because, though he had always had a great inclination to write for the stage, he had a very poor opinion of his own dramatic faculty. "The Legend of Florence " notwithstanding, this opinion of his own was true. It was the work of a man of great literary talent, of long experience of the theatre as a critic, and of a poet with an unusual gift for the expression of tender sentiment; but without that grasp of character which alone can give individuality to the dramatis persona, and breathe life into dialogue, it was impossible even for Leigh Hunt to make a great play. It was again produced at Manchester in 1859, but in spite of many striking situations and pathetic passages it has not retained its hold on the stage.

THE

CHAPTER XII.

HE rest of Hunt's life was spent at Kensington and Hammersmith in comparative comfort. received an annuity of 120 from the Shelley family in 1844, and another of £200 from the Civil List in 1847. He enjoyed all the consideration and honour due to a veteran in literature. His assistance was sought by editors of magazines, and he contributed to the Edinburgh, to Ainsworth's Magazine, Household Words, Fraser, the Spectator, and many other periodicals. Much of his time was spent in revising and reediting former compositions, which were published in many volumes, the most important being collections of his "Poetical Works" in England (1844) and America (1857); "Imagination and Fancy" (1844), and its companion, "Wit and Humour" (1846); "Men, Women, and Books" (1847); "The Town" (1848); "The Religion of the Heart" (1853); and his Autobiography (1850). His life was cheered to the last by the companionship of such of his old friends as still survived, especially Charles Ollier, Bryan Procter, and his ever kind doctor, Southwood Smith. He made many new acquaintances among the

younger generation of literary men and women, the most distinguished of whom were Dickens, Thackeray, Mrs. Gaskell, and the Brownings. To the latter he gave the lock of Milton's hair, which had been given to him by an M.D. (see Sonnet published in "Foliage," p. cxxxi), and an intimacy sprung up at once, which is testified by the long and affectionate letters which passed between them (see Correspondence, vol. ii., Athenæum, 1883, 2. 15, and Cornhill Magazine, May, 1892). His recognition of the genius displayed in Aurora Leigh is not the only instance in which he showed that his eye for literary power and beauty was undimmed. He had the gratification of knowing that he was greatly appreciated in America. Mr. S. Adams Lee made to him friendly and generous overtures, which resulted in the American edition of his poems, and the compilation of his "Book of the Sonnet" (partly edited by Lee), which appeared after Hunt's death (1867). Nathaniel Hawthorne visited him, and William Story, and James Russell Lowell, who has left one of the most eloquent descriptions of his style. Another incident of some interest in this period is a brief but friendly renewal of acquaintance with his West Indian relations. But the time was also marked by two severe bereavements-the deaths of his son Vincent and his wife.

In 1840 Hunt removed from Chelsea to Kensington, a district so well known in connection with him as "The Old Court Suburb." He took a house in Edwardes Square, No. 51, and settled down for over ten years. In the same square, at No. 45, lived his

eldest daughter, Mrs. Gliddon, and her husband, and his eldest son Thornton and his wife. He arrived (says this son)" flushed with the success of the 'Legend of Florence,'" and about this time he had another cause for self-congratulation in the article by Macaulay on his first essay at editing an English classic; if the plays of "Wycherley, Congreve, Vanbrugh, and Farquhar" can be called by so severe a name. In this year he also wrote a preface to Moxon's Edition of "Sheridan," and contributed two papers to Kenny Meadows' "Heads of the People."

It

In 1841 appeared "The Seer," a title which was intended to mean "See-er," and not "Prophet." bore as motto, "Love adds a precious seeing to the eyes," and had the following preface, characteristic in all except its brevity: "Given at this our suburban abode, with a fire on one side of us, and a vine at the window on the other, this 19th day of October, one thousand eight hundred and forty, in the very green and invincible year of our life the fifty-ninth.-L. H." The book was a collection of papers from the London Journal, the Liberal, the Monthly Repository, the Tatler, and "The Round Table." His contributions to "Poems of Chaucer Modernised" belong to this year, as well as his "Notes of a Lover of Books," in the Monthly Chronicle, and his first article (that on the Colman Family) in the Edinburgh Review.

His engagement to write in this Review was one of his many debts to Macaulay-a debt which was soon

Edited by R. H. Horne, who has left one of the best accounts of Leigh Hunt in "A New Spirit of the Age."

increased by his services as a peace-maker between the editor and his contributor. After the article was published a correspondence ensued with regard to further contributions, and Macvey Napier, the editor, who held strong views as to the "style" demanded to sustain the dignity of the Review, wrote Hunt a letter, at which even a less sensitive man might well have taken offence. It applied the word "vulgar" to some of Hunt's modes of expression, and suggested that the new article should be "gentlemanlike." At this crisis, feeling that he had been insulted, but not wishing to quarrel, he did the wisest thing he could-he appealed to his "big brother" Macaulay, who arranged the difficulty with the finest tact, without the least insincerity to either of his friends, and without compromising the dignity of either. Room must be found for one admirable passage in Macaulay's letter to Hunt, which indeed puts the whole matter in a nutshell.

"His [Napier's] taste in composition is what would commonly be called classical,—not so catholic as mine, nor so tolerant of those mannerisms which are produced by the various tempers and trainings of men, and which, within certain limits, are, in my judgment, agreeable. Napier would thoroughly appreciate the merit of a writer like Bolingbroke, or Robertson; but would, I think, be unpleasantly affected by the peculiarities of such a writer as Burton, Sterne, or Charles Lamb. He thinks your style too colloquial; and, no doubt, it has a very colloquial character. I wish it to retain that character, which to me is exceedingly plea