Acquired as part of a large collection of letters addressed to William Angus Knight, Chair of Moral Philosophy at the University of St. Andrews and Wordsworth scholar. Items in the collection have been individually accessioned and cataloged.
Professor William Angus Knight was a professor of Moral Philosophy at the University of St. Andrews.
Concerning the first volume of Knight's work on Wordsworth; expressing his disappointment that Knight is unable to visit him in Weybridge as he hoped to talk to him at length about the book; saying "Of course to me the main interest of the book is in the first volume...which contains the account of the misunderstanding between Coleridge and Wordsworth. The first volume is to me intensely interesting more interesting than any romance could be - and I read straight on till I finished it;" commenting on his interest in the third volume and expressing disappointment that Knight had published "...the contributions of the Wordsworth Society - Mr. Rawnsley's stories which do no doubt record statements of the Grasmere & Rydal peasants & statesmen are not well told, and I am informed in what I regard as & know to be high authority that the dialect is just rubbish - that he makes the people say what they never could have said - that he turned the dialect inside and [illegible] it - But even the 'higher' British Public will not discern this and will imagine that it is drinking at the fountain head;" setting forth his list of corrections to Knight's book relating to the misunderstanding between Coleridge and Wordsworth; clarifying dates, discussing S.T.C.'s diary of his "...tour of the autumn of 1799; saying "The diary is a nice record of places and contains rough sketches and hasty impressions of scenery - of course Coleridge's impressions of scenery must be taken in conjunction with Dorothy's - Dorothy's are far better, and I don't mean to say that the one borrowed from the other but that they were both engaged in the same way - that it was a way they had. And what of Dorothy's journal! It is marvellously interesting - Would that I could see the original but I suppose the Wordsworths would not permit that - There is a strange passage in it - D - seems to speak of Coleridge as 'my Darling' - Does the context go to show that she meant Wordsworth - It is plain that she worshipped Coleridge as well as her brother in some Dorothesque fashion - One does not quite see when so much is published why there should be any omissions - but I hearsay that you had to put pressure on before much that you have inserted was published;" asking if Knight might recommend him to his friends who might be in need of a tutor for their sons; saying "....I like to receive youths of 15 or 16 who have not been strong enough to enter a Public School, or who having entered have been obliged to be removed for other than moral cause, and to see them through to College or elsewhere;" returning to his discussion of Wordsworth and Coleridge saying "I think that you have dealt very fairly and very justly with Coleridge in your book - I cannot think that Wordsworth's Letter about the Friend is greatly to his credit or was borne out by events - Coleridge tried to do some important work for the world after 1809 and I think one may see in the hopeless tone of the letter the real cause of the quarrel. Coleridge felt that he was not utterly done for and Wordsworth judging by appearances and [illegible] out by the norms of Coleridge's habits and fancies gave him up completely. Of course S.T.C. should have brought himself to realize the fact that the Wordsworths of this world do always outgrow romance, and the romance ought to be outgrown - but where people have sworn eternal friendship and sentimentalised as Poole did and encouraged their friend as Wordsworth did [illegible] they make up in the light of [illegible] day they should remember the past and be even more than lenient - But I shall drive you distracted if I do not leave S.T.C. & W.W. to fight it out in the 'cellarage'."