THE ‘FLESHLY SCHOOL’ LIBEL CASE
(continued)

The Pall Mall Gazette (1 July, 1876)

THE “EXAMINER” LIBEL CASE.

     The hearing of the case of Buchanan v. Taylor was resumed to-day in the Common Pleas Division. The speeches of counsel having been brought to a conclusion yesterday, Mr. Justice Archibald proceeded this morning to sum up. He said that the attention of the jury had been directed to so wide a range of subjects, that he thought it necessary to recall their attention to the question which they had to decide. The action was brought upon three alleged libels upon the plaintiff, to which charge the defendant had pleaded that they were published in the Examiner in the usual course and in good faith and without malice, that they were never seen or read by the defendant before publication, and also that they were written and published for the public good. It was further said that the alleged libels were fair reviews of the works of the plaintiff and his conduct as a critic, and that they in no way referred to his private character. Then there was a passage in the statement of defence which set out that the plaintiff had as a critic written under assumed names critiques upon various authors; and under assumed names had written of himself as being among writers of high repute, and that the alleged libels were written of him solely in reference to his conduct therein and not as to his private conduct. This last statement, however, went only to the question of damages, because it was no answer to the action for libel to say that the damage had been provoked by the plaintiff’s own conduct. In reference to the law of the matter, his direction to them was that a libel was a document which was calculated to bring a person into contempt or disrepute, or to disparage him. But, though he told them what it was that constituted a libel, it was for them to say whether these articles now in question amounted to a libel or not. His lordship, after going through the first alleged libel, said that the jury would say whether the publication was actionable, though the matter of taste was another thing—and, indeed, there could be no doubt that the article was in very bad taste. The second alleged libel was a more serious matter. Mr. Taylor could not shelter himself from the consequences of this by saying that he never saw the articles before they were published; because in law he was responsible for them, though it might have an important bearing upon the question of damages. They knew that just as the action commenced a correspondence took place, in which Mr. Taylor gave up the name of the author of the second article, and proposed that the action should be brought against Mr. Swinburne; but the plaintiff’s attorney declined to adopt that proposal, and gave certain reasons for so doing. Among them was this one, that Mr. Taylor was in a position which rendered him much better able to pay damages and costs than Mr. Swinburne. The jury would consider how far Mr. Buchanan was justified in not seeking a remedy against the person who really had so injured him, and choosing to go against the proprietor of the paper, who, though a person legally responsible, had certainly not been actuated by any malice against him. Mr. Minto, indeed, was the editor of that paper, and it was true that Mr. Buchanan thought that Mr. Minto had shown a spirit of hostility to him, he having written of him again and again adversely, but against Mr. Taylor nothing of the kind was alleged. Still, after all, Mr. Taylor was a person against whom Mr. Buchanan had a perfect right to proceed. There was nothing more deplorable than to see men of high ability choosing degrading subjects for the themes of their writings instead of others which would not be calculated to stimulate and inflame the lowest and most degrading passions of human nature. He thought that the jury would agree with him that a great deal of the poetry that had been read, and which had been written by persons belonging to what was called the “Fleshly School,” had better never have been written at all; or that if it had all been committed to the flames the world would have been much the better for it. It was not the less to be deplored because the poetry was couched in elegant language, for it might be the more dangerous and successful on that account. Such writings as these were not good for the writer or for the reader, they tended to demoralize, and altogether their influence was in a direction that was not good. A critic upon such writings should be a grave person, who would rebuke them in a tone of remonstrance that would carry weight as well; such a subject should not be taken up for the purpose of writing a sensational essay upon it, but if it were possible, the critic should so speak that he should be able to place his heel upon the writings and drive it into them without it being necessary to take them up with his hand as though they were some venomous thing. Now, how had the plaintiff dealt with the matter? Had he dealt with it as the subject should be dealt with? There was a mode of reviewing such writings which made the review as sensational as the articles reviewed. The jury would on the whole say under the circumstances whether the plaintiff had by his conduct disentitled himself to damages, or how far his conduct had diminished the damages to which he was entitled.
     The jury, after considering the matter for a quarter of an hour, found a verdict for the plaintiff, damages £150.

___

The Times (Saturday, 1 July, 1876 - p.13)

SECOND DIVISIONAL COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice ARCHIBALD and a Special Jury.)
BUCHANAN V. TAYLOR.

     This case, which is an action of libel, brought by Mr. Robert Buchanan against Mr. Peter Taylor, M.P., as proprietor of the Examiner newspaper, was continued to-day.
     Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. C. R. M^cClymont appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Mr. J. C. Mathew, and Mr. Robert Williams were for the defendant.
     Mr. HAWKINS, continuing his cross-examination of the plaintiff, read several selections from the writings of “Walter Whitman,” who had been spoken of with approbation by the plaintiff, and pressed for an opinion as to their gross indelicacy. This the plaintiff admitted without reserve, excusing, however, Mr. Whitman on account of his youth at the time his book was published.
     Being re-examined by Mr. RUSSELL, the plaintiff replied that it was his honest opinion that no indecent sensualism underlay the whole of Mr. Whitman’s works, and that he had put his name to a subscription on Mr. Whitman’s behalf because he was a paralytic and in deep necessity. The Examiner had never suggested that he had written anything indecent.
     This concluded the evidence for the plaintiff, and Mr. HAWKINS intimating that he should call no witnesses,
     Mr. RUSSELL summed up. The learned counsel commented strongly on the malice of the Examiner in attacking Mr. Buchanan for criticisms made four or five years back, and, after drawing a comparison between the gross sensualism of the writings condemned by Mr. Buchanan and the moderation, justice, and ability with which they had been criticized, he concluded by claiming for his client protection and compensation.
     Mr. HAWKINS then addressed the jury on the part of the defendant. He deprecated the action being brought at all against Mr. Taylor, as it was conceded that that gentleman had no personal acquaintance with the plaintiff and owed him no spite. On the contrary, the author’s name had been given up, and there was no reason, therefore, why the defendant should be sued. If this case ended in a verdict for the plaintiff, he would not be entitled to damages as if there had been personal enmity—for personal enmity there was none. The learned counsel said the Examiner had, no doubt, fallen into error, but he repudiated the suggestion that the editor invented Buchanan as the author, and drew attention to the words “We are informed it is Buchanan,” and also to the statement that appeared in the number of the 4th of December, contradicting the authorship at Mr. Buchanan’s request. Coming to the alleged libel, the learned counsel said, no doubt it contained unpleasant statements, but he would show the jury that much of it was true. He was not there to defend the poems of Swinburne and Rossetti, which honestly he could not defend; but he would call their attention to the plaintiff’s own writings, and examine what his learned friend had called the mark which he had made on the literature of his country. The learned counsel then read extracts from “Session of the Poets,” “The White Rose and Red,” and the article in the Contemporary Review, and after citing several passages reflecting on Mr. Swinburne and Mr. Rossetti, contended that such writings deserved all they got in the criticism they had received. Mr. Buchanan’s own books showed his taste for depicting scenes of low life, and a man who could extol and praise the infamously indecent poetry of Mr. Walter Whitman had no right to condemn the fleshly school, which, however bad, was not nearly so gross and corrupt as what had been written by Whitman. The language of this author was too gross for him to quote or repeat, but the jury would have his book before them, and he would read to them Mr. Buchanan’s opinion of him. The learned counsel then referred to an article in which the plaintiff spoke of Walter Whitman as a “great ideal prophet,” a “colossal mystic,” and in the highest sense a “spiritual person,” and remarked if this was the kind of criticism plaintiff applied to such filth, what had he a right to expect himself? He complained of being libelled, but he had libelled others over and over again and under feigned names. Before he asked for damages he should look at his own writings, and if he set up to be a censor morum he must come into court with clean hands. The learned counsel concluded by asking the jury, if they gave damages at all, to give the plaintiff the smallest coin in the realm.
     The learned JUDGE said he would sum up to-morrow morning.
     The case was then adjourned.

___

The Guardian (1 July, 1876 - p.8)

THE ALLEGED LIBEL BY THE “EXAMINER.”

     The trial of the action brought by Mr. Robert Buchanan against Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P. as proprietor of the London Examiner, to recover damages for an alleged libel contained in that journal, was resumed yesterday morning, in the Common Pleas Division, before Mr. Justice Archibald and a special jury. Mr. C. Russell, Q.C. and Mr. M^cClymont appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr. Hawkins, Q.C. Mr. Murphy, Q.C. Mr. Matthew, Mr. Warr, and Mr. R. Williams represented the defendant.
     The cross-examination of the plaintiff being resumed by Mr. Hawkins, Q.C. he said he had no personal feeling against Mr. Swinburne. He recognised Mr. Swinburne’s style in the “Devil’s Due,” but he never heard that that gentleman had written it until after communications had passed between the solicitors on either side. He was not aware of the fact before the action was brought. He never instructed his counsel to keep anything back, and was perfectly willing that every line he had written should go before the jury—wished it, in point of fact. It was not for him to judge of the merits of his works, or to assign the value of the “Last of the Hangmen.” He believed he had called the hangman the inmost wheel of the machinery of State.
     Mr. Hawkins (reading)—

     “The man who keeps the constitution sharp and clean,
     Who furnishes what statesmen only plan,
     And keeps the whole play going.”

     Mr. Russell objected to witness being asked questions as to what had been written in books which were not put in.
     Mr. Hawkins said he was asking the witness his opinion upon a sentiment.
     The Judge said it would be as well not to read passages from a book not put in.
     Witness replied that the passage must be taken ironically. The “Last of the Hangmen” appeared in St. Paul’s Magazine.
     Mr. Justice Archibald remarked that that was a happy state of things; he didn’t know that they had arrived at the last of the hangmen yet.
     Witness said he was willing to have the work read from beginning to end.
     Mr. Hawkins: Then why not persuade your counsel to read it. Mr. Hawkins asked witness if he considered it offensive to a man to describe a man as a clever monkey, who scratched and screamed, and bit and munched, and mumbled—all but spoke; who possessed vices of the human sort; that he was petulant to most, but sweet to those who patted him on the back and gave him meat; that he could imitate to admiration man; and that it was right to intimate that a man had no soul.
     Witness replied that it could be no offence to a Materialist to tell him he had no soul. He would think it offensive because he was not a Materialist.
     Mr. Hawkins asked if the description were applied to Swinburne.
     The question was ruled as inadmissible.
     Mr. Hawkins: Did you publish an article called the “Monkey and the Microscope” in the St. Paul’s Magazine?
     Witness said yes. It was written in reply to “Under the Microscope” under strong feelings of irritation, and he would say that if the one were withdrawn he would recall his own pamphlet upon it. He would not recall the “Fleshly School of Poetry.” He had got up a subscription for an American poet—Walt Whitman—whom he had not condemned in the article in the Contemporary Review, though he objected to the tone of his works.
     Mr. Russell observed that Walt Whitman’s works were not included in the “Fleshly School of Poetry” because he did not belong to that school.
     Mr. Hawkins handed up to witness an extract from Walt Whitman’s works, which he said was too grossly indecent to be read in court.
     Witness, in answer to Mr. Hawkins, said he should be ashamed to introduce such language into his own works. He did not justify such language, and would only say in extenuation that Whitman, when he wrote them, was a very young man, and that excuse would not avail in the case of a Holywell-street production, because that would probably be the work of a man of more mature years.
     By the Judge: Had he to criticise such a passage he certainly should not quote it.
     Cross-examination continued: He had written that Walt Whitman’s poetry was spiritual, and that every word he uttered was symbolic, that he was a colossal mystic, and that there were not 50 lines of a thoroughly indecent kind in his works.
     In re-examination witness stated that he had publicly reprobated the indecent passages in Walt Whitman. They were introduced by the poet when dealing with certain subjects, but the indecent part could be erased by the simple process of tearing out two or three pages from the whole book. There was nothing witness had written which he would have any objection to Mr. Hawkins reading to the jury if he chose. “Nell” and the “White Rose and Red” had been read by him at public readings in the presence of many ladies, including the Duchess of Argyll and Lady Gainsborough. Neither the Examiner nor any other newspaper had ever suggested that he was guilt of impropriety in his writings. “The White Rose and the Red” was the story of a young man who met an Indian girl and virtually married her. They were thousands of miles from any priest, or from churches and modern civilisation. “Under the Microscope” appeared after the article in the Contemporary Review, and the “Monkey and the Microscope” followed after “Under the Microscope.”
     Mr. Russell read several passages from Rosetti and Swinburne, which drew from His Lordship the remark that there was no doubt that they were poems in a style very much to be deprecated. Mr. Justice Archibald had previously remarked that he could see little difference between one of the passages read and the one handed up to him from Walt Whitman; but from this observation Mr. Russell, with deference, dissented.
     Mr. Russell announced that this was his case.
     Mr. Hawkins: Then you may address the jury (thereby indicating that he should call no witnesses).
     Mr. Russell then summed up his case to the jury, and commented upon the fact that Mr. Hawkins, after his severe cross-examination of the plaintiff, had called no witnesses. The plaintiff’s case was left untouched, and would go to the jury on Mr. Buchanan’s evidence alone. That gentleman’s testimony was entitled to credit. He admitted that he had written the “Monkey and the Microscope” under feelings of strong irritation, and in reply to the gross expressions in “Under the Microscope” written by Mr. Swinburne. But the work was written four or five years ago, and yet it was not forgotten when the reviewer in the Examiner wrote the article complained of. Mr. Buchanan wrote “The Fleshly School of Poetry,” seeking to show in it that men of talent and ability were degrading their powers by allying them to sensuality and indecency. He in that review was attacking that style of writing, as he had a right to attack it, in as strong language as he was capable of doing. With the evidence of the books themselves before the jury, could they fail to come to the conclusion that the writings of this school, especially and markedly of Mr. Swinburne, were deformed not with occasional indecent excrescences, but that there was underlying the main body of the writing a subtle spirit of indecency all the more dangerous because it was so subtle. Mr. Buchanan desired to preserve pure the tone of English literature, and attacked these works. Mr. Hawkins had asked why Mr. Buchanan should undertake that duty, and had suggested by a quotation from one of his works that a passage had an indecent tone in it. But this construction of “The White Rose and Red” could not for a moment be maintained. Mr. Buchanan had been attacked for what he had really not written, the article being intended as a vent for the pent-up malice that appeared to have actuated Mr. Swinburne during several years. With regard to Mr. Whitman’s works, there was no comparison between the one passage complained of and the subtle indecency which underlay the entire works of the gentlemen belonging to the Fleshly school. The learned counsel then read extracts from the “Fleshly school of Poetry,” and pointed out that during the interval between its publication and the appearance of the “Devil’s Due” in the Examiner, Mr. Buchanan had written nothing more against these gentlemen. There was, in fact, he said, no new offence committed when “Jonas Fisher” was published. Then came the article in the Examiner which was à propos of nothing except the wrath of Mr. Swinburne. Mr. Buchanan did not complain of fair criticism, to which every one, from the Prime Minister downwards, was exposed in his public capacity, but he did object to having this review containing false statements and being made a peg for an attack upon him. The learned counsel then read the review, in which “Jonas Fisher” was said to be written “either by Robert Buchanan or the devil, and that the author, whichever he was, was a Scotchman.”
     Mr. Justice Archibald remarked that the construction of this part of the review was rather curious, because it seemed to imply that the devil was a Scotchman. (Laughter).
     Mr. Russell asked if there were in the whole of the article one word of really fair criticism upon what Mr. Buchanan had written to justify the defence that this was an article written for the public good. The review contained language of the most vituperative character, ungentlemanly, smacking strongly of Billingsgate, and piling up epithet upon epithet with the hand of a master. It termed Mr. Buchanan a shuffler, a skunk, and a puffer of himself. He did not think it would be attempted to contend that this was a series of articles, the effect of which was to hold up the plaintiff to ridicule and contempt. Was it for the public good for the paper to describe Mr. Buchanan as a renegade Scotsman; that it should be suggested that it was only a fine point between him and the devil; that he was

     “The child of green-faced Envy, sick and sore?”

Mr. Buchanan did not complain of any adverse criticism on his works, but the law did not authorise a man under the profession of a public writer to allow the columns of a newspaper to be used for purposes of private malice. If the jury came to the conclusion that it was a libel not to be cloaked by considerations of public good, then they would know how to assess damages for such an injury.
     Mr. Hawkins contended that even if the plaintiff were entitled to a verdict, which he maintained he was not, the smallest coin in the realm would satisfy the justice of the case.
     The further hearing of the case was adjourned until to-day.

___

Manchester Times (1 July, 1876)

A POET CROSS-EXAMINED.
_____

     In the Common Pleas Division, on Thursday, an action was commenced by Mr. Robert Buchanan, the author, against Mr. Peter Taylor, M.P., proprietor of the Examiner. The alleged libel consisted in an article imputing to Mr. Buchanan, “or the devil,” the authorship of “Jonas Fisher,” which was avowed by Lord Southesk, one of the witnesses.
     Mr. Robert Buchanan, cross-examined by Mr. Hawkins, said: I saw the criticism upon “Jonas Fisher” the week in which it was published. Mr. Minto is, I believe, the editor of the Examiner. I had not before the publication of the review of “Jonas Fisher” seen or had any communication with Mr. Minto or Mr. Taylor.
     And you have no reason to believe that either of them care personally about you? I have reason to know that Mr. Minto is a personal friend of Mr. Swinburne. I communicated with Mr. Minto after the review. I had no knowledge of “Jonas Fisher” until I saw the review.
     Did you tell Mr. Minto that he was better acquainted with the Devil’s style than you were?
     Mr. Russell: Whatever it was it was in writing, and must be put in.
     Mr. Hawkins: Was it your opinion that he was better acquainted with the Devil’s style than you were?
     Mr. Russell said that this was an indirect attempt to get in the substance of a written document.
     Mr. Justice Archibald ruled that the question could not be put.
     Witness: I looked upon it as “a foolish rumour” that I had written the book. This was in writing. It was the paragraph of the 4th of December in the Examiner in which it was said, “Mr. Robert Buchanan has asked us to contradict the rumour that he is the author of ‘Jonas Fisher.’ He had never heard of the work till he saw our review. The words of the Echo were, “Mr. Robert Buchanan is not the author of that clever poem ‘Jonas Fisher.’ The Examiner says it is either by Mr. Buchanan or the Devil, so that there is little room left for speculation upon the authorship.” That paragraph is not in the words I wrote, but it is substantially the same. I only wrote one paragraph—that for the Echo.
     Had you any reason to believe that the editor of the Examiner would “garble your words” if you wrote to him?—I had every reason to believe so; that he would represent me unfairly. I have never met Mr. Rosetti, but I have once met Mr. Swinburne. It was at the Hanover Square Rooms on the occasion of my giving a recitation. I believe I invited him.
     You asked him to go there to do you a kindness?—I do not see how it was doing me a kindness. I had never seen Mr. Swinburne when I wrote my “Session of the Poets” in 1866.
     You would not make any personal attack in a work of yours?—I might be guilty of personality, but it must be provoked by something very gross. I had not heard when I wrote my “Session of the Poets” that Mr. Swinburne had exceeded the bounds of moderation in drink. It would be an unfair, a cowardly, and ungentlemanly thing, to refer to that in a review if it stood alone. I might mention it as indicating character in combination with other things. I should think it unfair to drag in his personal appearance except as indicative of character. I did introduce him into the “Session of the Poets.” The expressions there were indicative of literary character.
     You refer to yourself in the “Session of the Poets”—

Thou sat looking morosely, concerted, and narrow,
     Buchanan, who finding when foolish and young,
Apollo asleep on a coster girl’s barrow,
     Straight dragged him away to see somebody hung.

(Laughter.) And you also wrote of Mr. Swinburne—

Up jumped with his neck stretched out like a gander.

Has he a long neck? I do not know.
     You also make Mr. Tennyson say of him—

“To the door with the boy! Call a cab, he is tipsy!”
And they carried the naughty young gentleman out.

Was he drunk? He was drunk to publish such a book; no man in his sober senses would publish it. I think what I said was an exceedingly mild way of putting it. I meant only to refer to Mr. Swinburne’s literary character.
     You allude to Mr. Tennyson as being

With his trousers unbraced, and his shirt collar undone,
 He lolled at his ease, like a good-natured bear.

(Laughter.) This was descriptive of his character, as the other was of Mr. Swinburne.
     You say “Master Swinburne glared out of his hair.” How could a man do that? (Laughter.) If his hair hangs over his eyes it would be descriptive. The allusion to Mr. Swinburne was in allusion to his book having been suppressed by the publisher for indecency. The “Session of the Poets” was merely a feu d’esprit.
     Do you think it desirable to publish to the world statements about judges going with white hats to Epsom? (A laugh.)
     Mr. Justice Archibald: I hope it is not wrong for a judge to go in a white hat anywhere. I wear a white hat myself. (Laughter.)
     Mr. Hawkins: Would you call this poetry—

When judges in white hats to Epsom Down
Drive gay as Tom and Jerry, folks don’t frown?

(Laughter.) Is that poetry? You are a better judge than I am; I should say it is not.
     What do you say about it? I do not see anything poetical in it. I know the works of Walt Whitman, an American author. I have been engaged in getting up a subscription for him; not on account of his works, but on account of his personal character.
     Are not his works filled with filthy things? There are things filthy in the extreme there. I have appealed to the public for Mr. Walt Whitman. I published the “Session of the Poets” in the Spectator, under the name of “Caliban.” I published “London Poems” about the same time. One of the poems there was the “Little Milliner,” and two others called “Liz” and “Nell.”
     Which of these three do you pride yourself on most? I am no judge, but I should think the last named or the two last. “Nell” was living with Ned, a man to whom she was not married, but she was not living in a state of prostitution. I also published another book of poems, “The White Rose and Red.” Two of the poems were “Log and Sunbeam,” and the “Nuptial Song.”
     The learned counsel read long extracts from these poems, and asked the witness: Is there anything animal in that?—I don’t know what you mean by animal. The poems were written after my comments upon the “Fleshly School.” I have written under two or three aliases. I have written as “Walter Hutchinson,” but not as “Senlac.” I wished to publish my article on the “Fleshly School” anonymously to let the article stand upon its own merits.
     Did you wish to publish anonymously to save you from the persecution of a clique of literary Mohawks?—Just so.
     You do lavish in your writings about as much abuse upon Mr. Swinburne, Mr. Rosetti, and others of the “Fleshly School” as you can put pen to?—I do, decidedly.

___

The Times (Monday, 3 July, 1876 - p.13)

COMMON PLEAS DIVISION, JULY 1
(Before Mr. Justice ARCHIBALD and a Special Jury.)
BUCHANAN V. TAYLOR.

     The trial of this cause was concluded to-day. It was an action brought by Mr. Robert Buchanan against Mr. Taylor, M.P., as the proprietor of the Examiner, for two libels published in that paper, bearing date the 27th November and the 11th December last. The defendant denied that the articles were libels, and pleaded that they were written for the public good, and were fair comments upon the critical writings of the plaintiff.
     Mr. Charles Russell, Q.C., and Mr. MacClymont were for the plaintiff; Mr. Hawkins, Q.C., Mr. Murphy, Q.C., Mr. J. C. Mathew, and Mr. Robert Williams were for the defendant.
     When the Court adjourned yesterday the evidence was concluded, and the counsel on either side had addressed the jury on behalf of their clients. From the effect of these speeches, and the examination of the plaintiff, who, with the exception of Lord Southesk, was the only witness called in the case, it appeared that the libels in question, which are too long to publish in extenso, had their origin under the following circumstances:—As long ago as 1871 the plaintiff sent an article to the Contemporary Review under the title of the “Fleshly School,” in which he took occasion to make some pungent criticisms upon the poetry of Mr. Swinburne, Mr. Rossetti, and Mr. Morris. It is a rule with the Contemporary Review to admit no contributions unless the name of the author is appended, but, in this instance, Mr. Buchanan, being desirous that his article should be judged strictly on its merits, preferred to send it without any signature. The article, however, was not published in this state, and the name of “Thomas Maitland” was appended, but apparently without the sanction or even knowledge of the plaintiff. Subsequently, in answer to public curiosity, the plaintiff owned he was the author, and a fierce paper war ensued, in the course of which Mr. Swinburne, in an article, called “Under the Microscope,” retaliated upon the plaintiff, in language not less pungent than had been employed in the article itself. The spirit aroused by these counter-productions had not died away when an anonymous poem was published last year under the name of “Jonas Fisher.” This poem, harmless in itself, and admitted to have been written by Lord Southesk, who was called as a witness for that purpose, contained censures upon the “Fleshly School” which attached suspicion to the plaintiff as the author. Thereupon a review appeared in the Examiner, which was the subject of the first libel complained of. In the course of this the reviewer remarked, “This anonymous poem is said by the London correspondents to be the work of either Mr. Robert Buchanan or the Devil, and, delicate as may be the question raised by this double-sided supposition, the weight of the probability inclines to the first of the alternatives.” Continuing in the same strain, “There are other and more specific circumstances which favour the report that ‘Jonas Fisher’ is another of the aliases under which Mr. Buchanan is fond of challenging criticism rather than one of the equally numerous disguises of the enemy. There is no reason why the Devil should go out of his way to abuse the ‘Fleshly School.’” After the appearance of this article, a disclaimer was inserted in the Examiner, at the request of Mr. Buchanan, denying that he was the author of “Jonas Fisher,” and then, on the 11th of December, appeared the second libel in the shape of a letter headed the “Devil’s Due,” and signed “Thomas Maitland.” This letter, which was admitted to be the work of Mr. Swinburne, and was very long, referred to the plaintiff as the “multifaced idyllist of the gutter,” “the polypseudonymous lyrist and libeller,” and stated that an author haunted by such a horror of the bloodthirsty critics who lie in wait for him has evidently yet to learn the new and precious receipt discovered by Mr. Robert Buchanan (if that be his name) of “‘Every Poeticule his own criticaster,’ a device by which Bavius may at once review his own poems with enthusiasm, under the signature of Mævius, and throw dirt up in passing with momentary accurity at the window of Horace or of Virgil.” Mr. Buchanan was at this time known to be in Scotland, and a postscript was added to the letter, in which such expressions as “skulk” and “Captain Shuffleton” were used, and it was suggested that the plaintiff sheltered himself from attack by the adoption of a feigned signature. The defence to these articles substantially was that the language used, if libellious, had been provoked by Mr. Buchanan himself, and he was subjected to a long cross-examination with this purport by Mr. HAWKINS. It was impossible to report these questions in full, because they were founded for the most part upon passages selected from books which would not bear publication; but the effect of the cross-examination was that Mr. Buchanan admitted he had spoken in terms of praise of the works of “Walt Whitman,” an American, who had written some grossly indecent poems. And passages were read from his own works in which frequent allusion of an uncomplimentary kind was made to Mr. Swinburne. In one place he was spoken of as “jumping up with his neck stretched out like a gander;” and in another Tennyson was made to say of him:—”’To the door with the boy. Call a cab; he is tipsy.’ And they carried the naughty young gentleman out:” but Mr. Buchanan defended these allusions by saying they referred to writings, and that in the same poem he had spoken of himself in terms of dispraise.
     Mr. Justice ARCHIBALD summed up the case at considerable length. After telling the jury that anything written to bring another into contempt, or degrade or disparage him, was a libel in law, his Lordship said it would not be enough, therefore, if the articles showed they were only written in bad taste, however bad that taste might be. As to the defendant in the record being the proprietor of the paper, and not the author of the article, Mr. Taylor could not shelter himself from legal responsibility on the ground that he never saw the libel before it was published; but, at the same time, there were considerations here for the jury which might affect the degree of damages, if they thought that Mr. Swinburne was the proper person to have been sued. His Lordship then, after reading and commenting upon both the alleged libels, said this brought him to the question which had been so much discussed—whether the libels had been provoked by Mr. Buchanan himself. Mr. Taylor had nothing to do with this; and it would have been more satisfactory, as well as logical and rational, if Mr. Swinburne had been the defendant. Nothing was more deplorable, his Lordship said, than to see men of genius applying their minds and pens to subjects of the most degrading kind, and calculated only to stimulate and inflame the lowest passions of human nature. He was sure the jury would agree with him that much of the “Fleshly School” had better never have been written, and if all of it was consigned to the flames to-morrow the world would be much the better. In the words of a high authority, such writing was not convenient, and was not good for writer or reader. It might be more successful because the object was veiled in elegant and refined language, but it was not the less on this account unworthy of men of genius. But if this was the character of such writings, they were not to be rebuked except in a grave and serious way; and if, instead of this, they were made the excuse of a sensational essay, and the same faults were reproduced by repetition and unnecessary quotation, such a mode of treatment must betaken into account by the jury in assessing damages. His Lordship then read passages from the plaintiff’s article in the Contemporary Review, and from his “Sessions of the Poets,” and asked the jury if they thought, from the remarks in the latter upon Mr. Swinburne, the plaintiff showed the characteristics of a man capable of seriously reviewing and rebuking the “Fleshly School.” His Lordship made some further observations on the plaintiff’s writings, observing that it was the extreme of idealism on his part to attribute “Walter Whitman’s” poems to philosophy, and, in conclusion, after remarking that the contest was creditable to neither side, left it to the jury to say whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages, and, if so, to what amount.
     One of the jurors asked his Lordship whether, if Mr. Swinburne had been made the defendant, this would have covered all the forms under which damages was claimed.
     Mr. Justice ARCHIBALD said it would not; that Mr. Swinburne could only be responsible for what he had actually written.
     The jury then retired, and, after a short absence, returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages, £150.
     His LORDSHIP, in answer to Mr. MacClymont, gave judgment accordingly.

___

Daily News (3 July, 1876)

     MR. ROBERT BUCHANAN, after a long, and to the cynical looker-on an amusing, literary quarrel with Mr. SWINBURNE, has taken his grievances into court, and his wounded soul has received pecuniary satisfaction. The proprietor of the Examiner, a gentleman who perhaps was not so much as aware of the existence of the long poetic feud, has been fined 150l. because Mr. SWINBURNE’S parting shot was fired, so to speak, from his frontier. The matter being now settled, and the wronged great soul of a modern poet being appeased, it may not be uninteresting to review the field of battle, and to consider the causes which led to so great an anger in celestial minds. Quo numine læso, in what was his great spirit wronged, that Mr. BUCHANAN came to blows with Mr. SWINBURNE, while Mr. SWINBURNE showed that he could take care of himself? In the first place some untutored people may need to be told who Mr. BUCHANAN is. He has afforded the student of his life and works plenty of autobiographical material. He left Glasgow for London some time in the course of the present century; he published what he has called “Tentatives,” and a prose criticism, “On my own Tentatives,” and expressed himself in verse of various quality. Sometimes we had Mr. BUCHANAN writing on the loves and deaths of costermongers and their wenches, and on this theme he poured himself forth with a great deal of energy and feeling. His foes have called him the “lyrist of the gutter,” but there is no point in that sneer. It would be just as fair and as futile to say that VICTOR HUGO has written, in “Les Misérable,” the epic of the gutter. Mr. BUCHANAN was, perhaps, scarcely so fortunate in his “Book of Orm,” a rather mixed and misty series of rhapsodies, and in his “Napoleon Fallen” or some similarly named tragedy, he did not quite succeed in proving that a man can always be sublime if he is not afraid of being ridiculous. Now while Mr. BUCHANAN was touching the tops of all these various quills, Mr. SWINBURNE had made a great name by his “Atalanta in Calydon,” and a great scandal by his “Poems and Ballads.” The two bards seem to have shone in quite different circles, and they might apparently have gone on making spheral music without any deplorable collision. But the atmosphere of the poetic world became obviously charged with noxious vapours. Mr. BUCHANAN appears to have published, under a nom de plume, a ;piece of verse called “The Session of the Poets.” In this production there seems to have been a good deal of allusion to real or supposed personal traits of Mr. SWINBURNE. Shortly afterwards the acute amateur of the poetic ring must have observed that Mr. SWINBURNE had come up to the scratch, and was putting in some neat hits in the foot notes of his essays, and in casual and contemptuous remarks scattered here and there through his criticisms. A poet of more established fame said things about “art, with poisonous honey stolen from France,” and this was believed to be meant for a reproach to singers who were known to like M. GAUTIER and his friends and accomplices.
     Relations between Mr. BUCHANAN and contemporary poets were thus obviously strained, and in August, 1871, the Scottish critic drew the sword, without, however, throwing away the scabbard. Who shall tell in words sufficiently sonorous the heroic squabble about “The Fleshly School?” It appears as far as mortals can make out, “for we hear but a rumour, and know nothing”—it appears that in the autumn of 1871 Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN  could stand it no longer. Not only was Mr. SWINBURNE’S name in every one’s mouth, but Mr. ROSSETTI, too, had written a successful volume of verses, while Mr. MORRIS was publishing that series of delightful stories in verse, the “Earthly Paradise.” England was being rapidly corrupted. Mr. SWINBURNE’S own scandalous work was at least five years old, but Mr. ROSSETTI also had published sonnets to which, we think, a pure, a simple, or a manly taste can never be reconciled. The pure, manly, and simple taste of Mr. BUCHANAN was up in arms. He was then at Oban, or more properly speaking, and to quote the title of his work—published when the ARGYLL family was a good deal spoken of—he was in the Land of Lorne. From Selma’s resounding caverns, or from his yacht, the wanderer sent to London a criticism called “The Fleshly School,” which appeared in the Contemporary Review, under the signature of THOMAS MAITLAND. This article was a violent attack on the taste, morality, and artistic merit of several writers, but was chiefly directed against Mr. ROSSETTI. Mr. BUCHANAN spoke of “a school with spasmodic ramifications in the erotic direction,” and to this school he said that Mr. ROSSETTI belonged. He showed his knowledge of Mr. DARWIN’S “great chapter on Palingenesis,” and he said that “in petticoats or pantaloons,” the object of his wrath “is just Mr. ROSSETTI, a fleshly person,” and so forth. These compliments are mere trifles. Mr. BUCHANAN had the assurance to add that one of Mr. ROSSETTI’S poems “bore signs of having been suggested by Mr. BUCHANAN’S quasi-lyrical poems, which it copies in the style of title.” Mr. ROSSETTI is better known as a student and imitator of early Italian than of modern Scottish poetry. Let the sensible heart imagine his feelings, any man’s feelings, on being told that he copied—Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN. Now, it is clear that it would not have been easy for one poet to sign his name to these charges against another poet. And so it came about somehow—it is not easy to say who was to blame for it—it came about that “The Fleshly School” appeared under the protection of a pseudonym. The sensitive organ, however, soon detected Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN in Mr. THOMAS MAITLAND. Then the war of words and pamphlets began with vigour, and, October being a dull time of year, a good deal of attention was drawn to Mr. BUCHANAN.
     The next movement was a spirited reply by Mr. SWINBURNE. In a pamphlet called “Under the Microscope,” he vivisected Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN with circumstances of great cruelty. Any one who likes the quarrels of authors will be pleased with this performance. The author combined the noise and bluster of the fine old Latin controversialists with the tact for inflicting pain which accompanies a sympathetic nature, and to the overwhelming and humorous fluency of RABELAIS he added the stinging malice of VOLTAIRE. The pamphlet is said to have found its way into German catalogues of scientific works, and natural philosophers at Berlin or Heidelberg must have been amused when they found out the real nature of the work. The object of this persistent scrutiny uttered a cry of pain in a little copy of verses called the “Monkey and the Microscope,” and this seemed to be the farewell shot which the foe was sullenly firing. Possibly a little skirmishing may have been done in odd holes and corners of journalism, and it is certain that some critics began to treat Mr. BUCHANAN  like the village donkey, so to speak, of song. Many a one threw a stone at him in passing, out of mere lightness of heart, as he went forth to his task of reviewing the work of others. These amenities are the safety-valves through which the pent-up and bubbling passions of literature find vent. When the Examiner, in December last, contained a letter signed THOMAS MAITLAND, the style of which letter no man could say he did not know, it seemed to the reader to be the only playful pebble of literary hatred. Taking occasion from the report of a rumour that some one thought Mr. BUCHANAN had written a book called “Jonas Fisher,” THOMAS MAITLAND II. chaffed Mr. BUCHANAN. The chaff was not pleasant, but then pleasantries had not been the order of the day for a long time. Mr. BUCHANAN brought his action, he gets his 150l., and there, we sincerely hope, is an end of it. One of Mr. BUCHANAN’S plays concludes, we believe, with the mystic words, “A Voice—IRENE!” Let peace be, indeed, everyone’s motto, whether they express it in Greek, or English, or in the language of OSSIAN. SCOTT says, in the “lay of the Last Minstrel,” that it is a pity when “tuneful hands are stained with blood,” and of course every one would be sorry if Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN had encountered Mr. SWINBURNE with pistols. In France the fiery pair would have blazed away at each other; neither, we think, would have been hurt, and there would have been an end of the matter. We cannot tolerate that way of settling disputes here, but surely monetary damages stain tuneful hands in a way that is not too glorious. We have no sympathy with the unedifying part of Mr. SWINBURNE’S verse, which Mr. BUCHANAN has managed to drag into public notice and into a court of justice. But it is just as hard to sympathise with the proceedings which satisfy the honour and confirm the self-respect of Mr. ROBERT BUCHANAN. A pitiful and petty quarrel has been brought to a conclusion worthy of it and of the miserable passions which sometimes discredit names great in the greatest of the arts.

___

The Pall Mall Gazette (3 July, 1876)

BUCHANAN v. TAYLOR.

[Samuel Perkins expoundeth the moral thereof to his son, Dudley James Perkins.]

HERE he comes! The paper, Mary. Ah, good morning, Dudley James.
’Ave you read this libel haction—this ’ere case of—what’s their names?
Oh, Buchanan vussus Taylor—there’s a lesson, lad, for you
In them singerlar proceedins; take and read ’em, Dudley, do.
You who’ve caused so much disquiet both to me and to your ma,
Not to say your Aunt Jemima, where your expectations are.
Yes, you know you ’ave, my boy; it’s gettin’ on for nigh a year
Since you took to dress in velvet and knocked off your dinner-beer,
Took to wear your collars lower and assoomed a moody stare;
’Ad a row with Snipp’s assistant when he come to cut your ‘air;
Took to moonin’ round the counter, muttrin’ “lines to” doose knows what,
Hodes and sonnicks, songs and balleds—and the other rhymin’ rot;
Changed you short black cutty for a dangling German chaney pipe
And refused to join the fam’ly at the evenin’ meal of tripe;
Wouldn’t take your ma o’ Sundays to the “Welsh Harp” in the shay,
But remained at home to finish your “Romaunt of Pegwell Bay.”
Yes, my laddie, I have watched you—I have seen your little game,
I’ve observed your haspirations after a poetic fame—
“Fame himmortal,” if you please—for nothin’ short of that will do.
Trade is low and butter vulgar—poetry’s the line for you!
Now, my boy, just read that haction—that’ll tell you what they are,
These ’ere poets that are soarin’ o’er our ’eads so jolly far.
Parts of it I ’ardly follered, but its English seems to be
Messrs. Swinbun and Buchanan can’t agree to disagree.
Mr. B. he wrote a satter,—droppin’ down on Mr. S.,
And complainin’ as his werses were a little too “undress.”
Well, this put, you may imagine, Mr. S. upon his mettle.
“What! you call my werse indecent? Gammon! it’s the pot and kettle.”
So he ups and slates Buchanan, calls him all the ’orrid names
He can take and lay his tongue to—which is plenty, Dudley James—
Treats the hother as a hinsect, looked at thro’ the microscope
By a far superior being—which is funny, let us ’ope.
That, of course, annoys Buchanan, and he “counters” with a will,
Calling Mr. S. a “monkey”—which, let’s ’ope, is funnier still.
Then they drops it for a season (this occurred in ’71).
But you don’t know much of poets if you think the war was done.
Last year comes out “Jonas Fisher,” pokin’ up the “Fleshly School”
Once again: “Oho!” says Swinbun, keepin’ very calm and cool,
“Here’s that hodious Buchanan at his dirty game again
Sure as death. There can’t be no one else among the race of men
Who could think my werse indecent.” So he lets him ’ave it ’ot;
Shied the mud he’d shied before, and shied some more that he had not.
When Buchanan’s all bespattered, then—most ’orrible of sells—
Lo be’old yer! “Jonas Fisher” proves to be by summun else.
’Ence the haction which that plucky Mr. Peter Taylor fights.
That you see’s what comes of printin’ what a hangry poet writes.
Lor! what larks to see them lawyers overaul Buchanan’s lines,
Dippin’ in their scoops to try ’em like my cheeses, through the rines!
Tastin’ this and smellin’ t’other. “Isn’t this a little strong?”
“Call that pure?” “Well, what of this now, for a hammatory song?”
Yes, by George, I never laughed so ’earty, nor I never shall,
As at ’earing Mr. ’Awkins read about that Injin gal,
And the cuddlin’ in the forest! Well, per’aps it meant no harm,
Still the author owned hisself the scene was just a trifle warm.
Then, of course, Buchanan’s counsel—he was not a goin’ to fail;
So he dropped upon the “fleshlies” right and left and tooth and nail!
“Grossly senshal,” “most indecent,” “hanimal passion consecrated.”
Says the judge, “A style of poitry ’ighly to be deprecated!”
Well, the upshot was Buchanan gets his verdic safe and sound,
And he comes on Mr. Taylor for a hundern-fifty pound.
But, Lord loves you, my dear Dudley, what a foolish price to pay!
What a terrible exposy for the poets of the day!
I dun know about their poems, which is dirty, which is clean;
As to Mr. Swinbun’s “Ballids”—blowed if I know what they mean!
So I gev my Jane a copy on her birthday last July
Bound as natty as you please in blue morocker—for, says I,
If my gal finds them corruptin’, as some people says they are,
She’s a doosed sight more ’andy guessin’ riddles than her Pa!
But to think of them two poets showin’ up each other’s lines
For the benefit of us the—what d’you call it?—Philistines.
Passion, fancy, light and sweetness—well, maybe they’ve got ’em all;
But they’ve one thing undeweloped—gumption: that’s uncommon small!
Why, when Briggs in hopen westry cheeked me—you remember, Dud,
Makin’ insolent allusions to my butter as Thames mud—
Did I go to lawr about it—hugly-tempered as I am?
Did I sue old Briggs for libel, defamation? Not for Sam!
No, I knew old Briggs’s counsel—he’d contrive to ’ave his fling,
And my butter—well mud’s ’umbug, but—t’aint always quite the thing!
And although I know a thing or two about old Briggs’s tea,
“Boshy butter” don’t get nicer by denouncin’ “dirt-Bohea.”
What’s the good of each exposin’ tother’s tricks of trade on hoath?
Plaintiff wins, or p’raps defendant, but the neighbours laugh at both;
Yet you find the “’igher intleck” blind to facs as plain as this—
Facs which any common tradesman’s too much common sense to miss.
Yes, my boy, this ought to cure you—reverlations such as these.
You will stick to butter, Dudley—butter, bacon, heggs, and cheese,
Rather than become a poet like them two as lately fought,
Bringin’ out their little wash-tubs, stupid-like, in hopen court;
And—to dab each other’s faces with the soapy froth and foam—
Washed their dirty clothes in public, which they might have washed at ’ome!

___

The Penny Illustrated Paper (8 July, 1876 - p.10)

ROBERT BUCHANAN V. “THE EXAMINER.”

     In the Common Pleas Division of the High Court on June 29 and 30 and July 1, Mr. Justice Archibald and a special jury had before them an action by Mr. Robert Buchanan against Mr. P. A. Taylor, M.P., the proprietor of the Examiner, to recover damages for an alleged libel contained in notices of a poem which was supposed to have been written by the plaintiff, entitled “Jonas Fisher.” The defendant, in addition to a plea of “Not guilty,” justified the article as being only a fair criticism of the work. The Earl of Southesk went into the witness-box and declared that he was the author of “Jonas Fisher,” and with it Mr. Buchanan had nothing whatever to do. Mr. Buchanan also gave evidence, and, under cross-examination by Mr. Hawkins, Mr. Buchanan’s descriptions of himself and some of his contemporaries afforded some amusement:
     “I had not heard, when I wrote my “Session of the Poets,” that Mr. Swinburne had exceeded the bounds of moderation in drink. It would be an unfair, a cowardly, and ungentlemanly thing to refer to that in a review, if it stood alone. I might mention it as indicating character in combination with other things. I should think it unfair to drag in his personal appearance except as indicative of character. I did introduce him into the “Session of the Poets.” The expressions there were indicative of literary character.
     “You refer to yourself in the “Session of the Poets”—

     There sat, looking mooney, conceited, and narrow,
          Buchanan, who, finding, when foolish and young,
     Apollo asleep on a coster-girl’s barrow,
          Straight dragged him away to see somebody hung.

(Laughter).
     “And you also wrote of Mr. Swinburne—

     Up jumped with his neck stretched out like a gander.

     Has he a long neck?—I do not know.
     You also make Mr. Tennyson say of him—

     To the door with the boy, call a cab, he is tipsy,
     And they carried the naughty young gentleman out.

     “Was he drunk?—He was drunk to publish such a book; no man in his sober senses would publish it. I think what I said was an exceedingly mild way of putting it, I meant only to refer to Mr. Swinburne’s literary character.
     “You allude to Mr. Tennyson as being—

     With his trousers unbraced, and his shirt-collar undone,
     He lolled at his ease like a good-natured bear.

(Laughter).—This was descriptive of his character, as the other was of Mr. Swinburne’s.
     “You say “Master Swinburne” “glared out of his hair;” how could a man do that? (Laughter).—If his hair hung over his eyes it would be descriptive. The allusion to Mr. Swinburne was in allusion to his book having been suppressed by the publisher for indecency. The “Session of the Poets” was merely a jeu d'esprit.
     “Do you think it desirable to publish to the world statements about Judges going with white hats to Epsom? (A laugh.)
     “Mr. Justice Archibald: I hope it is not wrong for a Judge to go in a white hat anywhere; I wear a white hat myself (laughter).
     “Mr. Hawkins: Would you call this poetry:—

     When judges in white hats, to Epsom Down
     Drive, gay as Tom and Jerry, folks don’t frown.

(Laughter). Is that poetry? You are a better judge than I am?—I should say it is not. What do you say about it?—I do not see anything poetical in it.”
     Mr. Justice Archibald, in summing up, gave a few words of advice that might be acted upon by a few writers besides those at whom the learned Judge’s remarks were aimed. He said there was nothing more deplorable than to see men of high ability choosing degrading subjects for their themes instead of others which would not be calculated to stimulate and inflame the lowest and most degrading passions of human nature. He thought that the jury would agree with him that if a great deal of the poetry that had been read, and which had been written by persons belonging to what was called the “Fleshly School,” had never been written at all, or if it had all been committed to the flames, the world would have been much the better for it.
     The jury retired to consider the matter; and, after an absence of a quarter of an hour, they returned with a verdict for the plaintiff—damages, £150.

___

The Era (9 July, 1876)

TOPICS OF THE WEEK.
_____

.....

     THE literary dignity of Mr ROBERT BUCHANAN, which was supposed to have been so sorely wounded by ALGERNON SWINBURNE and other writers in The Examiner, is supposed to be healed by the award by a British Jury of £150. The awards by Juries in libel cases are the most curious in the whole range of legal history; but it becomes very like a farce when Judges and Jurymen solemnly put their heads together, and deliberately give their opinion on this or that poet, this or that dramatist, this or that journalist, or this or that writer. Now, in matters of law, all sensible people would gladly take the opinion of so eminent a Judge as Mr Justice ARCHIBALD with or without his white hat; in the matter of butter, cheese, soap, or tallow candles, the average British Jurymen could, no doubt, speak with confidence, but we have yet to learn that Mr Justice ARCHIBALD, or the Jury he directed, have shown the slightest familiarity with, or capacity for, literary criticism, or that their opinions on the rival merits of SWINBURNE and BUCHANAN have any value whatever. The question before the Court did not appear to be whether SWINBURNE or BUCHANAN were good or bad poets, moral or immoral writers, but whether BUCHANAN had or had not been libelled; in point of fact, whether the articles complained of exceeded the limits of fair criticism. The argument that SWINBURNE is not a genius, because he has written much which many people justly condemn, is as feeble as the implied idea that, because a man has once written a foolish thing, he is to be denied justice until the end of time.

__________

Back to The Fleshly School Controversy