William Hazlitt and Napoleon – 2

On April 10th, 1798, his twentieth birthday, William set off on a roundabout jaunt of nearly two hundred miles to met his soulmate Coleridge in the Vale of Llangollen. When he arrived on May 20th he also met Sara Coleridge and Berkeley their newborn son. Coleridge read out the first version of Kubla Khan to his guest and admitted that he was not sure what to make of it himself as : « I composed it in a sort of reverie brought on by two grains of opium taken to check a dysentery. » (50) Hazlitt was convinced that it was a work of genius and asked him to read it out again. He also heard Coleridge recite The Ancient Mariner. Duncan Wu states that their meeting was : « the defining experience of his life. » (51)

When Coleridge was young his cup had overflowed with youthful enthusiasm and passionate idealism. As a sixteen-year-old he had even written an ode celebrating the fall of the Bastille.(52) As Simon Schama remarks : « Like so many of his generation Coleridge had fervently believed – at Cambridge University and afterwards – that the cause of the French Revolution, the cause of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, opened a new age in which mankind would live according to the rules of nature. » (53) Despite this, Coleridge actually enlisted briefly in the 15th Dragoons under an assumed name, indicating that despite himself he could be swept along in the flood of public enthusiasm and patriotism that accompanied the war with France. Nevertheless, he showed his idealism when, along with Robert Southey, he dreams of establishing a new utopia in America. Nothing came of that so in 1795 and 1796 he gave lectures and edited his own paper The Watchman. (54)

At this stage of his life Coleridge was a fan of Charles James Fox and he did not spare the British Establishment. Schama states that : « Throughout this period Coleridge remained a coruscating critic of Pitt and his government, referring to the prime minister as ‘the fiend’ and to his speeches as “Mystery concealing meanness as clouds envelope a dunghill”. » (55) Schama adds : « Above all, the ex-trooper’s lectures and articles were full of hatred for the war itself, as a misery inflicted by the rich and powerful on the poor and helpless who paid for it with their taxes and their blood. » (56)

By 1798 however, Coleridge was undergoing a metamorphosis of his own. In his Ode to the Departing Year written less than five years before he had prophesied that war torn Europe would avenge itself upon England for fostering foreign wars whilst enjoying peace herself. Now with the imminent prospect of a French invasion he was having a change of heart :

« Spare us yet awhile ! Father of God ! O spare us yet awhile ! »

Far from blaming his own people for war he continues : « Sons, brothers, husbands, all… Stand forth ! Be men ! Repel an impious foe, Render them back upon the insulted ocean, And let them toss as idly on its waves As the vile sea-weed, which some mountain-blast Swept from our shores ! » (57)

But Coleridge still accepted collective guilt for the current situation : »We have offended, Oh ! My Countrymen ! We have offended very grievously, And been most tyrannous. » (58)

Coleridge was on the turn, soon he would embrace the very opposite of what he had once stood for. In Hazlitt’s eyes he would go over to the dark side and be that most contemptible of creature’s – an apostate. As Hazlitt used his hero’s Ode to the Departing Year as his lodestone, Coleridge was in the process of rejecting everything he had written in it.

The catalyst was the French invasion of Switzerland which led Coleridge to publish The Recantation in The Morning Post in which : « he had stormed out his repudiation of all his previously expressed sympathy with France, and implored the forgiveness Freedom for his blindness in once having mistaken her enemies for her champions. » (59) On April 20th he consolidated his new approach in Fears in Solitude which was « a rediscovery of love for his country and a genuine rediscovery of his own personality… He has discovered that he is primarily an Englishman. » (60)

Maclean felt that Coleridge was susceptible to the feeling of the moment and the mood of the many and unlike Hazlitt was far less inclined to swim against the tide. Patriotism was on the lips of Everyman and Coleridge « was Conformist rather than Nonconformist in temper… » (61) His own youthful enthusiasm for liberty was warping into a cynical belief that it was not a case of government being innately corrupt but the very people they governed. With that outlook it was not a long step for Coleridge to take in becoming a spokesman for the Establishment.

Hazlitt was devastated to learn that his former hero had feet of clay. He later wrote that Coleridge was : « The only person from whom I ever learned anything in conversation, » « the only person I ever knew who answered to my idea of a man of genius. » (62) However, in his The Spirit of the Age Hazlitt sums up Coleridge’s career much more thoroughly and with acute insight : « It was not to be supposed that Mr. Coleridge could keep on at the rate he set off ; he could not realize all he knew or thought, and less could not fix his desultory ambition ; other stimulants supplied the place and kept up the intoxicating dream, the fever and the madness of his early impressions. Liberty (the philosopher’s and the poet’s bride) had fallen a victim, meanwhile, to the murderous practices of the hag, Legitimacy. Proscribed by court-hirelings, too romantic for the herd of vulgar politicians, our enthusiast stood at bay, and at last turned on the pivot of a subtle casuistry to the unclean side… » (63)

Wordsworth was another political shape-shifter. This lover of nature and self-appointed spokesman for the poor and downtrodden first went over to France in the summer of 1790 and celebrated the fall of the Bastille in person. He was there again in 1791-1792 and later admitted : « I went over to Paris at the time of the Revolution – in 92 or 93 – and was pretty hot in it. » (64) Fiery politics was not his only passion. He fell in love with his royalist tutor Annette Vallon and had a child by her – Caroline, born in December 1792. Having slept with his political enemy as it were, he remained unconverted to her Royalist sympathies. However, he did befriend Michel Beaupuis who, shocked by the poverty all around him, had disowned his own aristocratic origins to become a child of the Revolution. Beaupuis was eventually to die for his country. (65)

Wordsworth not only spoke up for the poor, he pointed a finger at where the blame lay :

« … a benignant spirit was abroad Which might not be withstood, that poverty Abject as this would in a little time Be found no more… That legalized exclusion, empty pomp Abolished, sensual state and cruel power, Whether by edict of the one or few, And finally, as sum and crown of all, Should see the people having a strong hand In framing their own laws, whence better days, To all mankind. » (66)

Yet Wordsworth would eventually embrace the « cruel power » in his homeland and actually support it. Meanwhile, the seething political atmosphere in France was just too much for him and he callously abandoned his mistress and daughter. Soon he would cast aside his former political views and try and pretend that he never had them.

Hazlitt says that : « Mr. Wordsworth’s genius is a pure emanation of the Spirit of the Age. Had he lived in any other period of the world, he would never have been heard of. » But he adds that : « No one has shewn the same imagination in raising trifles into importance: no one has displayed the same pathos in treating the simplest feelings of the heart… to the author of the Lyrical Ballads, nature is a kind of home… » (67)

To a generation of city dwellers who have not known the agricultural fields and the plough for a century and whose experience of the outdoors might amount to little more than a Sunday drive in the country, it may be hard to identify with the sheer bliss felt by Hazlitt, Wordsworth and Coleridge in simply being amongst the mountains, trees and flowers of Nature’s wild beauty. We moderns live amidst a warren of concrete rat runs and suck up our daily ration of exhaust fumes and particulates, dying by the thousands yearly in cities like London. They breathed in the clean fresh air and thought nothing of a daily jaunt of twenty miles along country lanes or a hundred mile trek in a week. Every morning a living theatre greeted them and staged a banquet of natural delights. The athlete of today might get his runner’s high after extensive training when the endorphins course through his bloodstream, Hazlitt and his companions had the equivalent stimulus every day of their lives spent amongst the fields and hedgerows, with ample time to stop and stare and appreciate their surroundings. It should come as no surprise that men like Rousseau, Nietzsche, Robert Louis Stevenson and the Romantics got some of their best ideas whilst walking. That is exactly what the human animal is designed to do.

The year 1798 also saw great events taking place in Ireland, the birthplace of Hazlitt’s father. The United Irishmen had been trying to wrest control of their country from the British. One of the founders of the organization was Henry Haslett who might have been a relative. Hazlitt senior knew William Drennan who had been tried for sedition in 1794. To the Hazlitts in Britain : « the hereditary monarchy by which they were governed was little other than a form of institutionalized tyranny. » (68) Father and son waited anxiously for news from Ireland. The rebellion started on May 23rd and its genesis is reflected in the words of Wu who states : « In a matter of weeks over 30,000 people were slaughtered, peasants charging British cannon armed only with pitchforks. That such a multitude thought that sacrifice worthwhile testifies to the severity of British rule. » (69)

Whether it was rebellious colonists in America, seditious Unitarians in Britain or revolting peasants in Ireland, the British Government response was the same – overwhelming force wherever and whenever it was deemed necessary. To Pitt and his ilk, this policy was of little more consequence than putting down a ravening dog.

In The Spirit of the Age, Hazlitt also slams the novelist Sir Walter Scott for being a tool of the government and a supporter of legitimacy. Scott : « … who, amiable, frank, friendly, manly in private life, was seized with the dotage of age and the fury of a woman, the instant politics were concerned – who reserved all his candour and comprehensiveness of view for history, and vented his littleness, pique, resentment, bigotry, and intolerance on is contemporaries – who took the wrong side, and defended it by unfair means… who, praised, admired by men of all parties alike, repaid the public liberality by striking a secret and envenomed blow at the reputation of everyone who was not the ready tool of power – who strewed the slime of rankling malice and mercenary scorn over the bud and promise of genius, because it was not fostered in the hot-bed of corruption, or warped by the trammels of servility – who supported the worst abuses of authority in the worst spirit – who joined a gang of desperadoes to spread calumny, contempt, infamy, wherever they were merited by honesty or talent on a different side – who officiously undertook to decide public questions by private insinuations to prop the throne by nicknames, and the altar by lies… » (70)

Yes, the pen is mightier than the sword.

This was Hazlitt’s take not only on the creatures of government but on their spies and agent provocateurs who seemed to be everywhere. He was always mightily unimpressed by those who were happy to partake in the trappings of power while at the same time the disenfranchised poor were abused, starving and ignored.

It was in 1798 while staying with Coleridge at Nether Stowey that Hazlitt met Wordsworth at nearby Alfoxden. Having been disappointed by mere politicians and dismayed by the French Terror, the two poets were collaborating on the Lyrical Ballads : « a philosophical poem by which humanity would be re-educated to understand how love of nature led irresistibly to love of mankind. It would create a new kind of society in which there was no need for money, property or social class, and universal love would reign supreme. » (71) At this stage their idealism was still apparent. Furthermore, when the topic of the duel between Tierney and Pitt came up Wordsworth exclaimed : « I wish Tierney had shot out Pitt’s tongue and put an end to his gift of the gab. » At this time their political leanings were much more in line with Hazlitt’s own. (72)

Having tried his hand at writing down his own personal philosophy and having failed, Hazlitt decided to become an artist like his older brother John. In the autumn of that year he went to London with the intention of becoming a portrait painter. As Rys said : « he had a true love for art as for literature. » (73) What really piqued his interest was an exhibition of Italian paintings in Pall Mall in the December of 1798, items mainly from the Orleans collection in Paris. The exhibition lasted until July 1799 and Hazlitt spent countless hours there admiring the paintings. (74)

In 1799, he also attended a series of lectures given by Sir James Mackintosh. Once an opponent of Burke – his Vindiciae Gallicae was a reply to Burke’s Reflections on the French Revolution – Mackintosh was another who recanted his earlier views : « It is my intention to profess publicly and unequivocally that I abhor, abjure and for ever renounce the French Revolution, with its sanguinary history, its abominable principles, and for ever execrable leaders. » (75) In The Spirit of the Age, Hazlitt puts Sir James’ change of heart down to a personal interview he had with Burke : « Mr. Mackintosh became a convert not merely to the graces and gravity of Mr. Burke’s style, but to the liberality of his views, and the solidity of his opinions. – The Lincoln’s-Inn Lectures were the fruit of this interview: such is the influence exercised by men of genius and imaginative power… » (76)

Another man who listened avidly to the illustrious turncoat was John Stoddart, who would eventually become Hazlitt’s brother-in-law. Maclean says he : « had been one of the noisiest revolutionaries a few years before, » (77) and he made copious notes which he put to good use when he later became editor of The Times of London. Stoddart, who also knew Coleridge and Wordsworth, was from humble origins himself and had once cut his hair like a true sans-culotte. He had even gone so far as to suggest that a Napoleonic invasion would be « of more advantage than victory. » (78) But he soon eschewed his former Jacobinism and became King’s Advocate in Malta. By the turn of the century former revolutionary idealists and reformers really did seem to be falling by the wayside.

With the Peace of Amiens in 1802, Hazlitt would get the chance to visit the Louvre. Ironically, around the same time Tom Paine was in the process of leaving France. Schama remarks that he : « had never really recovered from the typhus he had contracted in jail, but who was suffering even more from a clinical aversion to Napoleon (“the very butcher of Liberty and the greatest monster Nature ever spewed.”) » (79) Paine lived up to his name when he finally got to America, causing a rumpus when he met Washington and Adams. One suspects that after a lifetime of trials and tribulations, Paine would not have cared much even for the Second Coming.

Schama contrasts Paine’s view of Napoleon with Hazlitt’s. He : « had become enthralled by the Napoleonic epic and would, in fact, never free himself of it, » (80) as if implying that Napoleon himself was some kind of disease. Surprisingly, in his History of Britain Volume 3, Schama makes many references to how Jews suffered in England but there is no reference whatsoever to the benefits Jews got in Napoleonic France and under the Empire. Perhaps he has not read his Heine.

Schama also over-eggs the threat of the potential French invasion : « In these Boneyphobic year it was Coleridge, not Hazlitt, who was in tune with the vast majority of Britons. The threat was not, after all, imaginary. » (81) He says there were over 100,000 French troops at Boulogne and 2,300 vessels – although he admits that many of them were small. What he does not say was that the French really had a navy in name only, especially after the Battle of the Nile. Most aristocratic French officers emigrated or were executed during the Terror. French ports had been blockaded for years, thus preventing French sailors getting any experience of life at sea, any practice at manoeuvring their vessels or even firing their guns. At Yorktown the French navy really did make a difference and their presence led to the British losing the American War of Independence. By 1805, it was amazing that the French and the Spaniards did as well as they did at Trafalgar, but the result was never really in doubt.

Schama adds that in the Louvre Hazlitt admired the paintings : « while conveniently overlooking the fact that the First Consul had accumulated the contents of the museum by plundering the churches and galleries of Europe. » (82) However, in the Bombardment of Copenhagen in 1807 the British Navy not only stole the whole of the Danish navy, they also murdered 2,000 civilians in the process. And Denmark was neutral at the time. Has Schama not heard of the Elgin Marbles – « acquired between 1801 and 1805 » (83) as it says on the British Museum website ? And as for the Rosetta Stone – we stole that from the French…

It was not just the Unitarians who were persecuted by the Government; the common people were equally hounded if they dared to criticize their betters or threaten the status quo. The same repression faced them whether they were middle – or working -class. Stimulated by the French Revolution and despite the threat to their own liberty, people flocked to join the new radical societies that were set up throughout the country. Those who could afford two and a half guineas a year (a fortune in the late C18th) became members of The Friends of the People, a group urging political reform. The Society for Constitutional Information went further and backed the publication of a cheap edition of The Rights of Man. We have seen already what happened to some of its members – Horne Tooke, Holcroft and Thelwell. So-called corresponding societies also proliferated. The secretary of The London Corresponding Society whose members called each other citizen, was Thomas Hardy, a shoemaker. So passionate was he for reform that despite threats of physical violence from the London mob, he refused to put lights in his shop window if the French lost a battle. (84)

Most great English cities had their own organization. Manchester had its Constitutional Society while The Sheffield Association voiced its concern over « the enormous high price of provisions » and « the waste… of the public property by placemen, pensioners, luxury and debauchery. » (85) Hunger and unemployment were the ubiquitous catalysts for much of the public discontent. Bad harvests occurred in 1792 and 1794. Prices soared and there were bread riots. Hundreds marched through Birmingham in 1795 demanding bread. Riots took place in London and the windows of Downing Street were smashed in. That same year nearly 150,000 gathered in Copenhagen Fields for a meeting organized by the London Corresponding Society. Speakers denounced the war with France, demanding universal suffrage and annual parliaments. The King was booed on his way to the official opening of Parliament, the streets lined with angry crowds crying for peace and bread.86

Pitt responded with the Treasonable Practices Bill and the Seditious Meetings Bill that banned large public gatherings. The Corresponding Act followed in 1799 along with the Combination Acts of 1799 and 1800. Pitt proved himself to be cruel, ruthless, repressive and incompetent. As Pauline Gregg remarks : « It is hard to excuse Pitt for repression so ruthless, so out of proportion to the moderate requests of the men he crushed. By social and political reform he could have removed the just grievances which made them rebels against his government. » (87) Alluding to the actual reality of the times, she adds : « Nowhere and at no time during the Napoleonic wars was there a revolutionary situation; there was no protest which a moderate reform would not have converted into acclamation for the Government. At every turn it was the legislature which made the revolution out of its own fears, and which magnified the riots of hungry men into an incipient French Revolution. » (88)

For so many years, Pitt seemed to be at war with his own people.

Some months after the signing of the Treaty of Amiens on March 25th 1802, William got the opportunity of going to Paris to see the Old Masters in person. He intended to paint ten pictures for his patron Mr Railton for £105. There is no doubt that he enjoyed himself. To save money he walked from the port to the capital : « Calais was peopled with novelty and delight, » while France itself possessed the very soil of freedom : « for the image of man was not cast down and chained to the foot of arbitrary thrones. » (89)

Almost immediately, he heard good words said about Napoleon. A fellow Englishman called Lovelace told him what happened when his nephew was presented to the First Consul. Rather than ask the usual mundane question about where the young officer had served Napoleon remarked : « I perceive your name, Sir, is the same as that of the hero of Richardson’s romance. » (90) For Hazlitt, Napoleon was already living up to expectations, as Maclean says : « Hazlitt, who never could hear enough about Buonaparte, thought on hearing this : “Here was a Consul!” The story confirmed his belief which was growing in him, that Buonaparte, although a soldier by profession, was far more than a professional soldier. » (91)

However, he was very disappointed with the impression Paris initially made upon him. The filthy, narrow streets were hazardous to negotiate because of speeding traffic. There were no footpaths and the drivers of carriages appeared to take a perverse delight in targeting pedestrians. Hazlitt must have been very relieved when he arrived at his lodgings at the hotel Coq Heron, very near the Louvre, on October 15th 1802. The sight of beggars loitering in the capital also ended any remaining doubts he might have had about the streets being paved with gold.

This view of Parisian life from the bottom up, as it were, was not shared by all. Maclean states that : « for most of the English who visited France in this year were amazed by its air of prosperity, and some of them seemed almost scandalized by it. » (92)

When Wordsworth returned to Calais on August 1st 1802, he took a more jaundiced view of France. But that was Wordsworth – and perhaps his conscience might have been troubling him after abandoning his mistress and daughter all those years before.

When he finally got to the Louvre William was in his element. It took him a while to realize he had to bribe the doormen to be let into the galleries where the finest paintings were, but once inside those hallowed halls he existed in a state of bliss. He soon occupied himself copying pictures from 9-20 in the morning until 4 pm when the place closed. To add to his joy at seeing masterpieces by Titian, Poussin and Rubens, came a glimpse of the First Consul in the flesh. Napoleon liked to show himself to the populace as a true man of the people and Hazlitt was enraptured at the image he presented : « What a fine iron binding Buonaparte had round the face, as if it had been cased in steel! What sensibility around the mouth! What watchful penetration in the eye! What a smooth unruffled forehead. » (93) That image of his hero would stay with him for the rest of his life.

A few years earlier, Napoleon had had the same effect on the artist David. After sketching him, David enthused to his pupils : « Oh my friends, what a fine head he has! It’s pure, it’s great, it’s as beautiful as the Antique ! Here is a man to whom altars would have been erected in ancient times ; yes, my friends, yes, my dear friends ! Bonaparte is my hero ! » (94) The mystique of the man enabled him to conquer with a smile or a momentary glance. Jean Tulard might decry the myth of the saviour but to his contemporaries, Napoleon was truly something else – he was remarkable, he was unique.

On December 2nd 1805, Napoleon had his greatest military victory, crushing the combined Austrian and Russian armies at Austerlitz, an achievement he was unable to repeat when he faced a joint British and Prussian forces at Waterloo. Hazlitt was elated by the news for he and men like Godwin and Thelwall saw Napoleon as the Revolution personified and as democracy’s last hope. He thought that Britain would now be forced to sue for peace. The sun of Austerlitz appeared to him to be a golden dawn, heralding the rise of freedom and liberty for all. (95) He recalled : « I walked out in the afternoon and, as I returned, saw the evening star set over a poor man’s cottage with other thoughts and feelings than I shall ever have again. Oh for the revolution of the great Platonic year, that those times might come again ! » (96)

Having failed to make his mark as a portrait painter and been unable to earn a living as a writer, Hazlitt eventually became a political commentator. His forceful, energetic and cultured allusions, his brilliant style and perception, were unprecedented and unique. As Wu says : « Hazlitt invented the political sketch as we know it today. » (97) Free Thoughts on Public Affairs, his first political pamphlet, condemned the late Pitt’s foreign policy and expressed a wish that Fox and his Ministry of All the Talents would make peace with Napoleon. William thought that France under Napoleon was the best chance for a proper democracy to arise in Europe. But when Fox died the same year, his hopes were again dashed.

Hazlitt’s razor sharp wit was in evidence in April 1813 after he heard a very lacklustre speech by Richard Wellesley, Wellington’s brother, in support of the East India Company’s monopoly of trade with the subcontinent. Ironically, for once, William found himself on the Government side as the official policy was to open up that trade :

« It was curious, though somewhat painful, to see this lively Nobleman always in the full career of his argument, and never advancing one jot nearer… soaring into mediocrity with adventurous enthusiasm… » (98)

There was definitely no such thing as free speech in Britain in the early nineteenth century. Leigh and John Hunt found this out when they criticized the Prince Regent in The Examiner in March 1812. Having described him as an « exciter of desire, » they added a coruscating verdict upon his Royal Majesty : « a violator of his word, a libertine over head and ears in debt and disgrace, a despiser of domestic ties, the companion of gamblers and demireps, a man who has just closed half a century without a single claim on the gratitude of his country or the respect of posterity. » (99)

No matter that all this was true, there was now a new law of libel that ensured that anyone who made derogatory comments about the government or the royals could be thrown into prison. The porky and prickly Prince was mortified by the Leighs’ assessment of his character and after a rigged trial, both the brothers found themselves in jail.

Hazlitt soon found himself crossing swords with one of the chief apostates – Robert Southey. He, like the other Lake poets, did not like William dredging up the past. When Southey became Poet Laureate, William could hardly restrain himself. Initially the two of them had got on very well, Southey speaking of his sympathy with the rebels in Ireland. We have see that he even planned to set up a colony in the New World with Coleridge. But that benign and radical young man had by now metamorphosed into a heartless creature of the government : « Southey had undergone one of the most extreme changes of heart of the Romantic period… he now opposed Catholic emancipation and wanted to ship refractory Irish to the colonies. As far as he was concerned the poor were a constant threat to the political stability of the country, and he supported the execution of insurrectionist ». (100) As Laureate, Southey had to praise the King every year upon his birthday. This was grist to Hazlitt’s mill : « To have been the poet of the people may not render Mr Southey a court favourite, and one of his old Sonnets to Liberty must give a particular Zest to his new Birthday Odes. » (101) Southey was incensed by Hazlitt’s ridicule hence his comment quoted earlier about New College Hackney.

By 1813 the tide had turned against Napoleon and he suffered a catastrophic defeat at Leipzig, the so-called Battle of the Nations. Despite this, he remained Hazlitt’s hero. But there were many other prominent people in this country who were still rooting for him, from the flashy Byron to more sober figures like William Hamilton Reid, Lord Wycombe, John Thelwall, William Godwin, William Cobbett, Lord Melbourne and Sir John Soane. Mary Russell Mitford wrote : « I am a very moderate person – very moderate indeed, neither Whig, nor Tory, nor Reformer – nothing but a Buonapartiste – a simple Buonapartiste. » (102)

To be continued…

  1. Wu op.cit. 16
  2. Ibid. 19
  3. Simon Schama A History of Britain (London: BBC Books 2002) 99
  4. Ibid. 98
  5. Ibid. 99
  6. Ibid. 99
  7. Ibid. 100
  8. Maclean op.cit. 110
  9. Ibid. 110
  10. Ibid. 111
  11. Ibid. 111
  12. Ibid. 112
  13. Wu op.cit. 19
  14. William Hazlitt The Spirit Of The Age (UK: Kessinger Publishing) www.kessinger.net
  15. Schama op.cit 69
  16. Ibid. 70
  17. Ibid. 72
  18. Hazlitt Spirit 94
  19. Wu op.cit. 7
  20. Ibid. 19
  21. Hazlitt Spirit 61
  22. Wu op.cit 10
  23. Maclean op.cit. 121
  24. Everyman’s Library Ed. Ernest Rhys Hazlitt’s Characters Of Shakespear’s Plays (London: J.M. Dent 1921) vii
  25. Maclean op.cit. 141
  26. Ibid. 145
  27. Hazlitt Spirit 88
  28. Maclean op.cit. 145
  29. Wu op.cit. 72
  30. Schama op.cit. 108
  31. Ibid. 108
  32. Ibid. 109
  33. Ibid. 108
  34. See British Museum Website and The Daily Telegraph website – see article Why are the Elgin Marbles so controversial – and everything else you need to know by Victoria Ward December 5th 2014.
  35. Gregg op.cit. 81
  36. Ibid. 81-82
  37. Ibid. 84-84
  38. Ibid. 86
  39. Ibid. 86
  40. Wu op.cit. 79
  41. Maclean op.cit 159
  42. Ibid. 159
  43. Ibid. 159
  44. Wu op.cit. 82
  45. Anita Bookner Jacques-Louis David (London: Chatto & Windus 1980) 142
  46. Wu op.cit 105
  47. Ibid. 105
  48. Ibid. 150
  49. Ibid. 150
  50. Ibid. 155
  51. Ibid. 156
  52. Ibid. 156-157
  53. Ibid. 159

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *