Robert Southey

Robert Southey

Robert Southey, die seun van 'n linnegordyn, is in 1774 in Bristol gebore. Na die dood van sy vader het 'n oom hom na die Westminster School gestuur, maar hy is in 1792 geskors nadat hy geslaan het in die skooltydskrif.

In 1794 ontmoet Southey Samuel Taylor Coleridge in Bristol en die twee mans raak goeie vriende. Hulle het radikale politieke en godsdienstige sienings ontwikkel en planne begin maak om na Pennsylvania te emigreer, waar hulle van plan was om 'n gemeente op te rig wat gebaseer is op kommunistiese waardes. Southey en Coleridge het uiteindelik hierdie plan laat vaar en in plaas daarvan in Engeland gebly waar hulle toegespits was op die kommunikasie van hul radikale idees. Dit het die toneelstuk ingesluit wat hulle saam geskryf het, Die val van Robespierre. Southey het ook die republikeinse toneelstuk geskryf, Wat Tyler.

In 1795 trou Southey met Edith Fricker, wie se ouer suster, Sara Fricker, met Samuel Taylor Coleridge trou. In daardie jaar verskyn sy boek Gedigte en die epiese gedig, Joan of Arc. Tussen 1796 en 1798 skryf hy baie ballades, waaronder Die Inchcape -rots en Die Slag van Blenheim. Southey se poësie het swak verkoop en moes staatmaak op die toelaag van £ 160 per jaar wat sy vriend Charles Wynn aan hom betaal het.

Southey verloor geleidelik sy radikale opinies en in 1807 word hy beloon deur 'n jaarlikse toelaag van die Tory -regering te ontvang. In 1809 sluit Robert Southey aan by die personeel van die Kwartaallikse oorsig gestig deur John Murray in 1809 as 'n Tory -mededinger van die Whig -ondersteuner Edinburgh Review. Ander bydraers was die Tory -politici George Canning en die markies van Salisbury.

In 1813 word Robert Southey aangestel as digterwenner. Southey is gekritiseer deur Lord Byron en William Hazlitt, wat hom daarvan beskuldig het dat hy sy politieke beginsels vir geld verraai het. In 1821 herdenk Southey die dood van George III met sy gedig 'N Visie van oordeel. Dit sluit 'n aanval op Lord Byron in wat geantwoord het met Die visie van oordeel, een van die groot satiriese parodieë van Engelse letterkunde.

Southey het verskeie boeke geskryf, waaronder: Die Boek van die Kerk (1824), Sir Thomas More (1829), Opstelle Moraal en polities (1832) en Lewe van Britse admirale (1833). In 1835 verhoog sir Robert Peel, die Britse premier, Southey se pensioen tot £ 300 per jaar. Robert Southey is in 1843 oorlede.

'N Mens moet lief wees vir mense en hulle vertrou as jy nie 'n gemors in jou lewe wil maak nie, en daarom is dit noodsaaklik dat hulle hulle nie in die steek laat nie. Hulle doen dit dikwels. Persoonlike verhoudings word vandag geminag. Hulle word beskou as burgerlike luukshede, as produkte van 'n tyd van mooi weer wat nou verby is, en ons word aangespoor om daarvan ontslae te raak en ons eerder te toewy aan beweging of oorsaak. Ek haat die idee van oorsake, en as ek moet kies tussen my land verraai en my vriend verraai, hoop ek dat ek die moed moet hê om my land te verraai. So 'n keuse kan die moderne leser skande maak, en hy kan sy patriotiese hand na die telefoon uitsteek en die polisie bel. Dit sou Dante egter nie geskok het nie. Dante het Brutus en Cassius in die laagste kring van die hel geplaas omdat hulle gekies het om hul vriend Julius Caesar te verraai eerder as hul land Rome.


Robert Southey - Geskiedenis

Southey se literêre aktiwiteite het onverpoos voortgegaan, en onthul hulself in talle kort gedigte wat teen 'n vergoeding tot koerante en tydskrifte bygedra het en in die projek wat sy aanvanklike openbare reputasie as 'n vrymoedigheid sou vestig enfant vreeslik, sy epiese gedig Joan of Arc, waarin hy sterk meegevoel betoon met 'n Franse burger wat homself Engelse aggressie verdedig en sodoende skaars sy eie revolusionêre simpatie verdoesel. Die gedig is in 1796 gepubliseer tydens die derde jaar van oorlogvoering tussen hierdie twee lande, toe die outeur daarvan een-en-twintig jaar oud was en die openbare verdediging van die hedendaagse Frankryk as hoogverraad vervolg is.

Southey se huwelik was diep ontsteld deur die tante wat hom grootgemaak het, en laat in 1795 om die oortreding te herstel wat hy met sy oom op 'n diplomatieke afspraak na Spanje vergesel het. Terwyl hy daar was, was hy besig met 'n diepgaande studie van die literatuur van die Iberiese skiereiland wat jare lank in verskeie van sy literêre projekte weerspieël sou word. Hy het ook sy werklike ervaring tot 'n goeie praktiese effek verander, deur 'n werk te skryf waarvan die titel die duidelike invloed van Mary Wollstonecraft weerspieël, Briewe geskryf tydens 'n kort woning in Spanje en Portugal (1797). By sy terugkeer vestig hy hom in Londen en begin regte studeer, maar bevind hom nie geskik daarvoor nie. In 'n gelukkig ingryping, begin in 1797, begin hy 'n annuïteit van £ 160 ontvang wat hy nege jaar lank deur 'n ou skoolvriend van Westminster, Charles Wynn, aan hom betaal het. Hierdie stabiele inkomste kon hom uiteindelik toespits op sy loopbaan as skrywer, en in 1797 en 1799 versamel hy sy vele korter geskrifte in twee bundels versamelde Gedigte, in die hoop om sy posisie as die leidende formuleerder van 'n rewolusie in Engelse letters te versterk. (Dit is natuurlik Wordsworth, wat in die gevierde voorwoord van sy eie twee-bundel Liriese ballades in 1800 gesien sou word as die vormende stem in hierdie ontwikkeling.)

In 1800 vergesel Southey weer sy oom na die buiteland, hierdie keer na Lissabon, waar die oom die amp van kapelaan by die Britse ambassade beklee. Teen die tyd van sy terugkeer het hy egter besluit om sy lewe as skrywer te verdien, 'n projek wat vir hierdie dag net so ambisieus en selfs byna net so utopies sou verskyn het soos die pantisokrasie -plan wat hy ontgroei het. Kort gedigte en kwasi-gewilde ballades wat 'n ware gevoel vir 'n plattelandse volk weerspieël, was 'n stapelvoedsel van sy opvoering. Hy begin die lang reeks uitgawes (bv. Die werke van die inwoner van Bristol, Thomas Chatterton) en vertalings wat sy loopbaan sou kenmerk, en skets 'n plan vir die eksotiese Wallies-Azteekse epiese romanse wat gepubliseer sou word as Madoc in 1805 en voltooi 'n versroman wat afkomstig is van die Mohammedaanse verhaal wat 'n topverkoper geword het, Thalaba die Vernietiger (1801), 'n uittreksel hieruit ingesluit.

In 1803 besoek die Southeys, wat na die suidweste van Engeland teruggekeer het, die Coleridges, wat toe woon in Greta Hall, Keswick, in die Lake-distrik. Die besoek het homself verander in 'n lewenslange woonplek daar, waar die susters hul gesinne saam grootgemaak het. Dit is ook die punt waarop Southey 'n hegte vriendskap met Wordsworth aangegaan het en toe naby Dove Cottage in Grasmere gewoon het. Die Southeys het sewe kinders gehad, en toe Coleridge sy gesin in 1804 verlaat vir 'n drie jaar aanstelling as sekretaris van die Britse hoë kommissaris in Malta, het die hele huishouding ekonomies afhanklik geraak van Southey se onverbiddelike literêre pogings op 'n wye verskeidenheid terreine. . Gedurende hierdie tydperk het Southey se politiek baie verander. Alhoewel hy die diep populisme wat van die begin af gesien kon word, behou het, word dit meer en meer geïdentifiseer met konserwatiewe, indien nie reaksionêre, oorsake. Die bewerings oor sy finansies en sy vroeë afhanklikheid van koerante en tydskrifte vir inkomste het hom 'n natuurlike woordvoerder gemaak van die redes en die kwasi-regeringsborg van sy hiperaktiewe pen. Na die Tory Kwartaallikse oorsig Southey, wat in 1808 gestig is, word 'n gereelde beoordelaar teen 100 pond per artikel, 'n bedrag wat op daardie tydstip voldoende was om 'n beskeie middel vir 'n hele jaar te bied.

Met Die vloek van Kehama van 1810 keer Southey terug na die vorm van eksotiese versromantiek, wat hierdie keer die Indiese mitologie benut (alhoewel met 'n onmiskenbare toepassing op die megalomane politieke ambisies van Napoleon Bonaparte en Britse keiserlike ontwerpe om die Indiese subkontinent te beheer). Dit het 'n ander topverkoper geword, so baie vereer deur byvoorbeeld die jong Percy Bysshe Shelley dat hy in 1812, op soek na 'n literêre vaderfiguur, saam met sy jong bruid Harriet in Keswick kom woon het. Alhoewel hul literêre ambisies en smaak vir herleidingsleer Southey en Shelley maklik bymekaar gebring het, was hul politieke verskille skerp vanaf die eerste, en na 'n maand het Shelley en Harriet verder gegaan. Die volgende jaar (1813) word Southey aangestel as digterwenner deur die invloed van Walter Scott (wat self die aanstelling van die hand gewys het), 'n pos wat hy die volgende dertig jaar sou beklee. Die literêre generasie waaraan Mary Shelley en haar man deelgeneem het, het Southey as die beste voorbeeld gesien van literêre talent wat gekoop kon word. Van die ontsagwekkende glans van Byron se aanval in Don Juan en Die visie van oordeelveral die reputasie van Southey het nooit herstel nie. Die paradoks is dat sy eie politiek, soos die jare aangaan, toenemend meer reaksionêr was as die regering wat hy verteenwoordig het, en dat hy teenstandig was teen die hervormings van die middelklas wat aan die einde van die 1820's en vroeë 1830's 'n nuwe staat ingebring het. Sy laaste jare was moeilik, vertroebel deur sy vrou se waansin en dood, deur gesinsgeskille wat ontstaan ​​het uit sy tweede huwelik met 'n veel jonger vrou, die digter Caroline Bowles Southey, en deur sy eie liggaamlike en geestelike agteruitgang. Hy sterf 21 Maart 1843 in Cumberland.


Politiek

'N Karikatuur van 1797 van Southey se vroeë radikale poësie

Alhoewel Southey oorspronklik 'n radikale ondersteuner van die Franse Revolusie was, het Southey die trajek van sy mede -romantiese digters Wordsworth en Coleridge in die rigting van konserwatisme gevolg. Omhels deur die Tory -vestiging as digterpryswenner, en vanaf 1807, met ontvangs van 'n jaarlikse toelaag van hulle, ondersteun hy die regering van Liverpool kragtig. Hy het betoog teen parlementêre hervorming ("die spoorlyn wat met die duiwel verwoes word as bestuurder"), het die Peterloo -bloedbad die skuld gegee op 'n beweerde revolusionêre 'ritsel' wat deur regeringstroepe gedood en beseer is, en die katolieke emansipasie verwerp. In 1817 stel hy privaat strafvervoer voor vir diegene wat skuldig is aan 'laster' of 'sedisie'. Hy het figure soos Thomas Jonathan Wooler en William Hone in gedagte gehad, wie se vervolging hy versoek het. Sulke skrywers was skuldig, skryf hy in die Quarterly Review, omdat hulle "die onstuimige humeur van die vervaardiger aangesteek het en die rustige gehegtheid van die boer versteur het aan die instellings waaronder hy en sy vaders in vrede gewoon het." Wooler en Hone is vrygespreek, maar die dreigemente het veroorsaak dat 'n ander teiken, William Cobbett, tydelik na die Verenigde State emigreer.

In sommige opsigte was Southey sy tyd vooruit in sy siening oor sosiale hervorming. Hy was byvoorbeeld 'n vroeë kritikus van die euwels wat die nuwe fabrieksstelsel na die vroeë 19de-eeuse Brittanje gebring het. Hy was ontsteld oor die lewensomstandighede in dorpe soos Birmingham en Manchester en veral oor die aanstelling van kinders in fabrieke en uitgesproke daaroor. Hy het meegevoel met die baanbreker -sosialistiese planne van Robert Owen, bepleit dat die staat openbare werke bevorder om hoë werkgeleenthede te behou, en het universele opvoeding versoek.

Gegewe sy vertrek uit radikalisme en sy pogings om voormalige medereisigers vervolg te kry, is dit nie verbasend dat minder suksesvolle tydgenote wat die geloof behou het, Southey aangeval het nie. Hulle het hom beskou as uitverkoop vir geld en respek.

In 1817 word Southey gekonfronteer met die geheimsinnige publikasie van 'n radikale toneelstuk, Wat Tyler, wat hy in 1794 op die hoogtepunt van sy radikale tydperk geskryf het. Dit is deur sy vyande aangespoor in 'n poging om die digterpryswenner in die verleentheid te stel en sy afvalligheid van radikale digter tot ondersteuner van die Tory -vestiging uit te lig. Een van sy wreedste kritici was William Hazlitt. In sy portret van Southey, in The Spirit of the Age, het hy geskryf: 'Hy het Liberty as 'n jeugdige minnaar beskou, maar dit was miskien meer 'n meesteres as 'n bruid, en hy het sedertdien met 'n bejaarde en nie baie betroubare dame getrou nie, Legitimiteit genoem. ” Southey het sy kritici grootliks geïgnoreer, maar was gedwing om homself te verdedig toe William Smith, 'n parlementslid, op 14 Maart in die Laerhuis opgestaan ​​het om hom aan te val. In 'n opgewekte antwoord het Southey 'n ope brief aan die parlementslid geskryf waarin hy verduidelik dat hy altyd daarop gemik was om die ellende van die mens te verminder en die toestand van al die laer klasse te verbeter en dat hy slegs verander het ten opsigte van die "manier waarop dit verbetering sou plaasvind. ” Soos hy dit stel, "het hy geleer om die instellings van sy land te verstaan, tereg te waardeer, lief te hê en te eerbiedig en te verdedig."

'N Ander kritikus van Southey in sy latere tydperk was Thomas Love Peacock, wat hom in die satiriese roman Melincourt uit 1817 verag het in die karakter van Mr Feathernest.

Hy word dikwels bespot oor wat as 'n sikofantiese ode aan die koning beskou is, veral in Byron se lang ironiese toewyding van Don Juan aan Southey. In die gedig word Southey afgemaak as onbeskof, smal en sjofel. Dit was gebaseer op Byron se respek vir Southey se literêre talent, en sy minagting vir wat hy as Southey se skynheilige wending tot konserwatisme later in sy lewe beskou het. Baie van die vyandigheid tussen die twee mans kan teruggevoer word na Byron se oortuiging dat Southey gerugte versprei het oor hom en dat Percy Bysshe Shelley in 'n 'League of Incest' was tydens hul tyd aan die Genfersee in 1816, 'n beskuldiging wat Southey streng ontken het.

In reaksie hierop val Southey wat hy die Sataniese Skool onder moderne digters noem, aan in die voorwoord van sy gedig, A Vision of Judgment, geskryf na die dood van George III. Alhoewel hy Byron nie die naam gegee het nie, was dit duidelik op hom gerig. Byron het teruggekap met The Vision of Judgment, 'n briljante parodie op Southey se gedig.

Sonder sy voorafgaande kennis het die graaf van Radnor, 'n bewonderaar van sy werk, Southey by die algemene verkiesing in 1826 as parlementslid vir laasgenoemde in Downton, Wiltshire, as 'n teenstander van Katolieke emansipasie laat terugkeer, maar Southey wou nie sit nie, veroorsaak dat 'n tussenverkiesing in Desember daardie jaar plaasvind dat hy nie 'n groot genoeg boedel het om hom deur die politieke lewe te ondersteun nie, of dat hy die nodige ure wil neem. Hy wou in die Lake District bly woon en verdedig die Kerk van Engeland eerder skriftelik as spraak. Hy het verklaar dat "om my lewensplan te verander en in die parlement te gaan, 'n morele en intellektuele selfmoord sou wees." Sy vriend John Rickman, 'n gemeenteklerk, het opgemerk dat 'omsigtigheidsredes hom in Londen sou verhinder' as 'n lid.

In 1835 weier Southey die aanbod van 'n baronetskap, maar aanvaar 'n lewenspensioen van £ 300 per jaar van premier Robert Peel. Hy word begrawe op die kerkhof van Crosthwaite Parish Church in Cumbria.


Inhoud

In Robert Southey se weergawe van die verhaal woon drie antropomorfe bere-''n klein, klein beertjie, 'n middelgrootte beer en 'n groot, groot beer'-saam in 'n huis in die bos. Southey beskryf hulle as baie goedhartig, vertrouend, skadeloos, netjies en gasvry. Elkeen van hierdie "bachelor" bere het sy eie pap bak, stoel en bed. Op 'n dag maak hulle pap vir ontbyt, maar dit is te warm om te eet, so hulle besluit om 'n wandeling in die bos te maak terwyl hul pap afkoel. 'N Ou vrou kom nader aan die beer se huis. Sy is deur haar familie uitgestuur omdat sy 'n skande vir hulle is. Sy is onbeskaamd, sleg, vuilbek, lelik, vuil en 'n rondloper wat 'n tydperk in die House of Correction verdien. Sy kyk deur 'n venster, loer deur die sleutelgat en lig die grendel. Verseker dat niemand tuis is nie, stap sy in. Die ou vrou eet die Wee Bear se pap, gaan sit dan in sy stoel en breek dit. Sy loop rond en vind die bere van die bere en raak aan die slaap in Wee Bear se bed. Die einde van die verhaal word bereik wanneer die bere terugkeer. Wee Bear vind sy leë bak, sy stukkende stoel en die ou vrou wat in sy bed slaap en roep: "Iemand het in my bed gelê, en hier is sy!" Die ou vrou word wakker, spring by die venster uit en word nooit weer gesien nie.

Die verhaal is die eerste keer in 'n narratiewe vorm opgeteken deur die Engelse skrywer en digter Robert Southey, en in 1837 die eerste keer anoniem gepubliseer as 'The Story of the Three Bears' in 'n bundel van sy geskrifte Die dokter. [2] Dieselfde jaar as wat Southey se verhaal gepubliseer is, is die verhaal versier deur redakteur George Nicol, wat die anonieme skrywer van Die dokter as "die groot, oorspronklike versamelaar" van die verhaal. [3] [4] Southey was verheug oor die poging van Nicol om meer blootstelling aan die verhaal te gee, bekommerde kinders kan dit dalk oor die hoof sien Die dokter. [5] Die weergawe van Nicol is geïllustreer met gravures deur B. Hart (na "C.J.") en is in 1848 heruitgereik met Southey wat as die skrywer van die verhaal geïdentifiseer is. [6]

Die verhaal van die drie bere was in omloop voor die publikasie van die verhaal van Southey. [7] In 1813 vertel Southey byvoorbeeld die verhaal aan vriende, en in 1831 maak Eleanor Mure 'n handgemaakte boekie oor die drie bere en die ou vrou vir haar nefie Horace Broke se verjaardag. [3] Southey en Mure verskil in besonderhede. Southey se bere het pap, maar Mure's het melk [3] Die ou vrou van Southey het geen motief om die huis binne te gaan nie, maar Mure se ou vrou word geprikkel as haar hoflikheidsbesoek weerlê word [8] Southey se ou vrou hardloop weg toe sy ontdek word, maar Mure se ou vrou word vasgemaak op die toring van die St Paul's Cathedral. [9]

Die folkloriste Iona en Peter Opie wys daarop Die klassieke sprokies (1999) dat die verhaal 'n 'gedeeltelike analoog' in 'Sneeuwitjie' het: die verlore prinses gaan die dwerg se huis binne, proe aan hul kos en raak aan die slaap in een van hul beddens. Op dieselfde manier as die drie bere, roep die dwerge: 'Iemand het in my stoel gesit!', 'Iemand het van my bord geëet!' En 'Iemand het in my bed geslaap!' Die Opies dui ook op ooreenkomste in 'n Noorse verhaal oor 'n prinses wat skuil in 'n grot waarin drie Russiese prinses in beervelle geklee is. Sy eet hul kos en kruip onder 'n bed weg. [10]

In 1865 verwys Charles Dickens na 'n soortgelyke verhaal in Ons wedersydse vriend, maar in die verhaal behoort die huis aan hobgoblins eerder as bere. Dickens se verwysing dui egter op 'n analoog of bron wat nog nie ontdek moet word nie. [11] Jagrituele en seremonies is voorgestel en as moontlike oorsprong afgemaak. [12] [13]

In 1894 is 'Scrapefoot', 'n verhaal met 'n jakkals as antagonis wat opvallende ooreenkomste met Southey se verhaal het, deur die folkloris Joseph Jacobs ontbloot en kan dit voorafgaan aan Southey se weergawe in die mondelinge tradisie. Volgens sommige bronne was dit die illustreerder John D. Batten wat in 1894 'n variant van die verhaal van ten minste 40 jaar oud gerapporteer het. In hierdie weergawe woon die drie bere in 'n kasteel in die bos en word besoek deur 'n jakkals genaamd Scrapefoot wat hul melk drink, op hul stoele sit en in hul beddens rus. [3] Hierdie weergawe behoort tot die vroeë Fox and Bear-verhaalsiklus. [14] Southey het moontlik 'Scrapefoot' gehoor en sy 'vixen' verwar met 'n sinoniem vir 'n onaangename kwaadwillige ou vrou. Sommige beweer egter dat die verhaal sowel as die ou vrou by Southey ontstaan ​​het. [2]

Southey het heel moontlik die verhaal as kind by sy oom William Tyler geleer. Oom Tyler het moontlik 'n weergawe met 'n vix (vroulike jakkals) as die indringer vertel, en dan kan Southey later 'vixen' verwar het met 'n ander algemene betekenis van ''n listige ou vrou'. [3] PM Zall skryf in "The Gothic Voice of Father Bear" (1974) dat "dit was geen truuk vir Southey, 'n volmaakte tegnikus, om die improvisasie -toon van 'n oom William te herskep deur ritmiese herhaling, kunstige alliterasie ('hulle het geloop die bos in, terwyl '), selfs bardiese interpolasie (' sy kon nie 'n goeie, eerlike ou vrou 'gewees het nie)) ". [15] Uiteindelik is dit onseker waar Southey of sy oom die verhaal geleer het.

Twaalf jaar na die publikasie van Southey se verhaal het Joseph Cundall die antagonis van 'n lelike ou vrou in 'n mooi dogtertjie in sy Tesourie van plesierboeke vir jong kinders. Hy verduidelik sy redes daarvoor in 'n toewydingsbrief aan sy kinders, gedateer November 1849, wat aan die begin van die boek ingevoeg is:

Die "Story of the Three Bears" is 'n baie ou kwekeryverhaal, maar dit is nog nooit so goed vertel soos deur die groot digter Southey, wie se weergawe ek (met toestemming) aan u gegee het nie, maar ek het die indringer in plaas daarvan 'n dogtertjie gemaak van 'n ou vrou. Dit het ek gedoen omdat ek agtergekom het dat die verhaal beter bekend is Silwer-hare, en omdat daar soveel ander verhale van ou vroue is. [10]

Toe die dogtertjie die verhaal binnegaan, het sy gebly - wat daarop dui dat kinders 'n aantreklike kind in die verhaal verkies, eerder as 'n lelike ou vrou. [5] Die jeugdige antagonis het 'n opeenvolging van name gesien: [16] Silwer hare in die pantomime Harlequin and The Three Bears of, Little Silver Hair and the Fairies deur J. B. Buckstone (1853) Silver-Locks in Tannie Mavor se kwekeryverhale (1858) Silverhair in George MacDonald se "The Golden Key" (1867) Golden Hair in Tannie Vriendelik se Kwekeryboek (ca. 1868) [10] Silver-Hair en Goldenlocks op verskillende tye Little Golden-Hair (1889) [14] en uiteindelik Goldilocks in Ou kwekeryverhale en rympies (1904). [10] Tataar skryf die Engelse skrywer Flora Annie Steel toe dat hy die kind genoem het Engelse sprokies (1918). [2]

Gouelokkies se lot wissel in die vele oorvertellings: in sommige weergawes hardloop sy die bos in, sommige word amper deur die bere geëet, maar haar ma red haar, in sommige beloof sy om 'n goeie kind te wees, en in sommige keer sy terug huis toe. Wat haar lot ook al is, Goldilocks vaar beter as Southey se rondloper ou vrou wat na sy mening 'n tyd in die House of Correction verdien het, en veel beter as die ou vrou van juffrou Mure wat op 'n toring in die kerk van St Paul gehang word. [17]

Southey's all-male ursine trio is deur die jare nie onaangeraak gelaat nie. Die groep is weer aangewys as Papa, Mama en Baby Bear, maar die datum van hierdie verandering word betwis. Tataars dui aan dat dit teen 1852 plaasgevind het, [17] terwyl Katherine Briggs voorstel dat die gebeurtenis in 1878 plaasgevind het Moedergans se sprokies uitgegee deur Routledge. [14] [16] Met die publikasie van die verhaal deur "Tante Fanny" in 1852, het die bere 'n gesin geword in die illustrasies na die verhaal, maar het drie bachelor's in die teks gebly.

In die weergawe van Dickens van 1858 is die twee groter bere en broer en suster en vriende van die klein beer. Hierdie reëling verteenwoordig die evolusie van die ursine -trio van die tradisionele drie manlike bere na 'n gesin van vader, moeder en kind. [18] In 'n publikasie ca. In 1860 het die bere uiteindelik 'n gesin geword in beide teks en illustrasies: "die ou pappa beer, die mamma beer en die klein seuntjie beer". [19] In 'n Routledge -publikasie c 1867 word Papa Bear Rough Bruin genoem, Mama Bear is Mammy Muff en Baby Bear word Tiny genoem. Onverklaarbaar beeld die illustrasies die drie uit as mannetjiesbere. [20]

In publikasies na Tannie Fanny's van 1852, vereis Victoriaanse aardigheid dat redaksie Southey se [[T] hier moet sit totdat die onderkant van die stoel uitkom, en haar neer, plomp op die grond "lees" en neer) sy het gekom ", sonder enige verwysing na die menslike bodem. Die kumulatiewe effek van die verskeie veranderings in die verhaal sedert die oorspronklike publikasie daarvan was om 'n vreesaanjaende mondelinge verhaal te omskep in 'n gesellige familieverhaal met 'n ongerealiseerde sweem van bedreiging. [16]

Maria Tatar, in Die geannoteerde klassieke sprokies (2002), merk op dat Southey se verhaal soms as 'n waarskuwende verhaal beskou word wat 'n les gee oor die gevare van wegdwaal en onbekende gebiede verken. Net soos "The Tale of the Three Little Pigs", gebruik die verhaal herhalende formules om die kind se aandag te trek en die punt oor veiligheid en skuiling te versterk. [17] Tatar wys daarop dat die verhaal vandag tipies omskryf word as 'n ontdekking van wat "reg is", maar vir vroeëre geslagte was dit 'n verhaal oor 'n indringer wat haarself nie kon beheer wanneer hy die besittings van ander teëkom nie. [21]

In Die gebruike van betowering (1976), beskryf die kindersielkundige Bruno Bettelheim Goldilocks as 'arm, mooi en sjarmant', en merk op dat die verhaal haar nie positief beskryf nie, behalwe haar hare. [22] Bettelheim het die verhaal hoofsaaklik bespreek in terme van Goldilocks se stryd om verby Oedipale kwessies te beweeg om die identiteit van adolessente te konfronteer. [23]

Volgens Bettelheim sien die verhaal dit nie reg om kinders aan te moedig om 'die harde werk om die probleme wat grootword, een vir een op te los' nie, en eindig dit nie soos sprokies nie, met die 'belofte van toekomstige geluk wat wag op diegene wat het hul kind se Oedipale situasie bemeester. " Hy meen dat die verhaal 'n eskapistiese verhaal is wat die kind wat dit lees, weerhou van emosionele volwassenheid.

Tatar kritiseer Bettelheim se standpunte: "[Sy] lees is miskien te belê in die instrumentalisering van sprokies, dit wil sê om dit te verander in voertuie wat boodskappe oordra en gedragsmodelle vir die kind uiteensit. Soos Bettelheim glo dat "Aspoestertjie" dit doen, dui dit op die belangrikheid om eiendom te respekteer en die gevolge daarvan om dinge te "probeer" wat nie aan jou behoort nie. " [17]

Elms stel voor dat Bettelheim moontlik die anale aspek van die verhaal gemis het wat dit sou help om die kind se persoonlikheidsontwikkeling te bevorder. [22] In Handboek vir psigobiografie Elms beskryf Southey se verhaal nie as een van Bettelheimiaanse post-oedipale ego-ontwikkeling nie, maar as een van Freudiaanse pre-Oedipale analiteit. [23] Hy meen dat die verhaal veral 'n beroep op voorskoolse kinders het wat "skoonheidsopleiding doen, omgewings- en gedragsorde handhaaf en ontsteltenis onderbreek". Sy eie ervaring en sy waarneming van ander lei daartoe dat kinders glo dat hulle hulself pas by die netjiese, georganiseerde ursine -protagoniste eerder as met die oproerige, misdadige menslike antagonis. Volgens Elms kan die anality van "The Story of the Three Bears" direk teruggevoer word na Robert Southey se ywerige, vuilbehepte tante wat hom grootgemaak het en haar obsessie in 'n ligter vorm aan hom oorgedra het. [23]

Die verhaal maak uitgebreid gebruik van die literêre reël van drie, met drie stoele, drie bakkies pap, drie beddens en die drie titelkarakters wat in die huis woon. Daar is ook drie opeenvolgings van die bere wat op hul beurt ontdek dat iemand uit hul pap geëet het, in hul stoele gesit het en uiteindelik in hul beddens gelê het, en dan is die hoogtepunt van Goldilocks wat ontdek word. Dit volg op drie vroeëre rye van Gouelokkies wat die bakkies pap, stoele en beddens agtereenvolgens probeer het, en telkens die derde "reg" vind. Die skrywer Christopher Booker beskryf dit as die "dialektiese drie", waar "die eerste op een manier verkeerd is, die tweede op 'n ander of teenoorgestelde manier, en slegs die derde in die middel, net reg is". Booker gaan voort: "Hierdie idee dat die pad vorentoe lê in die vind van 'n presiese middelpad tussen teenoorgesteldes, is van buitengewone belang in die vertel van stories". [24] Hierdie konsep het oor baie ander dissiplines versprei, veral ontwikkelingsielkunde, biologie, ekonomie en ingenieurswese, waar dit die 'Gouelokkie -beginsel' genoem word. [25] [26] In planetêre sterrekunde word na 'n planeet wat op die regte afstand om sy son wentel om vloeibaar water op die oppervlak, nie te warm of te koud nie, in die 'Goldilocks Zone' genoem. Soos Stephen Hawking dit gestel het, "soos Goldilocks, vereis die ontwikkeling van 'n intelligente lewe dat planetêre temperature 'net reg' is". [27]

Geanimeerde kortbroek Redigeer

Die drie bere Redigeer

'N Kort film met die titel Terrytoons Die drie bere is in 1934 vrygestel en herbou in 1939. Hierdie kortbroek beeld die bere uit met stereotipiese Italiaanse aksente en maniere. In plaas daarvan om pap te eet, eet hulle ook spaghetti. Die toneel waar pa -beer sê "Iemand het aan my spaghetti geraak!" het einde 2018 'n virale internet -meme op YouTube geword, bekend as "Somebody toucha my spaghet!" Die bere is nie regtig swart nie, hulle is bruin, maar die afdruk van hierdie kortbroek wat die meeste mense ken, is so vervaag dat dit 'n swart pels het.


Zombies: Die ware verhaal van die wandelende dooies

Van "Wêreldoorlog Z" tot "The Walking Dead" tot "Shaun of the Dead" tot "Trots en vooroordeel en zombies" en ontelbare breindoods afvallighede, zombies-herleefde lyke met 'n onstuitbare hunkering na menslike vlees, veral brein - het popkultuur binnegedring soos nog nooit tevore nie. Vir verbysterende, stadig bewegende monsters het zombies die afgelope dekade nogal 'n krag geword in die vermaaklikheidsbedryf.

Alhoewel George Romero se film "Night of the Living Dead" uit 1968 dikwels as die oorspronklike moderne zombiefilm beskou word, verskyn die eerste eintlik byna 40 jaar vroeër in "White Zombie", met B & eacutela Lugosi as 'n bose voodoo -priester in Haïti wat 'n pragtige jong vrou. In die jare daarna het slegs 'n handjievol zombiefilms teruggekeer na hul Haïtiaanse oorsprong - veral "The Serpent and the Rainbow".

Volgens die Oxford English Dictionary het die woord "zombie" omstreeks 1810 die eerste keer in Engels verskyn toe historikus Robert Southey dit in sy boek "History of Brazil" genoem het. Maar hierdie "Zombi" was nie die bekende breinetende manlike monster nie, maar 'n Wes-Afrikaanse god. Die woord dui later op die lewensbelangrike, menslike krag wat die dop van 'n liggaam verlaat, en uiteindelik 'n menslike vorm, maar sonder selfbewustheid, intelligensie en siel. Dit is deur die slawehandel na Haïti en elders uit Afrika ingevoer.

Voodoo of wetenskap?

Almal ken die fiktiewe zombies, maar minder weet die feite oor zombies. Vir baie mense, in Haïti en elders, is zombies baie werklik. Dit is nie 'n grap nie, dit is iets wat ernstig opgeneem moet word. Geloof in magie en heksery is wydverspreid in Haïti en die Karibiese Eilande, dikwels in die vorm van godsdienste soos voodoo en santeria.

Daar word gesê dat Haïtiaanse zombies mense is wat uit die dood teruggebring is (en soms beheer word) deur magiese middele deur voodoo -priesters wat bokors of houngan genoem word. Soms is die zombifikasie as straf gedoen (opvallende vrees by diegene wat geglo het dat hulle selfs na die dood mishandel kan word), maar dikwels word gesê dat die zombies as slawe -arbeid op plase en suikerrietplantasies gebruik is. In 1980 het een geestesongestelde man selfs beweer dat hy al twee dekades as 'n zombie -werker gevange gehou is, hoewel hy nie ondersoekers kon lei na waar hy gewerk het nie, en sy verhaal is nooit geverifieer nie.

Westerlinge beskou dekades dekades lank nie meer as fiktiewe filmmonsters nie, maar die aanname is in die tagtigerjare bevraagteken toe 'n wetenskaplike met die naam Wade Davis beweer dat hy 'n poeier gevind het wat zombies kan skep, wat 'n wetenskaplike basis vir zombieverhale bied. Davis het nie in voodoo -magie geglo nie. Maar hy het wel geglo dat hy iets gevind het wat slagoffers in 'n zombie-agtige toestand kan vergiftig: 'n kragtige neurotoksien genaamd tetrodotoksien, wat by verskeie diere voorkom, waaronder pofvis. Hy beweer dat hy geheime verenigings van bokors geïnfiltreer het en het verskeie monsters van die zombie-vervaardigingspoeier gekry, wat later chemies ontleed is.

Davis het 'n boek geskryf oor die onderwerp "The Serpent and the Rainbow", wat later in 'n gruwelfilm gemaak is. Davis word 'n rukkie algemeen beskou as die man wat die raaisel van zombies wetenskaplik opgelos het. However Davis's claims were later challenged by skeptical scientists who regarded his methods as unscientific, pointing out that the samples of the zombie powder he provided were inconsistent, and that the amounts of neurotoxin contained in those samples were not high enough to create zombies. Furthermore, the dosages used by the bokors would need to be exact, since too much of the toxin could easily kill a person. Others pointed out nobody had ever found any of the many supposed plantations filled with zombie laborers on the small island country.

In a second book, "Passage of Darkness: The Ethnobiology of the Haitian Zombie," Davis acknowledged problems with his theories and refuted some of the more sensational claims attributed to him. Still, he insisted, the Haitian belief in zombies could be based on the (admittedly rare) cases where a person was poisoned by tetrodotoxin and later revived inside the coffin and taken from the grave. Furthermore, he added, there was much more to the zombie phenomenon than simply the powder it was only one part of a deep-rooted sociocultural belief in the power of witchcraft. In Haitian culture, voodoo priests do much more than create zombies they are said to bring both blessings and curses through magic.

Thus the stories of the real-life Haitian zombies arose like a corpse from the grave, and eventually fell like a zombie shot in the head. Though zombies remain a myth in real life, there are more than enough of the fictional ones to satisfy the gorehounds and zombie fans for ages to come.


Words Lost & Regained

The artist is the creator of beautiful things. (. )
Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.
They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all. (. )
No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything. (. )
All art is at once surface and symbol. Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.
Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.
Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.
When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself.


Stuart Andrews. Robert Southey: History, Politics, Religion.

Stuart Andrews. Robert Southey: History, Politics, Religion. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011. Pp. 270. $95.

Stuart Andrews's new book argues for Southey's "literary and . historical importance," and the lasting significance of his "seeming . paranoia," both political and religious (xi). It is a book, Andrews says, "about Southey the poet laureate, rather than Southey the poet" (ix). It could equally be described as a study of the "Catholic question," from the 1790s to 1829, with an ensemble cast of Southey, Coleridge, John Milner, Charles Butler, Blanco White, Richard Musgrave, and many others. But Catholic emancipation is a particularly rewarding angle for a "life and letters" of Southey, who was, in Hazlitt's phrase, "not shaped on any model." Southey's biographer Bill Speck describes him as an oddity and an anachronism, "almost a Quaker," who behaved like "a seventeenth-century Anglican" at war with both "Popery" and "enthusiasm." (1) But Southey's stance looks less odd in view of the antediluvian nature of his "(Roman) Catholic" enemy. The Romantic epoch of 1798 was also the year Napoleon abolished the papacy by "Act of the Sovereign People" (1). Robert Peel later recalled how "religion, we were told, was . a volcano burnt out, that could never be rekindled" (qtd. 172). Like William Pitt, the Catholic polemicist John Milner asked rhetorically if it was "from the side of Popery, or from the opposite quarter of Jacobinism, that the Established Church is in most danger at the present day" (qtd. 8). But the Union of Great Britain and Ireland of 1801 turned the defunct "danger" into a contradiction at the heart of political life. As Coleridge later summed it up:

There is and can be but one question: and there is and can be but one way of stating it. A great numerical majority of the inhabitants of one integral part of the realm profess a religion hostile to that professed by the great majority of the whole realm. In fewer words, three-fourths of his Majesty's Irish subjects are Roman Catholics, with a papal priesthood, while three-fourths of the sum total of His Majesty's subjects are Protestants. (Church and State qtd. 2)

The "Catholic question" created a problem for political language. After 1801, the "integral part" not only does not imply, but is "hostile to," the greater whole. Charles Butler suggested that even this was a "false . perspective," giving a two-page list of the vastly more "extensive territories" where Roman Catholicism was the established religion (qtd. 114). Southey reasserted the Protestant "perspective" by mocking such exhibitions of "Siamese, and Tonquinese, and . Cochin-Chinese converts" (qtd. 134). But the context perhaps helps explain Southey's reductive rhetoric on church and state: facing the complex disintegration of parts and wholes, he insisted on a complete homology between these "two pillars of the temple of our prosperity," bound by a mathematical necessity to "stand or fall together" (qtd. 55).

Andrews describes a general shift from relatively "reasoned, courteous" exchanges of "debating points" in the 1790s to barrages of "vituperative language" in the 1820s (9, 18, 128). Southey was a critic of Catholicism from his early experiences in Lisbon in 1795-96. In his 1797 Letters written during a short residence in Spain and Portugal, Southey spoke of his "mingled . pity and disgust" at "[t]he sight of a Monastery or a Monk . foul and filthy men without accomplishments or virtues, [because of] the system they are subject to" (qtd. 4). Southey's visceral sense of Catholicism as a throwback was at the heart of the Catholic question. "[T]hey will not tolerate," Southey told Charles Wynn in 1807: "the proof is in their practice all over Catholic Europe, and it is in the nature of their principles now" (qtd. x).

Andrews reads Southey's Letters from England by Don Manuel Alvarez Espriella (1807) as a complex double-bluff. In the character of Espriella, "an able man, bigoted to his religion . discovering] such faults and such symptoms of a declining power as may soothe [his] national inferiority," Southey conveyed "all I know and much of what I think concerning this country and these times" (qtd. 22). Letters from England marks out "battle lines" as Southey burlesques a rival Catholic historiography in which "bloody Elizabeth" replaces "bloody Mary" (qtd. 27), and in which the re-Catholicization of England by French refugees repeats the Christianization of the Goths (25). "Who could have hoped to live," says Espriella (or perhaps Southey refracting Edmund Burke on Richard Price and the "diffusion of knowledge which has undermined superstition and error") "to see these things in England?" (qtd. 25). Andrews then traces the route by which Southey became a public writer--from his "school-boy" reviewing-rounds for the Annual Review to the well-paid, book-making essays he was writing for the Quarterly by the end of the decade (40-43, 47, 55-57). "[T]he great use of reviewing," he said in 1805, "is that it obliges me to think upon subjects on which I had before been content to have very vague opinions" (qtd. 42). By 1808, Southey was an important node in Romantic historicist culture, writing reviews of the year in politics for the Edinburgh Annual Register.

Southey next became a figure of public controversy as poet laureate and a writer of "equal" (if contested) "credit . as poet and historian" (64). In Andrews's account, Southey's History of Brazil (1810, 1817, 1819) reflects Southey's aim of writing history that was perspicuous, "rememberable," and circumstantial (CLRS 1671), "judging] of men according to their age, country, situation, and even time of life" (Vindiciae Ecclesice Anglicance [1826] qtd. 133). Southey drew a "sharp distinction" (66) between the Jesuits in Europe and in Brazil and Paraguay. Jesuit policy had introduced a species of Utopia, an "absolute despotism" historically unique in making "the welfare of the subjects, temporal and eternal . the subject of government" (qtd. 69). History, utopianism, and despotism also mingled in the Wat Tyler affair, as the Lake poets were "compelled to confront their 'Jacobin' past" (71). Southey defended himself much as he had the Jesuits in South America: if he had changed, so had the age, the country, and the situation. Wat Tyler was written "when republicanism was confined to a very small number of the educated class . when a spirit of Anti-jacobinism was predominant [in 'the populace']," meaning that Southey was consistent (as Speck's biography also suggests) in opposing the "spirit" of the mob.

Southey's Book of the Church (1824) grew out of a plan to write a pair of textbooks for Church of England schools, giving material form to the "two pillars" of the constitution (57). Andrews agrees with Geoffrey Carnall that Southey was more "supporter of the Church Establishment than . Anglican" (qtd. 112). Writing history rather than theology allowed Southey to appear more orthodox than he was Milner claimed that this was why the book failed to go beyond the reign of James 11 to cover Bishop Hoadley and Socinianism (126). But there were positive motivations, too: the Church resonates with Southey's sense of history. The institution becomes the vehicle of national identity: found "alike faithful to its principles when it adhered to the monarchy during a successful rebellion, and when it opposed the monarch who would have brought back the Romish superstition" (qtd. 101-2). This evocation of historically dynamic "principles" woven into the national biography contrasts with the cold pastoral immediately beforehand on "pure . doctrines" and "irreproachable . order." The debate with Milner continued in Vindiciae. Topics included Lollardy, the Albigenses, the Dominicans and the Inquisition, Foxe's martyrology, and tradition and scripture. But again the real argument was over the priority of doctrine or history in settling the Catholic question. Milner accused Southey of turning "every vulgar superstition into an avowed practice of the Catholic Church" (qtd. 122). Southey replied that his subject was not "what the Church of Rome may just now be pleased to put forth as its theory," but rather "an historical account of what has always been its practice" (qtd. 133 my emphasis).

Historical events now combined to shatter Southey's immemorial prospect. Southey's October 1828 Quarterly paper on Catholic emancipation came too late to influence Wellington (166-67), as did both Coleridge's Church and State (1830) and Southey's Colloquies on Society (1829). Both books set out histories of the idea of the Constitution. Andrews outlines the historical mode of Colloquies--a series of imaginary conversations with the ghost of Sir Thomas More, in "distant imitation of Boethius . passing] by easy stages, to a view of the new prospect before us" (qtd. 184). Macaulay triumphed over Colloquies as the work of a literary writer who had "still the very alphabet to learn" of historical science. But Andrews suggests that it's unclear that Macaulay won the argument--or even got to grips with his adversary. Colloquies does not make a utopia of England before the 1530s rather, it rejects a political-economic model of history as incremental development, and refurbishes the historical parallel with a high-Romantic sense of progressive historical time. Southey's 1830s are Thomas More's 1530s, but on a higher turn of the historical stair.

Robert Southey is more archive than interpretation. But the accumulating detail on the Catholic question also makes a qualitative difference, showing how Southey the poet laureate grew from Southey the poet. Importantly, the book bears out both Southey's 1830s comment that the pressure of "party spirit" had made him a systematic writer (Speck, 142), and his 1805 belief that he was "a good poet--but a better historian, & the better for having been accustomed to feel & think as a poet" (CLRS 1024). Stuart Andrews thus points decisively towards a reassessment of Southey as Romantic historian, prime-mover towards a Romantic poetics of culture.


Military History Journal Vol 1 No 7 - December 1970

Tribute to the late Major Robert Jameson Southey, ED

by COLONEL E. S. THOMPSON, ED.

The news of Major Bob Southey's death at the age of 71 years on 13th June, 1970, was received with great regret by his military, business and sporting friends, and the crowded funeral service at St. Martin's-in-the-Veld was testimony to his popularity and esteem. Our deepest sympathy goes to his wife, daughter and son.

Bob Southey was a student at St. John's College, Johannesburg, but completed his education at Diocesan College (Bishop's), Cape Town. At the age of 17 years he enlisted with the South African Field Artillery and participated in the Palestinian Campaign in the First World War. It was not long after demobilisation that he tound his way into the Transvaal Scottish Regiment and was commissioned soon after the 1922 Revolt.

He was a keen cricketer and a member of The Wanderers Club this association enabled him to inaugurate the annual Wanderers versus Transvaal Scottish cricket match, which became one of the prominent social events of Johannesburg, in the days when the Wanderer's Cluh occupied the site of the present railway station. These annual matches influenced several prominent cricketers to join the Regiment.

Another sphere in which he became prominent was in connection with the annual military tournaments, which were held on the north ground of the old Wanderers Club.

Bob Southey served in all three battalions of the Transvaal Scottish and became 2 i/c to Lt. Col. Walter Kirby, MC, in the 3rd Battalion in the last war. He was L.O.B. at the time of Sidi Rezegh and succeeded to the command of the remnants of that Battalion after that memorable battle. Finally, he became 2 i/c to Colonel Frank Smitheman in the Cape Corps Regiment in Egypt. He was mainly responsible for the collection of material for the history of the 3rd Battalion Transvaal Scottish, as recorded in The Saga of the Transvaal Scottish.

During the years he made a fine collection of military badges, which he presented to the MOTHS Centre in Johannesburg. Needless to say, he took a great interest in the S.A. National War Museum, giving both time and expert guidance on early battles which took place on South African soil and on the regiments that took part in them. He was a member of the Fund Raising Committee for the new museum building.

After his retirement from business, he was able to take his seat on the Transvaal Scottish Regimental Council and was appointed Chairman of the committee to bring the Regimental history up to date after 1950, the year when the Saga was published.

He took a great interest in the care and maintenance of war graves and was able to give considerable assistance and advice in this connection to the S.A. War Graves Board. Another duty entrusted to him was to locate the graves of members of the Transvaal Scottish who had fallen in the industrial disturbances of 1914 and 1922. The result of this is that the Regimental Council has been able to renovate the graves (where necessary) and mount plaques on them. This was accomplished just prior to Bob's death.

Those who are interested in military history, and knew Bob Southey personally, regard him as being in the higher ranks of this field. He was one of the brethren who experience that peculiar thrill when standing on ground where brave men confronted each other in years gone by. With map in hand he could form a picture in his mind as to what happened and the advantages and disadvantages of various dispositions.

He was the founder of the firm R. J. Southey (Pty.) Ltd., painting and thermal insulation contractors, and, when visiting his contracts in various parts, he must have looked at practically every battlefield of importance and military cemetery in South Africa.

Fairly recently, Bob's enthusiasm persuaded him to visit the Gallipoli battlefields and, like many of us who are interested in these things, had promised himself a return visit, which, regrettably in this case, was not to happen.

Bob's enthusiasm for these things and his quiet manner will be missed by all who knew him.


SOUTHEY, Robert (1774-1843), of Greta Hall, Keswick, Cumb.

Southey was descended from an old Somerset family of modest social origins.1 He attended schools in Bristol and Corston, was expelled from Westminster for writing an article in the Flagellant against caning, and having been refused entry to Christ Church because of this, instead took up a place at Balliol, which he left without a degree. Imbued with the spirit of republicanism and Unitarianism, he, with his friend and brother-in-law Samuel Taylor Coleridge, planned to emigrate to America to establish a community embodying the principles of pantisocracy (&lsquothe equal government of all’), and aspheterism (&lsquothe generalization of individual property’), but nothing came of it.2 He travelled in Portugal, 1800-1, the first of several visits abroad. He gave up potential careers in the church, medicine and the law, and, after an unhappy spell as private secretary to Isaac Corry&dagger, the Irish chancellor of the exchequer, 1801-2, he abandoned his ambitions for government service, though he retained hopes of a consular sinecure in southern Europe. In fact, he declined most later offers of employment because they would have drawn him away from Greta Hall, where he settled, with the Coleridges, in 1803. Reserved and temperamental by nature, it was only occasionally that his kind-heartedness showed through, as it did to Greville, who once described him as &lsquoremarkably pleasing in his manner and appearance, unaffected, unassuming and agreeable’.3

Southey’s prodigious output was largely the result of the regularity of his working day, which he described as

The modest fees that he earned from his writing were supplemented by a pension of £160 a year from his friend Charles Williams Wynn*, which in 1807 was replaced by one of £200 a year from the Grenville ministry. With Coleridge and William Wordsworth he established the Lakes school of poetry and, thanks to Walter Scott’s stepping aside, he was appointed poet laureate in 1813, with a salary of £100 a year.5 He published many works as a historian, biographer, travel writer, translator, editor, pamphleteer, essayist, reviewer, social critic and story teller, and was involved in several periodicals, notably the Quarterly Review, to which he contributed nearly 100 articles.6 He was awarded an honorary doctorate by Oxford in June 1820, when the Whig Sir James Mackintosh* described him as &lsquoa good deal oldened’ though &lsquohis mild manner, in spite of a touch of affectation, is very pleasant’.7 Yet his contemporary reputation was generally low, Lord Holland judging that

Posterity has been scarcely less unkind.

Ever since the turn of the century, Southey’s political opinions had been moving steadily to the right, so that by the mid-1810s he was, as Henry Crabb Robinson put it, &lsquoan alarmist, though what he fears is a reasonable cause of alarm, nl. a bellum servile’.9 Ten years later he was labelled by Charles Wood* as &lsquointolerantium intolerantissimus’.10 This was how he was widely perceived, and Whigs and radicals made great play of his apostasy from their cause. On the mischievous publication of his early jacobinical play Wat Tyler in 1817, the Unitarian William Smith* denounced him in the Commons, 14 Mar., when he was defended by Williams Wynn and supported by most of the House.11 William Hazlitt scathingly summarized the argument of his ensuing Letter to William Smith (1817) as &lsquoonce admit that Mr. Southey is always in the right, and every one else is in the wrong, and all the rest follows’.12 At the Westmorland election, 30 June 1818, Henry Brougham* accused him of having been bribed by place into changing his political outlook, a charge which he later retracted.13 Southey took little part in electoral or county affairs, but in late 1819 he was the anonymous author of the Tory address against the calling of a Cumberland meeting on Peterloo.14 In the preface to his Vision of Judgment (1822), a cruel satire on Southey’s poem of the same name, Lord Byron declared of him that &lsquothe gross flattery, the dull impudence, the renegado intolerance and impious cant of the poem . are something so stupendous as to form the sublime of himself, containing the quintessence of his own attributes’.

Southey was robust in his own defence, arguing that his views had inevitably matured with age: &lsquoI am no more ashamed of having been a republican, than I am of having been a boy’.15 His son excused his conduct by arguing that he had naturally sided with radicals in the 1790s, when the main threat was perceived to come from a tyrannical government, and joined the conservatives in later life, when the danger of anarchy became uppermost in his mind and he had lost his belief in the perfectibility of human nature.16 Yet he was never quite as extreme as he appeared, and although he argued in favour of a more powerful executive, he also advocated a great many social, economic, legal and humanitarian reforms, such as schemes for assisted emigration and national education, in order to ameliorate the effects of industrialization.17 Not only in his overtly polemical writings, but also, for instance, in his Life of Nelson (1813), widely regarded as his most successful book, he assisted in the Tory appropriation of older opposition notions of patriotism and their transformation into a new idea of English nationalism. In this sense he was an essential link between the Toryism of Edmund Burke&dagger and the Conservatism of Benjamin Disraeli&dagger.18

Integral to Southey’s conception of the state was the centrality of the established church as the embodiment of the nation’s spiritual achievement and the guarantor of its civilisation and freedom.19 The publication of his Book of the Church in 1824 led to his &lsquoparliamentary adventure’ at the general election two years later, when, without his prior knowledge, the convinced Tory 2nd earl of Radnor, an admirer of this work, had him returned for his pocket borough of Downton as an opponent of Catholic claims. He was only nominally a Member: he declined to take his seat and refused even to use his privilege of franking letters, much to the irritation of his neighbours. The reasons he gave for his refusal were that he lacked a large enough estate, had a pension &lsquoduring pleasure’, preferred his lakeland domesticity to the long hours of the House, which his health could in any case not have stood, and intended to devote his time to writing, rather than to speaking, in defence of the church. He might have avoided the problem over his pension by having it altered to one &lsquofor life’ or transferred to his wife, and he could have accepted the property which Sir Robert Inglis* and others offered to buy for him, but he was determined not to sit. He duly informed the Speaker that he was not qualified, and, as he wished, a new writ was issued, 8 Dec. 1826 otherwise he would have resigned his seat.20 He declared that &lsquofor me to change my scheme of life and go into Parliament, would be to commit a moral and intellectual suicide’ and his friend John Rickman, a Commons clerk, noted that &lsquoprudential reasons would forbid his appearing in London’ as a Member.21 Another friend, his neighbour William Peachy, who had just been elected for Taunton, was given a triumphal greeting on his return home, but Southey was spared this as it was thought that he &lsquowould not like it’.22

He was, of course, a steadfast opponent of the Wellington administration’s decision to emancipate the Catholics in 1829. Later that year he published his Colloquies on the Progress and Prospects of Society, which provoked a famous and savagely destructive attack from Thomas Macaulay* in the Edinburgh Review early the following year. In January 1830 it was reported by Brougham that Southey would &lsquomove or second the resolution that the [agricultural] distress is within the power of the legislature’ to curtail, at the proposed Cumberland county meeting.23 Encouraged by Rickman, he planned to write a pamphlet against parliamentary reform, and to this end he attended the Commons for the first time, 2 Nov. 1830, but nothing came of it.24 Though prepared to accept some measures of reform, he was firmly opposed to the Grey ministry’s bill, commenting that &lsquoLord John [Russell]’s budget’, 1 Mar. 1831, &lsquois as much a masterpiece in its way as [the chancellor] Lord Althorp’s. It really seems as if the aristocracy of this country are to be destroyed, so marvellously are they demented’. He believed that ministers had thrown in their lot with the radicals in order to survive in office, and he continued to hope that the mood of the country would turn against them.25 Even after the bill’s enactment he remained an alarmist, writing in March 1833 that

In 1835 he declined the offer of a baronetcy from the premier, Sir Robert Peel, but accepted a pension of £300 per year.27

John Stuart Mill, who visited him in 1831, wrote this analysis of his character and career:

Shortly after the death of his first wife he married his long-time correspondent, the poetess Caroline Bowles. She was his nursemaid, for he lapsed into imbecility a few months later. He died in March 1843, dividing his estate between his widow and surviving children.29 His son Charles Cuthbert (1819-88), vicar of Askham, Westmorland, edited his Life and Correspondence.


Robert Southey, Lord Macaulay and the Standard of Living Controversy

The early nineteenth century witnessed gladiatorial contests in print between the contributors to the conservative Quarterly Review and the radical Edinburgh Review. Among the chief protagonists of the two papers were Robert Southey, leading contributor to the Quarterly from its launch in 1809 until 1839, and Thomas Babington Macaulay, whose first contribution to the Edinburgh, on ‘Milton’, appeared in August 1825, after which he became a mainstay of the periodical. Their ‘reviews’ were long essays of 10,000 or more words, in which the works purportedly being reviewed were mere pegs on which to hang their own observations. They were generally scathing about publications which took an ideological stance opposite to their own, and sympathetic to those which adopted a similar position to that which they held. Though they frequently made barbed references to each other in their reviews, Southey never reviewed a work by Macaulay, who only once criticized one by his rival. Nevertheless, that particular occasion, in January 1830, was a classic clash of Titans. It demonstrated their fundamental disagreement over the prospects facing society from the initial impact of the industrial revolution.


Kyk die video: Robert Southey Graduation 2021