Talk:Leigh Hunt

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article Name[edit]

Shouldn't this article be at Leigh Hunt? Why the full name? john k 07:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article was moved from James Henry Leigh Hunt to Leigh Hunt by john k on 24 February 2006
Note added by Lini 03:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Article Length[edit]

I feel that this article is a bit too long to read at one sitting. maybe someone knowledgeable could chop it up to several pieces so it is easier to read. i would suggest a short biography on the physical existence. the works and personal life kind of work together anyhow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.234.157 (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Language[edit]

It seems that the language of the article is not objective. Editor should make sure to remove subjective adjectives as 'Beautiful' 'best' 'great' etc... it sounds more like an obituary than an encyclopedia article. however, the creator of the article obviously shows great knowledge and insight in hunt's life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.246.234.157 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article needs to be more encyclopedic. Valetude (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re: going to prison[edit]

According to one account, Hunt went to prison for calling George "Adonis of 50." Is there anything to that story? Kingturtle (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia[edit]

I removed this from the article as it appears to be trivia. Apologies if it isn't considered as such:

Wholetone (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friend: Keats and Shellby[edit]

This part of the article isn't written very well, perhaps someone with good informative language could re-do and condense it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.152.236 (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it fair to describe his family as large? Yes by today's standards, perhaps. But for example Charles Darwin had 10 children and Queen Victoria had 10 children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.104.113.175 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DNB[edit]

I added a little from the DNB, 1900, I leave their references here in case they are useful: cygnis insignis 18:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sources: [The Autobiography of Leigh Hunt, a new Edition, revised by the Author, with further Revision, and an Introduction by his Eldest Son, 1860; The Correspondence of Leigh Hunt, edited by his Eldest Son, with a Portrait, 2 vols. 1862; Recollections of Writers, by Charles and Mary Cowden Clarke, with Letters of Charles Lamb, Leigh Hunt, Douglas Jerrold, and Charles Dickens, and a Preface by Mary Cowden Clarke, 1878; Professor Dowden's Life of Shelley; Moore's Life of Byron; List of the Writings of William Hazlitt and Leigh Hunt, chronologically arranged,with Notes, descriptive, critical, and explanatory, by Alexander Ireland, 1868 (two hundred copies printed); Characteristics of Leigh Hunt as exhibited in that typical Literary Periodical Leigh Hunt's London Journal, 1834-5, with Illustrative Notes by Lancelot Cross (Frank Carr), 1878. References to Leigh Hunt occur in the writings of his contemporaries William Hazlitt, Charles Lamb, and Barry Cornwall (Bryan Waller Procter), and in the Reminiscences and Letters of Thomas Carlyle. Selections from his writings have been made by Edmund Oilier, with introduction and notes, 1869; by Arthur Symons, with useful introduction and notes, 1887; by Charles Kent, with a biographical introduction and portrait, 1889, and chiefly from the poems, by Reginald Brimley Johnson, in the Temple Library, 1891, with a biographical and critical introduction and portrait from an unpublished sketch, and views of his birthplace and the various houses inhabited by him; A Life of Hunt, by Cosmo Monkhouse, in the Great Writers series, is in preparation.]

Article name redux[edit]

It was previously agreed that the article name should be what the entire literary world knows him as, Leigh Hunt. Since then, it's been changed back to the long name, but with no discussion. I very much want to see it back to the short name. Any objections? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion about an aspect of the last name change. For a long time I couldn't recall where, but I just found it. It was, more precisely, about leaving the page as is, but redirecting "Leigh Hunt" here rather than to a DAB page. I still would find that preferable to leaving this article page as is, but if the whole article were moved back to "Leigh Hunt" (with suitable hatnote) I agree that that would be better still. I once thought of pursuing this further but obviously put it off; I'm just spread too thin here as it is, and I have little enough time for the things I feel are more important to me. If you're still watching here, and you want my "vote", well, consider this to be it. My personal feeling is that anyone who is halfway familiar with the literature of the period knows that he was and is to this day known always as simply "Leigh Hunt"; it's clear to me that you would agree. --Alan W (talk) 07:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. It's a pity that that 2010 discussion wasn't copied here, but no matter. As we now have 2 Yeses and zero Noes after 12 months, we have unanimity for a change back to Leigh Hunt. But it will need an administrator now (I tried and failed to move it back). Any takers? If not, I'll post it to Requested Moves. -- Jack of Oz [Talk] 07:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV tone needs altering[edit]

"Hunt published the companion books, Imagination and Fancy (1844), and Wit and Humour (1846), two volumes of selections from the English poets, which displayed his refined, discriminating critical tastes. His book on the pastoral poetry of Sicily, A Jar of Honey from Mount Hybla (1848), is also delightful. "

This, whilst possibly a reasonable judgement, is surely not encyclopaedic in tone. A book cannot be objectively delightful, it can only be subjectively considered such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.180.242 (talk) 00:40, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic: I agree that, by Wikipedia standards, that statement is "unencyclopedic"; yet it was taken straight from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, as was frequently done here ten years ago, when this article was started. --Alan W (talk) 07:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James Henry Leigh Hunt → Leigh Hunt – Leigh Hunt is BY FAR the most common name. It was moved there in 2006 after a short discussion (see Article Name above). Then in 2010 it was moved back to its current name, but with zero discussion here (see Article name redux above). Two editors now agree it should be at Leigh Hunt, and there are no objections. Jack of Oz [Talk] 22:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I fully support this move. Leigh Hunt was a well-known English poet and essayist of the early 19th century (unfortunately now poorly remembered and little studied). Having studied the literature of the period in depth, I find it very odd to read Hunt's full name and think of it as belonging to the same person. His works were published under the name "Leigh Hunt", and that is how he has always been commonly known. A few very formal biographical dictionaries do give the full name, but none of his own books (that I am aware of) do. Samuel L. Clemens redirects to Mark Twain, and very rightly so. This is a similar case. WP:Naming conventions (people) says: "Generally, use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources", "The name used most often to refer to a person in reliable sources is generally the one that should be used as the article title, even if it is not their 'real' name" (in this case, it's "real", but only part of the name he was born with), "Adding middle names, or their abbreviations, merely for disambiguation purposes (if that format of the name is not commonly used to refer to the person) is not advised." This is essentially the same case, except that with Hunt, the "James Henry" came before the "Leigh" and it is by that second of his middle names that he has always been known.
Naturally, there should be a hatnote on the page directing those who are searching for others with similar names to the DAB page. I will be happy to add one. --Alan W (talk) 23:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per common name. — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Leigh Hunt/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I like the biographical article on Leigh Hunt, but found it did not mention a weekly that he edited and, I believe, wrote much of called The Companion. I have a copy of it now from a unversity library. It ran from issue "No. I.--WEDNESDAY, JAN. 9,1828" through issue "No. XXIX, WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 1828". The edition of the hardcover that I have is from AMS PRESS, INC., New York, N.Y. 10003, 1967, and seems to be a facsimile edition with absolutely no editorial comments or additions of any sort.

It takes up 432 pp. of fine print and, although the weekly seems to have run less than a year, probably is worth mentioning in your biographical article on Leigh Hunt.

George Murray 07:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 07:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 21:51, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leigh Hunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leigh Hunt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source of his name[edit]

He was named after James Henry Leigh, a pupil of his father Isaac. This Leigh was the son of James Leigh and Lady Carolyn Brydges. Lady C was the daughter of the 2nd Duke of Chandos. Her brother was James Brydges, later 3rd Duke of Chandos.

In trying to source this relationship to the Leigh and Chandos families, I read Anthony Holden's biography The Wit in the Dungeon: A Life of Leigh Hunt (2005). Holden seems to have got the facts horribly wrong. He says (p. 7) that James Henry Leigh was the son of "the Duke of Chandos", yet their family name was Brydges, not Leigh. It's clear that James Leigh was the 2nd Duke's son-in law, and James Henry Leigh was the 2nd Duke's grandson, not his son.

He also calls this Duke "the grandson of Pope's and Swift's Duke of Chandos". But the 1st Duke's grandson was the 3rd Duke, the brother of Lady Carolyn Brydges. The 3rd Duke figures precisely nowhere in the story of Leigh Hunt's connection to the Leigh and Chandos/Brydges families. It was all to do with the 2nd Duke and his daughter and her husband and their child, who was the pupil of Leigh Hunt's father.

Ah, but I now see we say "He was then employed by James Brydges, 3rd Duke of Chandos, as tutor to his nephew, James Henry Leigh, for whom Isaac named his son." That makes a whole lot more sense than what I was able to work out. Holden has still mangled the story very badly. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:27, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have I understood this correctly? -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 11:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leigh_Hunt&oldid=1207670350"