investigation,for I have repeatedly climbed this unattemptab le rock and obtained this impossible view ; as he or any one else might do with very little difficul ty ;

r r ff though D . G y ydh the other night, trusting to a rotte n branch, had a fall of fifteen feet perpendicul ar,and but for an inte rvening haz el d would infallibly have been hurle to the bottom . 95 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

But a similar mistake is not likely t o occur in ” daylight. Every reader of the novels will remember the Mr m . h fall of Cranium fro the tower. T e l l paralle is c oser than appears at first sight . ’ r ff dh s Dr. G y y fall was caused by the breaking

r m of a branch that of M . Craniu by the giving

Dr r ff way of a tuft of ivy . . G y ydh was saved by a haz el bush ; Mr . Cranium owed at least the gentleness of his descent to the same plant, and Peacock, who had in fact led his future father- in - law into danger, represents himself m in the novel as saving him . Escot,who arries the beautiful Ce ph alis, is Peacock, who went through that ceremony with the beautiful Jane more than once in fiction,both before and after doing so in reality . It is probably,therefore,not

- too far fetched to see in the enthusiastic Mr.

r r ff h Cranium a caricature of D . G y yd ho lding

forth on some favourite subject. In these letters, too, is the first mention of ” Mary Ann, about whom very little c an be known or even inferred, but who certainly was ’ a person of no little importance in Peacock s life a few years later. It appears even that at

o f m F m one time he had thoughts arrying her. ro his writing t o Hoc kham and calling her merely by h e r Christian names,it may b e t hat she w as a 96 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM

Mi r fi dh l sister of hi s friend . ss G y y is a so men tioned,though not by name Th e Caernarvon shire nymph, who m I once mentioned to you, pleased me by talking of Scipio and Hannibal m and th e Emperor Otho . It is now a onth

R is i l since I saw her, and ichard h mse f again. Th e last letter o f the series w as full of informa tion for hi s correspondent, but without the commentary deri ved from others, now lost o r unavailable,it te lls us little,except that Peacock h ad b a n seriously ill and was not yet quite Dr F . t reco vere d. rom a letter quoted by Garnet we learn that he w as still in the same neighbour i hood in the early part of the follow ng year . He has just bidden adieu to the Caernarvonshire nymph , who has resumed her ascendency, and

The principal outco me of this sojourn w as

another elabo rate poem, The Philosophy of Mela ncholy,published about a year afte r he left

is Wales, that to say,in the early part of 1812 . The title contains a promise which is more than m half a threat . It ay reas onably b e hoped that the substance of this poem will offer more inte rest to the m odern reader than anything

h e Peac ock had yet writte n . T theme, theo re tic al and speculative but at the sam e time intimate,w as likely to inspire him to a sincerer 97 G THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK and he more personal utterance . And in fact T ’ Philosophy of Melancholy, the last of Peacock s early works,is the onl y one in which he reveals

he e c m d himself. T lett rs to Ho kha contain ocu mentary evidence to prove, for in stance, that in his descriptions of Welsh scenery he is

n fait hfull m M im painti g v from emory. ore portant still is a passage, unique in its intro spe ct ive tone, bearing strong testimony to his prevailing moodiness of temper and showing that the melancholy of the poem w as a habitu al affection of his mind . There is more truth than po e t rv in the remark of Wordsworth that as high as we have mounted in delight,in our ’ dejection do we sink as low . You saw this exemplified in me last summer, when I was sometimes skipping about the room , smgmg and playing all sorts of ridiculous antics, and at others doling out staves of sorrow, and medi

- tating on daggers and laurel water . Such is t h e disposition of all votaries of the muses, and in some measure of all metaphysicians for t he sensitive and the studious are generally prone to melancholy, and t h e melancholy are h usually subject to intervals of boisterous mirt . Po or Cowper w as a lamentable instance, and — Tasso and Collins and Chatterton a list that

a i nitu might be prolonged almost d nfi m. I do 98 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM not mean to say that the effects of this morbid disposition are always so fatally exemplified as in the four I have mentio ned, of whom three

dr were iven to insanity and one to suicide . Crat inus, Democritus, Horace and others have Opined that a certain degree of noncomposity is essential t o the poetic characte r : and I am inclined to think there is considerable justice in the observation . In this poem Peacock is still a slave, but t he more congenial theme allows him a greater degree o f i m no t l berty in senti ent, if in its expression . It has bee n rem arked that in th e Thames he did his best to banish experience and called upon a too pedestrian fancy to take its place . Here

‘ on the contrary he is bo ld enough to say I was alone in the mountains of Merionethshire, and observed the woods and waterfalls in their ” s w change ith the different seasons and weathers. di f This stinction m ay not at firs t seem su ficiently important to call for much emphasis . But in Peacock’ s case it m arks far more than a difference in form it shows a c hange in aim and feeling, ’ result ing partly from two years growth and partly f h m from the choice o a happier t e e . It is safe to say that t w o years before respect for the pro prie t ie s would h ave rendered impossible the direct personal expression of sentiment which, 99 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK sparingly introduced in this poem, is ve t its life . “ To hunt for external cause s explaining t he ’ stages of a mind s de velopment is a thankless

The n task . only perfectly safe interpretatio of such phenomena is that they happened because — it w as time for them to happen that the plant flowered in it s season,and withered or bore fruit according t o its nature . Some circ umstances may be pointed out as exerting an influence on the life of t he mind but the disc overy of sufficient c auses to account for all subsequent growth and expansion is the ambition of a ped ant Th and the superstition of the unimaginative . e scenery of North Wales may, or rather must ’ have had so mething to do with Peacock s develop ment, yet as far back as we kno w anything of

o him he was always dev ted to scenery . Why should the Welsh hills have supplied him with just that impulse which the Thames valley all his life, and especially in 1809, h ad failed to

‘ provide 2 It is useless to ask . Proba bly by his own growth he was ready to receive the

i influence and happened to rece ve it in Wales . Probably too his solitude w as greater at that time than ever before . Another facto r clamours — for the title of causa efficiens Jane Gryffydh us “ Yes, beca e we happen to know about her. 100

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK sparingly introduced in this poem, is ve t its

“ To hun t for external cause s explaining t he ’ stages of a mind s development is a thankless

The r task . only perfectly safe interp etation of such phenomena is that they happened because it was time for them to happen— that the plant flowered in its season,and withered or bore fruit according t o its nature . Some circumstances may be pointe d out as exerting an influence on the life of the mind but the discovery of sufficient causes to account for all subsequent growth and expansion is the ambition of a ped ant i Th and the superstition of the un maginative . e scenery of North Wales may, or rather mus t ’ have had so mething to do with Peacock s develop ment, yet as far back as we know anything of

o him he was always dev ted to scenery . Why should the Welsh h ill s have supplied him wi th just that impulse which the Thames valley all his life, and espec ially in 1809, had fail e d to

‘ provide 2 It is useless to ask . Proba bly by hi s own growt h he was ready to receive the

i influence and happened to rece ve it in Wales . Probably too his solitude w as greater at that time than ever before . Another facto r clamours — for the title o f causa efficiens Jane Gryffydh s Yes, becau e we happen to know ab out her. 100 PSEUDO - CLASSICISM

But few men live to the age of twenty -eight without having been in love,or at least without having their emotions and imagination stirred F by one or more women . e w who are at all deeply emotional reveal these inner disturbances of their peace unless they go far and seem to porten d conse quences none so reticent as M n Peacock do . ore tha a general and theo re tical importance therefore must be conc eded to the fact that we know this was not his first love

Th e affair. earliest is supposed to have been an attachment,mentioned by all the wri ter s on his life but explained by none,to a girl whom he knew in Chertsey, which, his granddaughter. state s,

th e was most lasting and influential of his life . Th e spirit of this poem has somewhat in accurately been called pessimism by a modern writer : it would be better described as con t e m l ll p at iveness. It is that of a disi usioned man, but it is no barren brooding, productive

n s m of nothi g and ending in de pair or cynicis . It is far removed from the indefinite grief of the typically minor po et, the vague so rrow, the professional attitude of suffering, which takes some subject as a text, and proceeds to point out that in spite of its beauty and charm,it h as no power to heal a lacerated heart or restore th e n fu delight and innoce ce of youth l years . 101 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

It is of a more intellectual type, keen and positive that spirit which, either from dis appointment o r distaste fo r what is commonly called the life of the world, turns, not to brood

‘ but to find consolat ion and delight in the solitude of nature, in history and philosophy . He de scribes the scenery which had captivate d him

s ff two year before . He cherished an a ectionate m emory of the Welsh mountains,his impressions

of them were vivid and lasting . In these lines h e succeeds in imparting to the local names so me of the haunting sweetness which they had

hi s s for m . His plea ure at the ight of the water falls in frosty weather is remembered Th e sheeted foam,the falling stream beneath, ’ Clothed the high rocks with frost - work s wildest wreath R ound their ste ep sides the arrested ooz e h ad mad e A vast,fantastic,crystal colonnade Th e scatte ring vapour,froz en ere it fell, With mimic diamonds spangled all the dell, Decked the gay woods with many a pendent ge m ,

And gave the oak its wintry diadem . Th e same philosophy applied to painting and music leads to the remark, that the invariably melancholy character of primitive music is perhaps answerable for the early belief in it s po wer over nature, ill ustrated in legends such 102

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

’ The plaintive minstrel s legendary strain One added power of softest charm shall gain, When she, whose breast thy purest fount supplies,

Bids thy own songs,oh melancholy rise .

’ Th e last section justifies the poet s attitude t owards life and its pleasures, and so leads up t o his moral acceptance of the laws of n ature and n Th e f faith in ma kind. ef ects of vicissitude are demonstrably good we must therefore believe in the wisdom and necessity of constant

- c hange. But the pleasure seeker perishes through these very circumstances : the qualities which t hey call for and develop are virtue, genius and c ourage . There are abundant examples of these t h e additional advantages of revealed t ruth and scientific knowledge, ought to surpass the

s ancients in their excellences . Thu the fabri c ation of decorous poetry led Peacock into a very slush of insincerity. What he thought of revealed religion may be read in hi s prose works

ass s c p im. If satirical writing be not ac epted in evidence, appeal may be made to two of his favo urite books,Ancient Metaphysics,an avowed object of which was to revive the deism of later c lassical times,and A cademical Questions,whose author was at heart an atheist. PSEUDO - CLASSICISM

The careful elaboration bestowed upon The Philosophy of Melancholy was worthy of a more m i portant subject . Partly didactic and partly a personal confession, co mposed in a placid flo wing style, it h as neither the argumentative pas sion of Lucretius nor the antithetic procedure of m l Pope . It passes on fro one il ustration to another, from one allusion to the next, setting

o f rth the theme in a series of pictures . From many points of view it shows di stinct im

The Genius o the T s T provement on f hame . here is still a t o o great profusion of epithets,but they

m o s The are now re telling and le s conventional . heroic couplet has seldom been handl ed with F d greater art . rom en to end of the poem it is well nigh impossible to find a rough or unmusical line . But the rhythms are slow : there is too much attempt at stately movement, naively enough often by enclosing between commas Th phrases that might quite well run on . e very faul tlessness of the metre is by no means an unmixed blessing, since everything else is s c a rificed to it. Style was the chief if not the only preoccupation consequently there is little to say about the poem except that it is highl y correct, its weakness lying in the epithets and its peculiarity in the use of hyphened words . ’ Peacock s fondness for these had already appeared 105 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK sufficiently strongly to call forth the wrath of the critics . But he did not repent, and now used them m ore frequently and With greater ff i e ect . H s is something more than a mere habit of joining together by means of a hyphen words which are generally written either sepa rat el h f y or in one . T e hyphen is one of the e w means at our disposal for evading or supple m e nt in ss f g the grossne o grammatical speech . When two words are written together as one the accent is lost to one or the other, and this partner consequently lo ses its full share in the m eaning . But when they are skilfully hyphened each keeps all its stress and all its meaning : something new is really added to their sug ge st ive power, and the impression they make is more than the sum of each of their values . Peacock w as alive to the advantage to be obtained from this m anipul ation and bringing to gether of words . He was so fond of it that he used it excessively and though it may not “ be easy to point out why fairy grove is left unjoined and laurel - shade occurring in the next line is hyphened, yet such expressions as

’ His ( Calude s) evening - valleys and his weed twined fanes and Her glance, quick- turned towards the note m ake a very definite im pression,and may serve to illustrate the peculiar 106

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

an unfortunate convention. Al though psycho lo gically The Philosophy of Melancholy is a genuine utterance of the man himself,it belongs artistically to the sec ond category .

108 BEGINNINGS OF SATIR E

HE Philosophy of Melancholy was the last of what may be call ed, for the ’ sake of convenience,Peacock s eigh

century poems . With the publication work his first period, already too long, m ni co es defi tely to an end . He had come near to perfecting himself in the style while freeing himself by degree s, though never nearly enough, from the limitations which that age imposed upon it s write rs . Yet had he written no verse except those seriously laboured productions, we shoul d be justified in saying that the first seven vears of his literary career were devoted to the complete statement of his onl y illusion, namely,that he was a poet. By his seven years of bondage he earned an

- unexpe cte d reward . One o f his pseudo classical studies was the means of introducing him to the m an who applied to it a vital criticism and to his intellect just that impulse that was needed e hi to incit him to somet ng better. At this 109 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK point of his life he encountered its greatest in flue nce ,resul ting in his being henceforth true to himself,cultivating sincerely hi s true genius and no longer resting satisfied with the elaboration m D of ornamental com onplac e . evoted scholar as he was, he learned as readily from humanity and from nature as from books . His sojourn in Wales and his friendship wi th Shelley con tributed to his intellectual stock elements more vital and fruitful than anything he had gathered

F hi c from his reading. rom t s time he eased to invoke dryads by the Thames and to desire . a m popul ation of oreads for the Ca brian hills . He regretted as keenly as ever the heroic ages of the world and the classical spirit in literature he made no truce with the present . But he attempted no more to recall the sacred in flue nce by writing of the English woodl ands as h of t e groves of Arcady. A ripening knowledge of life and a constantly increasing fam iliarity with antiquity would cc - operate in imparting

oul him to him a clearer vision . Both w d teach that to write of contemporary life and personal experience in the m anner of a priz e copy of Latin verse only brings about a false and un classical confusion ; that walking tours are not to be rendered poetical by myt hological treatment ; above all,that to adopt the style of an outworn 110

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

But what gives to these and other of Peacock’ s lyrics their peculiar charm and excellence is, besides their genuine po etic emotion,his gift of

s perfect adequacy in expres ion. At his best he never oversteps or falls short of the complete statement o f his thought, and any one of the songs and ballads in which he attains to this high standard would be sufficient to prove that he w as a poet of far fin er qualities than those he di h ad splayed up to this time in his longer poems . Most of the verses written subsequently to these

he found means to insert into his novels . The best of those not so published belong to the

later periods of his life . Among these shoul d b e mentioned Margaret Love Peacock an inscription for the grave of his four - year - old daughter ; Rich and Poor, or, Saint and Sinner ( 183 1) and N ewark Abbey, written in 1842 in remembrance of the events of thirty - five years

Castles in the Air On Callers before . and are both extremely characteristic . The fragment of Ahrimanes is undated but there is extremely strong evidence,both internal and circumstantial, almost proving that it w as not begun befo re 1813, when Peacock made the acquaintance of that eccentric individual on whose pet theo ries the poem is founded : and the latest year which could with any show of 112 BEGINNINGS OF SATIR E reason be proposed as the date o f it s co mposition would be 1819,when,the company that brought them together having been broken up some time since, the intercourse in all probability came to an end. Sir Henry Cole, who is as a rule so careful and accurate, must have been dl misinformed about this work . He can har y have seen it,for he describes it as the first canto in an unfinished condition ; whereas the frag menti n reality consists of the first canto complete

t z in thirty stanz as,and four een stan as of a second . This inaccuracy may make us the less chary of disbelieving his statement that it was written in 1810, one of the few years out of the whole of Peacock’ s l ife about which we have a good deal of knowledge . In his early works Peacock inclin es to an unruffle d,conventional patriotism and an equally

s vague and respectable religiou attitude . In comparison with these, Ahrimanes is almost a song of revolt. The lines already noticed at the end of the Philosophy of Melancholy, containing the ethical conclusion to be drawn from t he poem, and followed by those declaring that all things proceed from God, contain nothing out of keeping with his previous writings,published d or unpublishe . If these be compared with Ahrimanes it will be diffit to believe that 113 H THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

they were composed after it . Is it true,he asks in Ahrimanes, that an evil influence rules the world ‘2 that the man whose life is passed in toil and darkness, the slave of ambition, the thrall of superstition, all alike in their prayers

‘ and sacrifices call onl y on this power of ill 2 Is there a single spot on earth where fraud,corrup tion, selfishness and pride do not wear the specious robes of sanctity to enable them to break the natural bonds of love and peace “ where idle tales, that truth and sense deride, Claim no dominion o ’ er the subject soul ? ” Such a region may exist, where the good influence still reigns ;

But not in fanes where priestly curses ring, Not in the venal court ,the servile camp, N ot where the slaves of a voluptuous king ’ ’ Wou d fain o e rwhelm, in flat t e ry s poison 0lam ’ ’ Trutsh s vestal torch and love s promethean lam Not where the tools of tyrants bite the ground ’ ’ Mid broken swo rds and steeds ensanguined tram To add one gem to those that now surround ’ Some pampered baby s brow, may trace of

him be found . The absence or powerlessness of the good genius is equally proclaimed whenever guiltless vic tims fall, Wherever priest the sword of strife 114

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK their parents woul d be utterly hateful t o Shelley ll M and a his sympathisers . oreover the chancery petition was not decided against Shelley on the ground of his opinions on speculative subjects, but on that of his conduct . Th e former w as the common belief, fostered not a little by t he prohibition to publish the judgment but Pea cock knew the truth of the matter,and later in life he published the full explanationin hisMemoir. Th e passage probably refers, if to any defin ite case, to the trial of the bookseller Eaton, who h ad published a free - thought pamphlet and was

s fine convicted of bla phemy. His and imprison ment for this cause are correctly described in the ’ words o f Peacock s note, and were the subject ’ of Shelley s letter to Lord Ellenborough . Whether or no Peacock h ad in mind any of the cases in which Shelley was personally con cerned or interested, there can be no doubt as to the person under whose influence the first three stanz as of Canto II . were written. Style

m T is and substance alike proclai it . here not much evidence t o suggest that at any other period of his life Peacock took an intense interest ” in guiltless victims . He was more a satirist of the great than a champion of the unfortunate . The sente nces were prompted by the emotion of the moment they were not in his usual vein, 116 BEGINNINGS OF SATIR E

The and were afte rwards cancelled . contagious enthusiasm of Shelley seems to have acte d strongly upon him in this instance,as indeed he always made an exception in his judgment wherever Shelley was concerned . He tells us in his Memoir that his first meeting with Shelley was in 1812,just before the Shell eys

r ll went to Tany a t . What led to the acquaint ance,or who introduced the two who afte rwards became such close friends,has not been recorded but the meeting was in all probability brought about by Hoc kham,who in this year sent Shelley a copy of The Philosophy of Melancholy and th e volume containing the new edition of The Genius of the Tha mes and Palmyra,which drew from himthe extraordinary criticism quoted

in the third chapter. In the letter to Hoc kham acknowledging the books he gives high praise ’ to Peacock s intellect,learning and ve rsific at ion, but laments that his powers shoul d be so misapplied. He objects strongly to the apparent identification of well - being with commerce, of the happiness of the British people with the triumphs of the British flag ; and points out, what is in fact the most offensive line in the ’ whole of Peacock s writings, in which George

III . , whom he rightly calls a warrior and a ” ” is d tyrant, style a patriot king. These 117 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

accusations (which for precisely opposite reasons Southey was late r on to bring against Shelley) probably startled and annoyed Peacock if they

reached him . Yet they contained by implica tion the greatest compliment he had ever

received . Shelley thought him capable of better things . The criticism is typical of what Shelley was to do for him by encouraging what was best and most original in his genius, and censuring ff d T what was formal and a ecte . here can be little do ubt that w he n they knew each other better Shelley forced him to see the false ness of his previous unthinking attitude and the lines in Ahrimanes are a proof that their author was successfully shaken,for the time at least,out of the complacent mood which had se emed to him

the proper atmosphere of serious poetry. The acquaintance, begun in the summer of 1812, was renewed in the first months of the next year,when Peacock tell s us that they met

a few times . He was again in Wales in the early summer, and on his return accepted ’ Shelley s invitation to stay with him at Bracknell

in August or September. It is a remark that has often been made,and yet any one who reads the history of this friendship will b e constrained to make it afresh : how ill - assorted a pair they seem,according to our limited means of knowing 118

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK life,even during the periods when he w as most under observation,has escaped record,that not one of the various people whom he met at this ’ time or subsequently un der Shelley s roof h as attempted anything like a complete description

ot or appreciation of him . N to mention the Shelleys,Hunt and Hogg were garrul ous writers, and Newton must be reckoned as an author,for in addi tion to the works to be mentioned shortly he afterwards published a memoir of the early days of Cann ing . According to Professor . Dow den,Peacock made himself disliked by the Boin villes and the Newtons by laughing at their enthusiasms Mrs . Newton alludes to him as a ” cold scholar, lacking both in taste and him feeling . People who knew well speak chiefly of his kindl iness and geniality and of his great learning . Others were arrested by what they

& s considered hi s peculiaritie . A lady who w as acquainted with him during his long visit t o Wales told Shelley that he lived quite alone in a remote cottage, associating with nobody ” and hiding his head like a murderer, and adde d m t the damnatory state ent, hat he was an atheist. The latter is of course not true,and only shows how easy it w as to frighten the Welsh by kee ping away from chapel but it is an excellent instance of how superficial observers, judging 120 BEGINNINGS OF SATIR E from the least significant indications,will light hearte dl y make a dogmatic statement about the m most intimate convictions of a an of genius . Some years later a friend writes of his being engaged in trying to construct inextinguishable lanterns,and amusing himself by puffing at them with a pair of bellows . A more detailed account of some of his odd habits is given by an ao quaintance whom he visited shortly before going to the Shelleys at Bracknell . His practice of reading with a classical text in one hand and a commentary in the other astonished the country neighbours, who could not understand why he s n hould wa t to read two books at once . He Spent most of his day walk ing in the neighbour hood, stopping at any piece of water he might c e om across in his wanderings to sail paper boats . These long solitary w alks,his paper boats,his books, and the fact that he was a poet, made him a sort of mysterious being to the country people, who certainl y were somewhat afraid of His host was evidently able to get at something of what underlay these eccentricities, for he tells us that he w as much interested in ’ Peacock s conversation. But unfortunately he does not pursue this part of the subject. The sailing of pape r boat s was one unusual

L e and Letters o John A rthur R oebuck a 8 if f ,p g e . 121 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK taste which he and Shelley had in common,and was very likely as good a bond of union between them as sympathy in more serious pursuits t between men of more conventional habi s . Professor Dowden has shown that Peacock was mistaken in thinking that he h ad initiate d Shelley into the sport, for Shelley w as already h an adept when t ey met. At Bracknell they had ample opportunities for indulging in it together. If none of the members of the group collected round Shelley 111 this summer have reco rded their impressions of Peacock,he has given us a vivid account of them as they struck him on first

coming among them . The circle was made up of people who agreed in varying degrees with Shelley in his revolutionary prmcrple s in politics and religion, and in the theory and practice of vegetarianism,“ based on considerations of every nature,hygienic,moral and humanitarian . Thus there were a comparatively large numb er of principles upon which they were all in agreement, and on those main issues conversation woul d

have grown something more than stale . Dis

cussl on began where their principles diverged. Each member of the party branched off, as it were,at a different angle and altitude,from the stem of their collective thought,which doubtless 122

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK corrupting use of animal food and strong dr ink and he was convinced that the adoption by all men of the system of life recommended in his book would brin g back health,purity,peace and happiness into the world and restore the golden age . This might be called the practical side of his religion : the theosophical or cosmographic basis of the ethical creed w as as obscure and far

Th e fetched as this was simple and actual . &odiac of De nde ra was the mystical symbol the grouping of its component parts proved , according to his inte rpretation, the necessity of i the vegetable reg men. ’ Peacock s attention to these extr avagances was at first more amused than serious. Yet he w as much impressed with Newto n and his general theory of degeneration, drawing largely therefrom for the deteriorationists of his early to novels . He also took the trouble master the intricacies of the &odi ac of Dende ra as mystic

to it as a pie ce of ourlons learning,but by degrees came to associate it closely with himself ; so that Shelley could write to hi m, in his long descriptive letter of Jul y 1816, Do you, who assert the supre mac v of Ahriman, imagine him ” thr oned among these de solating snows, e t c . The fragment Ahrimanes w as to have this 124 BEGINNINGS OF SATIR E system as its ultimate explanation, not as its

t h e s a w as b e of subject . On urf ce it to a tale adventure, b e aring more re semblance to Rhodo ’ a to c d phne than any other of Pea ock s works. It was to be epic,not astrological, and the signs of th e z odi ac had certainly nothing t o do with

ro t o fill the fact that it was p jected twelve cantos. Th e significance of the title m ay b e ea sily deduce d

e from the prose scheme of the whole work . Th story w as of a struggle agains t Fate, and in a sense of the evasion of it ; and this fate , in the ’ third quarte r of the world s histo ry,in which we

— r live, was necessarily an evil power Ah im an es . We have no means of stating pre cisely ’ Peacock s grounds for abandoning the poem .

e t f o s Th fragment i self a f rd no clue . It is in a highl y finishe d state, and there is nothing to suggest that he w as dissatisfie d with what was

r e e to w itt n. On the contrary,it is quit up the standard of the be st writing in Rhododaphne, and shows Peac ock in a vein less formal, less conventional and m ore full of his subj e ct than

any previous work on a similar scale . Th e influence of Shelley is strongly m arked in the

tion beside which the most readable passages in the Philosophy of Mela ncholy are mere empty

in unce rt aint babbl g . In our v as to its date we 125 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK might imagine that it was his last attempt at a sustained poem, and that it was either laid aside when the appointment in the East India House made him turn hi s energies into another channel,or cut short by the mood that produced

r The F our Ages of Poet y. But just as internal evidence points t o a date later than 1812 for its composition, so similar considerations make it difficult to place it later than Rhododaphne, 1817—18 Fr written in the winter of . om a ’ co mparison of what we know of Peacock s readin g with his productions,it m ay be state d as a general rul e that his writing followed pretty closely on

fo a iori his studies . This af rds an pr arg ument for a ssigning this poem to the period between the autumn of 18 13 and the end of 18 14 ; for it would not have been in consonance with hi s usual practice to take the trouble necessary to acquire material for a long poem in 1813,leave it idl e for six years, and then, after publishing Rhododaphne, return t o the z odiac and the

o Th e p wers of good and evil for a subject. only publications of the date here suggested were the curious ballads,Sir Hornbook and Sir Proteus, neither of which could have occupied him very long ; while during the years 1815- 18 as much time as it was ever his custom to devote to literature can be accounted for by five 126

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

For its imagery,d escriptions and sentiment s he had but to draw upo n his favourite reading and or daily thoughts . F the kind of narrative he had undert aken, for the poetical achievement lying within his reach, the scene might as well be laid in Attica or Thessaly as in the valley of ll the Thames. A the details of the setting he coul d fill in with ease and delight, and make hi s verse musically reminiscent of the artistic traditions,the poetical and historic associations immediately evoked to his memory by the place d names . The material was rea y to hand the tale had simply to localise itself to be invested at once,in his mind,with vitality. The scheme of Ahrimanes m ade a much greater demand on his inventive powers . The legendary an d re ligious atmosphere was but kn own to him as a bare theory ; historic and artistic associations were lacking ; the kind of life to be depicted was problematic,except that in its more violent scenes certain featur es of Oriental conditions were to be prominent . In short, everything

To had to be created . make a success of a nar rat ive poem on the subject he h ad set himself would have required a strength and range of imagination, far in ex cess of the facul ty with which he was endowed . The influence that stimulated him to write the po em imparte d also 128 BEGINNIN GS OF SATIRE the quickening of emotio n and sentiment revealed in this fragment, apparently so happily begun . But the impuls e alone could no t supply a basic ul n u defect. It wo d have taken the ge i s of a Shelley to produce a great work out of the materi al, and a greater poet than Peac ock to m ake a readable sto ry with sustained interest.

By this time Peacock had writte n a few in considerable works which are yet biographically important as constituting the beginning of his satire and containing,though in an undeveloped l i T hi state,nearly al t s elements . hese are s two farces, The Diletta nti and The Three Doctors,

s ri a Sir Proteus The and the ati cal ball d, .

s o mi dl 8 14 latter was publi hed ab ut the d e of 1 . Th e rough copy o f The Three Doctors was written on the blank pages of an old account book belonging to his father, marked on the

Da 1 6 cover y Book : 7 8 : Saml . One of the sheets, containing o nl y two lines of compo sition, bears witness to an attack of ln dolence or distraction, or a cessation of t h e

s creative impul se . It is crawled over with de t ac h ed words, capital letters, curves and mean

l ss s i ing e trokes of the pen . In th s mood the paper was turned round, with the left margin 129 r THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK downwards,and in the corner was inscribed — 11 T. L. Peacock 18 1768

It is to be hoped that this histo rical exerci se, slowly and careful ly penned, and containing perhaps the second best autograph to be found in the manuscripts, fully satisfied him as to the , number of years the book had lain idle, and facilitated a renewed concentration upo n the

To s m wo rk in hand. us it i welco e evidence

he Three Do t s that T c or was written in 1811. Th e style and construction of The Dilettanti point to its having been composed before this

T e ir L date,though later than h C cle of oda . Both plays are intimately connected with Headlong Hall,containing characters,situations,and even speeches found afterwards in the novel . It will be enough to mentio n Metaphor the poet,

Chromatic the musician, Shadow the painter; Milestone the landscape gardener, and Sh enkin,

s The the se rvant with a Wel h accent. earlier i h play shows l ttle power of construction. T e plot is a mere whirl of changing situations and misunderstandings, brought about by the face

an tious tricks of abominable stage Irishman . 130

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK larly wishes to know whether Miss Cornelia

‘ Knight, author of the Description of Latium,is

T e m his sister. his looks v rv uch as if he h ad intended to add another character to the play

M s M he s m the person of i s etapho r . T Knight , however, were not relate d, and nothing came of his intention . If this theory be accepted,we have the exact date of the composition of The

Dilettanti .

The second play is still more ludicrously short, being only half the length of the first . But it is much nearer to H eadlong Ha ll and the

m s rollicking fun of the early novels . In co pari on with the two earlier plays it marks a decline in form and an advance in style, a sure sign o f ’ progression at this stage of Peacock s develo p

s ment . The nap and sparkle of the phrases, the tripping lyrics,the quaint oaths,the Welsh accent, the bustle and confusion, the ac cidents, the violence,the quarrels,provide an atmosphere ’ in which the reader of Peacock s novels feels

The iletta for the first time at home . D nti showe d us some of the characters who were afterwards to be guests at Headl ong Hall : The Three Doctors introduces the house and grounds and

Mr . m the genial host . Hippy is si ply Squire Headlong with the additional t o uch of hypo ch ondriac malady suggested by his name, pro 132 BEGINNINGS OF SATIR E

Melincourt h as phe t ic of the Mr . Hippy of . He succeeded unexpe ctedly to the property, which he finds in a state of the utmost disorder and neglect. He is urging his servants to their t ask of getting the house in order for the recep tion of four healers and restorers,on whose help he relies to enable him to set things to rights. Narcotic is to cure his own illness,Windgall to doctor the horses, Barbet to attend the dogs, and Milesto ne has promised to re store order to ’ the rank and o vergrown grounds . Hippy s song in the midst of the confusion ’ Couldn t that old sot,Sir Peter, Keep his house a little neate r is a distinct acquisition to the stock of humorous poems, and should al one earn for Dr . Young, who published the plays, the gratitude of the lovers of Peacock . The second edition of The Landscape h ad ’ dr awn Peaco ck s attentio n, especially through its foo tnotes, to Humphrey Repto n, a po pular and m s s s s is fa ou de igner of e tate . He here accordingly introduced as Marmaduke Mil e

Es ho h as s m o sto ne, q . , w publi hed any bo ks ; hi so ld none . This practitioner and all s work s, ” the thin,meagre genius of the bare and bald, were the pet aversion o f Payne Knight, w ho held in especial horror the pagodas and 133 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Chinese bridges, gravel- walk s, and shrubberies, ” bowling- greens,canals and clumps of larch,

Which the improver plants and calls a clump, M wherewith Mr . ilestone propo ses to decorate

is the grounds of Venison Hal l. H speech, One age, sir,has drawn to light the treasures ” of ancient learning, repeated in H eadlong Hall, ’ is a parody of R epton s pompous style and

rd pretentious assertions. His Plan for Lo ’ ’ Lit t le b rain s Park is R epton s published Plan for Tatton Park. Landscape gardening then is the first object ’ of Peacock s satire . His intense love of wild natural scenery caused him to think lightly of t h e art of the improver of nature, and perhaps

li s blinded him to its possibi ties . Yet it i but one mode of that formalism to which,at the time he wrote the plays, he was still attached in literature . It found pe rhaps its last outlet in this application to the crust of the earth : it came so late in time that its true character was not perceived, and it was regarded as a fad of

s r the new school . Even Word worth inte ested himself in it, thus loudl y proclaiming the insufficiency of nature to ministe r to the

es m F h ad a thetic wants of an . ormality in wit been perfected in the age of Pope ; it w as 134

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK scenery,but endeavoured to show that the land scape makers acted on principles opposed to

8 all s those of the best land cape painters . A good - natured controversy was carried on between hi h m and Repton on t is point . Equally academic but more acrimonious was his dispute with Payne Knigh t conce rm ng the distinctio n between the

s Picture que and the Beautiful . Knight asserted ’ their identity,treating Price s theory with scant

o J ff Edin c urtesy. e rey in an article in the burgh Review attempted to sum up and say

s m on the last word on the ubject. Co menting the theory that beauty 1s mhe re nt in pe rceptions of smoothness and repose, and pict -uresquene ss in those of roughnes s and excitement, he adds that there is a third s ource of pleasure, a refined degree of no velty for which we shall venture to coin the name o f unexpectedness .

r o As M . Gall he makes this prof und statement when walking round the gro unds of Headl ong

o c fo r t h Hall . Peac k cared so little e contro ’ ve rsy itself that he actually misstates Price s case : he was only anx 1ous to work in a hit at Jeffrey, and so asks him how he woul d define this quality when a person walks round the ” grounds fo r the second time ? It is no t ” likely that Jeffrey woul d have been pose d by thi s question but he was not put into the book 136 BEGINNIN GS OF SATIR E to make sport for himself, but for others, and is left biting his lip and vowmg j ournalistic vengeance . There rem ain to be noticed two curious works in ballad form, one as simple and plain as t he

s ir Hornboo other is overloaded and ob cure . S k, called in the sub - title a Grammatico - allegorical m Ballad,was co posed for children . It describes the progress of Childe Launcelot, guided by Sir Hornbook,and suppo rted by twenty- six men The first that came was mighty A,The last — was little z , under Corporal Syllable and C ai apt n Word, along the road to knowledge . Their encounter with the Parts of Speech is f o s elicit u ly narrated in excellent ballad style . Sir Hornbook helps the Childe to conquer Sir

ff s s Syntax,who o ers the stoute t resi tance of all . Having passed him, They reached the tree where Prosody Was singing in the shade Great joy Childe Launcelo t had,to see

And hear that lovely maid .

’ Last of all they find the Muses gates, guarded by Etymology, Who ever dug in deepest ground For m old and ouldy roots .

’ Sir Hornbook took Childe Launcelot s hand, And tears at parting fell 137 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Sir Childe, he said, with all my band

I bid you here farewell .

Then wander through these sacred bowers,

All shrubs are here, and fruits,and flowers, ” To happiest clim ates known.

Once more his horn Sir Hornbook blew,

His merrymen all,so stout and true, ll Went m arching down the hi .

This little piece al one would prove that Peacock

ul s co d write a ballad . Thr ee year later he pub & lish e d The Round Table, another poem for children, introducing all the Kings of England, with appropriate historical allusions . Though ’ not without merit, it will not bear a moment s m co parison with the earlier work .

Th e other work of 1814 was Sir Proteus . In his unfinished Essay on F ashionable Litera ture Peacock justly remarks that a critic is ’ bound to study for an author s mean ing, and ’ not to make his own stupidity another s re ” s di proach . This h a been the gui ng principle in a patient study of Sir Proteus; but has not availed to modify the conclusion that it is the ’ most obscure of Peacock s satires, as it is

Th e dat e is g iven as 1819 in t h e collected edition b ut th e b ook is k n i in u h Revi w f r N v 1817 ac owledg ed n t h e Ed b rg e o o . , . 138

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK m ark l ab y small account . At the time of pub and politics would understand and relish most

s of the veiled allu ions . Many men, who then pimped very proudly and are now forgotten,are celebrated in thi s poem, which is yet not im portant enough to drag them from their well

Th e merited oblivion . attitude is that of the worst criticism of the day,identifying literature with politics and confounding both with pre

at judice and opportunism . Yet though the tack is mainl y directed against the Tory faction, the autho r gives more than one fierce jab in other directions, so that neither Whigs nor

R adicals coul d have claimed him as an ally .

Those whom it assails are savagely trounced. It holds much the same place in literature as the

Epics of the Town in morals . But Lady Anne ’ Ham ilton s charges against her conte mporaries are more gross,and her satire is below the level

r r of Si P oteus . Yet in spite of all these drawbacks Peacock t did not succeed in completely hiding his wi . Th e prose and verse of this work enshrine so me characteristic jokes, some indignant o utbursts and amusing generalism s, in addition to much

sm true criticism and pungent sarca ; and . the reader who takes t he trouble - to turn over the 140 BEGINNINGS OF SATIR E page s of this remarkable ballad will not complain

Mo r that his time h as been wasted . reove we must study Sir Proteus if we are to understand the satire of the early novels, especially Melin

in o s court. Obscure itself, it c ntains the eeds of light, and glimmers in the unilluminated m m passages of other works . A ong the any m e n of genius, celebrity, medio crity or infamy de lineated in this politico - critical tirade, we m ay here distinguish some who are to appear again in the novels . Peacock abused co ntemporary poets generally, the Lake scho ol particul arly, and So uthey in especial, for eighteen years . Byron has often been anathematised for the same offence, per pe t rat e d with equal bitterness though prosecuted

i - w th less single minded assiduity . Nothing is easier at the present time than to point o ut the one - sided, short - sighted, ill - natured manner of

s such an undi criminating attack . It is only fair to consider, in extenuation of the crime, that it must at least have appeared strange at the time to observe the quondam revolutionaries, — Pantiso crats, political prisoners Wordsworth, Southey, Coleridge, Montgomery, Campbell metamorphosed into steady supporters of things as they were, and most of them in receipt of n G pe sions or salaries from the overnment . Not 141 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK only Byron,Moore and Hunt,but Shelley,who had tried hard t o like and admire Southey, ’ fully shared Peacock s views as to the political conduct of these poets,as may be se en from his — letters of the winter 18 11 12 : again in 1818 he wrote to Peacock urging him t o give the enemy no quart er, remember, it is a sacred ” The s t h war . abu e of e theory and practice of the Lake poets as childish, unpoetical and witless was a commonplace o f contempo rary

m a l criticism . It y be seen fully and careful y set forth in an anonymous satiric al poem called The Simpliciad, a title which will satisfy the incurious . In Sir Proteus Peacock proceeds (according to the avaricious method of his favourite Nonnus, ” whom no poetical image escaped, and like his closest English affinity who,in Jonathan Wild, for instance,never neglected an opportunity for irony) to make not a selection but an accumul a tion of charges against his bites noires, availing himself to the full of every detail that coul d be

m l s used to make the appear ridicu ous or in incere .

c ck ia The Pe a o n Southey is well known . It is hardl y necessary to remind the reader of R oderick Sackbut, Esquire, who reviews his own poems in the Quarterly (N ightmare Abbey)

Mr Fe at he rne st . , who once saw darkly through 142

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

They were alone m the room, and after some time,hearing no applause,comment or any sign of interest, Southey stopped reading and looked up from his manuscript ; but Shelley had

h ad o vanished . He glided n iselessly from his chair to the floor and lay buried in pro ” The found sleep under t he table . weariness and oppression of Shelley while he listened ,and the sweet release afforded by his slumber, are

dl s pointe y sugge ted by the quotation in the note . After this rebuff (the ballad continues) ,to revenge himself on an unappreciative generation,Southey conjured up, to m ake them roar,Stout Tafiy ” his Madoe in ales and leek, or W . Wearied with these efforts and in ne ed of fresh inspiration, he calls upon Proteus, bidding him appear in every shape most out of keeping with taste and W nature . Sir Proteus, that ight of ancient ” fun, answers to the summons,assuming in turn ’ the form of all Peacock s pet aversions. The first vision is of a political economist, probably Be ntham, since it is said that Con science is left out of his reckonings . Th e second is a famous character of the day, Sir William Curtis, renowned for his gluttony an d bad education . He had been Lord Mavor and P M. . for London,had been made a baronet for steady voting in 1802, and was the recognised 144 BEGINNINGS OF SATIR E

head of the Tory party in the City . A con te mporary poem describes a visit to his house

The jolly knight at turtle sat, Regaling o ’ er some fine green fat Ah ,Knight,reno wned for calipee, But more for spelling King with C Here therefore he is introduced With forced meat balls instead o f eyes, And for a nose, a snout, and described in the note as a learned man, who does not want instruction an in dependent man, who always votes according to his conscience, which has a singular habit o f finding the minister invariably right ; a free man, who always takes the liberty to do that which is most profitable to himself ; a man,in ’ short, of the fir st magnitude, who don t care nothing for nobody whom he cannot turn a ” as penny by. He appears Sir Gregory Green

l he o &mould in Me incourt . T patri t braw of the next verse is evidently the same person as the MacLaurel of H eadlong Hall, by whom

Th e Campbell is possibly intended . collegiate figure, in whom Johnny coul d distinguish no head between the gown and cap looks like t he Learned Friend but at this date it can hardl y be taken to mean Brougham,to whom Peacock e felt friendly on account of hi s defence

and of the brothers Hunt. Perhaps

145 x THOMAS LOVE ‘ PEACOCK

They were alone in the room, and after some time,hearing no applause,co mment or any sign of interest, Southey stopped reading and looked up from his manuscript ; but Shelley had vanished . He had glided noiselessly from his chair to the floor and lay buried in pro ” Th e found sle ep under t he table . weariness and oppression of Shelley while he liste ned,and the sweet release afforded by his slumber, are l pointed y suggested by the quotation in the note . After this rebuff (the ballad continues),to revenge himself on an unappreciative generation,Southey conjured up, to make them roar,Stout Taffy ” Madoc in ales and his leek, or W . Wearied with these efforts and in need of fresh inspiratio n, he calls upon Proteus, bidding him appear in every shape most out of keeping with taste and W natur e . Sir Proteus, that ight of ancient ” fun, answers to the summons,assuming in turn ’ s the form of all Peacock pet aversions . The first vision is of a political economist, probably Be ntham , since it is said that Con

o science is left out of his reck nings . Th e second is a famous character of the day, Sir William Curtis, renowned for his gluttony and bad education . He had been Lord Mavor and

P. M. for London, had been made a baronet for ste ady voting in 1802, and was the recognised 144

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK it is a sketch of Canning, w ho was generally known to have distinguished himself at Eton

M A sid and Oxford, and who figures as r . ny e

k Meli urt e An tijac in nco . Aft r one or two of less note comes Jeffrey, whom we have already m t T men e . here next appear three in a tub, ’ Wordsworth s household article, like one of ” s those Which women use to wa h their clothes . These men embark not,like the m e n of Gotham , to fish for the moon, but to write nonsense ” o T C ab ut her. hey are oleridge, Wordsworth and Wil son, the latter now forgotten as a poet and almost unrec ogmsab le in this illustrious company, of which his Isle of Palms see med t o h m e Peacock to render i worthy. As to the great r persons of this strangely unequal trinity, one is

M Mr Mr . Flosk Mr w ell known as ystic, . y and . Skionar successively,while the ot her is m entioned

Mr Mr lf W ont see . as . Wi ul ,and,in the person of ’ Pape rst amp,is perhaps Peacock s second villain, unl ess this place must be conceded to the

T m m s Learned Friend . hen Bloo field co e along, introduced by Capel Lofft, and then Moore, T with a reference to his duel with Jeffrey. his is of course an excellent occasion for a note on Reviews, which are treated to such universal and particular obloquy that it is no wonder that M Sir Proteus was unnoticed by the Press . onk 146 BEGIN NINGS OF SATIR E

Lewis m ay be single d out from a string of even less important persons occurring at this point,

Mr De rr do since he may possibly be the . y wn of

l Th e a o e Me incourt. l st f rm assumed by Prot us, the most remote of all from taste and nature,

M s r s is that of a in t el of the Scotti h Border . Any ear but that of Johnny R aw would have been too delicate t o survive the screech of Walter

Pe asa Scott. It startled g , who reared up and

threw Johnn y into the sea . At the depth o f ten thousand fathom s he finds himse lf beneath ’ ” the ocean s root, a little known locality

his o m o f Tha a described in own p e lab . But he has not escaped Pro te us, w h o retains the form M of the minstrel to the end of the piece . ad ” dened by the ruthl ess fiddl est ick , he cann ot get his thoughts clear,yet composes a speech in — rhyme longer than Chevy Chase The Curse of r m E ehama . He and the minst el re ain trying to

Th e shout each other down . latter at last fright ’ s ens him, and he escapes on a dolphin back. Th e dolphin carries him to a wild and lonely ” shore, Beneath the waning moon, the end of

s the world. A voice addres es him

In vain my power you brave For here must end your earthly course, ’ And here Oblivion s cave . 147 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Far,far within it s deep recess Descends the winding road, By whi ch forgotten minstrels pass ’ To Pluto s drear abo de

Here to psalm - tunes thy Co leridge sets His seri o - comic lay Here his grey Pegasus curvets,

Where none can hear him bray.

Here dr eaming Wordsworth wanders lost, Since Jove hath cleft his deck Lo on these rocks his tub is tost,

A shattered,shapeless wreck .

’ Here shall corruption s laureatewreath, By ancient Dulness twined With flowers that courtly influence breathe, h o m T y v tive te ples bind .

Amid the thick Lethean fen

“ Th e dull dwarf- laurel springs, To bind the brows of venal me n,

The tuneful slaves of kings .

Co me,then,and join the apostate train Of thy poetic stamp, That vent for gain the loyal strain, ’ Mid Stygian vapo urs damp, While far below,where Lethe creeps, The gho st of Freedo m sits,and weeps ’ ’ O er Truth s extinguished lamp . ’ Such is the fir st stage of Peacock s elaborate

e attack on the Poet Laureat . 148

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

d w t o wor s ere the greatest comfort Shelley . The quotation, with its occasion and reception, like a flash of lightning in a dark place, is an isolated but illuminating commentary on the attitudes of the two men in this first year of

their friendship . Th e early part of 18 14 was the period of ’ Shelley s estrangement and separat ion from Harriet, culminating in his elopement with M ul ary Godwin in J y. Peacock consistently took the part of Harriet; and was chosen by Shelley to look after her money affairs during l his absence on the continent. The fol owing ’ winter was that most mysterious time in Shelley s life when he was living in London hiding from his creditors, and often separated for a time M ’ from ary. During these months Peacock s position was most important as agent and confidant ; but beyond proving that he was living, with his mother, in Southampton Build ings,Ch ancery Lane,the references to him tell us ’ very little . On first making Mary s acquaintance he took an aversion to her,as was perhaps ine vit M able in the friend and partisan of Harriet. ary on her part disliked him with equal cordiality, though she was at some pains to persuade him that “ love was a good thing by which it is probably meant that she endeavoured to make 150 SHELLEY IN ENGLAND him admit that sh e had acted rightly in eloping

i s with Shelley. Her d slike la ted apparently for several years but in his old age Peacock speaks of the cordial intim acy that existed betwe en ’ M them after Shelley s death . At that time ary may well have co me to realise that he w as o ne of t h e few goo d friends her husband had ever h ad the lette r she wrote to him in 1822 shows at le ast that sh e h ad got over the moral disgust which sh e had professed t o fe el for him . It ends Adieu, my de ar Peacock be happy with your wife and child. I hear that the first is de serving of every happiness, and the second to a most inte resting little creature . I am glad

D as am to e hear this. esolate I ,I cling the id a that some of my fri ends at least are not like me .

In the early months of their acquaintance ’ Shelley s difficul tie s do minated other considera tio ns,and however slight the sym pathy between

- them , Pe acock and Mary had to co operate . His chief occupation seem s to have been assisting Shelley at business interviews, carrying notes and m essages betwe en him and his wife when

‘ it was not safe for them to m ee t, and at le ss harassed times acco mpanying the party, which included Clare Clairm ont, in the evenings to Primrose Hill or the Serpentine, t o sail little 151 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

boats or construct and send off fire balloons. Marian, evi dently the Mary Anne mentioned in the B o okham letters,was known to the Shelley party ; and from a quaint reference to her in appears that Peacock would have married her if he had be en in a po sition to do so . One e vening he called and was told of the running away scheme whereby two heiresses, co usins of Shelley,were to be converted and libera from school, and an un sophisticated colony starte d, somewhere, on the proceeds of their

M r fortune . Peacock was to marry a ian and n lfil join the party. He gravely co sented to fu his l his a lotted part of the undertaking. But e i s laught r was not always internal . Somet me wrought and anx ious young people suffering from the continued strain and want of distraction,

moody and depress ed . On such occasions he w oul d laugh at them all , restore good temper, and take Shelley out for a vis it t o the canal or ponds . ’ Thus was passed some at least of Peacoc k s ’ M r ll time during the winter. By a ch She ey s money troubles were ended. In August he was settled at Bish opgat e , and Peacock at Marlow. 152

THOMA S LOVE PEACOCK was no time for study both men were happiest when out of doors all day,and were glad enough ’ of each other s society in their rambles . During the winter months Shell ey saw few

and visitors except Peacock Hogg. In t he ’ ” latter s phrase,this time was a mere Atticism . The three friends read Greek assiduously, and d di perhaps manage to agree in their stu es . On their long walks,for they were all tireless pedes t rians,Hogg found it very hard to be kept waiting in the cold by some shallow pool until the other two h ad used up any papers they might have about them in the manufacture of little boats, and satisfied their passion for the amusement which he cordially abominated . Their more intell ectual disagreements are commemorate d in those of the three philosophers of Headlong

Hall. In the previous autumn Shelley had been living in a state of outlawry, fleeing from creditors d and in danger of arrest. The con ition of ’ Peacock s finances at the time may b e guessed when we read th at on the day when the Shelleys were destitute of supplies, he had only been able to find money to purchase a few cakes, sufficient not to satisfy their hunger but to miti

r gate its pangs . In the early part of this yea his own affairs suffered a crisis when, less 154 SHELLEY IN ENGLAND

fortunate th an Shelley,he w as arr e ste d for debt.

The circumst ances have not been m ade public . We can imagine that it was Sh elle v who cam e to

his re scue, as he now had an income o f £1000. — A pe m iom ac co rding to varyin g accounts of £50

or £100 - which he allowe d to Pe acock for some

ye ars,w as m ost lik ely begun afte r this misfortune . In his w ill he left £500as a b e q ue st to Pe aco ck

and £2000 to purchase an annuity for him. Shelley w as much plea sed with Headlong Hall

e and with Peac o ck for having written it. Lat r

he ever gave of its author : He is an amiable

enemy to every sh ape of tyranny and super ” stitio us his impost ure. In Jul y he wrote ,as to be st friend, as king Pe acock t o find a home for

land You are the only m an who h as sufficient regard for me to take an intere st in the fulfilment of this de sign, and whose tastes conform sufii cie ntly to mine to engage m e to confide the

i s execut on of it to your di cretion. I do not trouble you with apologie s for giving you this When y o u have poss es sed yourself of all my afi airs,I wish you to look out M for a home for me and ary and William . 155 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Certainly the Forest engages my prefere nce, because of the sylvan nature of the place, and i the beasts with wh ch it is filled . But I am not

s insensible to the beauties of the Thame . Its proximity to the spot you have chosen is an ” in argument with us favour of the Thames . This and the two following were the years of m their greatest inti acy . Twenty years later, Peacock turned back in memory to this time of his life, and began a story, alas, unfinished, some elements of which l were frank y autobiographical . In the first chapter the three young friends are presented, ’ at the end of a long day s walk,le aning over the t bridge at Cher sey . Associations in one of the party had led our young friends to choo se

Th e it for their headquarters . Abbey Field which they had crossed on their way from the ferry was the first in which he had gathered ” cowslips, Standing half- w ay between the ghost story ln the Recollections of Childhood and ’ I played with you mid cowslips blowing of Gryll Grange,it is a curiously central fragment, tantalising in its promised inte rest. But beyond a description of the Abbey and a list of changes suffered by the to wn in the interval between this remembered time and the date of w rl t ing, it ni nf contains little defi te i ormation. 156

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

m as these gentlemen is put in erely a blind. Shelley and Hogg, for instance, were about twenty - one at the time in the novel the former is said to be about thirty and the latter about

- forty five . In the stage coach, conversing with

r M D . Gaster, the aentwrog parson,each merely states hi s case they express respectively ho pe,

s T despair and sati faction . heir talk displays no other peculiarity,nor does it suggest parody

or satire . Their personalities, ho wever, begin

m s to declare the elves at the breakfast table .

s Mr . Escot,on catching ight of a round of beef, immediately enters on an exposition of the philo sophy of vegetarianism on the principles of m F . w as J. Newton,of who an account given in

m an s the last chapter . When , he ays, began to sacrifice victim s on the altar of superstition, to pursue the goat and the deer, and by the pernicio us invention o f fire to pervert theirflesh into food, luxury, disease and premature death were let loose upon the world and adds a particularly Newtonian detail From that period the stature of m ank ind has been in a state of gradual diminution,and I have not the least doubt that it will continue to grow small by degrees and lamentably less, until the whole race will vanish imperceptibly fro m the face of the e art This last sentence exemplifies in 158 SHELLEY IN ENGLAND

’ Th e detail Peacock s intellectual satire . first ’ c lause is a statement of Newton s belief ; the sec ond enshrines a favourite phrase o f his the third is an exaggeratio n involving a c ontra diction o f his doctrine for he held that mankind was to be restored to it s pristine vigour and F innocence in the ourth Age of the world .

In answer to this tirade Mr . Foster, while admitting that animal fo od may retard the perfectibility of the human species, speaks in praise of fire, the element of which Shelley was i l particularly fond . St l he is not yet identifiable with Shelley, partly no doubt because the latter agreed with Newton to a great extent, while his role in the novel is to be diametrically

Mr e nkinson Opposed to him . . J then proclaims himself omnivorous, demanding only that all

s food shall be good of its kind . Thi sentiment is that of Jefferson Hogg its mode of expression,

The that of Peacock . sentence contains the essence of all the m any gossipy passages in his Life of Shelley where Hogg talks about the vegetarians . He objected, not to the absence o f meat at their usual repasts,but to the quality and cooking of it when supplied to a guest . Among them he found it better to live as a ve ge tarian and even, having become accustomed to d ul it,observe the r e when alone . But he went 159 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK back to a flesh diet whenever it was more con ve nient ,and passed from one to the other without rit h a spi ual qualm or a p ysical pang .

The Mr next thing to be noted is that . Esc ot (while confessing himself to be as profoundl y ignorant of final causes as the most dogmatic theologian can possibly be) helps himself to a I hi slice of beef. n t s detail,though it does not need explanation as a stroke of pure and obvious satire,we may perhaps have the record of a true incident . Whether Newton were the person in question or not, is of mm or importance ; but Hogg relates that he once discovered a high authority, a defender of the fait of vege t arianism ,one of the Shell ey circle,eating stuffed

The w as veal . excuse was, that his wife away and the veal was what he had found it easiest to procure . Another and a surer reason for ’ s e Mr . E cot s inconsist ncy undoubtedly is, that he is a composite personality . His jokes,chiefly at the expense of the cleric,soon make us begin to suspect what afterwards appears fairly evident, that Peacock is using this character for expressing his own opinions in conjunction with those of

Thi nf his Newton . s again is in co ormity with practice in subsequent books,in some of which he is guil ty of similar confusion of substance, while in others he allows himself plurality of 160

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK who is possibly intended for Lewis,t he poe t and novelist mentioned in Sir Proteus

Like griz z ly monk,on spectral harp D did eep dole he betoken.

Mr . Chromatic is merely the musician,without ’ whom Peacock s dinners would be as incomplete as an Anglo - Saxon feast without the official ’ O Prism harper. Sir Patric we already know as Sir Uved ale Price ; Miss Philomela Poppyseed bears a suflicie nt resemblance,in name at least,

s t o Mrs. Amelia Opie to uggest the identification,

hi t he r Mi P s Mr w le elations of ss oppy eed with . Gall and his companions is not out of keeping

Sir Proteus Mr w ith a note in where s. Opie is said to be treated with too much indulge nce by

Mr e . Pans the Edinburgh Revi w . co pe is some o utcome and champion of the march of intel ” lect, to which less attention is paid in the

e s e arlier than in the lat r novel . Among this strangely assembled company the three philosophers have plenteous opportunities ’ for expansion and argument, and Pe acoc k s

c m partiality to Mr . Escot be o es more and more apparent . In their next encounter on the sub j ce t of progress and deterioration Esc ot adduces instances of superiority in t he characters ancient mythology,and Foster answers,that u d him that gro n he cannot meet fairly. As 162 SHELLEY IN ENGLAND has hitherto shown himself by no means back ward in disputation, this o bjection is not intel ligible until it is paraphr ased, and understood to be spoken by Shelley to Peacock,thus It is not fair for you,with your immensely superior kn owledge of classical literature,to use such an ” F ’ arg ument to me . oster then uses Shelley s contention that enlightenment is virtue (compare his Address to the Irish,recommending Sobriety, R egul arity and Thought) , and Escot answers ’ with Peaco ck s assertion that the progre ss of knowledge is not general,and that it is put to contemptible uses by those wh o have been able

to profit by it. The chapter entitled Th e Dinner shows the author frankly e xpre ssmg his own opl mons

di mo f through the me u his favourite character. He is now in his element, enjoying an easy m ni triumph over his i aginary antago sts . His first encounter is with the parson, who appeals to the authority of Moses to prove that primitive

s man pos essed the facul ty o f speech . Peacock Of course, sir, I do not presume to dissent from the very exalted authority of that most enlightened astronomer and profound cosmogenist ,who had,moreover,the advantage with a ramble in the fields of speculation, and 163 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

attempt to deduce what is prob able and rational from the sources of analysis, experience, and compari son,I confess I am too often apt to lose sight of the doctrines of that great fount of theological and geological philosophy . Shelley then discourses o n the superiority of a modern intellectual man over the primitive savage,despite whatever physical disadvantages must be allowed in the former N o philo sopher would resign his mental acquisitions for the ” purchase o f any terrestrial good . Peacock In other words,no man whatever

his nl would resign individuality. U uckily for the rest of your argument,the understanding of literary people is for the most part exalted,

as you express it, not so much by the love of 4 truth and virtue, as by arrogance and Self sufficiency and there is perhaps l ess di sin t ere st e dne ss, less genera&benevolence, and more envy,hatred and uncharitableness among them,

s than am ong any other de cription of men . saying these words his eye rests very innocently

o f and unintentionally n Jef rey. “ Jejfrey You allude, Sl I‘ , I presume, to my

R eview.

Peacock : Pardonme,sir. Y ou will b e convinced g it is impossible I 'can allude to your R eview,whe n ” u t h at l f I tell yo I have never read a sing e page o it . 164

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK from evidence almost amounting to actual proof, we may safely assert had often been discussed

that tremendous convulsion which destroyed the perpendicularity of the poles and inundated this globe with that torrent of physical e vil , from which the greater torrent of moral evil h as ” s F s Th e c is ued, etc . o ter answers pre ession of the e qum oxe s will gradually ameliorate the physical condition of our planet,till the ecliptic ” ow shall again coincide with the equator, etc . N the disastrous effects of the obliquity of the ’ earth s ax1s were part of the Newtonian Ahrim ani c theory . Shelley had been acquainted with Newton in 1812, and knew his book, making

nn ue extensive use of it to a otate Q en Mab . In the early part of the following year he enquire d ’ at the Hook h am s library if there were any book proving that the obliquity was becoming yearly

s as u o le s and less . So he w studying the q esti n, in order to meet the deteriorationists on their own

Escot’ s long disquisitions on the state of society ’ are t oo obviously the expressions of the author s

own mind to need insisting upon.

s His Shelley w a abroad the whole summer. long letters to Peacock are almost entirely 166 SHELLEY IN ENGLAND descriptive and contain few personal references to his correspondent,with the exception of one

s J fin d or two commis ions. In une we Peacock ’ again occupied with Harriet s affairs,interviewing ’ Sir Timothy Shelley s solicitor on her behalf. Evidently he had not relished the responsibility

h s of taking a house for Shelley in i absence . Perhaps indeed he had not been asked to go so far as that, but only to m ake enquiries and r m s s eport on the o t uitable places . However this m ay be, Shelley, soon after landing at Portsmouth in August or September, went to l London to look for a dwe ling. He spent a fortnight with Peacock at Marlow, and during m M m the latter part of the ti e ary was with the . Peacock was now writing Melincourt, and she m ” urged him to ake it funny . This fortnight was one of continuous fine weather, and w as spent by the two friends in daily expeditions, h either walking or boating. T e Shelleys then returned to the West of England, having first secured a house at Marlow, where they moved

w as m D m as soon as it ade habitable . In ece ber ’ came Harriet s death, and Shelley and Mary, ’ in acco rdance with Peacock s advice, were d marrie immediately . At this time Peacock was deeply impressed with the theories and practice of his friend ; 167 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

so much so that,without renoun cing or attem pt ing to alter his own,he was e mployed in thinkin g out as fully as possible how far there was a funda ’ mental agreement between them and Shelley s, and what sort of a moral philosophy could be constructe d out of a union of the two sets o f

are se t forth at length, plainly to be seen by readers who look below the surface,in the pages

i ed s for wh ch Mrs. Shelley had ask in the scene of the election and in that at Mainch ance Vill a, in some of the symposia,and in the eloquent — ge stures of the dumb baronet the original — hero of the book there is little or no fun to be got out of the composite character which trapped ’ to o much of the author s atte ntion,the pseudo hero, Forester, in conversation with his philo m sophical co panion. So entirely was Peacoc k taken up with the construction and study of this pe rsonality that he allotted an enormously disproportionate amoun t of space and importance d him to it. His own absorption in it blinde to the consideration that it coul d have but a minor

sente d,perhaps more than in any other char acte r ’

in the novels, the author s . serious thoughts. Yet he is hopelessly dull, and coul d hardly have 168

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK made perfect, is only a partial st atement of ’ s T Shelley views. he reason for the injustice in each case is obviously that for satirical purposes the two men, who in reality agreed in so many things, were required to be utterly oppo sed in all vi s their ew . On the question of the vegetable

’ Newton s pamphl et, says that he be lieves our depravity and degeneracy are the outcome of the unnatural habit of life adopted by our ancestors . W hen i n his Address to the Irish he says that ” the world is going wrong, he explains the state “ ment as meaning that it is capable of be ing ” much improved. He was in fact a deteriora t ionist - perfectibilian, and it is in this character that Pe acock allies himself with him in Melincourt. He is first brought in, very appropriate ly,in the company of Sir Oran,whose bir th and parent Thi age are already known to us . s being is his commentary on humanity at large, logical, faithful and practical, a man, i n short,lacking ’ only in man s garrulity and vice . The fir st incident of all, consequent upon the drunkenness of the baronet,may indeed be a play ’ ful co mmemoration of one of Shelley s eccentric d um m of actions . He is here represente as j p g out the window in pursuit of a chimaera,e ven as he 170 SHELLEY IN ENGLAND once jumped out of the window at Marlow to

s escape from an imaginary pre ence . When his servant announced the music master who had been e ngaged t o instruct Miss Clairmont,Shelley,having mistaken the name for that of somebody person ally objectionable to him,exclaimed : I would j ust as soon see the devil and thus pre

hi i s cipit at ely disappeared . However, t s dwelt lightly upon, and Forester,on his return to the dining- room, passes immediately to one of the subjects of his eclectic creed, sugar and West

Th e Indian slavery . attitude adopte d by Sir Telegraph Pax are t t to wards his friend his allusion to their co llege days, when Forester ‘ used t o talk about the diflusion of liberty and the general happiness of m ankind his mundane ’ good nature and tolerance of his friend s e n t husiasm ; his remarks, You have made no all owan ce for the mixture of good and evil, ” which I think the fairest statement of the case, and,on the subject of tea without sugar, I find the difference,in this instance,more trivial than ” I supposed. In fac t,I never thought of it before ; all these bring before us the Hogg-Jenkinson ’ of the previous novel . But,Peacock s mood in this being so much more serious than in the first book, Sir Telegraph is treated with a corres

of s To pondingly smaller measure re pect. take 171 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK the most obvious instance, he is credited with m ore of a taste for wine and less for the Classics .

Shelley and the cynical , questioning Hogg, is that in which Forester gives a detaile d accoun t of the early life of Sir Oran . He proceeds In this way he lived till he was about seventeen ” o f ir Tel e ra h his years age . S g p By own reckoning 9 F orester By anal ogical com putation . Many of the foregoing speeches, especially the friendly citations of Wo rdsworth and Coleridge, belong clearly to Shelley. Pea ’ cook s contribution to the character of Forester comes to the front towards the end of the discus

o n m i him sion Sir Oran . Before ak ng a member of Parliament,he says, I am desirous that he l t shou d finish his education . I mean to say tha I wish, if possible, to put a few words into his ’ m outh This is Peacoc k s own jibe ; and his dislike of thepolitical cant of the day is respo nsible for the question, curiously naive in a work of satirical purport, But serio usly, is not your object an irresistible exposure of the univer sality and o mnipotence of corruption by pur chasing for an oran- outang one of those seat s, t o b e as notorious as the sun at noonday ? or do you really think him one of us 172

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK at the time of writing Peacock was intere ste d in Godwin,w h o for some time carried on a con hatred of political econo my and kindr ed sciences,

It is also, from a literary point of view, re gret

is s able . It obviou that he was not prepare d, even if he were inclin ed, to refute Malthus . ’ Co nsequently he ad mitted him as Forester s chosen companion and disputant, and lengthens out the book with those discussions,which become

artistic indecency and o ught to be expurgated. At his first appearance he comes crashing out at once with a doctrine utterly oppo sed to those

- s of the plural unity. It i in vain to declaim about the preponderance of physical and moral ” evil, says Forester, and attribute it,with the manich scans,to a mytholo gical principle,or,with

“ so me modern philo sophers, to the physical

Th e is constitution o f the globe . cause the tendency of popul ation to increase beyond the ” means of subsistence . Here, then, are the components of a witty or angry discussion in the ’ author s happiest vein ; but Peacock,for once ,is no t anxious to amuse : these theories are tre ated ness, in a sequence of inconclusive dialogues 174 SHELLEY IN ENGLAND the spirit of Headlong Hall is not absent from the book,but it inh abits other parts of it . Th e co mpany at Melincourt Castle provides m a more characteristic conversational at osphere .

di s s It includes Mr . Hippy, the in pensable ho t ’ Anthelia, not Peacock s ideal woman, but the agglomeration o f hi s ideal qualities in woman, and consequently a prig,whose one merit is that

Mr Pinmone she is unconvincing s . y (who develops and emphasises the views of Miss Poppy seed) ,her daughter,Lo rd Anophe l and his tuto r — ” all typical members of what is called society, for which the author and hero have not much i s Mr. Port e taste the R e v. p p ,a cleric omewhat

Dr Mr Fe at h rnest less debased than . Gaster . e , the laureate Southey,who has burned his Odes to Truth and Liberty and accepted his post in exchange for his consc ience two penn iless and D unimportant Hibernians, and lastly Mr. erry

e of h down, the devot e ballad poetry. At i s first coming among them Forester, significantly described as a bright- eyed ,wil d- looking young ” man, declare s his origin by his enthusiasm for Italian and Greek studies and for the education di of women. A stinctly Shell eyan touch has already been added, in the charitable action performed by him on the way to the Castle,and ” de s e d as crib a work of justice . At dinner 175 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK he expresses the view taken by Peacock and Shelley, and indeed by most of the advanced ’ Liberals,of Southey s political change Southey Now that I can get it fo r a song, I take my pipe of wine a year : and what is the e ffect Not cold phlegmatic lamentations over the sufferings of the poor,but high - flown,j ovi al, reeling dit hyr amb ics to all the crowned heads in

o Eur pe . F orester I am unfortunately one of those, sir, who very much admired your Odes to Truth and Liberty, and read your royal lyrics with ff ” very di erent sensations . Southey I presume , sir, every man h as a ” right to change his opi m ons . F orester From disinterested conviction undoubtedly ; but when it is obviously from mercenary motives,the apostacy of a public man is a public calamity . Southey You may say what you please, u and s . I am accustomed to this language,

s quite callous to it,I as ure you . F orester Fortunately, sir,for the hope s of mankind,eve ry man does not bring his honour and conscience to market Southey Perhaps,Sl r,you are one of those who can afford to have a conscience, and are therefore under no necessity of bringing it to 176

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

of Sir Oran for the Borough of One vot e the part ne rship in t he character of Forester is for the time being dissolved , and the author expresses

his ni m h opi ons through a separate edium . T is m change of method was al ost inevitable . In

purchasing a seat for his protégé ,Forester is g uilty of an action directly at variance with his

his principles and the rest of practice . What could he have said to the electors How coul d he have justified himself to his friends ? His position is logically and dram atically unte nable and during the whole of the proceedings he takes him a back seat. Peacock does his best to get o ut of the way,but in spite of deft management un di the position of his favourite is gnifle d. He sacrifices Forester for a free hand, and having paid this price makes the most of his opportunity to heap ridicul e on the system of election and & he parliamentary representation . T narrative with its vigorous irony is insufficient for this

ss v purpose . He finds it nece ary to pro ide another outlet for personal expression,and so introduce s

a s ad hoc Mr . S rca tic,an creation,whose utterances l from the first word to the ast are pure irony. This change of tactics is confessed in a passage

Sir Telegraph and Foreste r are discussing the ’ r r s moralit v of Sir Oran s candidatu e . Sa ca tic 178 SHELLEY IN ENGLAND

announces his intention of addressing the people of the neighbouring city ofNo vot e on the blessings

F s of virtual representation. orester say ,he will perhaps also make a speech,but with a different ” view of the subject. Sarcastic replies with the significant remark Perhaps our views of the subject are not radically different, and the ” variety is in the mode of treatment. Some of their subsequent speeches are as plainly by Peacock and Shell ey separately as if the speakers were visible and audible Sarcastic I ascertain the practice of those I talk t o ,and present it to them as fro m myself, m the shape of theory the consequence of which is,that I am universally stigmatised as a r p omulgator of rascally doctrines .

Forester : Your system is sufficiently amusing, Th but I much question its utility . e object of moral censure is reformation, and it s proper vehicle is plain and fearless sincerity . Sarcastic I tried that in my youth,when I was troubled with the passion for reformi ng the ” world. The speech of Sarcastic to t he inhabitants of the unfranchised city,on the subjects of virtual ’ representation and tax ation,is Peacock s state R ment of the case for eform . Earlier in this episode he remarks that all that can be urged by 179 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK reason in support of reform has been repeate d for years, by each party when out of office . Sixteen years later Lord John Russell,in the debate on the R eform Bill ,made a full and aca demic statement of the case,developing all the i d in hi points ind cate t s chapter by Peacock . His speech reads like a plain and comprehensive account, to which these scenes in Melincourt

are the coloured illustrations . In the co nversations immediately following on this incident a t rait of the Shelley of actual life is added to the description of Forester. He

Mrs Pinmone convinces . y that he is out of his mind by telling her he does not consider his propert y to be hi s own, that it is his duty to distribute it as part of the common property of society,and that he is responsible to the prin

ci le s s p of immutable ju tice for such distribution . ’ Sir Telegraph tells her that Forester s actions

o For square abs lutely with his talk. the senti ment it is only necessary to compare the claims of c ommon justice of which Sh elley wrote, accounting for the disposition of part of his income ; for the actions, all will remember

his personal friends,and the poor of Marlow whom he w as in the habit of visiting regul arly and The assisting through the winter. phrase I 180

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

ac The pr tice threatens the ruin of commerce . fact that many fresh members are added to the

s ress usele s or prejudicial to the cause of prog . Byron spoke the same justification when he said, Ridicule isthe only weapo n the English climate

The ds i l able. first is Wor worth, whose pol tica change of opinions and position as Distributo r of Stamps was regarded by the R adicals in t he ’ same light as Southey s change from revolution

for the meeting with Wor dsworth, not only by the locality of the story but also by the intro duction of the two old servants,Harry Fell and Peter Gray, relatives of little Lucy and little

A The li i e lice . sty stic criticism mplicit in thes names and characters is emphasised in the des

e df Mr cript ion of their lit rary go ather . Pape rst amp, another variety of the same genus [po et&,chie flvremarkable for an affected infantil e lisp in his speech,and for always wearing waist

182 SHELLEY IN ENGLAN D

to the conclusion that Pe acock knew of the literary sympathy and intimacy,almost partner ship, existing between Wo rdsworth and his

m e Miss Ce landina sister. But the next eting with

makes it doubtful if he h ad everheard of Dorothy . If he had,his information was lamentably little, and he make s the ludicrous mistake of represent ’ ing her as the poet s daughter. This character

m Mr Killt h o is . e theref re probably i aginary . dead has been generally inte rpreted as Barrow, se cretary to the Admiralty ; but two lines in

Sir Proteus

’ Here Cr- k - r fights his battle o er,

’ point to his identification with Barrow s co l

author of The Battle of Talavera and other Poems, never forgotten by his enemie s he is here there fore described as a gre at compounder of narcotics , under the denomination of BATTLES fo r he never he ard of a deadl y field, but

’ He fo ught the BATTL E o er again, ” c And twi e he slew the sl ain. He and Cannin g were among the founders of

uarterl Review the Q y . Brougham says in his

Tori es as a journalist than in Parliament some 183 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

d thing of the sort seems to be suggeste here . ’ Killt he de ad s first speech is a paraphrase of one

’ Peacock s note, which ends Croaker w as a

The th deep politician. engine to play upon e house mark that He is appropriate ly

“ introduce d, in a subsequent chapter, among an

The farcical chapters, The Paper Mill and ” ' Cimmerian Lodge, are the outcome of Pea ’ cook s personal prejudices, the latter especially being untinged with Shelley’ s critical interest C w as in the subject of the satire . oleridge one

d Shelley. He told Hogg he re grette very much that Shell ey,who went to call on him soon after leaving Oxford, found him absent and w as

received by Southey instead . I might have ” been of some use to him, he said, and Southey coul d not for I shoul d have sympathised with ” An d his poetics, metaphysical reveries, e t c . some years later Shelley,in a letter from abroad, asks for lite rary news, adding that by this he means primaril y news of Coleridge; But in Melincourt Co leridge is only just rec ognisable as

M r c Mr. ystic, owing in dense fog over the O ean of Deceitful Form to the Island of Pure Intelli 184

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

ea r ctionaries . A fre sh character now appe ars — on the scene Canning. Owing to a cur ious anticipatory reputation, the shadowy basis of many frustrated hopes, this state sman may b e said to have walked into the Hous e of Commons, when little more than a boy,with the stigma of

- u - a turn coat . Never a thoro gh going party man, he suffered throughout his career from judgments passed upon him not as an eclectic politician An T but as a defective partisan . official ory, c o - founder and mainstay of both the Anti Jacobin and the Quarterly, opposed to Parlia mentary R eform,yet with reforming tendencies in other directions that shocked and alienated his party,he was regarded by the various sections as a revolutionary,a mounte bank or a reactionary m 1816 scare onger. In the summer of , when Peacock was writing Melincourt, Canning had just come to London after an absence of two years is in Portugal and the South of Fr ance . He

An side ac cordingly introduced as Mr . y Anti jack, a very important personage just re t um ed j from abroad on the occasion of a lette r from n Mr . Coleridge, denouncing an approachi g ” period of public light, which h Wordsworth, Southey, Gifford

' t h e deepest dismay ; and

186 SHELLEY IN ENGLAND be adopted for totally and finally extinguishing m ” the light of the hu an understanding . Th e guests whom chance has brought to the — door of this conclave and who, it must be re membered ,are the social and political reformer, the economist and political moralist, and the — natural, undebased m an canno t be introduced until the meeting is over . Meanwhile they are

e M landina Mr Derr down receiv d by iss Ce and . y , who immediately shoots an arrow of literary criticism, barbed with morality, by explaining the family group of Mother Goose, Margery Daw,Jack,Jill, and Jack Hom er, each with a finger in the Christmas pie, interpreted as the m public purse . When the eeting is broken up t he guests are brought in and the party sits down to dinner, and to wms , the unmasker of persons . At this stage,the bottle having been judiciously

De r do is circulated by Mr . ry wn,who anxious to disco ver the nature of the secret deliberations, the conversation begins,on a basis of quotations from the Quarterly,with questio n and comment

s from the visitor . In reading this chapter it is difficult to believe that Peacock has not e xag gerated and misrepresented the write r in the Quarterly as much as he has travestied the c haracters of Wordsworth and Southey. But 187 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

any reader who is curious enough to look up o Review find the o N . XXXI of the will on c ntrary

h as s s c d material. He of cour e ele te the choicest morsels from the mass,b ut he has not misquoted or given them an intention that would b e contra e n dict d by their origi al context. In The Borough of One vot e he gives a true picture of the actual contemporary stat e of things with regard t o Parliamentary represe ntation : the simple truth was the most eloquent for the satiric purpose,which is merely sharpened by the char ac ter and speeches o f those who take the principal M part in the election . His procedure in ain as chance Vill a is analagous . He has taken many as thirty statements from the official Tory organ, all chosen from one long article against Parliamentary Reform,and ridicul es them merely by the farcical presentment of the characte rs M se n by whom they are uttered. any of the tenoes are lite rally quote d, the rest are para phrased and thrown into a more conversational

form . One or two extracts from the pages of the Quarterly, for comparison with the symposium at Mainch ance Vill a,will prove the closeness and accuracy of the satire Of all men, the smatterer in philosophy is the most intolerable n and the most dangerous . He begi s by 188

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

F orester You can prove that assertion, of course Gifford Prove it & Th e Editor of the Quarterly required to prove an assertion Canning The Church is in danger Forester I am very well aware that the time has been when the voice of reason could be dr owned by clamour, but I see with

pleasure that those days are gone . The people read and think ; their eyes are opened ; they know that all their grievances arise from the pressure of taxation far be yond their means, from the fictitious circulation of paper- money, and from the corrupt and venal state of popular

representation .

M Mr Southey y friend, . Coleridge, holds that it is a very bad thing for the pe ople to read so certainl y it is An ignorant man,judging from instinct, judges much better than a man d m ” who rea s and is consequently isinformed. ” Gi ord s d uarterl ff Unle s he rea s the Q y. Wordsworth Darkness & Darkness & Jack ’ the giant- kill er s coat of darkness & That is ” your only wear.

F s willing to be led . orester a ks,Why was a war undertaken, in that case, to avert revolution

190 SHELLEY IN ENGLAND

Re form, which it succee ded in shelving ; and adds two of the commonest anti- reform arguments o f the day, first, that although some of the practices connected with parliamentary re presentation m ay be admitte d to be wrong, it is false to say that any harm to the legislature arises from them ; and second, that many o f the most z ealous Reformers owe d their seats in the House o f Co mmons t o those very conditions

Th e which they proposed to abolish . latte r argument w as actually used by Canning in the

House of Co mmons . Croker and the rest having worked themselves into a frenz y of scare about the danger to Church and State,Canning declares that there is a great blunderbuss that is to blow the nation to atoms .

S aying these words he produced a pop - gun from his pocket, and sho t o ff a paper pellet

Mr rds in the ear of . Wo worth, which made the latte r spring up in sudden fright, to the irremediable pe rdition of a decanter of Sherris ” Mr m Sack, over which . Southey la ented bitterly. This commemorates a scaremongering exploit ’ of Cann ing s in the House,the source,according to Peacock and others, of disappointment and chagri n in his party and of unquenchable laughte r a hi o mong s opp nents. In a speech on the daring and extravagant projects of reform, 19 1 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK he said The projects of inn ovation do no t rest with parliaments and governm e nts ; the projecto rs would, in the end, shear property to Thi the quick . s is no conjectur e of mine nor is it merely the day- dream of ignorant and illiterate men. The purpose is avowed : it is detailed and reasoned upon,in a pamphlet which I hold in my hand,with no contemptible degree

e r of int lligence and dexterity. Hea , then, the ingenuous Creed of the Patriots of t he The pamphl et,which he h ad hoped woul d rouse the House t o a sense of national danger, but which only succeeded in amusing or annoying his hearers, was a socialistic tract e ntitled Christian Policy the Salvation of the Empire, one of the publications of the Society of Spencean Philanthropists . Sentences such as Landl ords are the only oppressors of t he people provoked,in those days,laughter with out resentment . The incident of the pop- grm is followed by more

u r Fa party statements and ab se of refo mers . x Th and Forester interpose logical protests . e

’ five Tories are too far gone in merriment,satis faction and drink , to heed them . The vole es of the guests are drowned by the Quinte tto in which each member of the secret council bawls

192

VI

SHELLEY IN ITALY

OR a year after the publication of Mclin court the intimacy with She lley was ll kept close . Ti his fin al departure England he remained at Marlow, and he and Peacock continued their walks and river excursions as in the previous m ul summer. So etimes they wo d walk the thirty- two miles to London, staying there two nights and walking back on the third day . It w as,however,a productive year for both,Shelley writing the Revolt of Islam,and Peacock Rhodo

t re daphne and N igh ma Abbey. As before,Hogg was the most frequent addition to the party, b ut the Hunts and Godwin, to whom Shell ey had introduced Melincourt and it s author, were

of often included . We read an excursion to Bisham Wood and by water to Medmenham Abbey made by Peacock, Godwin and Shelley in April ; and of Hunt and Peacock inducing the unwilling poet to accompany them to the opera and the theatre during a visit he paid to 194 SHELLEY IN ITALY

d Godwin in London . An in ication that Greek studies were still pursued in comm o n is afforded by the fact that in December Shelley wrote to

Lo ndon ordering the Dionysiaca of Nonnus. ’ Some account of Shelley s society at Marlow, carefully circum scribed and non - prejudicial to

s Memoir any partie concerned, is given in the . Other stories of a more unguarded nature were

M s M current in the neighbourhood . i s itford heard some of these from a garrulous person,

Mr M o alluded to as . J who lived at arl w and claimed to be intimately kno wn to Peacock and Shelley and acquainted with all the new ” o di -1 sch ol . Accor ng to him, Leigh Hunt con st antly appeared on the scene with requests for assistance,nor would he be denied for on one o ccasion, finding Shelley either absent or moneyless,he carried away a cartload of furniture

t o m wherewith raise the wind . A si ilar errand would bring Godwin do wn from Lo ndon : he would hold a knife in his hand, threatening to stab himself if Shell ey would not advance him

ll s s o money on his bi . On uch ccasions, the story went, Shelley woul d send fo r Peaco ck t o

m o prote ct him . These state ents cannot n w be quantitatively analysed into their components of truth and falsehood : they are only valuable in so far as they throw light upon contemporary 195 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

opinion as to the nature of the fri endship be tween

Shelley and Peacock. During the last days spent by the Shelleys in England,Peacock,with Hogg,Hunt and Horace

in Covent Garden and Mary was occupied for ’ some of the time in copying out he r husband s — review of Rhododaphne a fitting atonement according to poetic justice for the malicious remarks made by her some six months earlier

c l about its author. None of the party ou d have suspected that they were then to say goodbye to Shelle y for ever ; yet farewells are always

The n hi r d unpleasant . pai of t s was spa e to them . They supped together on hi s last evening in England, and Shelley, who h ad be en sleeping dl u Th ba y at nights, fell into a deep sl mber. e guests crept away without dist urbing him , and D m ni he left for over early in the or ng . After the departure of Shelley and of the society which his living there had attracte d to Marlow,Peacock very naturally felt lonely, and

contemplate d a removal ; but circum stances,

him r w Italy, compelled to emain where he as . As a resul t of this restriction,the year 1818 w as

196

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK characte r of Scyt h rop, though a similar lin e of reasoning would condemn Peacock as the basest of traitors and ingrates for painting his best who coul d stand alone against the world, as a

n and s dru kard and a moral phy ical coward . And the silence of the critics on the second count is a refutation of their charge s on the first they have mistaken caricature for attempted por t r T ait ure . his, as has already been remarked, ’ s s w a never Peacock aim . Just as stamp,for in stance,is not either the man or the po et Wordsworth,b ut a selection of those of his views, circumstances and attributes which lent themselves re adily to ridicul e or censure, so fScyt hro p is but a grotesque projection of the youthful Shelley in certain at t it ude s Owing / f to the dull tracts in Melincourt and the still prepo nderating Toryism of England,readers have pe rhaps approached the scene at Mainchance Vill a in a grumbling and quarrelsome moo d ; but pure come dy 1s more commonly popul ar than even the most entertainin g polit icial satire, and N ightmare Abbey has had the good fortune of being generally well received , both by con

s c te mpo raries and po terity . An appre iation w b e M s hich should not overlooked is that of , is

M s d itford. That kindly and ympathetic la y 198 SHELLEY IN ITALY

laughed heartily at the book, and not least at the ludicrous presentment of her poor friend

e Mr. Coleridge, though sh says that he fares ” ’ n most lamentably . Shelley s accepta ce of the

character of Scyt hrop is well known . He was kept informed of the progress of the book while it was being written,and on hearing of its com ple tion sent Peacock the quotation from Ben Jonson, inserted after the motto from Butler

chosen by the author. Shelley is then the hero of N ightmare Abbey yet, repeating his procedure in Headlong Hall, / Peacock is careful to pack into the first pages of the book a number of facts and descriptive touches,enabling any interested party to contra dict the identification o f Scyt hrop with his ori ’ Th r ginal . e account of Scyt h op s college life, of his festive drinking and dancing in London ; the fact of his being the only child of a father of ’ Mr l r s . G ow y temperament and a calculating, disappointed, misanthropic mother who h ad died in his infancy ; the very fact of his living ’ — under his father s roof all these are thrown

out to cover up the trail at the start . But in the first reported scrap of conversation Scythrop distinctly quotes Shelley/ His father,to console him in his grief for a lost love, reads him a commentary on Ecclesiastes, dwelling partie n 199 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

larly on t he text : One man among a thousand have I found, but a woman amongst all those

How coul d he expe ct it,when the whole thou sand were locked up in his seraglio His ex perience rs no precedent for a free state of society ” hi s like that in which we live . T s is a paraphra e of what Shelley wrote in his Vindication of N atural Diet, of the venerable debauchee who, with hi s thousand concubines, owned in despair that all was vanity and it is followed by his habit ual plea for the better education of ’ e t to women . Sh lley s devo ion tales of romantic mystery, and the influence exercised over his imagination by Coleridge, both mentioned in ’ Peacock s Memoir, are next sketched in ; and the running away scheme of 1814 has its ’ counterpart in Scyt hrop s intention of founding a perfect republic with the help of a few fellow

eleutherarchs . The treatise which he wrote and published in order to feel the pulse of the wisdom and genius of the age on the practicability of reviving a confederation of regenerators, is ’ plainly Shelley s early work with the character istic title : Proposals for an Association of those Philanthropists who, convinced of the inadequacy of the moral and political state of Ireland to produce benefits, which are never 200

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK much grief, the cure of which, attribute d to the power of philosophy and the exercise of ” reason, had in reality been performed by ” the greatest physician,Time, is Harriet Grove, of whom Shelley wrote in 1811 She is gone .

She is lost to me for ever. She is married l married to a clod of earth . She wil become as insensible herself : all those fine capabilities will ” m oul T t der. hough Peacoc k became acquain ed with Shelley within eighteen months of the writing of that sentence, the subject of it must already have seemed far away, as he had been m arried

c hr nearly a year to the second Harriet . S yt op is accordingly represented,at the time the sto ry Opens, as under the influence of Marionetta ’ O Carroll . A comparison of the description of ’ this lady with Peacock s own ' ac count of Harriet Shell ey will not only show that the lat ter was his mo del for the sk etch of Marionetta, but m ay prove suggestive in regard to a bye- path of

r Shelley biog aphy. Here is the portrait of

She had a good figure, light, active, and l graceful . Her features were regu ar and well proportione d. Her hair was light brown, and dre ssed with taste and simplicity. In her dress

com she was truly simplex munditiis . Her

202 SHELLEY IN ITALY

ni il Th e of the blush rose shi ng through the l y. tone of her voice was pleas ant ; her speech the essence of frankness and cordiality ; her spirits always cheerful her laugh spo ntaneous,hearty

inte lli and joyous. She read agreeably and

l e s gent y. She wrot only letter , but she wrote

m s the well . Her manner were good ; and her whole aspect and demeanour such manifest eman ations of pure and truthful nature,that to be once in her company w as to know her

That of Marionetta is as follows A very bloomin g and accomplis hed young lady she exhibited in her own char acter all the diversities of an April sky. Her hair was light brown her eyes haz el, and sparkling with a mild but fluctuating light ; her features regular ; her lips full , and of equal siz e ; and

w as her pe rson surpassingly grac eful. She pro

ficient in music . Her conversation was sprightly, but always on subjects light in their nature and limite d in their inte rest, fo r moral sympathies, in any general sense,h ad n o place in her mind. She had some coquetry,and more caprice,liking and di sliking almost in the sam e m o ment ; pursuing an objec t with earnestness while it se emed un attainable, and rejecting it when in ” her power as not worth the trouble of possession. 203 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

physical characte ristics in the two sketches are almost identical,the rest of the description is a good deal more flattering in the first than in the

he se cond. T first consideration to suggest itself as an explanation of the discrepancy is, that in Marionetta Peacock is drawing a leading charac te r in a comedy and endowing it with the qualities

r d amatically necessary for the part . Yet when due allowance has been made for this fact,it is impossible to ignore the likeness betwe en Marion etta and Harriet as she appeared to other observers than Peacock, to Jefferson Hogg, for

instance . Blooming and accomplished is exactly what Hogg thought her, the first ad je ct ive being constantly applied to her in his

Li e o helle f f S y. He was especially impressed with the lighter and more entertaining side of her nature and, consistently complime ntary as

' is hi s tone whenever he speaks of her,his repeated praise leaves the reader inevitably with the impression that moral sympathies, in any general sense, h ad no place in her min Having arrived at this stage in his biography it is scarcely necessary to insist that Peacock

was intensely partisan in all his likes and dislikes . His championing of Harriet was as unswerving as was hi s friendship for Shelley moreover,he 204

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK of freedom,and I carry my theory intopractice,

’ chapter five of Mary Wollstonecraft s Vindica

subject to blind authority who have no reliance ” on their own strength . In spite of her coquetry and vanity Marionetta holds the affections of Scyt hrop until he suffers

- the counter charm of the dark beauty, Stella. Then, as when Shelley m e t Mary, immediate sympathy, rapidly deepening into irresistible attraction, arose between them , based chiefly on her enthusiastic participation of his hopes and m T plans for the regeneration of ank ind. o an enthusiast with such an object in life Harriet, ’ or Marionetta, could be, in the latter s phrase, ” but a poor auxiliary . The time was boun d soo ner or later to arrive when he should meet with a woman who sympathised with him, e — di and th n inevitable disturbance and sruption . Rightly or wrongly,Peacock was firml y convinced

his e both at the time and throughout whole lif . that there had been no estrangement between Shelley and Harriet at the time when Mary began ’ s s to divert to her elf a hare of the poet s affection . Nothing could better state his view of the situation than the account of how Stella, by ’ appealing to Scyt hrop s intellect and imagina 206 tion, forced the outw orks of the citadel of

of the keep.

love w as a painful subj e ct to Peacoc k. He w as never re conciled to it, and did not like to

e a dwell upon it. In the novel he do s not llow it to happen, but m ake s Sc yt hm p lose them bo th

For se o f his nition scene . the purpo s plot, and al so no doubt in o rder t o destroy the complete rese mblance betwee n the ac tual situation in 1813 and t hat in his no vel, Peacock ma ke s Ste lla

power of Ste lla, is at a loss to acc ount for the

her lover, for his more prolonged absences, and for his increas ingly fre quent m oods of silent

r o n e n b o di g . In d spair of extracti g an explana tion from Sc yth r op himself, sh e applie s for

more ofte n hits the mark and approac hes more

e a m n rly to criticis . Indee d, if it had not been

’ so much easier and so much more to Peacock s 207 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK taste t o make fun of Co le ridge than to study his metaphysics, his character, in the successive novel s,would have shared the general improve ment so remarkable in the case of the cle rics, much more than is the case . As it is,he is ac cuse d in N ightmare Abbey of nothing more dis a cre ditable than a love of t lking nonsense . At an unguarded moment (on the part of the author, who tries to lay the blame on his puppet) he is foun d trespassing in the domain of common M sense. ore than all, he has the honour of expressing the author’ s own sentiments on the occasion of the arrival of a ” parcel of modern ’ m r books . He ust have had Peacock s pe sonal sympathy for the treatment accorded to him in

r hi R the Quarte ly. By t s eview, so strongly supported by Southey,he had been,in his own words,effectively undermined by utter silence ” or occasional detractive compliments . Here then he h as his revenge . After passing a com R ff pe ndions criticism on a novel by Mrs. adcli e and a poem by Byron, he proceeds The

’ Ode to the R ed Book, by Robert Southey,

e Esquir . Hm . His own poem reviewed by ” m - m - m h ad e d . E himself . Peacock,then, alt re his mind as to the relations between Southey

208

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK presents universal and un illuminated pessimism

his Mr Toob ad but great friend . is our old ac

Mr . . F . a J N w . Mr quaint nce, e ton As . Escot he had been in league with Peacock,being all owed

s th e di s the la t word in all cussions . Here he is permitted,lik e all the other persons,to make a go od statement of his case,but,though there is no definite victory,his point of view is e flicient ly ’ Mr l combated by . Hi ary s repeated inculcations

o o f cheerfulness and f rbearance . Hi s system has already been discussed . It may be added here that a favourite device with him, as with many eccentrics,was to quote passages from the ’ “ Mr his s . T ad Bible in support of tenet . oo b s Woe ” to the inh abiters of the earth and of the sea, etc . ,is a typical instance of the practice . As it ' had been adopte d as the motto for Ahrimanes we are tempted to believe that it was an habitual ’ Th R Mr . e e e xclamation of Newton s v. . Larynx, as his name is less damnato ry than those of his predecessors, so he is a m o re decent person & and

l a mo re genial companion t h an Messieurs Gaste r, i Th rt e . Mr . Grovelgrub and Po p pe . Hon Listless is all that hi s name implies, and has b een

s identified with a fa hionable dandy of the day.

k a ri re Mr . Cypress is well nown to be ca catu

r is r d of By on . He appropriately int o uced as about to leave England Byron h ad taken his 210 SHELLEY IN ITALY

final ’ departure amid a storm of glory and execration about two years before the passage

dis ll s was written. His lacerated and i u ioned h Th spiri t proclaims im at once . e mind is ” restless, he says, and must persist in seeking, ” tho ugh to fin d is to be disappointed. He has quarrelled with his wife and written a poem to inform the public of the separation . He has no i hope for himself or others . He quotes Ch lde

e Harold . So carel ss was Peacock to conceal the identity of this character, or perhaps so careful

m Flosk was he to announce it,that he akes Mr . y say Brutus was a se nator ; so is our dear ff fri end,but the cases are di erent. Brutus had some hope of political good : Mr . Cypress has

The m s none. ter enator was applicable to

no t r . Byron,but to M Cypress .

s an o Mr . Asterias is an ab urd d credul us scion tiet ; an expert at classification and a babe in his incapacity to estimate the value of evidence, who ’ spe nds his whole life in searching for speci mens of marine humanity, the orang outangs ” a i s of the se . He probably not intended to represe nt any actual person,but merely as a type

e lis of the sup rstitious specia t. Several of his fellows will be met in Crotchet Castle “but com pared withthemhehas the advantageof being more m a iable and less harmful,though utterly futile. 211 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Mr h as . Hilary a small part,but usually speaks ’ the author s own opinions . The accent is nu rmst ak ab le , for instance, when he says that ’ Fl k s Mr. os y remarks have not much to do with Dante, but a great deal with the blue devils and his statement of the chief rule in the new poe try, to remember to forget that there are any such things as sunshine and musrc in t he ” world, rs as characteristic as his praise of t he ” r ul u is chee f and solid wisdom of antiq ity. H instances of the two modes of pleasur e—listening and beauty, and boating at sunset on a lonely — lake are significant when it is remembered that Don Giovanni was the first opera that Peacock took Shelley to hear, and that boating w as one of their favourite pastimes . It is Hilary who is chosen to condemn the Byronic attitude as that of a man who will love nothing but a sylph,who does not b elie ve in theexistenceof a sylph,and who yet quarrels with the whole universe for not con ” taining a sylph . We may even notice a minute point,otherwise negligible but helping to identify the character,namely,that Hilary proposes and sings the catch of the Three Men of Gotham,a legend for which Peacoc k had a particular fond ness,recurring to it h alf a doz en times in his

212

THOMA S LOVE PEACOCK

image of love can only be supplanted for a time,

by means of magic . Le t any unprejudiced re ader compare this sol ution with the history of ’ t he too much discussed chapter in Shelley s life, with the manner in which he felt and represente d the case, and with what Peacock thought and wrote about it and he will require no arguments him to persuade to a conclusion.

On the 7th of July,soon after the completion of N ightmare Abbey, Peacock and his mother M moved into a house in West Street, arlow. On the day of taking possession he began to make daily notes in a diary . They are the briefest of jottings,and cannot have occupied more than a few minutes of each day ; yet from the last entry, a hur rie d scrawl relating to Septe mbe r 18th to 26th , it appears that the journal was discontinued because he was too much taken up with other matte rs to spare time eve n for this

his The s slight interruption of pursuits. ten week thus recorded are referred to as summer holidays . ” Laz iness must not continue, is a remark oc

his a curring in the third week . Yet was strenuous laz iness, and rightly called by that name only in as much as his energies were diverted

‘ to a number of occupations inste ad of being 2 14 SHELLEY IN ITALY

di ao c oncentrated upon one . The ary gives an count illustrating and confirming those of his friends as to how his time was generally spent in the summer months, though the proportion of it devoted to serious reading is seen to be M greater than was suspected by others . any of his days were passed partly or wholly on the river, often with his mother, and on other

occasions with books,especially Nonnus. There are records of reading and dreaming on the wate r in the intense heat,of sailing when there was a breez e,of hard pulling against a strong current, of paddling down again by moonlight, to make the less fortunate amateur waterman long to off T pack up and be up the hames valley. The frequenters of the river a hun dred years ago, though fewer in number,seem to have been much the same as their modern successors on August 15t h is the entry, Me t a surly old fellow m ' I T in a punt who was obliged to blow up . he time spent out of doors and not on the water was chiefly occupied in gardening, and in walking adi and re ng in Bisham Wood . There are references to three or four friends, to one or two domestic m atters (for instance,

Mr t ee vens M a . S of aidenhe d tuned the piano

—83 s . and to letter to and from Shelley,Hogg, Hookh am and the Marianne whom,with her 2 15 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK name spe lt in every possible way,we have heard of before . It is perhaps only a coincidence th at

account of the genesis of this work may b e read the literary scene at the process of desire,thought,

i ust 4t d s insp ration Aug h. Looke over variou books, fishing for a scheme for a romance . cc d 5th. Went on the river, but o upie the

6th. d w e for a romance . Coul not read or rit R ~ for scheming my romance . ivers, castles, forests, abbies, monk s, maids, kings, thieve s and banditti dancing before me like a masked b all . The greatest biographical value attaching to the diary is owing to the very full information

l l t h the pe riod covered by it . Between Ju y 6 and August 23rd he wrote all that Was ever

e finished of his Essay on Fashionable Literatur . The entries referring to this work, often by its numbered paragraphs, are so accurate that we can often tell how many words were written in

‘ da e a e a y . This accuracy also mak s it s f to 216

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Essay he was reading Pindar; N onnus, Gifiord on the R oman Satirists (a piece of criticism for ’ which he h as much praise), Stanley s History of ’ Philosophy,Bufion s Histoire da Cygn e,Masanie ello, the Fisherman of N aples, Cowper, Burns, Wordsworth, Statius, old English ballads, ’ Bur ke s Letter to a N oble Lord,the Pamphleteer, the Examiner,the N ovum Organum,the Diction naire Philosophique, and an unnamed Natural

s Hi tory . The last entry in the diary is more eloquent than any comment Neglected my journal during this period [eight days&being ’ ’ absorbed in Gobbet s R egister, and his Year s ’ Residence in America, Pinchbeck s N otes on America,the second series of Tales of my Land lord,writing part of a pamphlet on the Probable R esult of the Present State of Things,inve st igat

ing the South Sea Bubble,etc . The last months of 18 18 were spent in writing

a s M id Marian . Letters from Shelley how that Peacock was also engaged in correcting the proofs of Rosalind and Helen,and in w riting a financial pamphlet, perhaps that mentioned in the last entry of the diary, as well as in the nympho

l t e T e p ic tale of Satyran . his was to be a story of the love of a mortal for a nymph and the

punishment that befell them both from the gods.

Only the first chapter was written out,and ‘ it is 218 SHELLEY IN ITALY

difficult to see how this was to be connec ted with

the main plot . It tells of the wreck of a mission ship and the floating of the only survivor,by favour of a special Pro vidence and the secondary instrumentality of a cork jacket,to an unknown shore,whereon he lands,armed only with a Bible T k n and a bottle of rum . hese underta i gs, together with the project of a visit to Shelley in

Italy, were suddenly abandoned . He still in tended to finish Satyrane, but relinquished the de sign on seeing,i n 1821, the announcement of ’ s mar thus the le Horace Smith A yn Nympho pt . In the early days of 1819 he received the offer, subject to his passing in a test- paper,of a post in the East India Honse . He moved immediate ly up to London to read for the examination . He h ad six weeks in which to prepare for the ordeal, and at the end of that time received from the examiners a compliment,showing that from the very beginning of his conn ection with the House T his talent and success were conspicuous . heir ' judgment ou hi s papers was Nothing super ” uou fl s and nothing wanting . In this unexpected manner his desultory life, with all its busy idl eness and manifold occupa F m tions, reached an abrupt ending . ro this moment he passes into a state of greaterprospe rity

s r and,for us,of increasing ob curity. Fo the next 219 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

and perhaps as many references by his acquaint ance, proving that his old inte rests h ad not appearance of Crotchet Castle he c an,as it were , be proved to have been living by a scatte red series of contributions to periodical literature and a few official documents . At the end of that time he flashes again into view with the ’ publication of his Memoir of Shelley in Fraser s

as a serial i n the same journal . He 18 now writing for the sons of the men who read Crotchet Castle,the grandsons of those to whom Palmyra was intended to appeal . Ten years before his last novel was issued George Meredith, his son in - law,h ad dedicated to him his first volume of poems . It is no t surprising that the first years of official life,involving so great a change in habits and such a limitation of leisure time, should have witnessed a check upon his literary output. Th He never again became a fluent writer. e year 1818 was his third of continuous author ship, and its productivity was considerable .

Literature w as then his business . But from the followmg until six and thirty years later it could only be prosecuted as a recreation,and his leisure 220

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK the opera every Saturday ; but some mathe mat ician had got hold of him and demon st rat e d syllogistically that he ought not to do so he was therefore reading Greek on those evenings

m The during the hours of perfor ance . humour of this passage may have been more intelligible to Shelley than it is at the present day . It prob ably amounts to not much more than a confession that Peacock was too logical and ’ consistent for Hunt s taste, and w as provoked by hi s journalistic enthusiasms into a mood of m stem and unsy pat hetic reasoning. A commission from Shelley which cannot have been undertaken with much ho pe of success was ’ t o procure a production of The Cenci at Co vent dl Garden . Nee ess to say,the play was refused. Peacock h ad previously suggested a treatment of the plot which,had it been adopted,might have m ade the piece less out of the question from the point of view of the Examiner of Plays but his advice had been reject ed. A few of Shelley’ s letters of the year 1820 enable us to glean a few facts of very various m ’ i Th i portance conne cted with Peacock s l fe. e first asks him to make what terms he can with a creditor,who was threatening the utmos t rigour of the law against the exiled poet . Another congratul ates him on his marriage with the 222 SHELLEY IN ITALY

h ad amiable mountaineer. Peacock given an exceedingly brief, matter- of- fact, businesslike account of this affair,which Shelle y says is exactly

s like the dénouement of one of his own novel . Here too o ccurs the fourth and last reference to ” l Marianne . If, says Shel ey, Peacock had married her,he would never have seen much of them, but as it is he does not despair of again ’ enjoying his friend s society. In November the F our Ages of Poetry was pub ’ T i lished in Ollier s Literary Miscellany. h s essay, as is well known , roused Shelley to write the Defence of Poetry,which was sent to England the in M l follow g arch . The on y two points at which the literary work of Shelley and Peacock came into contact were Rhododaphne and the F our Ages, ’ the former callin g forth Shelley s eul ogistic i review and the latter his polemic reply. Ow ng to the malice of their common lite rary friends the

The connection was severed at both points . review of Rhododaphne was never printed and only partly preserved,whil e the Defence of Poetry was so pruned and edited by the Hunts that all references to Peacock’ s work were omitted and it appeared as an essay with a merely general — appeal a defence of poetry against attack or neglect on the part of the public,from which it ff never in fact su ered . 223 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

is nothing definite t o b e rec orded . Two lette rs, ’ contradicting e ach o ther in t he poet s habitual style ,may b e noticed,the first stating that all his “ c ommissions have be en t otally negle cted by Peacock, and the second thanking him for his le tter contained Adonais,and refers expectantly ’ he s t o t birth of Peacock s fir t child. The year 1822 w as e pochal in many ways for Peacock : the summers at Marlow must alre ady have seemed to belong to a period definite ly part of

w d : as the past. Shelley as dea he w himself

married and a father. In that year he re ceive d pro motion in the service of the Co mpany. He brought his first period of prose writing to a close had already entered on his second by writing his first contribution t o periodical literature in the

His popularity as a writer was much advanced, in the December of this year,by the production Maid Marian C d of the opera at ovent Gar en. ’ This was a dramatised version of Peacock s novel value of this production as an advertisement for the original w ork ,such as woul d have been even more acceptable a few years back,w as perce ived 224

VII

THE AUTHOR OF “ HEADLONG HALL

The Comic Spirit conceives a definite situation for a number of characters,and rej ects all accessories e in the exclusive pursuit of them and th ir speech. — T GEORGE MER EDI H .

E A D L ON G H A L L was issued

anonymously. On it Peacock deter

mined to rise up or fall down . Whatever he published subsequently was either ” signed By the Author of Headlong Hall, or, T l ike Rhododaphne, anonymous . o some of his periodical and occasional articles fanciful initials hi l w ere appended. In thus identifying mse f with his first novel Peacock acted wisely from m e very point of view . His na e was attached to four undistinguished volumes of verse what little reputation had been made by these pro duct ions woul d not have m aterially increased the sale of his novel the appeal, then, was to

e li b made to a new pub c . He was, we may safely suppose, convinced by now of the mis 226 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLON G HALL

ff taken direction of hi s early e orts . It was not his intention to make a bid for popularity among the circles of the intellectually torpid and t he styl istic reactionaries who had given encourage ment to his poetic labours, or labour ed poetics,

o t o th in the past . His new b ok was be read by e intelligent and well- informed it was addressed to those who were keenly interested in the l prob ems and disputes of the day . If it annoyed as well as it amused them, no harm would b e done . It was eminently calculated, not to lull them into the sleep of complac ency or acq uie s Th cent approval,but to wake them up . e small and factitious reputation his own name h ad acquire d was useless o r misleading in the new

m ll r venture . Anony ity was sti la gely in vogue the public of those days would not look with mistrust on a book, however. polemic, satirical or intimate, whereof the authorship was not

avowed. Moreover, whatever may have been th e author’ s m ain object and principal delight in writing the book, the chief claim of Headlong Hall to recognition is its general effect,its tot al

s capacity to interest and amuse . It mu t hold the attention not only of readers sufficiently init iat e d i n the working of contemporary politics and periodical criticism to see the exact force 227 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

of all the sly sallies and veiled all usions, and to recognise prominent characters of the day in

di s their literary sgui e . If its merit lay wholly or chiefly in the cleverness and accuracy of its topical and personal elements, it could be appreciated only in a few political and literary clubs and woul d be valueless as a work of general

literature . It must appeal for ultimate success to the wider circle of cul tivated readers with a general interest in politics, letters and art, who will find entertainment in the conversations dealing with the tendencies and fashionable whims of the day,in the descriptions and com

ments and in the personality of the author. By hi s success or failure in these respects must Pea T cock be judged . hat the final verdict has been favourable is proved by fact that six editions ‘the

of the novels have appeared since his death . When it is remembered that his works coul d never have appealed to the multitude, and that the circle among whom his vogue is possible is, ” owing to the changing tendencies in education, becoming yearly smaller, the reprinting of his works to this extent shows that he has h ad a steady succession of admiration of Peacock is almost a cul t b all cul ts it is the most disinterested and the e xclusively founded on personal taste 228

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK style and that of the older authors is the outcome and n m of strong origi al sympathy,not of i itation. He belongs, in style and language, to a school, but he borrows from no master . He lived intellectually and, it is not too much to say, e motionall y in ancl ent Greece and Rome and in ” England of the classical pe riod. The style which he inh e rited and absorbed from t he great writers of the past became his own favourite li m d and fami ar mode of expression. He a e use of it in his books, prefaces, articles, letters to the papers,and in all but the most trivial scrawls

s i among tho e to his intimate friends . He certa nly conversed in it at times and there can be little doubt but that it decorates many official communications in the archives of the E as t

India Ho use . If verbal crit icism assigns Peacock to a previous school or period, an examination of the conduct of hi s stories, if they are to be so called, will n d sho w that his method is all his own . It is i dee t he most drastic, the most economi cal of time and trouble that was ever adopted by a reputable

The : Le t r author. recipe is simple the e be a coun try house (described) let there be a gather in g of numerous guests therein (catalogued) let the various -opinions of the party be as opposite and irreconcilable as possible (opinions briefly 230 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLONG HALL but adequately sketched) invent a slight plot ’ for form s sake, bring your charac ters together at the dinner table,and conversation will follow as a matter of course,leading to amusing scenes and revelations . When you have written enough, i d sperse the guests and add a formal Conclusion . Such is the general scheme of the Pe acockian

l l s novel . H ead ong Hal adhere very closely to hi t s type . Some of the others depart from it in varying degrees,but they gain little or nothing

r tc et Castle by such divergence . In C o h , for instance,the harmony and cohesion of the work suffer considerably owing to the unusual amount of importance assumed by the plot ; the book consequently challenges a criticism from which it would otherwise have been safe and which

nl Melincourt can o y be destructive . is a more pronounced instance of divergence from type and consequent diminution of interest and ff Th weakening of e ect . e true genial atmosphere, with the author at hi s best, is to be found in Headlong Hall,N ightmare Abbey and Gryll Gr ange, and in parts only of Crotchet Castle and Mclin court,where the company gathers round one or at most two hospitable tables, and the con versation, now amicable, now acrid, now up ro arious, but always formal and complete, u f rnishes the main interest . 231 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Peacock was at no pains to conceal hi s neglect and scorn of the usual methods of the full - siz ed

He l Hall hi novel . ad ong , typical in t s as in all other respects,is deliberately calculated to flout and disgust the habitual “ reader of fiction in his

- own or any other age . The stage coach with “ the four passengers, who it appeared, to the surprise of every one, though perfect strangers to each other,were actually bound to the same ” point, and were to be the guests of the same

' eccentric individual, is not incredible but the details immediately added to this remarkable circumstance, sufficient in itself to satisfy as much credulity as is usually demanded by a fir st chapter, give a series of shocks to the sensibility nurtured in the conventionalities of

- well ordered fiction . When it is discovered that the four interlocutors are incapable of agreeing on any point,such a reader feels that the author is trifling with him ; the derivation of their

’ — - names Escot, ég a xoq ov in t eneb ras, scilicet, — int uens,and the rest is little less than an insult

- The to the stiff necked intelligence . categorical method is pursued in the introduction of the guests on their arrival,each with an appropriate .

description or a speech in character. But the chapters are short,and the true value of the book ’ soon becomes apparent : if the reader s heart 232

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK trespassing by their length alone on the for bearance of the listeners . Each m an is allowed to state his case to the bitter end, and i s srmi d larl T y answered . hey grow heated, but not T careless . hey wrangle, and even quarrel vi o lently, in rigidl y grammatical and accur ately punctuated sentences of perfect balance . Yet we read it all with avidity,for the sake of the wit, the neatness and ingenuity in the mann er of stating the various points of view, and for the ridiculous picture of the di scomfit e d and e n raged theorists . Perhaps the only one whom

ul e nk ins n we wo d fain hear no more of is Mr . J o , the equable philosopher who will countenance

m Th e neither opti ism nor pessimism . plot, such as there is,is amusingly b rought t o a point by means of the skull of Cadwallader, and a happy ending given to a most felicitous j eu ’ M d esprit. ore than any other author perhaps, Peacock interests us him self throughout the

To h as book . all the characters he given qualities to amuse and hold our atte ntion his partiality for Escot arouses curiosity about his

hi s own personality. We have enjoyed method hi D and,above all ,his style . But is t s all oes he care for nothing but the logic al facul ty, generally used in confuting whate ver statement is made in his presence 3‘ From this book he 234 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLONG HALL does indeed seem to be an arch - antagonist and

his i . disbeliever. His style is ch ef virtue To give adequate examples woul d take up too much space : but there is one remarkable pas sage, showing very clearly his affinity with the great prose writers of the previous century,that may be quoted, describing the scene which the three philosophers had set out on their walk to hi visit . It is an ill uminating proof of the grap c and suggestive effect obtainable by judi cious di d selection and combination of or nary wor s . ’ It shows also one of Peacock s genuine enthu siasms,the love of natural scenery

They now emerged,by a winding asce nt , from the vale of Llanb erris,and afte r some lit t le t ime arrived at Bedd l e su m c ss Ge ert . Proce eding t hro ugh th blimely ro ant i pa of A b erglaslynn,t he ir road led along t he edge of Traeth Mawr,a vast arm o f t he sea,which t hey t hen be held in all t he m ce e A ot er five m e s ag nifi nce of t he flowing t id . n h il brought t he m t o the e mbankme nt , which has since bee n complet ed,and which,by conne ct ing the t wo coun t ies o f Me iri onydd and Caernarvon,e xcludes t he sea from an ex t e s e t r ct The e m me t c was c rr ed on at n iv a . bank n ,whi h a i t he same t ime from bot h t he oppo sit e coast s, was t hen e r ear m e ed t o t he v y n ly ee t ing in t he ce nt re . Th y walk e xt remity of that part of it which was t hro wn out fro m the e r r o s r s The t de was now e it Ca na v n hi e ho re . i bbing had filled the vast bason within,forming a lake about five es e t A s t e mil in l ng h and more t han one in breadth . h y looked upwards wit h t he ir backs t o th e ope n sea,t hey be

‘ held a sce ne which no other in t hi s c ount ry can parallel, 235 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK and which the admirers of the magnificence of natur e will remember wit h regre t , whate ver consolat ion may be deri ved from the probable ut ility of the works which have r e xcluded t he wat ers from t hei ancient receptacle . Vast rocks and pre cipice s, int erse ct ed wit h lit t le t orrent s, formed t he barrier on the le ft : on the right ,t he t riple summit of Mo é lwyn reare d it s maj est ic boundry : in the dept h was t hat sea o f m ountains,the wild and st ormy out line of t he Snowdonian c hain, with t he giant W yddfa er he m dst The m o t r me r t ow ing in t i . un ain f a emains unchanged,un changeable ; b ut the liquid mirror it eu c o s is t de e ed t r dit h l ed gone . The i bb wi h api y t e wat e rs wit hin,ret ained by the e mbankment ,poured thr ough it s t wo point s ‘ an impet uous cat aract ,curling and bo iling in innume rable eddie s, and making a t umul t uous melody dm r he s rro d sce e a i ably in un ison wit h t u un ing n . The t hre e phil o sophers loo ked on in silence ,and at leng t h willingly t urned away.

It was probably immediate ly after writing Headlong Hall that Peacock began the unfinished

Cal or s hi s id e . It is the longe t of all fragments of stories, but unl ike most of the rest in con sisting of detached pieces,the conn ection between Th e them not being always clear . portions thus preserved are in a highl y finished state, but do not constitute sufficient data for fruitful spe cu lation as to the ul timate form the story was to take or the probability of its success . They

r have been published by D . Garnett,and the manuscript is also preserved . The handwriting shows that it was written in haste, but beyond 236

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK folds up to the siz e of a prayer book and

di re pockets . His approach and lan ng a watched by the Misses Ap- N ann y, the younger of whom falls in love with him on the spot, a courtesy m which he as pro ptly reciprocates . Their con n versation is missi g . The next scene takes us to the inn where the traveller puts up for the

r r night. In the parlou are two pa sons, not, ’ i Drs Folli ot t - alas,of the gen al tribe of . and Opi j; mian, but mean and morose, though of course

‘ drunk enly. The stranger begs them to partake of a m agnificent supper,and this, added to the ale they have already absorbed , causes an expansion and exhilaration of their sulky and

alidore hi dis torpid spirits . C profits by t s in covering that one of them is the father of the beautiful creature whom he had encountered on the sea - shore, and accepts hi s invitation to breakfast next m orning. Presumably on that day, Ap- Nanny interviews Calidore , demanding to know what he means by making love to his daughter . He supposes that the young man has heard she will have a dowry of a thousand

alidore d ul pounds . C thereupon scatters a han f of gold, which he calls mere dross on the table and floor. The astonishment of the clergyman is two - fold : fir st, as he h ad seen nothing but paper money for twenty years, at 238 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLON G HALL the metal,and afterwards at the phenomenon lli of a crowned head with a handsome and int e j ” T gent face . his, by the way,is the only sati ric al reference to the House of Hano ver in the . ’ The whole of Peacock s writings . profusion of coin& disposes in part of his suspicions, and he repeats in a more kindly tone What do you

‘ want with my daughter 2 Calidore proposes marriage, mentioning Venus, Cupid and Juno

Th e d Pronuba in the same breath . reveren gentleman feels that he is being ridiculed and insulted : Calidore protests solemnly by the ” sacred head of Pan, and by the oath apparently ruins his chance of success . ’ N o more is related of Calidore s love- making

The or his sojourn in Wales . mythological expressions at the conclusion of the last fragment furnish a sufficient clue to determine the place

of the next in the general scheme . Arthur, Gw eneve re ,Merlin and the rest of their company land on a remote island and are met by two of the inhabitants, one in the appearance of a young and handsome m an with a crown of vine leaves on his head the other a wild and singul ar figure in a fine state of picturesque roughness, i ’ ” w th goat s horns and feet and a laughing face. Mutual introduction follows and Sir Lancelot, on learning that the two strange beings are 239 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Bacchus and Pan,immediately denounces them

l Th e as evi powers . speech of Bacchus inanswer to this piece of discourtesy is a characteristic

Pe aco ckian Th passage of eloquence . e God s, he says,never stood in great need of m ankind, but were fond of them and took pleasure in their sacrifices, their magnificent temples, their re ligious rites with t he joyous singin g and dancing the appearance of j oyfulne ss is of all most accept m able to the i mortals . But a time came when men began to abuse t he Gods,break their images, miscall them by ludicrous and ill - sounding T di names . hey built smal structures in place of the temples and changed their glad worship ul T for attitudes of misery and dolef chants . he Gods, in horror and dismay at the change, ceased to frequent the earth and retired to hold

s a council and di cuss what was to be done . Jupiter informed them that Necessity,t he ruler — of all and here Peacock adapts his favourite — Ah rim anic philosophy compels him to ao quiesce for a time in this condition o f things and he migrated with all the other deities to the one lonely island reserved for their dwelling place during the supremacy of the opposing

principle . Here then they remain, the greater deities at the top of a mountain, and Pan and ll Silenus with the Fauns and Satyrs in the va eys . 240

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

The last fragment, almost the longest, gives

m alido a gli pse of C re in London . He has taken his gold to the Bank to exc hange it for the currency of the country, and is astonished at

‘ ” sl s f m receiving several ip o paper. Th e re ain der of the piece shows his failure to comprehend a state of society in which promise s to pay are m accepted as pay ents . An d here the fragment comes regrettably t o

s s an end . Intere ting in more than one re pect and most delightfully written,it is just sufficient to awake desire to follow the strange visitant further, to watch the humorous light of his simple logic playing upon the ugliness and

convention of Georgian civilisation. W hat woul d have been the course of the story,and why was it abandoned A partial answer to these queries may be haz arded,founded by a hint drop l ped by Ca idore in his talk at the breakfast table . He says that at the end of a year he is to return,

him s T e takin g with a wife and a philo opher. h

' wife is already in view the phil oso phe r might , ’ according to the author s mood,either not have been forthcoming,or have been supplied in the T person of Mr. homas Love Peacock,his favour

s ingenuously defeated with a u urped beard. The latter q uest would at any rate have proved A ad the least amusing of the two . lre y two 242 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLONG HALL windm ill s, the Church and Paper Money, have

- been combated by this knight errant . His philosophical encounters are rather to be dreaded with Melincourt fresh in the memory . It may be that the unwritten chapters of this romance woul d have added little to our pleasure . For if Calidore is but“ an appetiser,Melincourt

Thi s . is more like a surfeit . is the more to be lamented ,as t he book not only contained many of the elements of success but does actually ’ include some of Peacock s best writing. Shelley considered this far superior to either Headlong

Hall or N ightmare Abbey. His philanthropic serio usness led him to admire most,in the works of his friend, precisely those parts and those aspects which appear to modern readers either

- d ponderous o r negligible . The light hearte ap peal of the third novel was not lost on him,but even in that instance he was not satisfied till he had looked, as he said, a little deeper, and di scovered in the ineffectual z eal of the hero ” s what Je us Christ calls the salt of the earth . He payed the highest compliment, according to his own nature, to the tales of Peacock in regarding them as moral and political tracts .

c Hence his preference for Melin ourt . He per ce ived in it more true spirit and definite purpose than in either of the others . We who 243 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK live in a more fastidious time,and one not clearly animated by any great principle of reform,shall d be incline to reverse this judgment. We find in this work large tracts where the true spiri t is manifestly lacking, and where the de finite pur pose of the author has overpow ered and pressed him to the earth . Literary form is outraged more here than in any other of his works and the interpolations,far from justifying themselves as passages which we should have be en sorry to miss, are in almost every case conspicuously those which try our patience the most and could d best have been ispensed with . A simple criterion, too seldom applied in criticism, will reveal at once the technical and l li r v spiritual fau ts of Me ncourt. The emo al of its dullest portions will reduce the book to a reasonable compass, while leaving the plot intact,and will moreover restore a true balance between the relative importance allowed to the

. Mr F d characters . orester is a pon erous and gullible person,easily le d astray; and dragging the wearied reader with him,into the more arid pastures of the intellect. Greater blame attaches

Mr to his subjugator, the merciless and prosy . M o Fax . ost of their conversation t gether should be torn out of the book,in cluding the episode of Desmond, the paper money scenes, and one or 244

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK garrulous offenders and,receiving at the same time the gift of speech, flourish his cudgel and cry,like the innk eeper of old, No more of this, by Go dde s bones But he is silent and gives

‘ no sign of impatience . It is noticeable that tha excision of the passages above mentioned would restore to Sir Oran his due prominence in the story . In thus leaving his work disfigured by nu essential and uninteresting excrescences Peacock is guilty of the sin of incontinence,comparatively trivial and pardonable . But its grave blemish F is in the characters of Anthelia and orester. These priggish and pretentious young people, with no humanising inconsistencies, whose dis approval of the rest of mank ind is unenlivened r by any spa k of humour,can excite no sympathy.

Their courtship and marriage fail to interest. They are undoubtedly made— and too obviously —for each other though it seems a pity that they shoul d be allowed to perpetuate their kind, it is as well that they should be out of the way

‘ o 3 together . C uld damaging c riticism go further Th e story, sufficiently l ong in its e ssential features, eked out with dull interpolated dis q uisit ions ; the hero apparently forgotte n for

long stretches together three . of the four principal perso nages insufferable : how many 246 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLONG HALL legs has the book left to stand on is it in any

That it is eminently so,is a striking proof of ’ Th e ul the rare quality of Peacock s genius . fa ts, which damn it as a novel,do but detract from its value as a Pe aco ckian novel, a literary ge nus by itself with no satisfactory name to distinguish

s Th e it from apparently similar form . personal

di e incidence of the satire has already been scuss d . Directed,now against m ankind in general, now against the representative system, now against a parliamentary or lite rary group and now against some private fad or enthusiasm,it ranges from the broad and boisterous to the sly and

- t on h as subtle manner. Sir Oran Haut been most unjustly treated and the author accused of endowing an ape with human qualities in order di d to heap ri cul e on mankin d . Such a proce ure wouldindeed be but a laboured piece of burlesque. A similar method had been adopted by Swift, and legitimately used for the most bitter and misanthropic satire . His is a weapon of whole sale slaughter in his use of it he may command

admiration but can evoke little sympathy. Horses, he cries, are nobler animal s than men, m en a and more deb sed than monkeys . If you protest, you do but as sert your kinship with ’ e d s thes e picable beings. Peacock s method is 247 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

e what Sir Oran is not . Th scientists and philosophers have described him, and Pe acock, collecting and welding their state ments, shows that they have discovered an al most ideally perfect man , a human being who though un the instincts and puts into practice all the

c li r - r pre epts of true nobi ty. He is the eve eady c hampion of innocence against oppression and ll vi ainy. Gentle, unobtrusive, dignified, he is an ornament to the most polished society : powerful and impulsive, he always submits to the ruling of those whose reason and familiarity with the circumstances he feels to be superior his e his to own . Every detail of the pictur , grace s and accomplishments, hi s social ad apt ability, the propriety of his table manners, his taste and capabilities in music, all these h ad been vouched for by the learned authorities . Had Peacock added anything to what was already common property, the shafts of his

satire woul d have been blunted and retarded . By his reticence and skilful handling of the character he presented to contempor ary civilisa tion its own scientific discovery,the outcome of its own wisdom and research, to hold up the ul e n mirror to it . He mocks sim tan ously at huma 248

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK at one of the occasional exhibitions of eloquence

s by a man of re erved nature . His habitual continence and dread of verbiage are a g uarantee against the tedium which is almost inevitably a result of the outpourings of those whose e u t husiasm lies nearer to the surface and is less di under control . His sclosures of feeling possess a charm by no means to be accounted for entirely by their rarity : this only adds to their value

e d by making them more concentrat and personal. For on ultimate analysis it is the personality of the speaker that is the source of delight not the accurate or vi vi d presentment of the scenes,but hi m s suppressed e otion in contemplating them . Th e same departure from a consistently jesting or critical mood w as noticed in the description of the prospect from t he Trae t h Mawr embank

The ment. passionate love of scenery again lures the author from his cave of concealment ” in the chapter called The Torrent, relating the setting forth of Anthelia for a coun try ramble, the suddenl y bursting storm and the swelling to rrents which cut o ff her “ retreat from her

o diff e perilous p sition . In an entirely er nt style, but of equal merit,are the descriptive passages in the two chapters telling of the elections at the borough of One vo te . Though obviously com parable with many pages of Fielding, in style 250 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLONG HALL

and language they are inte nsely individual . ’ Heroic incidents are in the author s mind as he writes but he does no t ,like Fielding,make use of epic diction and tags of ancient verse to pro

- f duce a mock heroic ef ect . In plain and almost scientifically exact lang uage it is shown how a small cause led to a greater effect,which in turn proved to be but an early link in the chain of Th conse quence . e comedy is thus objective and cumulative, arising from a clear and faithful report of an incident,by one standing as it were on an eminence overlooking the scene,and thus able to explain what was unintelligible to the T excited participants . his attitude of Olympian detachment is b e autiq y ill ustrated in the account of the attempt to chair Sir Oran, with its unfortunate result

c st c st e t o is c r an i f Mr . Sar a i ppe d in h hai ; d h s part o t he M r s o e r proce ssion, head ed by r . Ch i t ph Corporat e , and

mo ved slowly off t owards th e c ity o f Novot e , amidst the d st s e c mo r of m t t d o s o un i ingui habl la u ul i u in u v ices. Sir Oran Haut - t on wat ched the progress of his pre cursor, as his chair rolled and swayed over t he sea o f heads,like a boat with one mast on a st o rmy ocean ; and t h e more he wat ched the agitat ion of its m ove me nt s, the more his count enance gave indicat ion of st rong dislike t o the pro ce ss ; so that when his seat in t he se c o nd chair was offe red

t o him he t e r o t e b o w dec ed the o o , wi h a v y p li lin h n ur. The party t hat was t o carry him,thinking t hat his t e 251 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

gent le force t o overcome his scruples, when not pre c isely t o violat e the freedom of th e nat ur al man, he seiz ed a st ick from a st urdy farmer at his e lbo w,and began t o lay

80011 chec ked by the pressure o f the crowd, who, hearing th e

down from all po ints upo n a comm on ce ntre ,and formed a

’ e age rness t o es cape from Sir Oran ( who like A rtegall s Iron Man, or like Ajax among th e Trojans, o r lik e R odomo nt e in Par is,or like Orlando among the so ldiers

, t he midst of t he enc ircling cro wd) , waged desperat e con flict wit h t hose wit ho ut ; so t hat fro m t he e qual and re sult ed a st at ionary combat,raging bet wee n t he circum fe rences o f t h e t wo co ncentr ic cir cles,wit h barbaric di sso nance of deadly fe ud, and infinit e variety o f oat h and e xecrat ion,t ill Sir Oran,charging despe rat ely along one o f th e radii,fought a free passage t hro ugh all opposit ion ; and rushing t o th e barouche o f Sir Te legraph Paxaret t , sprang t o his old sta t ion o n t he b ox, from whence he

t he comm encem ent of the st ri fe ,and had bee n all anxiety on his accoun t ,mounte d wit h great alacr ity t o his st ation on th e roo f ; th e re st o f the party was alr eady seat ed ; the earnest ly entr eat ed Sir Te legraph t o fly ; Sir Telegraph cracked his whip, the horses sprang forward like race rs, 252

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

to that past age whose beauty had for him so

s irre istible a charm . The speech of Bacchus to the new arrivals in Calidore showe d how the

mankind rendered them unfit for the worship u of the old Gods. The m sical lines at the ope n

ing of Canto III . of Rhododaphne are a lament for the state of man,deprived of the inspiration

with the genii of nature . It is vain to call upon these godh eads now the world has lost them and

lf- their worship is but a ha understood tradition . He who cherishes their memory,and would fain make them the recipients of his prayers and the objects of hi s joyful hymn s,must hold inte rcourse

long years of enthusiastic study Peacoc k had made himself acquainted with the main and

- e hi d b y roads of Gre k story, religion an art. Where the ordinary graduate learns some of the associations of a proper name,because without the resul tant commentary a passage in Horace would be unintelligible,Peacock knew the place or person alluded to from indepen dent reading of the mythologists, topographers, histo rians

and other authors on his shelves . He knew ancient Hellas as a man knows the lanes and 254 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLONG HALL

footpaths of hi s boyhood his love for it w as like the love of a district where every meadow and T stream evokes a memory . his cold scholar had such a living knowledge and passionate love of antiquity that he seems separated fro m it not by untraversable centuries,but by m echanical m o bstacles. His fa iliarity with the classics was of a kind that few, even in his time, coul d appreciate ; and it may be imagined that the pro fessors would have refused their consent to m l any of his conclusions and preferences . Smal er men have asserted ‘ W ith much satisfaction that

he was not an exact scholar . Some of their proofs are highl y unconvincing but,could the case be proved to the hilt, what a plea for inexactitude woul d they not establish If knowledge,taste,enthusiasm,and a musical ear coul d produce a fine poem , Rhododaphne ul T wo d be a masterpiece . hough it is not that, it marks a great advance on his previous attempts at verse- writing on a large scale, and has the merit, unusual in all but the very highest narrative poetry, of being readable . Such a blessing is rather to be th ankfufly accepted than minutely explained . But without a tedious analysis two qualities, of subject and manner, are immediately recognisable as contributing to the superiority of this poem to its pre 255 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK de ce ssor s. It is a classical tale wit h cl illustration and imagery, not a modern theme

- ll pseudo classica y treated . More over , Peacoc k was writing under the happiest poetic influence to d d which he ever submitte , that of Cole ri ge . lost,this poem would prove that he h ad studied and d d Ch istabel and Kh la han a mire r ub K . The metrical innovat ion is used by Peacock much more sparingly than by its inventor ; but it is e xceedingly grateful and effe ctive in speeding,

The first three cantos move easily through a series of incidents taking place on the same day, with a happy distribution of de scription and ’ r narrative . Anthemion s approach to the alta of Love, the withering of his garland of wild flowers, the sympathy of the strange maiden, who gives him a blossom of the rose -laurel ; his lonely wandering,discovery of the witche ry, and the rite whereby he attempts to exorcise it his second meeting with her,and her se cond in a se ries of pictures, with the sacre d and historic locality as background and full of t he

r poe t y of nature . Had the poem been left at this point it would have merite d high praise as 256

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Tw o years later the sentiment of them was to receive ul tim ate expressio n in the stanz as of

ais Th e s Adon . de cription, in the next Canto, of a lonely cottage with rank,neglected garden,

o f s is lit by one the la t flickers of the torch . Perhaps the greatest disappointment comes with the co nclusion . Had the enchanted palace been the fabricof a dre am,t he awakening of Anthemion and his union with his betrothed woul d have m di ade a natural and fitting en ng to the tale . But the spells were real and his strange adve n

alliroé tures actual . C wakes from a charmed sleep and learns everything and a happy ending is speedily arranged between the adaptable youth and forgiving maiden,over t he very real corpse of the enchantress . In Rhododaphne Peacock showed how far he had been capable of improving ; also, that success for him lay not this way. He had done his best,and m ade his last appeal for recognition by means of a volume of verse and afterwards appare ntly accepted the judgment of the public, indubitably right in this case,who preferred his hi hi s prose . T s brief interlude in career as a l f novelist had no il e fect . On the contrary,the works following immediately after it show him in the mo st sparkling and happy mood to which

he ever attained. 258 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLON G HALL

H eadlong Hall and Melincourt had been mainly satirical : N ightmare Abbey and Maid Marian

are made up primarily of comedy and romance . Both pleasant and light- hearted tales, they are ’ in many respects Peacock s best book and hi s Th e worst. first is in strict continuation of the lines laid down in H cadlong Hall, and sho ws development and improvement in almost every

It s is particular. length precisely the same ; but in spite of the initial boldness and compression of the earlier work, N ightmare Abbey is full er

is m . ni and ore satisfying It a perfect mi ature . Within its small compass it is many- sided and

o m Th e m o nl di c plete . interest is re eve y vided between the characters, and each is allowed adequate expression, and with a wonderful impartiality each one is made,while he is speak ing,to appear the best in the book . With more

l k Mr s m F os . right than Mr . y, E cot ight be called a spectator of shado ws but he follo ws them up in order to discover and expose the bodies re sponsiblefor them ,and bid m ankind have no faith m in the delusive shade . Hilary, his ore genial successor, has no impostors and perverts to ’ expose : as the author s advocate, he mingles pleasantly and most unobtrusively in the co m pany,and onl y lodges an official protest against the tendency of some of the members to intro 259 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK duce an unnecessary and exotic misery into the lot of mankind, instead of trying to make the best of it. ’ In form this is certainly Peacock s most per fe ct n work . The roma tic plot, worked out in the lonely tower, is skilq y brought into contact with the choice band of conversational experts who frequent the more cheerful parts of the house,and whose talk is its accompaniment m M and com entary . It is a Tale of ystery, unfo lded amidst a company of all the latter- day types of hum anity, the credulous,the sceptical, t he fashionable,the scheming,the common-sense, the frivolous and the monomaniacal doctrinaire, and receiving from each in turn indirect and

s provi ional illumination. Wit, wisdom and fo lly come bubbling forth from the nine abundant . springs of conversation in a rippling, dancing un stream . The farcical confrontation of the suspecting rivals and relatives is effected by the m ost natural means, and causes an inevitable break- up of the house - party,bringing the story hi c hni automatically to an end . To t s te cal perfection of outline is happily united a brilliance

- — and vivacity of writing, the high water mark of ’ Peacock s style in this second period . The art o f formal co nversation,each member of the party speaking strictly in character and giving summary 260

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Toobad llin Mr. (fi g) It is the only antidot

t o the great wrath of the devil.

Hilar llin is Mr. y (fi g) It the only symbol Th of perfect life . e inscription HIC N ON ” BIBITUR wi ll suit nothing but a tombstone . The theme being thus stated,the talk moves more freely and in longer rhythms,first on the topic of the desirability of going abroad, and afterwards on the general subject of deteriora tion and perfectibility until each one has ’ c t h adequately stated his position. S y rop s ’ Mr T ad m revolutionary idealism, . oob s unco ’ Mr l k o promising pessimism, . F os y s f ndness for metaphysical mystery, are already known to h the reader and pervade the whole book . T e guest of the evening therefore assumes an appropriately prominent part in the conversation, whose main feature is the opposition of the early

Mr s Byro nic attitude of . Cypres and the cheerful M l . e and solid wisdom of r . Hi ary Th latter maintains his case bravely against the half doz en w ho f fo r entirely different reasons, are all against him . At last he makes an especially bold protest against the mystifying and blue devilling of society, and by so doing rouses his opponents at once,bringing the conversation back at the same time to the opening key,a sign that it is drawing to a close 262 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLONG HALL

The i s Hilar . Mr. y h ghe t wisdom and the highest genius have been invariably accompanied

fu ffi s with cheer lness . We have su cient proof on record that Shakespeare and So crates were the most festive of companions . But now the little wisdom and genius we have seem to be ” s e fu entering into a conspiracy again t ch er lness .

Mr Toobad . . How can we be cheerful with the devil among us

H stless . ow Mr . Li H on . can we be cheerful when our nerves are shattered 2‘

r F los . M . ky How can we be che erful when we are surrounde d by a reading public, that is gron too wise for its betters

t r Scy h op. How can we be cheerful when our great general designs are crossed every moment by our little particul ar passions

r C ress. M . yp How can we be cheerful in the midst of disappointment and despair

Mr Glowr . nh . y Let us all be u appy together. ”

Mr . Hilar . y Let us sing a catch .

Mr . Glowr . No l y a nice tragical bal ad. The Norfolk Tragedy to the tune of the Hund ” r dt h e Psalm .

Mr . Hilar . y I say a catch .

Mr . Glowr . . Mr y I say no A song from . ” Cypress.

ll m Mr A . A song fro . Cypress . 263 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK '

‘ The song that fo llows is, as has often been re m arked,not a parody of Byron but a Byronic

m . Mr . s s s poe Hilary again in i t upon a catch . Th e clergym an com es to his help and together they sing the inimitable

EAMEN THR EE S .

‘ Seamen three What m en be ye 3 ’ Go h am s m en t three wise we be. Whither in your bowl so free m To rake the moon fro out the sea . h m Th e m T e bowl goes tri . oon doth shine, And our ballast is old wine

And your ballast is old wine .

‘ Who art tho u,so fast adr ift 2 m I a he they call Old Care . ll Here on board we wi thee lift.

N o I m ay not enter there . ’ ’ Wherefore so Tis Jove s decree , In a bo wl Care m ay not be

In a bo wl Care m ay not be .

Fear ye no t the waves that roll o m o m N in char ed b wl we swi . What the charm that flo ats the bowl m ss m Water ay not pa the bri .

’ m h e Th e bowl goes tri . T moon doth shine, And our ballast is old wine old And your ballast is wine . At this point only do es Peacock show his

m s preference a ong t the disputants . His artistic

s him t o use Mr purpo e forbade . Hilary to crush m Th and ridicule their argu ents . e victory here 264

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

r Ma ionetta . I must apologise for intruding

Mr Flosk on you, . y but the interest which — — I you take in my cousin Scyt h rop ’

Flos . Mr . ky Pardon me, Miss O Carroll I do not take any interest in any person or thing on the face of the earth ; which sentiment, if you analyse it, you will find to be the quint

oi essence the most refined philanthropy.

Marionetta . I will take it for granted that

Flosk it is so,Mr . y I am not conversant with metaphysical sub t eltie s, but M Fl s . Mr. o ky Subtleties my dear iss ’ ll O Carro . I am sorry to find you participating in the vulgar error of the reading public, to whom an unusual collocation of words,involving a juxtaposition of antiperistatical ideas, imme diately suggests the notion of hype roxysophist ical ” paradoxology.

r d r Flo sk a ion et . M ta Indee , M . y, it suggests no such notion to me . I have sought you for the purpose of obtaining information.

r F losk shakin his head . N o M . y ( g ) one ever ” sought me for such a purpose before .

Mr Flo sk — Mar nk . ionetta . I thi , y that is — — I believe that is,I fancy that is,I imagine

' h ‘ id est r l sk . T e e ow M . F o y TOvT a m the , the ’ ‘ ’ the c est zz dire,the that is,my dear Miss O Carro ll, is not applicable in this case—ii you will permit 266 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLON G HALL

n m e to take the liberty of saying so . Thi k is — not synonymous with believe for belief,in many most important particul ars, resul ts from the to tal absence,the absolute negation of tho ught, and is thereby the sane and o rthodox condition of mind and thought and belief are bo th e ssen t ially different from fancy, and fancy, again, is dis T i s b e tinct from imaginatio n. h s di tinction twe en fancy and imagination is one of the most

s abstr use and important points o f metaphysic . I have written seven hundred pages of promise to elucidate it, whi ch promise I shall keep as ” t o faithfully as the bank will its promise pay.

Flo k Mari Mr . s onetta . I assure you, y ,I care no more about metaphysics than I do abo ut the bank ; and if you will condescend to talk to a simple girl in inte lligible terms

Mr. F losk & y . Say not condescend Know you not that you talk to the most humble of m e n, to one who has buckled on the arm our o f sanctity, and clothed hi mself with humility as with a garment ‘3 And so he continues, losing his equanimity but once, when Marionetta accuses him plainl y

dl al s and straightforwar y of t king non ense . It is difficul t to select from the conversations in this book,in which each speaker h as a special claim m to recognition . Aste rias has any interesting 267 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

m m remarks about er aids . Listless is pe rhaps the most novel figure . It is owing in great par t to hi s character and that of Marionetta that N ightmare Abbey m ust be ranked so distinctly higher than anything that Peacock had yet

achieved . ’ During the last thr ee years Peacock s m ood

di o ul has been growing stea ly m re and more cheerf . Speaking first as the saturnine Escot, he next identifies himself with the idealist Forester with the advance of hi s te mper to that of Hilary came the best work he was to produce for many years,where the touch is as light as the satire is

Maid Marian w as m o o caustic . co p sed in a mo d m of excessive and unchastised merri ent. Written during the last months of freedom and of life in the country,it is an apotheosis of forest liberty, the happy life among prim aeval surroundings, governed not by arbitrary or oppressive laws

but on the principles of natural justice . This exemption fro m all restriction,shown in the lives of R obin Hoo d and hi s foll owe rs, was accorded

s m Th e in al o by the author to hi self . plot is coherent and uninteresting,and can hardly have ’ m m Th e cost hi a mo ent s thought. incidents are mostly violent and farcical, and in m any cases unredeemed by any particularly humorous

s quality . Peacock relie extensively for the 268

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

figured largely in scenes which failed to amuse di because they were intended to be cre ble . There is welcome relief in a few passages where ’ the reader 18 1nv1t e d to share the author s fun at hi s own expense and hi s humorous contempt F for the ingenious working out of a plot . or instance three letters are written to warn hi s ’ friends of Sir Guy of Gamw ell s captivity and condemnation ; and Little John, having at t ache d them to three blunt arrows, saddl ed the ’ flee t e st steed in old Sir Guy of Gamw ell s stables, mounted, and rode first to Arlingford Castle, where he shot one of the thr ee arrows over the battlements then to R ub ygill Abbey,where he shot the second into the Abbey garden ; then past Gamw ell Hall to the borders of Sherwood i Forest, where he shot the th rd into the wood . N ow the fir st of these arrows lighted in the nape of the neck of Lord Fitz water,and lodged itself firmlv between hi s skin and his collar the second rebounded with the hollow vibration of a drum stick from the shaven sconce of the Abbot o f R ub ygill and the third pitched perpendicul arly into the centre of a venison pasty in which m ” R obin Hood was aking incision . In style this is c ertainl y t he least successful ’ and characteristic of all Peacock s tales more

o t over,it is surprisingly unoriginal. N content 270 THE AUTHOR OF HEADLONG HALL with borrowing the character of Frere Jean from R abelais,he h as m ade a slavish imitation of hi s diction,or rather,which is still worse,of that of ’ s s Urquhart s translation . In ome parts thi comes out so strongly that a great deal of good will and patience is needed to read the chapters

fo through . Such an un rtunate attempt at archaism is the more to be lamented as Peacock’ s own style is so far superior to the heterogeneous outcome of hi s ill - advised and ill - adapted bor m rowing . Yet in any parts of the book he is himself, not onl y in the scraps of ballad and lyrical verse,a great redeeming feature,but also Th in the dialogue and descriptions . e latter are indeed full of charm, owing, as almost always ’ in Peacock s works, to the fact that here he is writing from personal experience . The R obin Hood Ballads were not the only

m i o or the most i portant nspirati n of the book . They were the literary source,supplying materials for the plot and the traditional basis . But Peacock had been all his life attached to the woodl ands he has speciall y recorded his fond ness for Bisham Wood, the N e w Forest and Windsor Forest,which he of course knew in their di T i m unenclosed,wild con tion . h s inti acy with the wild woods might in itself have been sufi cie nt to supply him with a setting for Maid Marian 271 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK but he had actually witnessed a curious revival of the life of the free foresters which took place

18 14 - 1 Thi in the years 5 . s is related in The

Last Da o Windsor F orest Dr y f ,published in . ’ Th e Carnett s tenth volume . Act for the Enclosure of Windsor Forest contained one clause so faultily worded as in part to frustrate the intention of those responsible for drawing

for it up . It was that providing the surroundin g of some parts of the forest with pales and the

fl re st at ion r disa o of the est . After the Act had come into operation the clause was interpreted by legal experts to mean that no pe rson coul d be punished for hunting,coursing,kill ing,destroy ing or taking the deer in certain portions of the forest which, though unenclosed, were yet hi vested in the Crown . Profiting by t s flaw in the Act, a farmer of Water Oakley began to ’ make a regular business of killing the King s

l R o deer. He called himse f obin Ho d,and gave the names of Scarlett and Little John to the two men whom he employed to help him in his ln D R W c rat ive sport . The eputy anger ould forbid it and threaten the farmer with suits at law. R obin Hood held by the Act and set the Crown

o r w as at defiance,and coul d not be crushed. N Th e he ever overcome on his own ground. point was settled by employing two regiments of 272

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK the story,wherein it is shown thatevery ept heredity and divine right, for to a reigning king can be used as logically and effectively for adherence to an outlaw. This is well and spiritedly set forth by Friar Tuck,but ul ff in the timate e ect of the book it is negligible. Alone perhaps of all the novels, Maid Marian will be read always for what it is on the surface

- ri a tale of wild life . The spi t of the forest is its eternal element

For the slender beech and the sapling oak, That grow by the shadowy rill , m a You, y cut down both at a single stroke, You may cut down which you will

But this you must know,that as long as they grow, Whatever change m ay be, You can never teach either oak or beech

To be aught but a greenwood tree .

274 VIII

THE EAST INDIA HOUSE PERIOD

R the remainder of Peacock’ s life there

are few facts to chronicle . Fourteen

hi s i years , after first promot on he was made head of hi s department on the death of

l his hi s James Mil , c ef . He held this po t for twenty years, which were al m ost the last of ’ the Company s existence ; for John Stuart ngasthey Mill , who succeeded him on his retirement, remained there only two, when the House was abolished and its busine ss tak en over by t he

Government . ’ Peac ock s married life was apparently passed

in perfect happiness for a decade or more . Short ’ ly after the end of that period his wife s con stit utional melancholy, so pleasin g to him as a young m an, seems to have developed into m m m so ething per anently cala ito us . She died

~ T a few years before his retirement . here were

Th e r four children of the marriage . fi st, Mary Ellen, was born in 1821, and was consequently about eight years old when her father presente d 275 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Mis ortunes o h her with the f f Elp in . Twenty years later she became the first wife of George di six ni Mere th, or seven years her ju or. The s - M d hort lived argaret Love was the next chil . A boy and a girl followed, neither of whom long survived their father . ’ During hi s tenure of office Peacock s literary output was exceedingly miscellaneous, and as and sc anty. If every lyric every article writte n in these thirty- eight years be reckoned separately, his productions will amount to little more than

a one a year . It is true th t he may have con tributed to periodicals articles which cann ot now be claimed for him this calculation applies to his avo wed publications . A magaz ine article by Peacock was in itself an apparent inconsistency, if all his previous re marks on journalism be taken into account ; and his first critical essay has given rise to differ ence s of opinion among readers,who have un der stood it variously as a sincere expression of prejudices by a t ory-ish hater of all things modern,or a vindictive paraddx ,inspired by the

a n , neglect of Rhodod ph e. Both interpretations seem to rest on a too literal reading of what was meant primarily to amuse, involving an over ’ serious attitude towards most of Peacock s

and e writings . But let the logical lit ral inter 276

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

method in dealing with t he received notions on the subject are mildly reminiscent of his polemical

r p oc edure . With this exception there is nothing characteristic of Pe acock in the article,in manner or substance the style is quite undistinguished and t he defence of Southey and Darwin, author of The Botanic Garden and the Loves of the Plants, against the attac ks of the critics,makes it difi c ( c his ult to ac ept this, without proof, as work. The same pseudonym is used by a writer in a sub se quent number on the Tragic Drama o f ” t he Greeks, and is also appended to a series of translations from the tragedians by which this d is followed . On the other hand, an unsigne art icle in the same magaz ine for February,1825, is,if no t by Peacock,then by the only other man in England who could have written many por

r is b u e tio ns of his w o ks . It on the subject of bbl co mpanies,of whic h,says the writer,that month h ad been so prolific t hat it ought to be named,

u lose on the French Revolution model, B b b . He explains , in that delightfully non- technical language t hat Peaco ck always adopted in giving accoun t of cre dit tr ansactions,the steps whereby Je remi ah Ho p- the - twig grows rich by forming d al an imagin ary company. There is a good e 278 THE EAST INDIA HOUSE PER IOD

’ the company s solicitors, the respect directors (who of course come out of the a considerable increase of re

e ilit sp ct ab y Mr . Gudgeon,the investor, and other characters necessary to make up the

comcediae The m personae. article may al ost be said to be signed by some passages toward the e nd, for instance : By the ruin of the small investors capital is thrown into large masses, which is a great advantage (see the Edinborough Re view,N o . Whether or no Peacock be the author of this article, it was in the following winter that he wrote the little volume of parodies and topical verses, issued privately twelve years later with the title of Paper Money Lyrics Avowedly they celebrate the successive stages of the fin ancial panic lasting from the beginning of November, when two large banks in the west and north stopped payment,and it was feared the London banks would do the same,till some time in March, l m when confidence was a most co pletely restored. ” Pan, therefore, the author of panic terrors, opens the ball with the announcement The country banks are breaking The London banks are shaking and the first lyric represents the depositors clamouring for their balances and being pacified 279 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

’ by the bank er s assurance s that they have ’ d s ld plenty of gol . But Peacock s objective is e om single. Paper money is the main subject of his song ; but other pet aversions must also b e — to uched up financiers and economists,especially Th the Scotch, and his select band of poets . e reader is consequently not surprised to find that the third lyric is by R . S . Esq. ,Poet Laureate . This is a parody of the opening stanz a o f

Thalaba, successful though not difficul t . More amusing is the next,whose supposed authorship is sufficiently declared in the title A Mood of my own Mind : Occurring during a gale of wind at Midnight,when I was writing a paper on ” the Currency by the light of two moul d candl es . ’ Wordsworth s extreme simplicity is well hit o ff, as when he says of paper currency I find it buys me everything that people have to sell ; and there is an echo of Mainch an ce Villa in the reference to the drink ,

Mrs. i Which W. br ngs to me,which she herself did brew Oh doubly sweet is double & from Mistress

double U. Moore’ s contribution is a ballad of Venus and Cupid, in hi s favourite metre, appropriately headed with a quotation from Anacreon, with 280

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

On the whole,he is at his best on his old the mes of poetical and political satire . All that he h as to say about promises to pay is a variation, in verse,of passages in Calidore and Melincourt his economists are mere vul gar swindl ers, and his Scotchmen the traditional comic figures of the eighteenth century, coming to England to b e introduced to boots and trousers and to acquire walth and pro sparit y by cheating its guileless h inhabitants . W ile some verses go back to what he had written many years before—there is even a distinct recollectio n of Sir Proteus in the parody — of Southey others are directly prophetic o f

s Th e Mr To what w a to come . history of . uch andgo,for instance,m ay well have be en written

’ at this time ; the expression m ad? 6vap is here applied to Coleridge, and Scott is called an ” ” nk F enchanter u nown . Love and the limsie s, one of the best parodies in the volume, is even more indicative of the direction about to be given ’ M e to Peacock s literary activities . Thomas oor had hitherto attracted little of his attention,and had not been noticed in any of his better known Crotchet Castle works . Before the publication of this unfortunately superficial writer w as to receive at his hands a chastisement which, if criticism h ad the power it is sometimes supposed to possess,

must have completely annihilate d him . 282 THE EAST INDIA HOUSE PERIOD

The first instalment was delivered in a review of his Epicurean,published in the October num 1 2 T b e r of the Westminster Review, 8 7. his had been founded a few years before by Bentham, the younger Mill and o thers of the same group . Peacock was assuredly not dr awn into thi s circle by respect fo r their economic science ; but through the Mills he was personally acquainted with many of them, and much of their philo — Sophical radicalism its free thought and prin ciple s of fearless and unbiassed enquiry, and especially perhaps its distrust of the Whigs and — hostility to the Edinburgh represented more nearly his own views than any other current h d political creed . He ad long before discovere for himself, what was one of the chief points of the Westminster propaganda, that Whigs and Tories were, so far as social amelioration was concerned, equally inert and useless . This point of view,coupled with the fact that he was noto riously an exposer of abuses and implicitly a reformer,must,if the injustice of attaching to him a party label is to be tolerated at all,class him R , with all his peculiarities, as a adical. Distinctly R adical is the tone of his cont rib u tions to the Westminster whenever he has occasion to touch on questions of general policy . ’ Moo re s Epicurean, however, afforded little 283 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

t oppor unity for the expression of political views . What it did provide was the best imaginable material for destructive cri ticism, and Peacock on his side pr ovided consummate workmanship, producing a review which is a masterpiece in d d its kin . Sentimentality an uns oundness can seldom have appeared so obvious and all - pervad ing, in a work of equal ambition, by an author enjoying so great a reputation . Whatever may be thought of Peacock’ s attacks on Southey and Wordsworth,his F our Ages of Poetry,and other passages which have proved so offensive to the lay clergy of the reading public,his handling of Moore must be admitted to be not only blameless but actively virtuous . In this article he unmasks a prosperous impostor,whose orienta poems had given an earnest of what he might do when he trespassed on the domain of learn h ing . T e translator of Anacreon might have been expected to take the trouble to find out,even if he did not already know,the outlines of the philosophy and social conditions of the people whom he claims to describe in his tale . Or if to go to original sources woul d have taxe d his energy and patience too severely, he coul d, as Peacock points out,have been preserved from the grossest blunders by a moderately careful — reading of an easily accessible author Lucretius . 284

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

In 1829 was published The Misfortunes of Elphin, which had probably occupie d hi s spare hours and half hours for several years . This conjecture is founded on the onl y defin itely personal satire in the b ook, contained in the second chapter. Virtual superintendence and the rotte n embankment are of co ur se v1r tual representation and the unreformed House

h e m of Commons . T argu ents of Prince Seith enyn for leaving the construction as it is, and for objecting to those inn ovators who urge the necessity for repairing it, are not only a fair summ ary of a regul ar portion of the anti - R efo rm contentions of the day,but they bear a sufficient resemblance to the speeches o f Cannin g in Parlia ment in 1817, to his electors in 1820and again in the House in 1822, to justify the conclusion that in the eloquence of the Lord High Com missioner Peacock intended to parody the T m famous utterances of the ory states en . It is therefore highl y probable that thi s part of the book was finished at some time be tween the 182 ni latter date and 7,when Can ng died. Some of this reasoning had been already exposed in Melincourt, but in Elphin it is introduced with greater subtlety, though in an equally farcical

Maid Marian scene . As in outlawry was defend ed by all the pleas usually urged in support of 286 THE EAST INDIA HOUSE PERIOD the claims of legitimacy, so here arguments are used in favour of what is obviously wrong,which were currently put forward in defence of a cause, considered by a lessening majority to be that of

T e m patriotism and general welfare . hat the b ank m ent ,says the prince, is somewhat rotten in parts, I will not altogether deny ; that it is

n the worse or that I do most sturdil ainsa a y f , y g y. Our ancestors were wiser than we : they built it in their wisdo m and if we should be so

o o m ar rash as to try to mend it,we sh uld nly it .

There is not in so dan erous as innovati h g g on . This immortal work has stoo d for centuries, and will stand for centuries more, if we let it ” Te it h rin m m al one . then akes the re ark, ex ce lle nt in allegorical as in literal significance, that conditions are no longer the same as they were The level of the sea is m aterially

To is altered. this there no answer but to deny the fact and scout the idea : Who ever heard of such a thing Yet Prince Se it h e nyn is a very different person M r . An side Ant i ack m from y j . Cri inal negligence and infinite self- satisfaction must indeed be laid to his charge ; but he is free from the baser — attributes of his precursor the canting sophistry, the cynical opportunism , the abusive vulgarity, the venality and deliberate preference of his 287 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

d own to the national interest . Intempe rance an sloth are, in comparison with these,but mild

The accusations to bring against any man . blame attaches as much to society for putting a person of his character in a responsible position, as to

Se it h did d he nyn for behaving as e . It woul be as reasonable to quarrel with his dr ink- sodden head for not enclosing a superior brain as to be I betra angry with a port bottle for not containing refined

- l l a d barley water . Inte lectua ly he is pitiable, n he is treated by the author with extreme gentle ness,not even being allowed to perish in the cata clysm which destroyed the land with sixteen prosperous towns, and drowned most of the i , - nhabitants in their sleep though he was per V

“ sonall s y re ponsible for its occurrence . Having created this character to speak the opinions of must be Canning, Peacock soon forgot the satirical pur pose, and delivered him from a well - deserved death to fill the role of a glorious and smgle d d minded runkar . i His preservation and the impoit ance of the

s part sub equently played by him gives to the plot theclose what unity it can be said to possess for Elphin,

, l though technically the hero is in fact a principa , He actor in no portion of the book . is not even a prime mover in remonstrating with Se ithenyn, for he was ignorant of what was happening until 288

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

story is the unity of spirit pervading the whole and making it,in spite of the remoteness of the theme and the shadowy nature of many of the ’ characters, Peacock s most charming romance and perhaps the completest statement of his i point of v ew . Th e mountain scenery of Wales had always been his happiest source of inspiration now of a sudden it becomes apparent tha t he w as only less passionately attached t o the antiquities of

o ffi ul the country . It is, h wever, di c t to arrive at an estimate of the extent of his studies in this

is s m direction . It not ea y to i agine Peacock taking up any subject in a superficial manner ; his reading w as most likely wide and curious ; b ut at every step we are baffled in the attempt

s Th e nl t o ascertain particular of it . o y book m entioned in his letters that may have given him ’ an interest in the subject is Evans Cambrian

r T him M Itinera y. his he had with at aentwrog 1810 For in . general information we know that he read R oss of Warwick and Giraldus Camb re n

is F m s - m m s . ro ome semi conte ptuous re arks in t h e course o f the story it seems probable that he had made some use of The Mythology and Rites of the British Druids, by Edward Davies . In this work the inundation of the plain of Gw ae lo d and the early history of Taliesin are 290 THE EAST INDIA HOUSE PERIOD c ussed at lengt h,from the point of V iew of com

arat ive T p mythology . here is some evidence to suggest that he also got a good many facts and ideas from The H eroic Elegies of Llywarch H n e , by William Owen . Here he could have fo und the motto of Bardism , the truth agains t ” the world, constantly mentioned in his writings,

his a and many of favourite poetic tri ds . His ac count of the different orders of druids se ems to b e abridge d from that given in this book,whi ch also contains the poems Corwynion, imitated in The Brilliances of Winter,and Ynglynion ,followe d

s m di s T n o t e F r i at o e tance in he So g f h ou W nds. There remains the interesting inquiry, to whi ch it is unfortunate ly not possible to give a definite answer How far w as Peaco ck acquainted with ancient Welsh literature at first hand Considering the length of time he spent in Wales betwee n 18 10and 18 13,hi s mental energy and love of study, and his facility in learning language s, it is difficul t to suppo se that he took t h m no interest in e lo cal speec h . Yet fro the evidence of hi s early writings, including letters, po em s, and H eadlong Hall,it can only be stated with certainty that he knew one o r two of the bardic triads in English, that he h ad m astered the corre ct pronunciation an d accentuation of the proper names and knew the meaning of 29 1 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK many of them, together with the potent word T cwrw . his is in all probability a considerable under- statement of his actual knowledge ; but from the absence of any indications of his being preoccupied with Welsh subjects formany years after the publication of his first book,it is reason able to presume that at this early period his acquaintance with the language and literature was neither wide nor deep . Passing on to the Misfortunes of Elphin, we find him not onl y building up a story out of two so mewhat obscure legends,but filling his book with translations and paraphrases of ancient poems and with proverbs Th quoted in the original tongue . e latter fact

‘ nu seems particularly indicative . It is highly ’ characteristic oi Peacock s soundness and scholarly honesty, and his hatred of the display of superficial knowledge, to quote words from a language which he did not thoro ughly un der

The w stand . inference to be dra n is obvious with his marriage came a revival of interest in Wales and Welsh things, and, very likely with ’ his wife s help, he no doubt studied for some time with his habitual assiduity, until he could read currently enough the poe ms and prose required for his purpose . However slight or however intimate was his ’ knowledge of the ancient authorities, Peacock s 292

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

ffi Th o cials . e drunkenn ess of Se ithe nyn, his conduct in the presence of Elphin and his argu ments on the subject of the embankment entrust ed to his care, are presented in such a manner as to impress this character indelibly on the memory and confer on him for the first time that immortality claimed for him in the triad . Th e acco unt of the storm,the gracious figure of Angharad amid the noise and confusion of the banqueting - hall, the song of the bard, the ir ruption of the spring tide and the escape of Elphin, Angharad and their companions along the summit of the embankment with the se a raging on each side, give t o the following pages a high rank as vivid and picturesque description. In coming to the story of Talie sin Peacock does not scruple to take liberties with his original, not merely in the matter of arrangement but in

Th e altering and adding to the incidents . finding of the child in the salmon weir is simply narrated according to one of the traditional ac c oun ts, the greatest change being that the exclamation Behold a radiant brow & is at tributed to Angharad instead of to one of the

s T s o o guardian of the weir . hi was no d ubt d ne with the intention o f concentrating the interest

his s m m f upon chief character . All the um ery o the magic cauldron and the reincarnation of 294 THE EAST INDIA HOUSE PERIOD

Gwion Bach is omitted here, and only given in a song to wards the end of the book, with some

caustic remarks as to its meaning and value . The education of Taliesin is a succinct ac count of the main differences between life in a co m par atively primitive period and in the early

s a ninete enth century . In thi chapter Pe cock is

seen,as it were,in dire ct contact with his subject . He gives us at the same time the fruits of his study of antiquity and of hi s experience of life, pointing out the permanent motives of hum an nature, unaffected save in the forms of their activity by the alteration in circumstan ces

b Th e r rought about by material progress . sati e here is general,but in more than one place adum brates what is to follow shortly in Crotchet Castle . Th e Welsh of the sixt h century h ad no political economy,no paper money,no factories wherein the s qualid many,from infancy to age,might be turned into component portions of m achinery ” - e for the benefit of the purple fac d few. We are their superiors in moral science but their equals in morals,that is to say,in the po ssession of a few maxim s, remembered in drink and for

in s m gotten busines . Patriotis was much the same then as now the po werful took all they coul d get from their subjects and neighbours ; and called something or other sacred and 295 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

glorio’ us when they wanted the people to ” Th fight for them . e inviolability of the bards corresponded to our freedom of the Press ;

“ their unwavering adhesion t o their motto of the Truth against the World,to the incorruptibility

T r m s o m of our journalists . hei i taken astr no y had as much effect in elevating the min d to noble contemplation as our accurate science their medicine w as as profitable to the public, J though not to its practitioners,as ours . ustice was summaril y administered by the King, and there was consequently no necessity for “ the

- sweet faced myriads of our Learned Friends .

A s the peo ple did not read the Bible , and had no religious t ract s,t he ir re ligion,it may b e assumed,was not e e e o e e o f very pure . Th y w r bs r vant of all mat t rs out ward form, and t radit io n e ven place s among t he m personages who we re wort hy t o have founded a soci et y for su re ss f ce It is re corded he t r ds t t t he pp io n o vi . in t ia ha Gwrgi Garwlwyd killed a male and fe male o f the Cymry daily and devoured t he m ; and o n th e Sat urday he killed ” w a m o his can t o of e ach,t h t h e ight n t kill on Sunday. T only b e a t ype o f some sanct imom ous hero who made a r h o r cloak o f piet y for opp e ssing t e po . W he n any o f t he R o mans o r Saxons,who invad e d the island,fell int o th e hands of t he Brit ons be fore the int ro duct ion of Christ ianity, t hey were handed over t o th e dr uids,who sacrificed t he m,wit h pio us cere monie s,t o t he ir de ss A re s e T e se um s cr ces e do e god nd t . h h an a ifi hav n much inj ury t o the druidical charact er amongst us,who wa e c ed it ne ver pract i se t hem in the same y. Th y la k , 296

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

and it doe s not comport wit h t he st eam e ngine spee d of our march o f mind t o loo k at more t han one side o f a est o qu i n . Th e e e ere p ople live d in darkne ss and vassalage . Th y w ost e had no l in t he grossness of bee f and a le . Th y pamphl e t e ering societ ie s t o demonst rat e t hat reading and were “ ut t erly dest itut e of th e ble ssings of t hose schools for all , t he house of corre ct ion, and t he t readmill , whe re in th e aut o cht honal just ice of our agrest ic kakist ocracy now cast igat es th e he ino us sins which were t hen commit t ed ' wit h impunit y,o f t re ading on old foot pat hs, pickmg up dead wood,and moving on t he face of t he eart h wit hin t he so d o f th un e whirr o f a par tridge .

Having laid down this sound basis of inter pre t at ion, Peacock proceeds with the history of m Taliesin . Besides his own inestimable co ment and imaginative description, he brings to the story as told in the Hanes Taliesin as much o r m Th e ore than he takes from it . characters of Se it he nyn rescued from drowning, the Abbot of Glastonbury,and Arthur are his contribution . Th e trick played upon R hun and it s expo sure by Elphin are altered and improved in detail from the original account ; the love of Melanghe l is ’ put in as an additional motive for Taliesin s M T energy . ore honour is certainly done to alie sin in m aking him overcome the bards at Mael ’ gon s court by his skill in music than by at t ri buting his victory, with the Hanes, to magic . 298 THE EAST INDIA HOUSE PERIOD

Finally the unimaginative and uninteresting incidents of the horse - race and the pot of gold of the original are replaced by the third part of ’ Peacock s narrative, naturally brought about ’ ’ by R hun s second adventure, Se it h e nyn s in ’ c ontinence and Taliesin s astuteness in seeing

’ h o w his knowledge of the queen s whereabouts ’ m ay be made use of to enlist Arthur s powerful

s interest on the ide of Elphin . Peacock is now at the summit of hi s achieve ment . In thi s more than in any other of his wo rks he appears absolutely at his ease ,a master o f hi s subject and of English prose a felicito us and graceful lyrical poet, a keen and caustic satirist of humanity at large, but especiall y of the great and po werful , a shrewd and o riginal inte rpreter of history and legend, the possessor of a true gift of vivid pictorial and historical

m m o s i agination . Other books m ay be ore bviou ly witty,may appear o utwardl y more characteristic or more brilliant, but in this hi s genius seem s surer, his touch m ore masterly, the general satire truer and more te lling,the criticism deeper romance here coexists with disill usionment, enthusiasm with discriminating clarity of vision . It is the bo ok that has most enj oyment to offer to the general reader by the int e rest of the sto ry, t o the lover of Peacock by the intensely personal 299 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK tone of the whole, to t he am ateur of style the vigour,beauty and felicity of the language . In the year intervening between the publica ’ tion of this and of Peacock s next novel appeared three articles written by him in the Westminster ’ Review,on the memo irs of Jefferson, on Moore s ” Life and Letters of Byron, and one entitled F m The Chronicles of London Bridge . ro these it m ay be clearly seen that twelve years of official life have not taken o fi any of his keenness, or caused him t o acquiesce, any more than in the days of Melincourt, in the ways of the wo rld . Still less have they conduced to the Toryism which has been preposterously attributed to him

s is s l R and at thi period . He til a adical republican at heart, a sagacious detector of “ jobs and abuses, and a penetrating critic with an honest hatred of the meanness and self

s are seeking of literary people . The e writings thus interesting in themselves and useful for contradicting any false notions that m ay be ’ r m t stle T de ived fro Crotche Ca . hat Peacock s political ideals were on the most vital issues tho se of the Westminster m ay be proved by one ” m o s Sentence . It is ti e al ne, he write , that sho ws whether the young po pularity- carping senator is a true patrio t, or a Whig, acting patriotism ; whether the young soldier of a 300

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK of the four occasions on which Peacock had taken notice of Moore, the first celebrated his famous duel with Jeffrey, and the last

t o s ff likely provoke a imilar a air. This review is not technically so powerful as that of The

i r is l Ep cu ean . Yet it tru y remarkable in proving that Peacock understood Byron, whom he had never m e t , a gre at deal better than many who h ad come into frequent personal contact with him , and h ow thi s understanding enabled him t o penetrate the motives and methods of those ac quaintances of the poet who had writte n of

m saw hi . He quite clearly that Byron adapted his conversation to his listener, and that he w as ~ in the habit o f deliberately feeding vul gar credulity and curiosity with apparently earnest utterances,which onl y the possessor of a superior intelligence or a greater share in the speaker’ s m inti acy could appreciate at their true value . This practice,says Peacock,though not in itself praiseworthy, m ay be justified, if ever, in the ’ case of a m an in Byron s situation, living out of society and much talked of in it,and haunted in his retirement by varieties of the small Boswell ” or eavesdropping genus . Leigh Hunt and Me dwin are rightly consigned to this class, and the value of their reported conversations with

di di s Byron scounted accor ngly. He then show 302 THE EAST INDIA HOUSE PERIOD

how Moore fell more than once into the trap, ’ misunderstood some of Byron s rem arks, and even completely mistook the meaning of his

s verses . Stupidity however is not his grave t m charge . He proves that on one i portant ’ subject, that of Byron s so - called religious in fidelity, Moore had been sympathetic when in ’ the poet s company, though for the sake of his own reputation he loudl y deplores the fact in

T s public . hi ,says Peacock,is quite of a piece ’ Mr M with . oore s system of acquiescence with ll ” the influential in a its forms . After a detailed criticism of the work, neither purely literary nor wholly personal, but intellectually funda mental,comes the verdict the volume consists o f a series of shallow sophisms and false assumptions, wrapped up in bundl es of meta phors, put forth with a specious semblance of reason and liberality, and directed to the single end of upholding all the abuses and delusions ” s o by which the ari tocracy pr fit. In readin g this article the impression of absolute soundness and m astery is not so strong as in that on The

E icurean p . Peacock has not at any rate taken so much trouble to parade his proofs,nor has he di di been at great pains to sguise his preju ce . Yet it is difficul t to feel much sympathy with ’ the man who had destroyed Byron s aut ob io 303 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK graphy, or even to refrain from rejoicing every time he receives a thrust .

Pa er Mone L rics Mr If p y y prepared us for . Touchandgo of Cro tchet Castle, the criticisms in the Westminster have sufficiently introduced

; dr T Mr . . Eaves op his personage is usually taken to represent Haz litt, whose Spirit of the Age might have entitled him to t he name . The m m point is uni portant . It is i possible to identify the character from internal evidence, and it is

s m therefore usele s to be dog atic . We happen to know that Peacock objected to the small ” Boswells, who had betrayed what they imagined ’ to be Byron s confessions to them ; yet t he general exception which had been taken to The Spirit of the Age as breach of confidence on a large scal e would no doubt lead hi s readers to think that its author was shadowed in Eavesdrop . In any case the treatment of the character is slight and generalised,and he is probably intended to be no more than a type of this fresh class of unpleasant productions of the nineteenth century . Public characters in Crotchet Castle are less

hr numerous than in the first t ee novels . The most notorious is of course Lord Brougham, or the Learned Friend, a title happily indicating both ‘ his legal profession and his enthusiasm for

is education. His appearance in this book 304

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

F riend with loathing and contempt. It is t o be note d that all the incidents of his career sin gled out for ridicule in Crotchet Castle are those

Mr o f the past twelve years . The late . Brougham, as Peacock would have expressed it, is e ntirely out of account . These incidents are, briefly, his appointment of commissioners to inquire into charity abuses ; his part in the foundation of the Society for the Difl‘u Useful Knowledge, and his authorship of it s introductory volume ; his defection from t h e Whigs to j o in fo rces with Canning and his return to Opposition when the latter was succeeded by the Duk e of We llington and finally his elevation to the peerage as Baron Brougham and Vaux, o r, as Peacock suggests, his public assumption o f the title of grand Guy Fawkes Heaven for that He is disarmed from ” m ischief .

M c ue d l Mr . a q y was immediate y rec b y contemporaries as McCull o ch, the

& Th e e conomist . explanation of his the son of a demonstration —would tempt us to identify him with John Stuart, the son of n James Mill . But i dependently of the con sideration that contemporaries were probably ’ right, Mac que dy s avowed connection with the Edinburgh was applicable to Mc Culloch and not 306 THE EAST INDIA HOUSE PERIOD t o Mill,who did not write for that review until

d rotchet a so me years late r than the ate of C C stle. ’ As re aders of Sir Edward St rac he y s re minis ce nces may see, the incident of the pape r beginning In the infancy of society is a r ecollection of a dinner at which Peacock had bee n bored to death by three political economist s, of whom Mc Cull o ch was one,though he was not, as in the novel,the prime offender. The gentle ridicule and often respe ctful handling of Mac ’ q uedy is a sign of Peacock s growing impartiality

di s s s a in many rection . It ari e in this c se from a realisation and acknowledgment that his dis like of the science and nationality pe rsonified in

hi di w as m t s in vidual whi sical and unreasonable. From this there resul ts an entire lack of bitter ness, a di scriminating satire, a humorous and personal treatment o f the character which is no small addition to the value of the book as a

Mr To o . ogo d is sketched in far too vaguely to be claim ed as either a portrait or a caricature of Owen, but an Owenite he un doubtedly is, introduced t o represent the theory of c c operation,deeply studi e d and hotly controverted

o m s by the p litical econo i ts . A similar m otive

n Mr ki accou ts for the appearance of . S onar , or Coleridge, who now acts his last part in the 307 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

k Pe acoc ian comedies . Coleridge,as has already ’ been noticed,has gradually gone up ln the author s e stimation, ever since his first farcical de scrip

as Mr M c tion . ystic . His trans endental philo sophy is still represented as unintelligible and ’ therefore repugnant . But Peacock s sympathies had been enlisted for him by his unjust treatment at the hands of the reviewers . Twice already, ’ in N ightmare Abbey and in the review of Moore s ’ Byron, he has publicly taken Coleridge s part, and by this time seems to be genuinely sorry

m o for him . The ost notable passage ab ut him in Crotchet Castle is a distinct vindicatio n

Mr k ionar Why, they say that . S ,though he is a great dreamer, always dreams with his eyes open,with one e ye at any rate,which is an eye t o his gain ; but I believe that in this respect the poor man has got an ill name by keeping bad

Mr ul company . He has two dear friends, . Wilf

l k h ant se Mr R umb e sac S e . W ont se e and . , etc This is surely as far as a writer could be expected to go,who was an inveterate enemy of the Lake poets, German metaphysics, Toryism, and

- s especially of ex R adical . The above remarks on Coleridge are made by Lady Clarinda, so far the best drawn of Pea ’ m cock s wo en . Indeed the only one among her predecessors who can be said to possess a char 308

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

any re ply but the same doctrines o f worldl y w isd om, de livered in a tone of badinage,mixed with a certain kindness of manner that induced him e M to hop she was not in earnest . any of his opinions are uttered incidentally by this characte r,but more significant still,he does h er

‘ the supreme honour of putting into her mouth his own description of the g uests at the dinn er t able . Two important characters remain, who are both used t o a large extent as interpreters of ’ Peacock s own personality ; but in each case this is strange ly interwoven with other and l m irre concile ab e ele ents . In their theories they are largely Opposed to each other one 18 openly ridi culed by the author the other is succe ssfully

d Mr Mac ue d . e controverte by . q y In thes cir cumst an ce s it is somewhat remarkable that ’ different readers have found Peacock s point rof view,entirely and exclusively,in the doings and

Mr h m Dr o lliot t F . C ain ail . sayings of . or of Association with Shelley had m ade Peacock

m r s al ost a p opagandi t . In the years of their friendship he wrote with more passion, more of the single ness of purpose so much desired by the poet,than he ever infused into subsequent ni are books . In the early novels his opi ons de finitely e xpressed and easy to disc over. In 3 10 PERIOD

on the contrary,he has no desire ade he is impartial as far as his nature his own opinions are of less importance

To his characters . such an extent are no t represented in the two persons,but scatt ered

ng at least six of the party .

’ isely the author s private point ugh it would be a pardo nab le mistake him , as many have done, with the prejudiced, reactionary, genial and D octor . But the essential error positive pronouncements D where only negative are to be found . uring the past twelve years Peacock had been cut off from the most inspiring comradeship of hi s life those years had been passed in Londo n and in close contact with m any of the wire - pull ers and axe - grinders of the day they had brought him more opportunities of observation and knowledge,

m s m The but not ore enthu ias . arrival of his forty - fift h birthday, if it had softened some youthful bitterness,had not presented him with

l o Crotch t l a fresh stock of il usi ns . e Cast e, an e ssentially middl e - aged production, is entirely

- non constructive . It is a criticism ,and it s m ain drift is an exposure of cant in all its manifesta 3 11 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK t ions . Sentimental cant, philosophical, philan t hropic, economic cant, the cant of literary people and scientific specialists, is here re pre s ented by the usual set of typical personages . In opposition to these at various points are ranged three characters, far more individually and closely studied,who do undoubtedl y express between them a large measure of Peacock’ s personal attitude, though they air his dislikes i C more freely than his l kes . Lady larinda,

Mr C the keen scrutineer of persons, and . hain m ail,who regrets the ages of greater simplicity, when there was less opportunity for cant to flourish in the great variety of it s present day a ctivities,each has his marked sympathy . Yet Lady Clarinda passes sentence on her o wn pro fessed philosophy by marrying a poor man ;

Mr Ch ainm ail is while . convicted of the possession of illusions, approaching very near to cant, an d finally violates one of his strongest principles by uniting himself with the daughte r of a money lender, one who in the twelfth century would ”

Th e Re v. have been plucked by the beard . Doctor is the most logical and,as things are,the hi most powerful enemy of cant. Having mself no ill usions or ideals,he does not believe in those sincerely or falsely professed by others. Peacock — attributes to him many of his own traits his 3 12

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

s a o human species by the progres of civilis ti n . The savage never laughs

The R e Dr i F oll ott . v. . No,sir ,he has not hing t o M laugh at . Give him odern Athens, the e F m ll L arned riend,and the Stea Inte ect Society . ll They wi develop his muscles . The frank non- morality of the Doctor, t he e m Mr Mac u d cono ic philosophy of . q e y, the se ntim entality of the Captain,the airy cynicism of Lady Clarinda,the absurdity of the scientists in the interplay of these lies the main interest

r tch t astle e of the greater part of C o e C . In thes conversations and comments Peacock is certam se en at the height of hi s brill iance as satirist and s T tylist . hey have the perfection of maturity - strength without violence , confidence and precision, all the old keenness with the added m uli mellowness of ti e . With a wantonness pec ar to himself he has,by the mere subterfuge of an excursion up the Thames and Severn and the Ellesmere Canal, tacked on to these studies in scholarly idiosyncracy a love sto ry, threatening every now and then to become a pasto ral rom ance, taking place in North Wales and entirely un connecte d with the beginning and end of the w story . With this as with all his way ard deeds, it is useless to ask how Peacock could have permitted himself so flagrant a violation of the 3 14 THE EAST IN DIA HOUSE PER IOD

r e p oprieties . If we like this quart r of the book, let us thank him for it if it s presence offends us,

our dl m d capacity for enjoyment is sa y li ite . It h as already be en pointed out that these chapters

Mr have an autobiographical foundation . In . ’ Chainm ail are curiously combined Peacock s actual situation in 18 10and his mood at the time

Mai of writing d Marian . Here he goes through the same experiences of falling in love first with the mountain scenery and afterwards with a mountain m aid, that had been the lot of the a s D uthor twenty year before . The ingle of M Chapter XIV. is a ravine near aentwrog, a haunt of Peacock ’ s at that time and the strange name and parentage attributed to the girl in the sto ry,a recognised portrait of Jane Gryffy dh,are but a device to connect her with the other principal

characters . When she has conquered the heart and,a more difficult achievement,overruled the ’ principles o f her admirer,one half of the author s task is completed,and we are prepared for a simi

s s T lar con ummation on the bank of the hames . The genial satire and the latter- day idyll alik e lead up to the routing of aristocratic prejudice and of

- - - the pounds shillings and pence philosophy . The ’ fin al note is struck in Lady Clarinda s song

In the days of old, Lo vers felt true passion, 3 15 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Deeming years of sorrow m By a s ile repaid . N ow the charms of gold, Spells of pride and fashion, Bid them say good morrow

- To the best loved maid.

Through the forests wild, ’ O er the mountains lonely, They were never weary Honour to pursue If the damsel smiled Once in seven years only, All their wanderings dreary

Ample guerdon knew .

’ Now one day s caprice Weighs down years of smiling, Youthful hearts are rovers, Love is bought and sold ’ Fortune s gifts may cease, Love is less beguiling Wiser were the lovers,

In the days of old .

’ After Crotchet Castle Peacock s activity as a literary man came to an almost complete

s s ces ation for many year . Growing absorption in business, increasing domestic loneliness and a rapidl y extending acquaintance with public men and participation in public affairs, all no doubt contributed to render him disinclined for writing . When he was engaged in preparing 3 16

RY LL G GRAN GE .

inta e teen V g of fif .

ASTR ONOMY and Civilisation is the ’ title of an article i n F raser s Maga M z ine for December,1851,signed . easily rec ognisable by those who have a sufficient acquaintance with Peacock to

arr k give them a fl in these matters, as his wor . When we read : Th e light of the kitchen was ” probably the brightest spot in the dark ages, the style and sentiment m ake a familiar appeal . The citation and interpretation of classical authors,the same treatment of Italian and French writers, including Paul de Kock, add to t he presumptive evidence, which is strengthened again by the insertion of a bill of fare of the year 1662, from the archives of the East India

Th e Company . introduction of two lines from the Misfortunes of Elphin,the current use of one or two of Peacock’ s favourite phrases and 3 18 GRYLL GR AN GE

t at ions,for instance, Al e is his eating and ” drinking solely, leave little doubt as to the But the author of Headlong Hall had at one time made a name for himself in t he world of letters, and later on in the official world he was kno wn well,if not widely . This article may be the production of some unsc rupu lous imitator or enthusiastic admirer . So far, a possibly . But turn the page, and we find reference to the Adventures of Jack of Dover ” in search of a greater fool than himself, so well discussed subsequently by the visitors to Gryll m m Grange . The sa e at osphere is created by a contrasting of Bojardo and Berni and towards the end comes a passage paraphrased at length b R Dr m s y the ev. . Opi ian We like to ee our ” dinner, says the writer,and procee ds to mention Addison’ s objection to having the solid dishes placed on a sideboard, to express his dislike of seeing the food distributed like rations to paupers, and his disapproval of leaving the carving in the hands of servants who cann ot distinguish between the head and tail of a mullet T and the wing and thigh of a fowl . hen follows what may be taken to be the signature : Th e fashion to which we allude will render necessary t he establishment of a college of carving ; and a professor of the side - table, who has finished 3 19 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK his education with credit, and received degree,will become as important a ” m n the cook hi self . Either,the , author of this article,or the writer of it imitated Peacock and copied from his early works,and was in turn plagiarised and imitated by his former

Gr ll Gran e Th e r victim in the pages of y g . easie m supposition is also the ore reasonable .

e o Th point is not of extreme imp rtance . ’ Biographically it onl y sets Peaco ck s connection ’ with F raser s Magaz ine forward by three months, for in the following March and April appeared

H orce Dra a the first two of his m ticce . But the article is a striking ill ustration of a quality which, although attention h as not yet been pointedl y drawn to it, must already have been — ’ noticed by the reader our author s literary

s m parsimony . Between the novel the selves there is not much repetition, n o more perhaps than it woul d be reasonable to expect in the writings of a critic and sat irist who se main in

re st s r m r hi s if t e we e the sa e th oughout l e . But be tween the novels and the minor works,includ ing unpublished m atter, contributions to the periodicals,and less known works like Sir Proteus and Paper Money Lyrics, they are exceedingly m if numerous . It see s as Peacock,having once made a good joke or discovered a new truth or 320

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

first instalment of his Memoir of Shelley, fol

o 1860 F m lowed by the sec nd in . ro April to December of that year Gryll Grange appeared in F raser as a serial and, as the Edinburgh remarked some few years later,completely my s t ifi e d most of its readers,who were unacquainted ’ o with the author s previ us novels . So after the lapse o f thirty years Peacock is

gomg to talk again with us . Let us listen to h im once more : it is the last conversatio n we shall hold with him , and, as is fitting, the most m intim ate of all . Several ti es during the long

interval he has tried to break silence . In Chertsey he w as to tell us m o re about himself as a youn g m an : in Cotswold Chace he gave us yet another picture of his W ife ; here too he mentioned his boyhood and the days when he woul d spend half - holidays reading by the river or under the woo ds and he w as to give us a ” fuller knowledge o f his yo uthful friend, Charles,

l i ns hildh of the R ecol ect o of C ood . He is now old eno ugh t o regret that long past time Those

I no t n were pleasant days . do thi k we grow — happier as we gro w older as the bloo m of novelty fades fro m life and again I am n o t unsocial, but society as it is now c onstituted is ” m t Kat rine S . he not much to my ind . In he appears at an even more advanced age ; and 322 GR YLL GRAN GE

what he te lls us here squares well enough with

W is f h m hat related o i by others . A favourite amusement in the summer was an excursion by water to Newark Abbey o r the ruinous to wer of

St . Katherine higher up the stream ; and in

c m the winter, a go od fire and good o pany . He c ared very little about game - preserving and

m s c very uch about cla si al literature . He had considerable liberality of opinion and w as tolerant of all differences from his own, and implacable onl y in his detestation of tobacco, ” s which he strictly bani hed to the turnpike road .

Katherin e o m St . And here c es abruptly to an end . Much o f this fragment was incorporated in Gryll Gr ange, where still further information

o n about the auth r is plai ly set forth . A hand some pension placed him sufficie nt ly above the c ares of the world to enable him t o gratify all

hi s s m o s taste without inute calculati ns of co t.

t astes in fact were four : a good library, a ” ( 1dinner,a pleasant garden,and rural walks,

‘ boat on the river . house was a m o del the whole establish ent partook of the genial physiogno my of the

s F m m s m a ter. ro the a ter and istress to the

and from the cook to the t o m cat, there about the inhabitants a sleek and purring 323 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK rotundity of face and figure that denoted c om munity of feelings, habits and diet each in its kind, of course,for the m aster had his po rt,the c ook her ale,and the cat his milk,in sufficiently liberal allowance . So far Peacock has been describing himself as m l R Dr O . the e v. . pi ian An ath ete in pedes

” ’ t rianism, in his early days,a specialist in cookery as in classical studies,a lover above all and always of retirement and peace,he has much in common

i ni . c with th s ge al cleric But, as in the chara ter .

Dr Folli o t t s is of . and other , the identification

s s c o m For neither con i tent nor plete . though in m any passages, notably for instance in his

s Mr F D first conver ation with . alconer,the octor is little more than. a puppet uttering the senti — ments o f the author, in o thers he is a type the — best type as Peacock conceived it of the country

M his old clergyman. oreover,following practice, although attributing his own tastes to the Doctor, Peacock has adumbrated his personal circumstances in those of Squire Gryll and his goddaughter, while the most exact information as to his studies is contained in the ’ The o F s . Mr . alconer library bo ks of the lower c ircle were all classical those of the upper,

English,Italian and French,with a few volumes ” h e s T ni . in Spani sh . last word are sig ficant 324

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

o mm s h s the promise of 1832 . C erciali m as ari en with it s attendant dangers, diseases and white

- - slavery . Brougham , Lord Facing both ways, has m any years since definitely abandoned the party which in the old days founded such hopes on him,and spends his tim e m aking melodram atic speeches in the Lo rds and giving omni scient harangues to the Social Science Association,

o m here eulogised as the Pant prag atic Society . Lo rd John R ussell, the Gracchus of the last ” R eform , h as apparently well deserved to be called the Sisyphus of this after agitating for twenty years for another Bill t o remove the abuses left intact by the former,he at last intro duces a measure in 1854, but withdraws it on ’ Palm r t n n t o Is e s o s threateni g resign . the autho r of Melincourt to celebrate him as a capable po litician, or t o regard him as Lord Mich in Male ch o , w h o m eans m l schie f Peacoc k is also bitterly disappointed with Amer ica, as what old R adic al could fail t o be He detests its judicial and political corruption,it s savagery and it s persistence in the use of slaves . He feels too that the English Go vernment is largely t o blame for allowing free trade in West Indian pro duc e, and thus encouraging slavery in other

m r s h as T . do inions . Fo thi he been called a ory So be it : fro m the party po int of view he was 326 GRYLL GRAN GE

no doubt a trait or : but he w as thinking of the

slaves, not o f the polling at the next election . Popul ar education h ad been begun ,on the wrong lines it h as no t yet left,and was already sho wing some of its unpleasant results while the intro ductio n of com petitive examinations fo r the India Office and o ther Government branche s seem ed to promise a generatio n of officials o f guar an teed m ediocrity and the elimination o f

All these are unpleasing co nsiderations, but they tro uble the serenity of Gryll Grange very

rd its s little . Like Peacock at Hallifo , character live a sec lude d life on the borders of the N e w Forest,where echoes from the outside reach them , though faintly,just often enough to remind them that they are better o ff in their rural pe ace than

o in a w rld where m o st things are going wrong . Where ambition and greed have not fal sifie d ’ men s o utlo ok there is in hum an nature a pre

n is m o pondera ce of good . Life e inently enj yable to the m an who priz es it s really valuable aspect s, and m e n and women both estim able and lo vable

The R ev. Dr O imian o . o p . N d ubt, of the reco rded facts of civil life some are go od, and m ore are indifferent,neither go od n or bad ; but good and indifferent together are scarcely m o re

h f o f ll t an a twel th part the whole . Sti , the 327 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

r matte s thus presented are all exceptional cases . A hermit reading nothing but a newspaper find little else than food for misanthropy but living among friends, and in the bosom of our family, we see that the dark side of life is the occasional picture, the bright is its everyday aspect . Th e occasional is a matte r of curiosity, of incident, of adventure, of things that really happen to few and may possibly happen to any . Th e interest attendant on any action or event is in just proportion to its rarity and,happily, quiet virtues are all around us, and obtrusive vices seldom cross our path . On the whole, I agree in opinion with Theseus, that there is ” more good than evil in the world . l Mrs . imian D u Op . I think, octor, you wo d not maintain any opinion if you had not an ” authority two thousand years old for it .

Dr i ian e m . The R v. . Op Well, my dear, I think most opinions worth maintaining have an ” authority of about that age . Here speaks the author of Headlong Hall the old preferences, the old dislikes, the old criticism is here,but the tone h as been mellowing since 18 15,until the violence and bitterness have disappeared, leaving a greate r discrimin ation, if less incisive force ; m ore human interest, if

The mis less sparkling comedy . political 328

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

s matters thu presented are all exceptional cases . A hermit reading nothing but a newspaper find little else than food for misanthropy ; but livin g among friends, and in the bosom of our family, we see that the dark side of life is the occasional picture, the bright is its everyday

s a pect . Th e occasional is a matter of curiosity , of incident, o f adventure, of things that really happen to few and may possibly happen to an y . Th e interest attendant on any action or event is in just proportion to it s rarity and,happily, quiet virtues are all aroun d us, and obtrusive vices seldom cross our path . On the whole, I agree in opinion with Theseus, that there is ” more good than evil in the world .

i a ul rs mi n . i D M . Op I th nk, octor, you wo d not maintain any opinion if you h ad not an ” authority two thousand years old for it . i m T e e . Dr . im an h R v Op . Well, y dear, I think most opinions worth maintaining have an ” authority of about that age . Here speaks the author of H eadlong Hall the old preferences, the old dislikes, the old criticism is here,but the tone has been mellowing since 18 15,until the violence and bitterness have disappeared, leaving a greate r discrimination, if less inc isive force ; more human interest, if

The mis less sparkling comedy . political 328 GR YLL GRAN GE

the Lake po ets even have been and only their beauties remembered is now taken, though how soberly & ’ ’ on s misconceptions and Longfellow s

rsh m o f a ip. Within the fra e the discussion has taken the place of here is not a single dispute in Gryll rance of intolerance ; satire is still satire of a kind that springs more love than fro m hate Peaco ck has not even cart to ridicule Lord Curryfin without more compensating for it by making him resting and socially popul ar, accomplished

Can courageous . this be the author who

‘ M rb ific 2 Dr . o wrote of Mr . Henbane and

Mr Can . so with all the rest . the creator of aurel actually bring him self to describe a

o m Ma orrow d ale is econ ist as Mr . cb here ides crib e d Can he admit that the old physician was called to attend Miss Gryll at the Tower good as well as clever ? Can it be that in surroundings he has fo rgotten

Mr M ss s . Pinm ne Hon . o y and discovered i

‘ 2 Ay, this and much m o re he tells us in

t o m ast talk . N o nly is there ore goo d than inthe world,but good m ay co me out of evil misfo rtune is sometimes half a blessing, and disappointment often not so final as it seems at 329 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Gr ll a m the time . So far y Gr nge is erely an 01 ’ H a m an s edition of eadlong H ll. Were it not a few outbursts, saving the b unduly soft, it would read almost like a gen recantation . But there is another strand of thought, resul t, not of fresh experience, but of re m cence and reflection, running through and embodied in the most whimsical that Peacock ever drew, to which mo h as himself given us the key . pro bably written during the eighteen between the publications of the first and parts of the Memoir of Shelley it w as case completed during the years when Pe m ind w as habitually dwelling upo n the m ore than four decades before, when h

Shelley had been intim ate friends . In the val Peac ock had acquired a lifetime in surroundings utterly unlike thos e in the friends had lived,or those they had im

o r s c de ired . Spiritually he had onquered R ordeal . ecognition and

s im As o m n and not poiled h . a natural c nco ita t, he had rem ained unchanged in o ther less funda m ental but m o re daily no tic eable characteristic s incorruptibil ity in his case implied and included h a lack of adaptability . He ad thus lived on, 330

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

urt co . In think ing over that time, one of the m o st natural questions fo r him to ask himself was How woul d Shell ey have developed if he had lived on ,instead of dying at the age of twenty nine and the last paragraph of his second notice of Shelley, so significant in m any respects, con tains a passage especially apposite in this con ne ct ion I can conceive him, if he had lived to the present time,passing his days lik e Volney, loo king on the world from his windows without taking part in its turmoils and perhaps like the same, or some other great apostle of liberty (for I cannot at this m oment verify the quotation) , desiring that nothing shoul d be inscribed on his tomb, but his name, the dates of his birth and ” death, and the single word Dé sillusionné . It is this conception that Peacock h as attempted in part to embody in the character of Falconer, tho ugh for the purposes of the plot he represents him as a young m an . Before accepting or rejectin g this identification, the reader is asked to dismiss for the moment his own idea of the m an or the poet Shelley, ’ and to think onl y of Peacock s interpretation of him as expressed both in the Memoir and in

s the series of the early novel . If we pass over the similarity of sound between Fo ster and Forester, and of sound and 332 GRYLL GRAN GE

between Forester and Falconer, there is remarkable similarity in the treatment of characters,suffi cient to make the

r s of the fi t . Per comes out most strikingly in the manner

their presentation to the reader . In each case this is effected by a wanderer, who either is or becomes a great friend of the person about to be introduced, and who as h as already been seen is intended t o represent, in the first novel

ff s Je erson Hogg, and in the la t,Peacock . In each case again the wanderer comes upo n an old building in a wood, lately deserted and partly ru s inous,and finds it enclo ed and inhabited . In each case the building is repaired in such a way that the restorations and additions are invisible from the entrance and the surrounding trees

s left intact . What lie behind this identity

m ul sa of circu stance it wo d be hard to y . ’ If it were merely a fancy of Peacock s, it is hardly probable that he woul d have re

e at e d o F m p it so closely in two n vels . ro Shelley’ s known predilection for walking and working,and spending as much time as possible in the woods,both in England and Italy,it seems most likely that these descriptions of woodl and dwellings have reference to an ambition o f his,

Th e m to live in such a place . general rese blances 333 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

in the ch aracte rs of Forester and Falo hardly need to be pointed o ut but one or traits of the ac tual Shelley, sufficiently salient to be chronicled in his Memoir, and which are attributed to Al gerno n Falconer

Gr ll Gr an e m a in y g , y be shortly stated . And amongst the most important, espec ially in our ’ ’ s is d The author s e timation, a m an s rea ing . taste for Italian and Greek literature, though a case ln point, is of m inor significance for Pea cock allows a fondn ess for these studies to most of the characters for whom he has any respect. ’ Far more di stinctive is Falcone r s f attachment to the novels of Charles Bro ck den Brown . Speak ing of a number of writers of less dubious imm ort aht y by whom Shelley w as particul arly impressed, Peacock says These had great influence on his style, and Coleridge on hi s imagination ; but admiration is one thing and assimilation is another and nothing so blended itself with the structure of his interio r m ind as ” s the creations of Bro wn . Here then i one emin ently Shelleyan characteristic and another is to be traced in the Spanish books in Falconer’ s

T A utos Cal library. hese, and notably the of deron,are the works which chiefly led Shelley to study the language, and of which he writes e n m t husiast ically fro Italy . Indeed one wonders 334

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

t e o d c t he or d as it is e e s m h v i whi h w l l av in y mind . A nd th e saint whom I have chosen present s t o my mind the mo st perfe ct ideality of physical,moral,and int e lle ct ual

o o B PEACOCK I cann t bje ct t o your t ast e . ut I do hope you will not b e led int o invest ing t he ideality wit h t oo sem e s f r s oul much o f the blanc o eality. I h d b e so rry t o a o e o find you far gone in hagio l t ry. I h p y u will acquiesce rt e e e u c e r o f Pet e r and J c in Ma in,k ping q ally l a a k. SHELLEY No thing will more e ffect ually induce me so t o

our com . a . acqui esce t han y pany (Ch p I& . ) as a a s s as

PEACOCK : Y ou are det ermined t o connect th e immat e rial wit h the mat erial world,as far as you can . : e t he mm e r e o e SHELLEY I lik i at rial wo ld. I lik t liv among t hought s and image s of t he past and the po ssible , h e m oss e no w an e and e ven of t i p ibl , d t h n . PEACOCK : Cert ainly t here is much in t he mat erial world t o displease sensit ive and imaginat ive minds b ut I do not kno w anyo ne wh o has le ss cause t o complain of it t han you have It is not m o wn SHELLEY : y world t hat I co mplain of. It is t he world on which I loo k from th e loophole s o f I look wit h fe e lings o f int ense pain on t h e mass o f povert y and crime ; o f unhealt hy,unavailing, and unremunerat ive t o il, blight ing childhood in it s blo ssom, and womanhood in it s prime of all t he ” are do e de r e oppre ssions t hat n un th sun . PEACOCK I fe el with you o n all t he se points b ut t here is much good in t he world ; more good t han e vil,I have

n ed . I. always maintai . (Chap & ) f i i

PEACOCK Y ou loo k as lit t le like a disappo int ed man any I have se en SHELLEY : W e are or t o d s o me It is all b n i app int nt . 336 GR YLL GR ANGE

e s e Our ess is not t is w ll t o b e pro pe ct iv . happin in wha , b ut t is t o W e ma b e d s o t ed our in wha b e. y i app in in e ve ryday re alit ies,and if not ,w e may make an ideality o f t he unat tain able ,and quarre l with Natur e for not giving us It is re so e t o so what she has not t o give . un a nabl b e disappo int ed,b ut it is disappo int ment not t he le ss PEACOCK : I am afraid I am t oo mat t er - o f- fact t o sym pathise ve ry clearly with t his form o f msth et icism : b ut he re is a charming b it o f forest sce nery Loo k at t hat old I k t the ee r i . oa wi h d under t (Chap V. ) Th e m o st obvious passage to be pointed out in the above extracts as a repetition from the Memoir is that containing the image o f Falconer looking upo n the world from the loopholes of retreat but is there not also observable mo re

‘ o c t hrO Mr than one t uch of S y p and . Hilary 3 There is one m ore fact which c annot be over looked, indicating how the recollection of the old days at Bracknell and Marlo w was drawn

upon for the composition of this book . The

paragraph in Chapter XII . containing the ac

o f hi Mr count the forest dell, to w ch . Falconer

.walks when trying to rid himself of the obsession ’ of Morgana s image, is merely an expansion of the two sentences in The Last Day of Windsor F orest,describing the Bourne,a spot which Pea cock tells us he had not seen since he was in the ll habit of visiting it with She ey . With the memory of this friend he ends up his life as a

novelist, as he had begun it with his company . 337 W THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

This reincarnation seems a remarkable proof of the mighty influence exercised by Shelley u Peacock, and o f the intimate nature of w Th ritings . e more we knew of hi s life, better woul d be our unde rstanding Th e impression given b is a very strong case in point ; in c onviction grows that it could o fully commente d by those who at Halliford,during the years

m hi s 18 his retire ent and death,early in 66. Thus many o f the regul ar eleme nts o f Pe aco ck ian novel are present, though in a

s hi s C obvious form,in thi work of old age . pared with the rest it is more subdued re fle ct i

Crotchet ast c ratic . Already in C le that Peacock is introducing m ore less of other pe ople than in hi s In this epilogue to all his — fiction, criticism the tendency to write himself is seen to have grown strong enough di m T become the lea ng ele ent of the book . is accompanied, perhaps necessarily, by a markable artistic care lessness and neglect of his public . He is now and simply to please himself, and he h

l is so s g arru ous . Peacock per onally 338

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

s him upset by anything that worrie . He seldom dines out nowadays, except with one friend of his own age,at who se table he is sure his palate will not be annoyed and his taste for quiet conviviality and good conversation will be in

dul d D nn e s ge . i rs at trange houses are such a r isk . On one of the last occasions when he ventured upon one,he was served with the tail m m of a ullet,followed by the dru stick of a fowl.

- And then the after dinner bore is so intolerable . He was present not so very long ago when a long w inded individual held forth to the utterm o st ’ ” limit of patience on what s wrong with India, passing from city to city and from province to province in a merciless harangue, until he w as

Th e m an forced to pause for breath . seated next took the o pportunity to start another topic ; but the social tyrant touched his arm and said “ ” Excuse me ; now I come to Madras . Of course, on an occasion like that,the only thing ’ to do is to take one s departure,and leave those R who like it to listen to it. eading is safer and

m T is ore satisfying, especially Greek . here enough Greek literature extant to provide inte rest for even a long lifetime, particul arly if you go into side issues, the less known tracts of

m aeo m ythology and arch logy. How uch there is that we still do not know about the Attic 340 GR Y LL GRANGE theatre & Their resonant vases must have had a wonderful effect ; but the principle seems to

o be lost now, perhaps irrec verably . What a pity that we c ann o t find out m ore about their music Th e Greeks were people of such exquisite sensibility, and their poetry and sculpture reached such a pitch of perfection, that it is impossible t o believe their music was as bare m l m and onotonous as the experts wou d ake out .

s s m Th eir melo die at lea t ust have been beautiful . Yes,most beautiful things,most wise pronounce ments,were m ade more than two thousand years

s ago . But the classical languages as u ed afte r the break - up of antiquity are n o t entirely t o be

s Th e m m de pised . latinity of any hy ns and sequences is tolerable,and their sentiments very acceptable as an offset to the spirit of our m achine

m a m o . de civilisation . Al ost all old things are go d Old fashioned dances are charm ing to watch ; the card games that were popul ar long ago form an interesting study,and they are so much more m d il sociable than the odern play . Qua r le, for instance, is a game, and not like whist, a mere

s m sm b ad m excu e for dog ati and te per. Then the thoughts of age will be dwelling a good deal on the past

’ I played with you mid cowslips blowing, Wh en I was six and you were four 341 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

Time has softene d and sweetened most memories t hey can best be enjoyed in retirement,and are e ff rudely disturb d by reports of current a airs . Wh at a detestable thing a newspaper is & It contains little that is pleasant or profitable to know,and is chiefly m ade up o f the accounts of crimes and disasters, the speeches of insincere politicians,scandals ventil ated in the law courts, meetings of ridiculous societies,fraudul ent busi ness concerns,and lying advertisements of useless

To o r harmful medicines . read the papers is t o become misanthro pic, whereas life among ’ friends, and in one s o w n garden and library,

co nduces to geniality and cheerfulness . We can imagine what goes o n in the busy world,without facing the horrors of railway travelling, sm oke, foul air, gas lighting and crowded hum anity t o

r s verify it. Or,on arrival of a younger but t u ted friend, we can ask him What news have you brought from London ‘2 And we are pretty sure

t m T s of the answer : No uch . able turn as usual,and the gho st- trade appears t o be thriving for instead of being merely audible, the ghosts are becoming tangible, and shake hands under the tables with living W i seacres, who solemnly

s C m e n - use atte t the fact . ivilised ill their wives the wives revenge them selves in their own way, and the Divorce Court h as business enough on its 342

Inde x

BBEY Ho use ,t h e ,2 3 Edinburg h R e vie w,the ,138, A 3 1 Addis o n,Jo se ph ,3 19 Elphin ,2 88 Ah rimanes,112 - 115,12 4- 12 9 Eng le fie ld Gre e n ,3 2 A nc ient Meta h sics 2 E p y ,4 s c o t ,Mr . ,96 , 158 , 160 An i - t jac k ,Mr . Anys id e ,145 6, Essay on F ash ionable Lite r 186 at ur e ,138,197,2 15- 16 RITISH Cr itic, the , ACIN G- BOTH - W AY S s Lo rd, 2 6 Bro ug ham, Lo rd, F 3 F c o ne r Al e rnon 145,304- 6 ,3 2 6 al , g , 2 - 8 Bro w n,Ch arle s Bro c k de n,334 33

Fax Mr . 1 Bryo n ,Lo rd , 10- 1 - 3 , 73 F e t h e rn s t M 1 2 - a e , r . , 4 3,175 ALID OR E 8 8 , 7, 9 , F iolfa r ,King of N or way ,50, 2 36 - 2 43 60 C am b e Th o m s Flo sk Fe rd n nd E p ll, a , y, i a , s q . 146,2 7

C nn n R t . H o n . Ge o r e Fo llio t t Th e R e v D r 8 a i g , g , , . . , 9 , 145- 6 ,186,2 86 - 9 3 12 - 13

Mr 10 2 - Chainm ail . 1 F re r M 16 , ,93,3 ,3 , o s t e , r . 8 70 1 F o s t e r Mr 1 3 5 , . , 59 Ch e rt s e y,19 , 2 9 F ou r Ag es of Poet ry , th e , 6 Che r ts ey ,15 ,3 17,3 2 2 12 6,2 2 3 ,2 76 - 7 ’ ir c le o Loda the 60- 6 — C f , , 3 F r ase r s Mag az ine ,3 17,3 18 2 1 Clai rmo nt ,Charle s ,153 t r 1 1 rm o n ,C e , 1 - Clai la 5 A LL,Mr . , 36 7 C o e r d e , Sam ue T o r, a e r h R D l i g l ayl G st ,t e e v. r . , - - G 6 18 2 14 1, 14 , 4 5, 07 9, 87 2 80 2 8 2 0 - 8 2 17, , ,3 7 Gastr onomy and Civil isation, Cotswold Ch ac e 2 2 ,9 3 ,3 3 18- 2 0 C o unt r H o u s e s 2 - 1 y , 9 3 Gen ius of the Thame s, the , Mr 6 C r n um . a i , ,9 66 - 7,71,72 - 85 Cran um M s s Ce halis 6 i , i p ,9 Giffo rd,Joh n,65, 18 1 C ritical R e vie w 0 2 - , 5 ,5 3 Glo w ry,Scyth ro p,157,199 k r o h n W s o n 18 - C ro e ,J il , 3 4 2 01 Crotche t Castl e 0- 1 , 9 9 , 9 3 , Go dw in,W illiam , 7 1, 194- 5 2 11 2 8 2 0 - 16 94, , ,3 4 Gr e e nm o uld, Sir Gre g o ry, 18 1 E Ko c k ,Paul ,3 17,3 18 Gro v e ,Harri e t ,2 01- 2 D ilettanti, the , 12 9 , ' D - Gr fl dh r . - y y , ,94 5 130 3 2 Gr ff dh w e y y . J . 9 3 ,9 7,103 AST Ind Co m n 1 ia pa y, 4 » 3 5 2 1 2 18 G ll Gr an e 2 2 - 9 ) 75 , 3 ry g ,3 343

Eave sd ro p,Mr . ,304 Gryll,Sq ui re ,3 2 4 345 THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

AR PITON , 143 Maent w ro g ,86- 7 - Ma az ne a H H aut t o n ,Sir O ran , g i rt ic le s , see Pe a o k T L 2 0 4 c c . . 3 : , 2 4 Ma id Ma r ian ,197,2 16 ,2 18 , H aw lt aug ht ,C apt ain, 2 0- 2 3 H Ma t hu s t h R az t t W m 0 e e v. T R . li , illia ,3 4 l , . ,173 H ea dlong H all,86 ,94,12 3 , Ma ry A nn ,96 - 7,152 ,2 15,2 2 3 -6 Mc Cullo ch ,306 - 7

H r r 2 12 Me l incour t 2 0- 2 - ila y, . , , 3 ,39 44,14 1, H istor o k Li r 16 - 1 2 - 2 y f Gree te ratu e , 7 93 . 43 53 2 Memoir P B She l 3 1 of . . ley ,2 2 0, H o g g ,Je ffe rs o n ,142 - 3 ,154, 3 2 2 159 , 171- 2 , 18 1,2 15 Me re dit h ,Ge o rg e ,2 2 0,2 76 Me t a h o r Mr 1 1 H o o k h am ,Edw ard , p , . , 3 H o o k h am ,Jo h n ,57 Mic hin Male c h o ,Lo rd ,3 2 6 H r t - M e st o ne M rm duk ome D ama ice ,9 1 2 ,3 2 0 il , a a e ,Esq . H unt ,H e nry Le ig h ,36 ,155, 194- 5,2 2 1,302 Mill,Jam e s ,2 75 H unt ,Jo h n ,2 2 3 Mill ,Jo h n St uart ,2 75 xll zsfor tunes of Elph in, the , LE& ,Mis s ,3 2 9 ,33 1 - 99 ,3 18 Mo nb o dd o ,Lo rd ,4 1- 44 M M on ks o St . a rk th e 6 ACK o f D o ve r,3 19 f , ,4 & Mon thl Pr ece tor the 6 Je ffre y, F ranc is , 136- 7 y p , , 3 , ' I e nk ns o n Mr 1 - 39 4 J i , . , 59 60 Mon th ly R e vie w ,the ,53 - 55 ILLTH ED EA D M , r . , Mo o re ,Th o m as ,2 80,2 8 2 - 5, 183 - 4 Knig h t ,Co rne lia,7 1, My tholog ica l Ode to the Spir i t 13 2 of F ire ,6 1 Kn g ht ,R c h rd P ne 1 i i a ay ,7 , M s t c Mr 1 6 8 - y i , . , 4 , 1 4 5 13 1 EW T ON . F 12 , J . , 3 A ST D a of W indsor y 4 , 158,2 10 F or est,the ,2 72 - 3,3 37 Le rne d F r e nd t h e a i , , 194 ,197- 2 12 ,2 59 1 0 - 6 45. 3 4 2 68 ” Law ns , Mo nk , 147 CAR R O LL, Mar o n - i Llyw arch , Hé n , 2 90 1 e t t a,2 02 - 2 05 Lo - ndon Mag az ine ,th e ,2 77 9 O m n t h e p a , R e v. Lo ve ,Sarah , 18 19 i i D r . ,3 19 Lo e Th o m s 18 2 0- 2 v , a , , 3 ’ O Pris m ,Sir Pat ri c k ,135-6 ACLAUR EL Mr , . Or ig i n and F rog r ess of La n 16 1

Mac ue d Mr - q y, . ,3o6 7 O we n,W illiam,307 346

THOMAS LOVE PEACOCK

R e vi e w e rs ,46,50- 55,83 - 85, I 46 197- 2 01 R hododaph ne , 6 1, 12 7- 12 8, in It aly,2 2 2 - 4 194,2 13 - 14,2 2 3 ,2 53 - 8 d e gt h ,2 2 4 R ound Table ,the ,138 in Gry ll Gr ang e ,330- 38 R us s e ll,Lo rd Jo h n,3 2 6 Sir H or nbook,137- 8 Sir Pr oteus,138 - 148 ,16 2 ,2 8 1 T . KATHER IN E, 2 3 3 Sk i n r r 1 6 0 - 8 o a ,M . 4 ,3 7 Sac k b ut , R od eri c k , S Slave ry,18 1,3 2 6 1 2 Es q . , 4 So c ial Sc ie nc e Ass o c iat ion , 1 - 1 Sarc as t ic ,Mr . , 78 80 t h e ,3 2 6 Satir ist ,the ,85 S o ciali s m ,19 2 Sa tyrane ,2 18 - 19 So c ie ty fo r t h e Diffus i on o f Sc o t t ,Sir W alt e r,53 ,56,65, Us e ful Know le dg e , t h e , 147,2 80,2 8 2 306 Scyt h rOp,see Glo w ry So ut h ey, R o b e rt , 66, 71, Se it h e n n,2 86 - y 9 I 1 1 I 2 ‘ 1 39 , 4 , 4 3 » 75: h nt r R umb le sack S a s e e , M . , 2 08 - 9 , 2 80 1 43 - Sp anis h Lit e rat ure , 3 2 4 5, Sh e ll e y,Harri e t t , 12 3, 150, 2 02 - 5 St e am Int e ll e ct So ci e ty,t he , Sh e le y, M ry, 90, 150- 52 , l a 306 2 05- 6 St ell a,2 05- 6 SHELLEY ,P . B. Sys t e ma N at urm,44 and Palmyra,49 ALIESIN 2 0 and B o ok ham ,57 , 9 Th ree D octors the c rit i c i sm b y, 117- 118, HF , , - 0 1 2 - 2 43 12 9 3 , 3 4 ’ T Mr 2 10 o o b ad . Pe ac o c k s acq uaint anc e , ,

To o o o d Mr . 0 w it h , 110, 1 15- 16, g , ,3 7 T uc hand M s s Susan 117- 19 o g o , i n ah and So ut h ey,143- 4 . 9 3 Tr t h Maw r 86 in Lo nd o n ,118 ae , T m d c 86 at Brac k ne ll ,118 r e a o , in Ed nb ur h , 1 18 1 i g 49 AMP,Mr. , t Bis h o at e 1 2 a pg , 5 V i rg inia W at e r,68 in H eadlong H all,157- 9 and N e wt o n , 166 E STM IN STE R at Marl o w , 167,194- 5 é; R eview,the ,2 8 2 in Melincour t , 168 - 70, 3 ,300 177,180- 18 1 W ils o n,Jo h n, 146 o nt s e Mr W fu 1 6 re vie w o f R hododaph ne , W e , . il l , 4 196 W o o ls t o ne c raft ,Mary,2 06 de part ure fro m Eng W o rds w o rt h , W illiam, 66 , land,12 6 14 1,146,18 2 ,2 80