Categories
- Antiques & Collectibles 13
- Architecture 36
- Art 48
- Bibles 22
- Biography & Autobiography 813
- Body, Mind & Spirit 137
- Business & Economics 28
- Computers 4
- Cooking 94
- Crafts & Hobbies 4
- Drama 346
- Education 45
- Family & Relationships 57
- Fiction 11812
- Games 19
- Gardening 17
- Health & Fitness 34
- History 1377
- House & Home 1
- Humor 147
- Juvenile Fiction 1873
- Juvenile Nonfiction 202
- Language Arts & Disciplines 88
- Law 16
- Literary Collections 686
- Literary Criticism 179
- Mathematics 13
- Medical 41
- Music 40
- Nature 179
- Non-Classifiable 1768
- Performing Arts 7
- Periodicals 1453
- Philosophy 63
- Photography 2
- Poetry 896
- Political Science 203
- Psychology 42
- Reference 154
- Religion 498
- Science 126
- Self-Help 79
- Social Science 80
- Sports & Recreation 34
- Study Aids 3
- Technology & Engineering 59
- Transportation 23
- Travel 463
- True Crime 29
Shelley at Oxford
Description:
Excerpt
INTRODUCTION
Thomas Jefferson Hoggâs account of Shelleyâs career at Oxford first appeared in the form of a series of articles contributed to the New Monthly Magazine in 1832 and 1833. It was afterwards incorporated into his Life of Shelley, which was published in 1858. It is by common consent the most life-like portrait of the poet left by any of his contemporaries. âHogg,â said Trelawny, âhas painted Shelley exactly as I knew him,â and Mary Shelley, referring to Hoggâs articles in her edition of Shelleyâs poems, bore witness to the fidelity with which her husbandâs character had been delineated. In later times everyone who has written about Shelley has drawn upon Hogg more or less freely, for he is practically the only authority upon Shelleyâs six months at Oxford. Yet, save in the extracts that appear in various biographies of the poet, this remarkable work is little known. Hoggâs fragmentary Life of Shelley was discredited by the plainly-expressed disapproval of the Shelley family and has never been reprinted. But the inaccuracies, to call them by no harsher term, that disfigure Hoggâs later production do not affect the value of his earlier narrative, the substantial truth of which has never been impugned.
In 1832 the New Monthly Magazine was edited by the first Lord Lytton (at that time Edward Lytton Bulwer), to whom Hogg was introduced by Mrs Shelley. Hogg complained bitterly of the way in which his manuscript was treated. âTo write articles in a magazine or a review,â he observed in the Preface to his Life of Shelley, âis to walk in leading-strings. However, I submitted to the requirements and restraints of bibliopolar discipline, being content to speak of my young fellow-collegian, not exactly as I would, but as I might. I struggled at first, and feebly, for full liberty of speech, for a larger license of commendation and admiration, for entire freedom of the press without censorship.â Bulwer, however, was inexorable, and it is owing, no doubt, to his salutary influence that the style of Hoggâs account of Shelleyâs Oxford days is so far superior to that of his later compilation. Hogg, in fact, tacitly admitted the value of Bulwerâs emendations by reprinting the articles in question in his biography of Shelley word for word as they appeared in the New Monthly Magazine, not in the form in which they originally left his pen.
Hogg himself was unquestionably a man of remarkable powers, though his present fame depends almost entirely upon his connection with Shelley. He was born in 1792, being the eldest son of John Hogg, a gentleman of old family and strong Tory opinions, who lived at Norton in the county of Durham. He was educated at Durham Grammar School, and entered University College, Oxford, in January 1810, a short time before Shelley. The account of his meeting with Shelley and of their intimacy down to the day of their expulsion is told in these pages.
On the strength of a remark of Trelawnyâs it has often been repeated that Hogg was a hard-headed man of the world who despised literature, âhe thought it all nonsense and barely tolerated Shakespeare.â Such is not the impression that a reader of these pages will retain, nor, I think, will he be inclined to echo the opinion pronounced by another critic that Hogg regarded Shelley with a kind of amused disdain....