3.1 Robert Southey to the Editor of the Courier, 5 January 1822

Watermark: W D & Co/ 1819

MS: National Library of Scotland, MS 42552. ALS; 4p.

To the Editor of the Courier

Sir,

Having seen in the newspapers a note relating to myself, extracted from a recent publication of Lord Byrons, I request permission to reply thro the medium of your journal.¹

I come at once to his Lordships charge against me, blowing away the abuse with which it is frothed, & evaporating a strong acid in which it is suspended. The residuum then appears to xx <be> that “Mr Southey, on his return from Switzerland, (in 1817) scattered abroad calumnies, knowing them to be such, against Lord Byron & others.” To this I reply with a direct & positive denial.

If I had been told in that country that Lord Byron had turned Turk,² or Monk of La Trappe,³ that he had furnished a harem, or endowed a hospital, I might have thought the account, whichever it had been, possible, & repeated it accordingly, <passing it, as it had been taken, in the small change of conversation, for no more than it was worth. In this manner> I might have spoken of him as of Baron Gerambe, the Green Man, the Indian Jugglers,⁴ or any other figurante⁵ of the time being. There could was no reason for any particular delicacy on my part in speaking of his Lordship. And indeed any I should have thought any thing which might be reported of him, would have injured his character as little, as the story which so greatly annoyed Lord Keeper Guildford, that he had ridden a Rhinoceros.⁶ He may ride a Rhinoceros, & tho every body will <would> stare, no one would wonder. But making no enquiry concerning him when I was abroad, befor because I felt no curiosity I heard nothing, & had nothing to repeat. When I spoke of wonders to my friends & acquaintance on my return, it was of the Flying Tree at Alpnacht,⁷ & the Eleven Thousand Virgins at Cologne,⁸ – not of Lord Byron. I sought for no staler subject than StUrsull Ursula.

Once, & once only, in connection with Switzerland, I have alluded to his Lordship; & as the passage was curtailed in the press, I take this opportunity of restoring it. In the Quarterly Review, speaking incidentally of the Jungfrau, I said it was the scene ‘where Lord Byrons Manfred met the Devil & bullied him; – tho the Devil must have won his cause before any tribunal in this world or the next, if he had not pleaded more feebly for himself, than his Advocate, in a cause of Canonization, ever pleaded for him.”⁹

With regard to the “others” whom his Lordship accuses me of calumniating, I suppose he alludes to a party of his friends,¹⁰ whose names I found written in the Album at Mont-Anvert, with an avowal of Atheism annexed in Greek, & an indignant comment in the same language underneath it.¹¹ Those names, with that avowal & the comment I transcribed in my note-book; & spoke of the circumstance on my return.¹² If I had published it, the Gentleman in question would not have thought himself slandered by having that recorded of him, which he has so often recorded of himself.

The many opprobrious appellations which Lord Byron has bestowed upon me, I leave as I find them, with the praises which he has bestowed upon himself.

How easily is a noble spirit discern’dFrom harsh & sulphurous matter, that flies outIn contumelies, makes a noise, & stinks!

B. Jonson.¹³

But I am accustomed to such things. And so far from irritating me are the enemies who use such weapons, that when I hear of their attacks, it is some satisfaction to think they have thus employed the malignity which must have been employed somewhere, & could not have been directed against any person whom it could possibly molest or injure less. The viper, however venomous in purpose, is harmless in effect, while it is biting at the file.¹⁴ It is seldom indeed that I waste a word, or a thought, upon those who are perpetually assailing me. But abhorring as I do the personalities which disgrace our current literature, & averse from controversy as I am, both by principle & inclination, I make no profession of non-resistance. When the offence & the offender are such as to call for the whip & the branding iron, it has been felt <both> seen & felt that I can inflict them.¹⁵

Lord Byrons present exacerbation is evidently produced by an affliction of this kind; – not by hearsay reports of my conversation four years ago, transmitted him from England. The cause may be found in certain remarks upon the Satanic School of Poetry, contained in my preface to the Vision of Judgement.¹⁶ Well would it be for Lord Byron if he could look back upon any of his writings with as much satisfaction as I shall always do upon what is there said of that flagitious school. Many persons, & parents especially, have expressed their gratitude to me for having applied the branding iron where it was so richly deserved. The Edinburgh Reviewer indeed, with that honourable feeling by which his criticisms are so peculiarly distinguished, suppressing the remarks themselves, has imputed them wholly to envy on my part.¹⁷ I give him in this instance full credit for sincerity. I believe he was equally incapable of comprehending a worthier motive, or of inventing a worse. And as I have never condescended to expose in any instance his pityful malevolence, I thank him for having in this stript it bare himself, & exhibited it in its bald, naked, & undisguised deformity.

Lord Byron, like his encomiast, has not ventured to bring the matter of those animadversions into view. He conceals the fact, that they are directed against the authors of blasphemous & lascivious books; against men who not content with indulging their own vices, labour to make others the slaves of sensuality like themselves; against public panders, who, mingling impiety with lewdness, seek at once to destroy the cement of social order, & to carry profanation & pollution into private families, & into the hearts of individuals.

His Lordship has thought it not unbecoming in him, to call me a scribbler of all work.¹⁸ Let the word scribbler pass; it is not an appellation which will stick, like that of the Satanic School. But if a scribbler, how am I one of all work? I will tell Lord Byron what I have not scribbled, – what kind of work I have not done. I have never published libels upon my friends & acquaintance, expressed my sorrow for those libels, & called them in during a mood of better mind; – & then reissued them,¹⁹ when the Evil Spirit, which for a time had been cast out, had returned & taken possession with seven others, more wicked than himself.²⁰ I have never abused the power of which every author is in some degree possessed, to wound the character of a man, or the heart of a woman. I have never sent into the world a book to which I did not dare affix my name; of which I feared to claim in a court of justice, if it were pirated by a knavish bookseller.²¹ I have never manufactured furniture for the brothel. None of these things have I done, – none of the foul work by which literature is perverted to the injury of mankind. My hands are clean; there is no “damned spot” upon them, – no taint which “all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten.”²²

Of the work which I have done, it becomes me not here to speak, save only as relates to the Satanic School, & its Coryphæus,²³ the author of Don Juan. I have held up that school to public detestation, as enemies to the religion, the institutions, & the domestic morals of their country. I have given them a designation to which their founder & leader answers. I have sent a stone from my sling which has smitten their Goliath in the forehead.²⁴ I have fastened his name upon the gibbet for reproach & ignominy as long as it shall endure. Take it down who can!

One word of advice to Lord Byron, before I conclude. When he attacks me again, let it be in rhyme.²⁵ For one who has so little command of himself, it will be a great advantage that his temper should be obliged to keep tune. And while he may still indulge in the same rankness & virulence of insult, the metre will in some degree seem to lessen its vulgarity.

Robert Southey.

Keswick. 5 Jany. 1822.

3.2 Two drafts towards Southey’s letter to the Editor of the Courier, 5 January 1822

The Huntington Library, HM 6655, contains two autograph, fragmentary drafts towards Southey’s letter. Neither draft is dated. The first is written on paper with an 1819 watermark, the second on unwatermarked paper; the second draft is furthest away from the version published in the Courier so may be the earlier. We reproduce both here for the first time – and in the order in which they appear in the manuscript.

3.2.1. Draft 1:

Watermark: WD&Co 1819

MS: Huntington Library, HM 6655. AL; 4p.

To the Editor of the Courier

Sir

Having seen in the newspapers a note relating to myself, extracted from a recent publication of Lord Byrons, I request permission to reply thro the medium of your journal.²⁶

I come at once to his Lordships charge against me, blowing away the abuse with which it is frothed, & evaporat evaporating a strong acid in which it is suspended. The residuum then appears to be that “Mr Southey on his return from Switzerland in 1817, scattered abroad calumnies, knowing them to be such, against Lord Byron & others.” To this I reply with a direct & positive denial.

If I had been told in that country that Lord Byron had turned Turk,²⁷ or Monk of La Trappe,²⁸ that he had furnished a harem, or endowed a hospital, I might have thought any of the accounts possible, & repeated it accordingly. But making no enquiry concerning him, because I felt no curiosity, I heard nothing & had nothing to repeat. When I spoke of wonders to my friends & acquaintance on my return, it was of the Flying Tree at Alpnacht,²⁹ & the Eleven Thousand Virgins at Cologne,³⁰ – not of Lord Byron. I sought for no staler subject than St Ursula.

Once & once only, in connection with Switzerland I have alluded to his Lordship; & as the passage was curtailed in the press, I take this opportunity of restoring it. Speaking incidentally of the Jungfrau I said it was the scene “where Lord Byrons Manfred met the Devil & bullied him, – tho’ the Devil must have won his cause before any tribunal in this world or the next, if he had not pleaded more feebly for himself, than his advocate in a cause of canonization ever pleaded for him.³¹

With regard to the “others” whom his Lordship accuses me of calumniating, I suppose he alludes to a party of his friends,³² whose names I found written in the Album at Mont Anvert, with an avowal of Atheism annexed in Greek, & an indignant comment in the same language, underneath it.³³ Those names with that avowal & the comment I transcribed in my note-book, & spoke of the circumstance on my return.³⁴ If I had published it, the Gentleman in question would not have thought himself calumniated <slandered>, by having that recorded of him, which he has so often recorded of himself. But that Gentleman was <once> for a short time my neighbour;³⁵ I met him upon terms, not of friendship indeed, but certainly of mutual good will: I admired his talents; thought that he would outgrow his errors (perilous as they were) & trusted that meantime a kind & generous heart would resist the effect of fatal opinions which he had taken up in ignorance & boyhood. Therein I was mistaken. But if I have ceased to regard him with hope, he is to me an object of sorrow & aweful commiseration, not of any injurious feeling. And when I have expressed myself with severe justice concerning him, it has been in direct communication to himself.³⁶

The many opprobrious appellations which Lord Byron has bestowed upon me I leave as I find them, with the praises which he has bestowed upon himself.*³⁷ So far are such enemies from irritating me, that when I hear of their attacks, it is some satisfaction to think they have thus employed the malignity which must have been employed somewhere; & could not have been directed against any person whom it could possibly molest or injure less. The viper however venomous in purpose is harmless in effect while it is biting at the file.³⁸ It is seldom indeed that I waste a word or a thought upon such enemies <those who are perpetually assailing me.> But abhorring as I do the personalities which disgrace our current literature, & averse from controversy as I am both by principle & inclination, I make no profession of non-resistance. When the offence <& the offender> are such as to call for the whip & the branding iron, it has been seen & felt that I can inflict them.³⁹

Lord Byrons present exacerbation is evidently produced by an infliction of this kind, – not by any hearsay reports of my conversation four years ago, transmitted him from England. Its cause may be found in certain remarks upon the Satanic School of poetry, contained in my Preface to the Vision of Judgement.⁴⁰ Those remarks excited what is called a great sensation among his Lordships friends; & great were the anticipations formed by some in dismay, & others in delight, of the vengeance which was to fall upon the Poet Laureates devoted head. The Author of Don Juan, as if own brother to Raw Head & Bloody Bones [this is double underlined], was to swallow him up quick.⁴¹ But the Poet Laureate might perhaps prove as untoothsome in the operation, as the curious pear so designated in the Marquis of Worcesters Inventions.⁴² He who means to attempt it would do well to put his throat in training, & begin with a hedge hog. – If his Lordship has not yet learnt that he who plays at bowls must expect to meet with rubs,⁴³ – some very good teaching has been thrown away upon him.

Happy Twere would it be for Lord Byron if he could look back upon any of his writings with as much satisfaction as I shall always do upon what I have said of that flagitious school. Many persons, & parents especially, have expressed their gratitude to me for having applied the branding iron where it was so richly deserved. The Edinburgh Reviewer indeed, with that honourable feeling by which his criticisms are so peculiarly distinguished, suppressing the remarks themselves, has imputed them wholly to envy on my part.⁴⁴ I give him in this instance full credit for sincerity. I believe he was equally incapable of comprehending a worthier motive, or of inventing a worse. And as I have never condescended to expose in any instance his pityful malice<levolence>, I thank him for having in this, stript it bare himself, & exhibited it in its bald, naked & undistinguished deformity.

Lord Byron, like his encomiast the Edinburgh Reviewer, has not ventured to bring the matter of those animadversions befor into view. He conceals the fact that they are directed against the publication <composition authors> of blasphemous & lascivious books, – against men who not content with indulging their own vices, labour to make others the slaves of sensuality like themselves, – public pandars, who mingling impiety with lewdness, seek at once to destroy the cement of social order, & to carry profanation & pollution into private families, & into the hearts of individuals.

His Lordship has thought it not unbecoming in him to call me a scribbler of all work.⁴⁵ Let the word scribbler pass, – it is not an appellation which will stick, like that of the Satanic school: – but if a scribbler, how am I one of all work? I will tell Lord Byron what I have not scribbled; – what kind of work I have not done. I have never published libels upon my friends & acquaintance, expressed my sorrow for those libels & suppressed them in <called them in, during> a mood of better mind, – & <then again> reissued them⁴⁶ when the Evil Spirit which for a time had been cast out, had returned & taken possession with seven others more wicked than himself.⁴⁷ I have never abused the power of which every author is in some degree possessed, to wound the character of a man, or the heart of a woman. I have never sent into the world a book to which I did not dare affix my name, or which I feared to claim in a Court of Justice if it were pirated by a dirty <knavish> bookseller.⁴⁸ I have never manufactured furniture for the brothel. I <None of these things> have I done, – none of the dirty <foul> work by which literature is rendered a nuisance to <perverted to the injury> of mankind. My hands are clean: there is no “damnd spot” upon them. Let Lord Byron look to his! <no taint which all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten.>⁴⁹

Of the work which I have done, it becomes me not here to speak, save only as relates to the Satanic school & its Coryphaeus⁵⁰ the author of Don Juan. I have attacked <held up> that School <to public ridicu detestation> as enemies to the religion, the domestic morals, & the institutions of their country. I have sent a stone from my sling which has smitten their Goliath in the forehead.⁵¹ I have fastened his name upon the gibbet for reproach & ignominy as long as it shall endure. Take it down who can!

One word of advice to Lord B. before I conclude. When he attacks me again let it be in rhyme.⁵² For one who has so little command of himself it will be a great advantage that his temper should be obliged to keep tune. And while he may still indulge in the same rankness & virulence of insult, the metre will in some degree <seem to> lessen its vulgarity.

<* How easily is a noble spirit discerndFrom harsh & sulphurous matter, that flies outIn contumelies, makes a noise, & stinks.⁵³ But I am accustomed to such things – And so far &c>⁵⁴

3.2.2 Draft 2:

MS: Huntington Library, HM 6655. AL; 4p.

x x x x x

– If in the common intercourse of London (where I go seldom, & mix little in general society) I have heard & repeated any thing concerning Lord Byron, it was past as it was taken, in the small change of conversation, for no more than it was worth. In this manner I may have spoken of him as of Baron Geramb, the Green Man, the Indian Jugglers,⁵⁵ or any other figurante⁵⁶ of the time being. The To call to mind such talk after an interval of weeks instead of years, would be as impossible as to remember what was said of the weather, or the news of the day. Only this I know, that I never traduced him, or any other person. There was no reason for any remarkable delicacy on my part in speaking of Lord B. And indeed I should have thought that any thing which might be reported of him would have injured his character as little, as the story which so greatly annoyed Lord Keeper Guildford that he had ridden a Rhinoceros.⁵⁷ He may ride a Rhinoceros, & tho every body will stare, no one will wonder.

But to the charge that after my return from Switzerland I reported slanders of his Lordship & some others, I reply with a direct & positive denial.⁵⁸ If I had heard in that country that he had turned Turk,⁵⁹ or Monk of La Trappe,⁶⁰ – that he had furnished a harem, or endowed a hospital, I might have <thought> either⁶¹ account possible, & repeated it accordingly. But making no enquiry <concerning him> because I felt no interest, I heard nothing, & had nothing to repeat. When I spoke of wonders to my friends & acquaintance on my return, it was of the Flying Tree at Alpnacht⁶² & the Eleven Thousand Virgins at Cologne,⁶³ not of Lord Byron. I sought for no staler subject than St Ursula.

Once & once only in connection with Switzerland, I have alluded to his Lordship. The passage was curtailed in the Press, & I take this opportunity of restoring it. Speaking incidentally of the Jungfrau, I said it was the scene “where Lord Byrons Manfred met the Devil & bullied him; – tho the Devil must have won his cause before any tribunal in this world or the next, if he had not pleaded more feebly for himself, than his Advocate in a suit of canonization ever pleaded for him.⁶⁴

Lord Byronm says that I can know nothing of his private life.⁶⁵ Certainly nothing more of it than what he has himself thought proper to make public & notorious; that he is

– one whose handLike the base Judaean, threw a pearl awayRicher than all his tribe.⁶⁶

More than this assuredly I do not know. But in supposing that the principles, opinions & feelings which form the tenour of his private life are to be found in his writings, I apply to him that test whereby I am willing to be tried myself. There I see that like Michael Draytons Mooncalf

He termeth virtue madness or mere folly,He hates all high things, & profanes all holy.⁶⁷

There I find the portraiture of one who hates men, despises women, is sated with the vices of this world, & seems to have no views or hopes beyond it.

But in truth all who know me can bear witness how little I busy myself with my contemporaries or with contemporary literature. I find too much employment among the dead, to misspend my thoughts upon the living. His Lordship has bestowed more time in writing concerning me than I have ever done in thinking or conversing about him. Nemo me impune lacessit is not my motto.⁶⁸ The Duncery have assailed me with impunity during five & twenty years. Cobbett, Honeet id genus omne,⁶⁹ (the skunks & polecats of the press) have done it, are doing it, & will continue to do so: Lord Byron did it when he first ran amuck,⁷⁰ & on many a subsequent occasion; & his Lordships Boy Hobby-ho did it, when with a magnanimity scarcely inferior to that of Buonaparte he abstained from suicide after the battle of Waterloo.⁷¹ The egregious & incomparable Jeremy, <ever Jeremy the Merry-Bentham>[Benth equipped in full motley, has shaken his bauble & bells at me, erected his ancient cockscomb, & crowed in triumphant <exultant> defiance.⁷² Sir Tarquin the Table-Talker still slavers out his malevolence as freely as if he were quite certain I should never publish a tale in illustration of the old proverb Save a Thief from the gallows <which tells me what he xxx xxxxx [word runs over edge of MS] criminal xxxx [word runs over edge of MS] justice may expect for his reward>⁷³ & he’ll cut your throat. So far are such men from irritating me, that when I hear of their attacks, it is a satisfaction to think they have <thus> employed upon me the abuse which must have been employed somewhere, & could not be directed against any person whom it could possibly molest or injure less. The viper however venomous in purpose, is harmless in effect, while it is biting at the file.⁷⁴ It is seldom indeed that I waste a word or a thought upon such enemies. But abhorring as I do the personalities which disgrace our current literature, & averse from controversy as I am both by principle & inclination, I make no profession of non-resistance. When the offence is such as to call for the whip & the branding iron it has been seen & felt that I can inflict them⁷⁵

There may be some reason for supposing that Lord Byrons present exacerbation is produced by an infliction of this kind, rather than by any hearsay reports of my conversation four years ago, transmitted him by his correspondents in England. The little credit which any such reports can deserve, his Lordship must well understand, from what has frequently happened to himself; for I presume he does not imagine that he is the only person concerning whom idle or malicious tales are raised & circulated without the slightest foundation. A more reasonable motive for his bitterness may perhaps be found in certain remarks upon the Satanic School of poetry, contained in my preface to the Vision of Judgement.⁷⁶ Those remarks excited what is called a great sensation among his Lordships friends; & great were the anticipations formed by some in dismay, & others in delight, of the vengeance which was to fall on the Poet Laureates devoted head. The author of Don Juan, as if he were own brother to Raw Head & Bloody Bones, was to swallow him up quick.⁷⁷ But the Poet Laureate might perhaps prove as untoothsome in the operation, as the <notable curious> pear which is so designated in the Marquis of Worcesters Inventions.⁷⁸ He who means to attempt it should <would do well to> put his throat in training, & begin with a hedge-hog. – If his Lordship has not yet learnt that he who plays at bowls must expect to meet with rubbers,⁷⁹ some very good teaching has been thrown away upon him.

Well would it be for Lord Byron if he could look back upon any of his writings with as much satisfaction as I shall always do upon what I have said of that flagitious school. Many parents have expressed their gratitude to me for having applied the branding iron where it was so richly deserved. The Edinburgh Reviewer indeed with that honourable feeling by which his criticisms are so peculiarly distinguished, suppressing the remarks themselves has imputed them wholly to envy on my part.⁸⁰ I give him in this instance full credit for sincerity. I believe he was equally incapable of comprehending a worthier motive, or of inventing a worse. And as I have never condescended to expose in any instance relating to myself his pityful malignity, I thank him for having in this stript it bare himself, & exhibited it in its bald, naked & undisguised deformity.

The Corypheus⁸¹ of the Satanic School may continue to censure my works with as little moderation in public, as he has in private extolled them He may go on lampooning friends as well as enemies

And sweating plays so middling bad were better.⁸²

He may produce more imitations of Mr Wordsworth, & then ridicule & depreciate the author whom he is, & ever will be unable to equal.⁸³ But with all his talents & all his endeavours, he can never be a great poet unless he becomes a wiser & better man. That change would bring with it a consciousness that he has perverted great talents to the worst purposes. To wish that he may become thus miserable, while it may yet avail him, is not the wish of an enemy. Shame is indelible, but by the mercy of God sin may be forgiven.