fragment of Hyperion seems actually inspired by the Titans, and is as sublime as Aeschylus’; and other utterances of his show that—­being with difficulty persuaded to suppose that Keats’s health and life had succumbed to the attack in the Quarterly—­he fittingly censured the want of feeling or want of reflection on the critic’s part which had produced so deplorable a result.  But on the whole Byron’s feeling towards Keats was one of savage contempt during the young poet’s life, and of bantering levity after his death.  Here are some specimens.  (From a letter to Mr. Murray, 12 October, 1820).  ’There is such a trash of Keats and the like upon my tables that I am ashamed to look at them....  No more Keats, I entreat.  Flay him alive:  if some of you don’t, I must skin him myself.  There is no bearing the drivelling idiotism of the manikin.’

          ’"Who killed John Keats?”
          “I,” says the Quarterly,
          So savage and Tartarly;
          “‘Twas one of my feats."’

’John Keats, who was killed off by one critique
  Just as he really promised something great
If not intelligible, without Greek
  Contrived to talk about the gods of late,
Much as they might have been supposed to speak. 
  Poor fellow, his was an untoward fate! 
’Tis strange the mind, that very fiery particle,
Should let itself be snuffed out by an article.’

11. 7-9. From her wilds Ierne sent The sweetest lyrist of her saddest wrong, And love taught grief to fall like music from his tongue. Ierne (Ireland) sent Thomas Moore, the lyrist of her wrongs—­an allusion to the Irish Melodies, and some other poems.  There is not, I believe, any evidence to show that Moore took the slightest interest in Keats, his doings or his fate:  Shelley is responsible for Moore’s love, grief, and music, in this connexion.  A letter from Keats has been published showing that at one time he expected to meet Moore personally (see p. 45).  Whether he did so or not I cannot say for certain, but I apprehend not:  the published Diary of Moore, of about the same date, suggests the negative.

+Stanza 31,+ 1. 1. ’Midst others of less note. Shelley clearly means ‘less note’ than Byron and Moore—­not less note than the ’one frail form.’

1. 2. Came one frail form, &c.  This personage represents Shelley himself.  Shelley here describes himself under a profusion of characteristics, briefly defined:  it may be interesting to summarize them, apart from the other details with which they are interspersed.  He is a frail form; a phantom among men; companionless; one who had gazed Actaeon-like on Nature’s naked loveliness, and who now fled with feeble steps, hounded by his own thoughts; a pard-like spirit beautiful and swift; a love masked in desolation; a power begirt with weakness, scarcely capable of lifting the weight of the hour; a breaking billow, which may even now be broken; the last of the company, neglected and