" T R E MO V E P L EA S E. DO NO T H IS B O O K C A R D h L b r a r Un i v e r s i t y R e s e a r c i y o n t h e l a s t d a t e s t a m p e d b MAY 2 9 3 9632 flAN” we w a s mom N ON -RENEWA BLE cry C O N T E N T S . I NTRODU CT I ON B Y R ECOL L ECTI ONS OF T H O M A S L OV E P EACOC K. I R EDW D T A H EY B T . S AR S R C , AR S O ME R ECOL L ECTI ON S OF C H I L D H OOD CA L I DO R E : A FRA G M ENT OF AN U NFI N I S H ED R OM ANCE T H E FO U R A G ES OF POETRY - H R A MA T I C E I I I I . ORAE D A . T H E L AST D A Y OF W I N DSOR FOREST I NDEX OF FI RST L I NES OF L YR I CS I N T H E N I NE V OL U M ES I N T R O D U C T I O N . ’ “ i A T H ER up the fragmen ts th at remain is a prec ept whose application may be easily overstrain ed in the case of the m A m literary re nants of a favourite author. uch m n is n n c s s aller fractio than half , in such i sta e , ’ s usually better than t h e whole . Peacock editor h and publis er, however, have agreed, and it is t h e h is n ot s hoped that body of readers will di sent , c m h is c h h a s that the o plete edition of novels, whi n ow m fitl m run its course, ight be y supple ented by n m n n an appe dix of inor writi gs, hitherto u collected n s c s or ot easily acce sible . Su h a decision is e pe c ia lly justifiable in t h e case of a writer whose n m n slightest productio bears the sta p of origi ality, - h and this is pre eminently the case wit Peacock , whose manner of presenting even a familiar idea is s n W h is s always di tinctively his ow . hen robu t indepen dence is associated with a c on genial sub ect f —it n j , the e fect is very agreeable, is like bei g made thoroughly at home by on e wh o 1 5 thoroughly m m c c m n at ho e hi self. Pea o k seldo respo ded to m the ere call of a publisher or editor, for such a im call was seldom addressed to h . He was neither 8 I n t r oduct ion . popular en ough nor needy en ough to be frequen tly m h is own n h m m diverted fro be t, and t us exe pt fro h e C f a n d . taskwork, ould always be resh vigorous H is n ma e n ot ff reputatio , it y be hop d, will su er from any of t h e piec es comprised in t h e present m m c h c n n ew c a n d volu e, so e of whi o tribute olour h c n substance to the biograp i al outli e of the author, while others are e ssen tial to t h e full exhibition of c a s m n s his haracter a a of letter . ’ h e n ot m c The first of these, owev r, is fro Peaco k s e n . m n s n c own p It is a paper of re i i ce e, for which t h e Editor is in de bte d to the un solicite d ki n dn ess of c t wh o s Sir Edward Stra hey, Bar , , ixty years ago, saw somethi n g a n d heard m ore of the Peacoc k of ' t h e n . T h e St r a c h e kn own I dia House elder y , to t h e readers of C a rlyl e as the subje c t of one of h is i n effaceable etchin gs of m en of marked person n ality , has a place i history as one of the ablest m m ho e servants of the East India Co pany, who, m m ffic n but for so e i patience of the o ial har ess, m h c ig t probably have ri sen to the h ighest pla e . on c m u He was ordial ter s with his colleag e, Pea ’ a n d h is n m n cock, so s re i iscences , as gracefully n c writte as they were gra efully tendered, contribute m n l r so ethi g not on y to thei avowed purpose, but to the record of the great City house from wh ich so l India was ong governed, which has not yet n found an historia . “ ” m R n So e ecollectio s of Childhood, on the ’ other hand , are Peacock s own . They appeared in f en /lay s and were reprinted as I o I n n adequate to support a Short story . If it had bee ’ compressed within the dimen sion s of Paul Heyse s “ n n n m Ce taur, a tale fou ded upo a si ilar idea, it m n n c c ight hav e bee a co siderable su ess , for it m a n d wants neither wit, hu our, nor Spirit ; the u is m a n d dialog e ore terse pointed than usual . But the difficulty of working the c onception out is m r h in tacitly ad itted by the g eat iatus the MS . The Welsh adventures of the hero are suddenly a n d so m a dropped , without uch as a rough dr ft to w h e h e is n s n n Sho how got there, tra ferred to Lo do , h m n where a chapter, penned wit as uch elaboratio as this sin gularly careful writer ever gave to any h n . A ll t ing, conducts to nothi g at all the rest is ' n cfiimcem é mézn a m n m a m bou dless conj ecture, o i . h n m l W at was written, however, excepti g a s al portion whic h has become obscure from the c m c M . m a cidental i perfe tion of the S , see s well C worthy of preservation . It is highly haracteristic ’ n m t h e s a n d of the author s e thusias for pa t, of the alliance which h e would fain have effected between the classical Spirit a n d the genius of romantic m a m n n m a edi evalis , while interesti g a alogies y be traced between it a n d a more celebrated work in ’ “ m a n spired by a si ilar order of ide s, Hei e s Gods ” T h in Exile . e picture of the habits of Welsh c parsons , utterly inappli able at the present day, is probably derived from Peacock ’s acquaintance with the clergyman whom h e describes in a letter “ m m as a little , du py, drunken , ountain goat . Peacock ’s Four A ges of Poetry ” has long ago I n r du n t o ct io . I I soared into immortality in the eagle grasp of the n c m h e rej oi der whi h it provoked fro S elley, ev n ’ though Shelley s spe c ific referen ces to it have been m s f n m n t h o itted . It is u ficie tly a ifest that if e author could h a v e obtain ed an audienc e as a poet h l n ot a s e wou d hav e sought one a critic , and the m n ma m epithets whi sical and Sple etic, y not see n . O n quite i appropriate the other hand, the a n d analysis of the birth , growth , decay of poetry a n d s s S O n m is both just agaciou , lo g as it is li ited ch C n a n d to a particular s ool or ou try, it is under stood that upon a compreh en sive view these n m n l e n m a phe o e a wi l ver be fou d si ult neous, like a n d in m n c in ca n birth death the hu a ra e, or des n cence and exti ction in the sidereal universe. It should furth er be remarked that the apparently illiberal treatmen t of the Lake Poets is far from ’ n h n m n expressi g t e writer s real se ti e ts .