The responses of Coleridge’s family and friends were various. For Sara Coleridge – to whom De Quincey had betrothed himself when she was a little girl – her father’s mind was ‘too much in the mirror of [De Quincey’s] own’. Refusing to believe that he ‘had any enmity’ towards Coleridge, Sara praised De Quincey for characterising his ‘genius and peculiar mode of discourse with great eloquence and discrimination. . . indeed he often speaks of his kindness of heart’. For her brother, Hartley, De Quincey was ‘an anomaly and a contradiction. . . he steals the aristocratic “de”; he announces for years the most aristocratic tastes, principles and predilections, and then goes and marries the uneducated daughter of a very humble, very coarse, and very poor farmer. He continues to be, in profession and in talk, as violent a Tory and anti-reformer as ever, and yet he writes for Tait. He professed almost an idolatry for Wordsworth and for my father. . . and yet you see how he is treating them!’ Thomas Poole himself complained that De Quincey’s memory ‘must be incorrect’ because he, Poole, had ‘never considered Coleridge a plagiarist’. Southey, erupting in what Carlyle described as ‘Rhadamanthine rage’, denounced De Quincey as ‘one of the greatest scoundrels living’. ‘I have told Hartley Coleridge,’ Southey fumed to Carlyle at a dinner party, ‘that he ought to take a strong cudgel, proceed straight to Edinburgh, and give De Quincey, publicly in the streets there, a sound beating – as a calumniator, cowardly spy, traitor, base betrayer of the hospitable social hearth.’ De Quincey’s crime, according to Southey, was against hospitality. Wordsworth’s response, expressed to Coleridge’s literary executor, J. H. Green, was that De Quincey was a stalker: ‘It is not to be doubted that [De Quincey] was honoured by Mr C’s confidence, whose company he industriously sought, following him into different parts of England: and how he has abused that confidence, and in certain particulars, perverted the communications made to him, is but too apparent from this obnoxious publication.’
From his mother De Quincey received a scolding for writing ‘in a disreputable magazine on subjects and in spirits afflicting to your real friends’. His lapse of taste, Mrs Quincey assumed, was down to ‘opium delirium’.
De Quincey’s final word on his relationship with Coleridge can be found buried in an essay for Tait’s on ‘Milton v Southey’, which appeared in 1847. ‘Any of us,’ he wrote, ‘would be jealous of his own duplicate; and, if I had a doppelgänger, who went about personating me, copying me, and pirating me, philosopher as I am, I might. . . be so far carried away by jealousy as to attempt the crime of murder upon his carcass. But it would be a sad thing for me to find myself hanged; and for what, I beseech you? for murdering a sham, that was either nobody at all, or oneself repeated once too often.’
The subject of this passage was ostensibly Wordsworth, who had no equal. ‘If you show to Wordsworth a man as great as himself, still that great man will not be much like Wordsworth – the great man will not be Wordsworth’s doppelgänger.’ De Quincey, meanwhile, now had his own American duplicate, a man who went about personating, copying and pirating him. His name was Edgar Allan Poe.
Now resuming his Autobiographic Sketches, De Quincey explained that he had ‘not mentioned, in the “Opium Confessions”, a thousandth part of the sufferings I underwent in London and in Wales. . . Grief does not parade its pangs, nor the anguish of despairing hunger willingly count again its groans or its humiliations.’ His current grief, anguish and despairing hunger were more real and far worse than anything he had known in 1802, but De Quincey would never describe them in his journalism.
He eventually gave up the lease of Dove Cottage in the summer of 1835. The house rendered up for him, he wrote, ‘echoes of joy’, of ‘festal music’ and ‘jubilant laughter’, the ‘innocent mirth of infants’ and the ‘gaiety, not less innocent, of youthful mothers’, but alongside the ‘reverberation of forgotten household happiness’ were the ‘re-echoing records of sighs’. Closing the door of the cottage after his final visit, De Quincey felt ‘the weight of a world’ fall from his shoulders. ‘I now possess my mind,’ he told Tait, ‘heretofore I was under a possession.’
His precious books, papers and letters were taken to Lingstubbs, the Penrith farmhouse in which Margaret had been so unhappy, where they snowed up another set of rooms. Three years later, having despaired of receiving any rent, the landlord of Lingstubbs put them up for sale. De Quincey’s letters to Margaret, and quite possibly his diary from Everton days, were perused by prospective purchasers, and his library was sold.
‘Yet in the lowest deep,’ he would write in his tale ‘The Household Wreck’, ‘there yawns a lower deep.’
The death that year of Uncle Penson filled him with hope: he would surely be remembered in the old man’s will. It was not to be. The £100 annuity he had already been receiving he continued to receive, added to which he inherited his uncle’s clothes, household linen and crockery. Furious, De Quincey lashed out at his mother: ‘Not only has she absorbed 2/3rds of my father’s fortune, but she has intercepted the whole of a second, and almost the whole of a 3rd (my uncle’s). All these it is true come eventually. . . to myself. . . Now if all men had mothers living to ages so excessive and mothers by strange coincidence of accident absorbing one estate after another, who would escape embarrassment?’ For Tait, De Quincey submitted an uncharitable account of his time in Everton in the company of William Roscoe, James Currie and William Shepherd.
His family were back in Holyrood in November 1836 where Margaret caught typhus, commonly known as jail fever. On 7 August 1837, aged forty-one, she died; later that day, De Quincey was sued for the sum of £12 1/ 8½d. Florence, aged ten when she lost her mother, described her father as ‘unhinged’ by sorrow and by ‘the overwhelming thought of being left with a family of such differing ages and needs, and with no female relative at hand to help him’. He had been drinking in Eton when Ann disappeared and taking laudanum in London when Catherine Wordsworth died: De Quincey was at least with his wife when her life ended in the debtors’ sanctuary, miles away from her Lakeland home.
Margaret De Quincey, like Mary Wordsworth, has come down to us as a phantom wife. De Quincey leaves little sense of her character, but from Florence we have a moving description of her mother’s effect on the few who knew her: ‘Delicate health and family cares made her early withdraw from society, but she seems to have had a powerful fascination for the few friends she admitted to intimacy, from an old charwoman who used to threaten us, as though it were guilt on our part, “Ye’ll ne’er be the gallant woman ye’re mither was”, to a friend who had seen society in all the principal cities of Europe, and who, with no reason for exaggeration, has told us he had never seen a more gracious or a more beautiful lady than our mother.’
Grief, De Quincey wrote in the introduction to his series of ‘Letters from a Modern Author to his Daughters’, cannot be shared. Like opium, it locks us up inside our own citadels. The sole consolation for ‘those who weep in secret for the vanished faces of their household’ is ‘love’.
De Quincey’s love was countered by guilt and Rhadamantine rage, which found expression in his now open hatred of Wordsworth. In a letter to Tait, he described how, twenty-five years ago, his voice had ‘trembled with anger’ toward this man ‘because he could not see the loveliness of a fair face now laid low in the dust’. Wordsworth had been ‘indifferent’ to ‘an angelic sweetness in that face and an innocence as if fresh from Paradise which struck my own eyes with awe as well as love. I may say that I perfectly hated him for his blindness.’ He might have been talking about little Catherine Wordsworth, whose beauty he also accused Wordsworth of having been blind to: De Quincey’s dead loved ones all blend into one angelic form. Margaret’s life had been hard, but not because Wordsworth was blind to the loveliness of her face. Whether or not she took tea with Mary Wordsworth will have been of less concern to Margaret than whether her children had enough to eat, but De Quincey fixated on the idea that his wife’s suffering was due to social exclusion. The contrast
between Wordsworth’s treatment of the abandoned Margaret in The Excursion and his treatment of her soul sister, Margaret De Quincey, was too much for De Quincey to bear. He now idealised his married life, seeing it as a lost Eden. He forgot that Dorothy had been kind to Margaret in her hour of need, and that Wordsworth had called on at least two occasions and been refused entry. All De Quincey remembered was that his wife had been cut and that he, who had shared in the Wordsworths’ own family sorrows, received no consolation from Rydal Mount following the wreckage of his own household.
De Quincey was now on the run from Holyrood, where he owed rent to Miss Craig and Miss Miller, and from his filial responsibilities, ‘a burden which I could not carry, and which yet I did not know how to throw off’. His eldest surviving child, eighteen-year-old Margaret Thomasina, took over the care of her siblings while her father hid in the second-floor apartment of 42 Lothian Street, the home of a Frances Wilson and her sister, Miss Stark. The building contained six similar apartments, accessible by a common staircase. From now on, the city of Edinburgh became De Quincey’s sanctuary from the abbey. He was blessed in his new abode; Lothian Street was in a seedy part of the Old Town, composed of dwelling houses and worn-out shops, but Mrs Wilson and Miss Stark were cultivated and kind, and they treated their bereaved tenant with maternal tenderness. Left alone to write until six o’clock, De Quincey enjoyed ‘insulated’ evenings where, in ‘the soft splendour’ of lamplight, he sat in the company of his landladies. His month here was described by him as the happiest he had ‘known in a long, long time’. For Florence, left behind in the Holyrood ‘hole’, her father had ‘deserted’ his family, escaping ‘for his own enjoyment’. His whereabouts was eventually discovered by a former washerwoman at the abbey who ‘pursued’ De Quincey’s son Fred through the streets. De Quincey did not reveal his next address to his children, ‘for they have too little presence of mind and too little discretion’.
He found solace in blame, but also in writing. From his Lothian Street hideaway he poured his complex of emotions into ‘The Household Wreck’, which was published by Blackwood’s in January 1838. The hero of the story, whose name we are not given, has a tall and ‘dovelike’ wife called Agnes who hails from the mountains. Described, using Wordsworth’s phrase, as ‘A perfect woman, nobly planned,/ To warn, to comfort, to command’, Agnes is seventeen when they marry and the couple move to a town many miles from her home. They are as happy as Adam and Eve, and the husband, who owes ‘no man a shilling’, reads to his wife from Paradise Lost. But beneath their joy is unrest: he has ‘never ridded myself of an overmastering and brooding sense, shadowy and vague, a dim abiding feeling. . . of some great calamity travelling towards me. . . perhaps even at a great distance, but already dating from some secret hour – already in motion upon some remote line of approach’. He describes this calamity as ‘the juggernaut of social life’, a thing which ‘pauses not for a moment to spare, to pity, to look aside, but rushes forward for ever’. This juggernaut careered into their lives on a spring day when Agnes went into town to do some errands. In an hour, it ‘accomplished the work of years’.
Waiting for Agnes to return home, her husband becomes increasingly anxious. Hours pass by until ‘suddenly a sound, a step: it was the sound of the garden gate opening, followed by a hasty tread. Whose tread? Not for a moment could it be fancied the dread step which belonged to that daughter of the hills – my wife, my Agnes. No; it was the dull, massy tread of a man; and immediately there came a blow upon the door, and in the next moment, the bell having been found, a furious peal of ringing. . . Who will go to the door? I whispered audibly. Who is at the door?’
It is a policeman with the news that Agnes has been accused of stealing lace in a haberdashery. She is thrown into a Piranesian jail, ‘vast, ancient, in parts ruinous’, where debtors and criminals live cheek by jowl, and whose population is further swollen by the presence of the debtors’ families. While she awaits trial, her husband contracts typhus from the mobs around the prison gates and sinks into a fever. During his two months of delirium their son dies of the same fever and his wife’s fame grows to the point where all the world is talking of her case.
Did Agnes steal the lace? Theft, her husband reflects, is a crime of the lower classes which reflects badly on the man who should be the family’s provider. Nonetheless he finds himself doubting her innocence. ‘She is, or she is not, guilty,’ he tells himself, ‘there is no middle case.’ The court finds her guilty and sentences her to ten years hard labour, but her then husband learns that Agnes was set up by a villain called Barratt whose sexual advances she had rejected. ‘Wrath, wrath immeasurable, unimaginable, unmitigable’ now burns at his heart ‘like a cancer’. Aided by an under-jailer called Ratcliffe, he helps his wife to escape but she dies soon afterwards. Barratt then confesses his crime and is lynched by the mob. ‘My revenge,’ says the hero, ‘was perfect.’
‘The Household Wreck’ is a tale of terror whose strength lies in the husband’s half-conscious sense that it is he and not Agnes or Barratt who is the guilty party: the cause of his wife’s suffering and death. In Suspiria de Profundis, De Quincey would describe how as a child ‘the crime which might have been was in my mind the crime which had been’ and the vertiginous possibilities of this scenario are dramatised here. Wanting to tell a tale of grief, he describes instead only impotence and rage; rather than protect his wife, his narrator wallows in self-pity: ‘misery has a privilege,’ he says, ‘and everywhere is felt to be a holy thing’. He battles with the past ‘as though it were a future thing and capable of change’. As in a dream, ‘The Household Wreck’ refigured the elements of De Quincey’s waking life: Agnes is found guilty of the crime De Quincey had accused Coleridge of committing; when his wife needs him, her husband is absent, coming ham-fisted to her rescue only when it is too late. The presence of a man called Ratcliffe is a reference to the other household wrecks by which De Quincey was haunted.
Hamlet-like, the hero of ‘The Household Wreck’ is an avenger unable to act. De Quincey now wrote another tale for Blackwood’s on the same theme, which he called ‘The Avenger’. Here the hero, Maximilian Wyndham, returns to his native Germany from fighting at Waterloo. A series of vicious murders takes place in the city where he lives, one of the victims being Maximilian’s own young wife, who is called Margaret. In each case the murderer enters the house of the victim and slaughters its occupants. With a killer at large, the fear of the locals is compared to ‘that which sometimes takes possession of the mind in dreams – when one feels one’s-self sleeping alone, utterly divided from all call or hearing of friends, doors open that should be shut, or unlocked that should be triply secured, the very walls gone, barriers swallowed up by unknown abysses, nothing around one but rail curtains, and a world of illimitable night, whisperings at a distance, correspondence going on between darkness and darkness, like one deep calling to another. . .’
Thus De Quincey brings the terror inward, turning it into an opium trance. The murderer is revealed to be Maximilian himself, avenging the slaughter of his Jewish family, carried out by the same dignitaries many years earlier. As in ‘The Household Wreck’, the city has two faces; what seems to its other inhabitants to be a ‘perfectly average’ place is experienced by Maximilian as ‘a place of dungeons, tortures and tribunals of tyrants’.
While their father made himself invisible, De Quincey’s children delivered his messages and manuscripts. They were instructed to be light on their feet but on ‘three separate times’, he complained to Tait in April 1838, ‘in three separate lodgings, I had been traced by the emissaries of my creditors; and always through the carelessness of my children, who suffered themselves to be followed unconsciously’. His winged offspring became a familiar sight: one bookseller recalled how ‘Mr De Quincey’s young, fair-haired English laddies’ came on their father’s behalf to ask for loans, and his copy was delivered to Tait by a daughter who would throw the package into the room and shout ‘There!’ before rushing o
ff.
What can it have been like to have De Quincey as a father? Florence, on whom ‘the main burden fell’, left a vivid description. Running his errands, she got to know the ‘north and south banks of the Canongate, George the Fourth Bridge, the cross causeway &c as hideous dreams, my heart rushing into my mouth with the natural terrors of footsteps approaching and rushing down again into my shoes when left to quiet and the ghosts’. The fear he had of his children being followed was, Florence felt, a source of pleasure to De Quincey. ‘It was an accepted fact among us that he was able when saturated with opium to persuade himself and delighted to persuade himself (the excitement of terror was a real delight to him) that he was dogged by dark and mysterious foes.’ This way her father absolved himself of guilt for absconding from Holyrood, a ‘home without any competent head where truly no home should have been, and where as truly he could by no possibility have done any work had he remained’.
As far as De Quincey’s children were concerned, there was no ‘reality’ to his ‘groanings unutterable about creditors and enemies’. We know from the records that there was a great deal of reality to these groanings, but Florence’s sense of things reminds us that, for those who knew him, De Quincey lived in a paranoid world of his own construction. This same love of ‘concealment and lurking enemies’, she believed, explained why her father would allow no help in arranging his financial affairs. Some of De Quincey’s friends ‘gave up under the impression things were too bad to be meddled with, others that there was nothing to be arranged, others – which was the truth – that he didn’t like to have them arranged as it disturbed the prevailing mystery in which he delighted’.
Throughout these years, Wilson’s life had been running alongside De Quincey’s on parallel tracks. In the year that Margaret died, Wilson lost his own wife, after which he left Edinburgh, and from now on he and De Quincey saw one another only sporadically. For Florence, their friendship was ‘an illustration of Coleridge’s, “Alas, they had been friends in youth”, each indebted to the other at critical periods of their improvident lives for kindly help, perhaps not admitted as generously as they might have been by Professor Wilson when he was the successful man’.
Guilty Thing Page 35