Skip to main content

Full text of "The papers of a critic .."

See other formats 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

RIVERSIDE 


Ex  Libris 
ISAAC   FOOT 


THE 

PAPEKS   OF  A   CEITIC. 


aa  3-3 

THE 


PAPEKS    OF   A    CEITIC. 


SELECTED   FROM   THE    WRITINGS   OF   THE    LATE 


CHARLES   WENTWORTH    DILKE, 


WITH  A  BIOGRAPHICAL  SKETCH   BY  HIS  GRANDSON, 


SIR  CHARLES  WENTWORTH  DILKE,  BART.,  M.P., 

AUTHOR   OF 

"GBEATEB  BRITAIN,"  AND  OF  "THE  FALL  or  PBINCE  FLOBESTAN  OF  MONACO." 


IN  TWO  VOLUMES. 
VOL.  I. 


LONDON : 
JOHN   MURRAY,   ALBEMARLE   STREET. 

1875. 


.  I 


LONDON : 
BRADBURY,   AGNEW,   ft  CO.,    PRINTERS,   WH1TKFRIAR?. 


PREFACE. 

THE  Papers  of  the  late  Mr.  DILKE  on  "  Junius"  and 
some  other  subjects,  are  still  in  much  demand,  and 
the  copies  of  the  Athenceum  which  contain  them  being 
exhausted,  it  has  been  found  necessary  to  reprint  them. 
The  memoir  prefixed  may  not  be  without  its  interest 
to  those  who  need  the  "  Junius "  and  other  articles 
reprinted,  for  their  researches  in  literary  history. 


CONTENTS  OF  VOL.   I. 


PAGE 

MEMOIR 1 

POPE'S  WRITINGS 93 

LADY  MARY  WORTLEY  MONTAGU 343 

SWIFT,  &c.      .                                   361 


MEMOIR. 


CHARLES  WEXTWORTH  DILKE,  born  on  8th  December,  1789, 
was  the  eldest  son  of  Charles  Wentworth  Dilke,  born  1742, 
and  of  Sarah  Blewford — his  lovely  wife.  His  only  brother  is 
at  the  present  time  living  at  Chichester,  in  which  city  their 
father  dwelt  after  his  retirement  from  the  public  service.  Mr. 
Dilke's  father  and  his  grandfather — Wentworth  Dilke-Went- 
worth  (he  took  the  name  of  Wentworth  as  his  surname,  as  two 
of  his  ancestors  in  the  seventeenth  century  had  also  done) — were 
both  in  the  Civil  Service  of  the  Crown,  and  the  subject  of  the 
present  notice  also  entered  the  Civil  Service  at  an  eai'ly  age,  in 
the  Navy  Pay  Office.  His  father,  as  the  head  of  the  younger 
branch  of  the  ancient  family  of  Dilke  of  Maxstoke  Castle,  in 
Warwickshire,  was  fond  of  heraldry  and  family  research.  He 
was  also  an  excellent  artist  in  sepia-drawing  and  intaglio,  and 
as  a  modeller.  His  son,  Mr.  Dilke,  was  brought  up  to  be  proud 
of  his  descent  from  Sir  Peter  Wentworth,  member  of  the  High 
Court  of  Justice,  and  from  the  older  Sir  Peter  Wentworth, 
leader  of  the  Puritan  opposition  under  Queen  Elizabeth,  and 
husband  of  the  sister  of  Sir  Francis  Walsinghani.  At  an  early 
age  Mr.  Dilke  became  both  an  antiquary  and  a  Radical,  and 
both  he  continued  to  be  until  the  end  of  his  days. 

In  1815,  a  letter  says,  "  Gifford  speaks  very  highly  of  him," 
and  he  evidently  was  already  engaged  on  literary  work.  About 
this  date  he  edited  a  continuation  of  Dodsley's  "  Old  Plays," 
and  from  this  time  to  1830  he  wrote  largely  in  the  various 


2  MEMOIR. 

monthly  and  quarterly  reviews.  Mr.  Dilke's  earliest  friends 
were  John  Hamilton  Reynolds,  Thomas  Hood,  and  Keats,  the 
poets,  and  Charles  Brown,  a  merchant,  the  friend  also  of  all 
these.  His  friendship  with  Hood  was  a  warm  one  ;  it  lasted 
from  1816  to  1842,  and  many  of  Hood's  letters  to  him  will  be 
found  in  the  "  Memorials  of  Thomas  Hood,"  by  Mrs.  Broderip. 
His  most  affectionate  friendship  with  Keats,  which  lasted  from 
1816  to  Keats'  death,  is  recorded  in  Lord  Houghton's  Life  of 
Keats.  Mr.  Dilke's  grandson  has  still  in  his  possession  a 
great  number  of  Keats'  letters ; — his  Ovid,  his  Shakespear,  and 
his  Milton,  with  marginal  notes ;  the  pocket-book  given  him 
by  Leigh  Hunt  with  the  first  drafts  of  many  of  the  sonnets  in 
it ;  the  locks  of  hair  mentioned  in  the  Life  ;  his  medical  note- 
books ;  and  Keats'  own  copy  of  Endymion,  with  all  the  son- 
nets, and  many  of  the  other  poems  copied  in  on  note-paper 
pages  at  the  end,  in  Keats'  writing. 

In  addition,  however,  to  the  letters  which  appear  in  Lord 
Houghton's  Life  of  Keats,  there  are  a  good  many  of  a  more 
intimate  character  still,  of  and  about  the  poet,  from  which 
extracts  may  be  made. 

"  MY   DEAR   DiLKE, 

"  Mrs.  Dilke  or  Mr.  Wm.  Dilke,  whoever  of  you  shall 
receive  this  present,  have  the  kindness  to  send  per  bearer 
'  Sibylline  Leaves,'  and  your  petitioner  shall  ever  pray  as  in 
duty  bound. 

"  Given  under  my  hand  this  Wednesday  morning  of  Nov. 
1817, 

"  JOHN  KEATS. 
"  Vivant  Rex  et  Regina — amen." 

In  June,  1818,  Keats  and  Brown  started  on  their  tour  in  the 
North  of  England  and  Scotland. 

July,  1818,  Brown  writes  to  Mr.  Dilke  : — "  Keats  has  been 
these  five  hours  abusing  the  Scotch  and  their  country.  He 
says  that  the  women  have  large  splay  feet,  which  is  too  true  to 


MEMOIE.  3 

be   controverted,  and  that   he  thanks  Providence  he  is   not 
related  to  a  Scot,  nor  any  way  connected  with  them." 

The  following  letter  is  from  Charles  Brown  to  Mr.  Dilke's 
father,  Mr.  Dilke  of  Chichester,  and  forms  part  of  a  diary  of 
the  whole  tour,  which  was  one  which  Keats,  with  an  hereditary 
tendency  to  consumption,  ought  not  to  have  undertaken. 

"  MY  DEAR  SIR, 

"What  shall  I  write  about?  I  am  resolved  to  send 
you  a  letter;  but  where  is  the  subject?  I  have  already 
stumped  away  on  my  ten  toes  642  miles,  and  seen  many  fine 
sights,  but  I  am  puzzled  to  know  what  to  make  choice  of. 
Suppose  I  begin  with  nryself, — there  must  be  a  pleasure  in 
that, — and,  by  way  of  variety,  I  must  bring  in  Mr.  Keats. 
Then,  be  it  known,  in  the  first  place,  we  are  in  as  continued  a 
bustle  as  an  old  dowager  at  home — always  moving — moving 
from  one  place  to  another,  like  Dante's  inhabitants  of  the 
Sulphur  Kingdom  in  search  of  cold  ground — prosing  over  the 
map — calculating  distances — packing  up  knapsacks,  and  paying 
bills.  There's  so  much  for  yourself,  my  dear.  '  Thank'ye, 
sir.'  How  many  miles  to  the  next  town  ?  '  Seventeen  lucky 
miles,  sir.'  That  must  be  at  least  twenty;  come  along,  Keats  ; 
here's  your  stick ;  why,  we  forgot  the  map !  now  for  it ; 
seventeen  lucky  miles  !  I  must  have  another  hole  taken  up  in 
the  strap  of  my  knapsack.  Oh,  the  misery  of  coming  to  the 
meeting  of  three  roads  without  a  finger-post !  There's  an  old 
woman  coming, — God  bless  her  !  she'll  tell  us  all  about  it.  Eh  ! 
she  can't  speak  English  !  Repeat  the  name  of  the  town  over 
in  all  ways,  but  the  true  spelling  way,  and  possibly  she  may 
understand.  No,  we  have  not  got  the  brogue.  Then  toss  up 
heads  or  tails,  for  right  and  left,  and  fortune  send  us  the  right 
road  !  Here's  a  soaking  shower  coming !  ecod !  it  rolls  be- 
tween the  mountains  as  if  it  would  drown  us.  At  last  we 
come,  wet  and  weary,  to  the  long-wished-for  inn.  What  have 
you  for  dinner?  '  Truly  nothing.'  No  eggs?  'We  have 
two.'  Any  loaf-bread  ?  *  No,  sir,  but  we've  nice  oat-cakes.' 
Any  bacon  ?  any  dried  fish  ?  '  No,  no,  no,  sir  !  '  But  you've 

B    2 


4  MEMOIR. 

plenty  of  whiskey  ?  '  0  yes,  sir,  plenty  of  whiskey  ! '  This 
is  melancholy.  Why  should  so  beautiful  a  country  be  poor  ? 
Why  can't  craggy  mountains,  and  granite  rocks,  bear  corn, 
wine,  and  oil  ?  These  are  our  misfortunes, — these  are  what 
make  me  '  an  eagle's  talon  in  the  waist.'  But  I  am  well 
repaid  for  my  sufferings.  We  came  out  to  endure,  and  to  be 
gratified  with  scenery,  and  lo  !  we  have  not  been  disappointed 
either  way.  As  for  the  oat-cakes,  I  was  once  in  despair  about 
them.  I  was  not  only  too  dainty,  but  they  absolutely  made 
me  sick.  With  a  little  gulping,  I  can  manage  them  now. 
Mr.  Keats,  however,  is  too  unwell  for  fatigue  and  privation.  I 
am  waiting  here  to  see  him  off  in  the  smack  for  London. 

"He  caught  a  violent  cold  in  the  Island  of  Mull,  which,  far 
from  leaving  him,  has  become  worse,  and  the  physician  here 
thinks  him  too  thin  and  fevered  to  proceed  on  our  journey.  It 
is  a  cruel  disappointment.  We  have  been  as  happ}r  as  possible 
together.  Alas  !  I  shall  have  to  travel  through  Perthshire  and 
all  the  counties  round  in  solitude  !  But  nry  disappointment  is 
nothing  to  his ;  he  not  only  loses  my  company  (and  that's  a 
great  loss),  but  he  loses  the  country.  Poor  Charles  Brown  will 
have  to  trudge  by  himself, — an  odd  fellow,  and  moreover  an 
odd  figure ;  imagine  me  with  a  thick  stick  in  my  hand,  the 
knapsack  on  my  back,  '  with  spectacles  on  nose,'  a  white  hat,  a 
tartan  coat  and  trousers,  and  a  Highland  plaid  thrown  over 
my  shoulders !  Don't  laugh  at  me,  there's  a  good  fellow, 
although  Mr.  Keats  calls  me  the  Red  Cross  Knight,  and 
declares  my  own  shadow  is  ready  to  split  its  sides  as  it  follows 
me.  This  dress  is  the  best  possible  dress,  as  Dr.  Pangloss 
would  say.  It  is  light  and  not  easily  penetrated  by  the  wet, 
and  when  it  is,  it  is  not  cold, — it  has  little  more  than  a  kind 
of  heavy  smoky  sensation  about  it. 

"  I  must  not  think  of  the  wind,  and  the  sun,  and  the  rain, 
after  our  journey  through  the  Island  of  Mull.  There's  a  wild 
place  !  Thirty-seven  miles  of  jumping  and  flinging  over  great 
stones  along  no  path  at  all,  up  the  steep  and  down  the  steep, 
and  wading  through  rivulets  up  to  the  knees,  and  crossing  a 
bog,  a  mile  long,  up  to  the  ankles.  I  should  like  to  give  you 
a  whole  and  particular  account  of  the  many,  many  wonderful 


MKMOIli.  5 

places  we  have  visited  ;  but  why  should  I  ask  a  uian  to  pay 
vigentiple  postage  ?  In  one  word  then, — that  is  to  the  end  of 
the  letter, — let  me  tell  you  we  have  seen  one-half  of  the  lakes  in 
Westmoreland  and  Cumberland, — we  have  travelled  over  the 
whole  of  the  coast  of  Kirkcudbrightshire,  and  skudded  over  to 
Donaghadee.  But  we  did  not  like  Ireland, — at  least  that  part — 
and  would  go  no  farther  than  Belfast.  So  back  came  we  in  a 
whirligig, — that  is,  in  a  hurry — and  trotted  up  to  Ayr,  where 
we  had  the  happiness  of  drinking  whiskey  in  the  very  house 
that  Burns  was  born  in,  and  saw  the  banks  of  bonny  Doon, 
and  the  brigs  of  Ayr,  and  Kirk  Alloway, — we  saw  it  all !  After 
this  we  went  to  Glasgow,  and  then  to  Loch  Lomond  ;  but  you 
can  read  all  about  that  place  in  one  of  the  fashionable  guide- 
books. Then  to  Loch  Awe,  and  down  to  the  foot  of  it, — oh, 
what  a  glen  we  went  through  to  get  at  it !  At  the  top  of  the 
glen  my  Itinerary  mentioned  a  place  called  '  Rest  and  be 
thankful,'  nine  miles  off ;  now  we  had  set  out  without  break- 
fast, intending  to  take  our  meal  there,  when,  horror  and 
starvation  !  '  Rest  and  be  thankful '  was  not  an  inn,  but  a 
stone  seat !  " 

On  August  16,  a  few  days  later,  it  will  be  seen,  Mrs.  Dilke 
writes  to  her  father-in-law  :  "  John  Keats'  brother  is  extremely 
ill,  and  the  doctor  begged  that  his  brother  might  be  sent  for. 
Dilke  accordingly  wrote  off  to  him,  which  was  a  very  unplea- 
sant task.  However,  from  the  journal  received  from  Brown 
last  Friday,  he  says  Keats  has  been  so  long  ill  with  his  sore 
throat,  that  he  is  obliged  to  give  up.  I  am  rather  glad  of  it, 
as  he  will  not  receive  the  letter,  which  might  have  frightened 
him  very  much,  as  he  is  extremely  fond  of  his  brother.  How 
poor  Brown  will  get  on  alone  I  know  not,  as  he  loses  a  cheerful, 
good-tempered,  clever  companion." 

On  August  19th  she  writes  :  "  John  Keats  arrived  here  last 
night,  as  brown  and  as  shabby  as  you  can  imagine ;  scarcely 
any  shoes  left,  his  jacket  all  torn  at  the  back,  a  fur  cap,  a 
great  plaid,  and  his  knapsack.  I  cannot  tell  what  he  looked 
like." 


MEMOIR. 

Tom  Keats  got  steadily  worse,  and  Mr.  Dilke,  who  had  been 
also  ill  at  this  time,  went  away  for  his  health.  Keats  writes 
to  him  as  follows  : — 

"  MY  DEAR  DILKE, 

"  According  to  the  Wentworth-place  bulletin,  you 
have  left  Brighton  much  improved  ;  therefore  now  a  few  lines 
will  be  more  of  a  pleasure  than  a  bore.  I  have  things  to  say 
to  you,  and  would  fain  begin  upon  them  in  this  fourth  line. 
But  I  have  a  mind  too  well  regulated  to  proceed  upon  any- 
thing without  due  preliminary  remarks.  You  may  perhaps 
have  observed  that  in  the  simple  process  of  eating  radishes  I 
never  begin  at  the  root,  but  constantly  dip  the  little  green 
head  in  the  salt ;  that  in  the  game  of  whist,  if  I  have  an  ace 
I  constantly  play  it  first ;  so  how  can  I  with  any  face  begin 
without  a  dissertation  on  letter-writing  ?  Yet  when  I  consider 
that  a  sheet  of  paper  contains  room  only  for  three  pages  and 
a  half,  how  can  I  do  justice  to  such  a  pregnant  subject  ?  How- 
ever, as  you  have  seen  the  history  of  the  world  stamped,  as  it 
were,  by  a  diminishing  glass  in  the  form  of  a  chronological 
map,  so  will  I  with  retractile  claws  draw  this  into  the  form  of 
a  table,  whereby  it  will  occupy  merely  the  remainder  of  this 
first  page : — 

FOLIO — Parsons,  lawyers,  statesmen,  physicians  out  of  place. 
FOOLSCAP  (Superfine) — Rich  or  noble  poets,  as  Byron. 
QUARTO — Projectors,  patentees,  presidents,  potato-growers. 
BATH — Boarding-schools  and  suburbans  in  general. 
GILT  EDGE — Dandies  in  general,  male,  female,  and  literary. 
OCTAVO — All  who  make  use  of  a  lascivious  seal. 
DUODECIMO — On  milliners'  and  dressmakers'  parlour  tables. 

|  At  the  playhouse-doors,  being  but  a  variation,  so  called 
f     from  its  size  being  disguised  by  a  twist. 

"I  suppose  you  will  have  heard  that  Hazlitt  has  on  foot  a 
prosecution  against  Blackwood.  I  dined  with  him  a  few  days 
since  at  Hessey's.  There  was  not  a  word  said  about  it,  though 
I  understand  he  is  excessively  vexed.  Reynolds,  by  what  I 
hear,  is  almost  over-happy,  and  Rice  is  in  town.  I  have  not 


MEMOIR.  7 

seen  him,  nor  shall  I  for  some  time,  as  my  throat  has  become 
worse  after  getting  well,  and  I  am  determined  to  stop  at  home 
till  I  am  quite  well. 

*  *  *  *  * 

"  I  wish  I  could  say  Tom  was  any  hetter.  His  identity 
presses  upon  me  so  all  day  that  I  am  obliged  to  go  out ;  and 
although  I  intended  to  have  given  some  time  to  study  alone, 
I  am  obliged  to  write  and  plunge  into  abstract  images  to  ease 
myself  of  his  countenance,  his  voice,  and  feebleness,  so  that  I 
live  now  in  a  continual  fever.  It  must  be  poisonous  to  life, 
though  I  feel  well.  Imagine  the  hateful  siege  of  contraries. 
If  I  think  of  fame  and  poetiy,  it  seems  a  crime  to  me ;  and 
yet  I  must  do  so  or  suffer.  I  am  sorry  to  give  you  pain.  I 
am  almost  resolved  to  burn  this,  but  I  really  have  not  self- 
possession  and  magnanimity  enough  to  manage  the  thing  other- 
wise. 

***** 

"  I  forgot  to  ask  Mrs.  Dilke  if  she  had  anything  she  wanted 
to  say  immediately  to  you.  This  morning  looked  so  un- 
promising that  I  did  not  think  she  would  have  gone ;  but  I 
find  she  has,  on  sending  for  some  volumes  of  Gibbon.  I  was 
in  a  little  funk  yesterday,  for  I  sent  in  an  unsealed  note  of 
sham  abuse,  until  I  recollected,  from  what  I  heard  Charles 
say,  that  the  servant  that  took  it  could  neither  read  nor  write, 

not  even  to  her  mother,  as  Charles  observed. 

***** 

"  The  following  is  a  translation  of  a  line  from  Ronsard  : — 
"  Love  poured  her  beauty  into  my  warm  veins." 

You  have  passed  your  romance,  and  I  never  gave  in  to  it,  or 

else  I  think  this  line  a  feast  for  one  of  your  lovers. 

*  #  #  #  * 

"  Your  sincere  friend, 

"JOHN  KEATS." 

Keats,  indeed,  had  never  "given  in  to  it"  at  that  time; 
but  very  soon  after  this  date  he  "  gave  in  "  to  a  passion  which 
killed  him  as  surely  as  ever  any  man  was  killed  by  love. 

In  January,  1819,  we  have  a  letter  from  Mrs.  Dilke  intro- 


MEMOIR. 

ducing  John  Keats  personally  to  Mr.  Dilke  of  Chichester,  her 
father-in-law,  with  whom  he  had  gone  to  stay. 

"  You  will  find  him  a  very  odd  young  man,  hut  good- 
tempered,  and  good-hearted,  and  very  clever  indeed." 

While  on  this  trip,  Keats  and  Brown  wrote  a  joint  comic 
love-letter  to  Mrs.  Dilke.  It  was  addressed  on  the  outside  to 
Mr.  Dilke,  at  his  office  at  Somerset  House,  and  began  in 
Brown's  handwriting :  "  Dear  Dilke,  this  letter  is  for  your 
wife,  and  if  you  are  a  gentleman  you  will  deliver  it  to  her 
without  reading  one  word  further." 

Then  comes  in  Keats'  writing  :  "  Read,  thou  squire."  And 
then,  in  Brown's  again  :  "  There  is  a  wager  depending  on 
this."  And  the  next  line,  being,  in  Brown's  handwriting, 
"  My  charming,  dear  Mrs.  Dilke,"  the  question  as  to  whether 
it  was  to  be  read  or  not  read  became  complicated. 

After  some  fun  and  some  bad  puns  from  the  two  friends, 
Brown  goes  on  upon  Keats'  health.  "  Keats  is  much  better, 
owing  to  a  strict  forbearance  from  a  third  glass  of  wine." 

Brown  having  gone  away,  and  left  his  letter  unfinished,  with 
a  sentence  beginning,  "  I  am  sorry,"  Keats  came  back  and 
finished  it  in  a  wholly  different  hand  and  sense,  and  made  it 
read,  "  I  am  sorry  that  Brown  and  you  are  getting  so  very 
witty,  my  modest  feathered  pen  frizzles  like  baby  roast-beef  at 
making  its  entrance  among  such  tuntrum  sentences,  or  rather 
ten  senses.  Brown  super-'  or  supper-surn&med.  the  sleek,  has 
been  getting  a  little  thinner  by  pining  opposite  to  Miss  M — . 
We  sit  it  out  till  10  o'clock.  Miss  M.  has  persuaded  Brown 
to  shave  his  whiskers.  He  came  down  to  breakfast  like  the 
sign  of  the  full  moon.  His  profile  is  quite  altered.  He  looks 
more  like  an  'ooman  than  I  ever  could  think  it  possible  ;  and 
on  putting  on  Mrs.  Dilke's  calash,  the  deception  was  complete, 
especially  as  his  voice  is  trebled  by  making  love  in  the  draught 
of  the  doorway.  I,  too,  am  metamorphosed  ;  a  young  'ooman, 
here  ....  has  over-persuaded  me  to  wear  my  shirt-collar  up  to 
my  eyes  ....  I  cannot  now  look  sideways." 


MEMOIR.  9 

The  remainder  of  the  letter  is  a  hopeless  mixture  of  alter- 
nate words  of  Brown  and  Keats  ;  the  only  thing  clear  being 
the  following  bit  from  Brown  : — "  This  is  abominable,  I  did 
but  go  up-stairs  to  put  on  a  clean  and  starched  handkerchief, 
and  that  overweening  rogue  read  my  letter,  and  scrawled  over 
one  of  my  sheets,"  and  "  given  him  a  counterpane,"  inserts 
Keats. 

On  August  12,  1819,  Brown  writes  from  the  Isle  of  Wight, 
to  Mr.  Dilke : — "  Keats  is  very  industrious,  but  I  swear  by 
the  prompter's  whistle,  and  by  the  bangs  of  stage-doors,  he  is 
obstinately  monstrous.  What  think  you  of  Otho's  threatening 
cold  pig  to  the  new-married  couple  ?  He  says  the  Emperor 
must  have  a  spice  of  drollery.  His  introduction  of  Grimm's 
adventure,  tying  three  days  on  his  back  for  love,  though  it 
spoils  the  unity  of  time,  is  not  out  of  the  way  for  the  cha- 
racter of  Ludolf,  so  I  have  consented  to  it;  but  I  cannot 
endure  his  fancy  of  making  the  princess  blow  up  her  hair- 
dresser, for  smearing  her  cheek  with  pomatum,  and  spoiling 
her  rouge.  It  ma}-  be  natural,  as  he  observes,  but^  so  might 
many  things.  However,  such  as  it  is,  it  has  advanced  to 
nearly  the  end  of  the  fourth  act."  This  was  the  tragedy  of 
Otho,  for  which  Brown  furnished  the  plot,  and  in  which  he 
was  to  have  had  half  profits.  The  play  was  refused  at  Drury 
Lane.  Two  letters  addressed  to  Keats  about  this  time, 
and  forwarded  by  him  with  others  to  Mr.  Dilke,  are  of  some 
interest : — 

"MORTIMER  TERRACE. 
"  GIOVANNI  Mio, 

"  I  shall  see  you  this  afternoon,  and  most  probably 
every  day.  You  judge  rightly  when  you  think  I  shall  be  glad 
at  your  putting  up  awhile  where  you  are,  instead  of  that  soli- 
tary place.  There  are  humanities  in  the  house,  and  if  wisdom 
loves  to  live  with  children  round  her  knees  (the  tax-gatherer 
apart),  sick  wisdom,  I  think,  should  love  to  live  with  arms 
about  its  waist.  I  need  not  say  how  you  gratify  me  by  the 
impulse  which  led  you  to  write  a  particular  sentence  in  your 


10  MEMOIR. 

letter,  for  you  must  have  seen  by  this  time  how  much  I  am 
attached  to  yourself. 

"  I  am  indicating  at  as  dull  a  rate  as  a  battered  finger-post 
in  wet  weather.  Not  that  I  am  ill,  for  I  am  very  well 

altogether. 

"  Your  affectionate  Friend, 

"  LEIGH  HUNT." 
"  To  JOHN  KEATS,  ESQ. 
"WENTWORTH  PLACE." 

"Friday. 

"25,  STORE  STREET,  BEDFORD  SQUARE. 
"  MY  DEAR  SIR, 

"  I  send  you  '  Marcian  Colonna,'  which  think  as  well 
of  as  you  can.  There  is,  I  think  (at  least  in  the  second  and 
third  parts),  a  stronger  infusion  of  poetry  in  it  than  in  the 
Sicilian  story,  but  I  may  be  mistaken.  I  am  looking  forward 
with  some  impatience  to  the  publication  of  your  book.  Will 
you  write  my  name  in  an  early  copy,  and  send  it  to  me  ?  *  Is 
not  this  a  '  prodigious  bold  request  ?  '  I  hope  that  you  are 
getting  quite  well. 

"  Believe  me  very  sincerely  yours, 

"B.  W.  PROCTER. 

"  *  This  was  written  before  I  saw  you  the  other  day.  Some 
time  ago  I  scribbled  half  a  dozen  lines,  under  the  idea  of 
continuing  and  completing  a  poem,  to  be  called  '  The  Deluge,' 
— what  do  you  think  of  the  subject  ?  The  Greek  deluge,  I 
mean.  I  wish  you  would  set  me  the  example  of  leaving  off 
the  word  «  Sir.'  " 

"  To  JOHN  KEATS,  ESQ." 

At  the  end  of  1819  Keats  wrote,  in  a  letter  which  has  not 
been  published  : — 

"  Now  I  have  had  opportunities  of  passing  nights  anxious 
and  awake,  I  have  found  other  thoughts  intrude  upon  me. 
'  If  I  should  die,'  said  I  to  myself,  '  I  have  left  no  immortal 
work  behind  me  ;  nothing  to  make  my  friends  proud  of  my 
memory,  but  I  have  loved  the  principle  of  beauty  in  all  things, 
and  if  I  had  had  time  I  would  have  made  myself  remembered.'  " 


MEMOIR.  11 

A  little  later  came  Keats'  illness.  "It  is  quite  a  settled 

thing  between  John  Keats  and  Miss .  God  help  them. 

It's  a  bad  thing  for  them.  The  mother  says  she  cannot  pre- 
vent it,  and  that  her  only  hope  is  that  it  will  go  off.  He  don't 
like  anyone  to  look  at  her  or  to  speak  to  her."  Mr.  Dilke 
was  the  trustee  of  the  lady  and  of  her  sister. 

In  1820  Keats  was  very  ill.  Mrs.  Dilke  writes  to  her  father- 
in-law,  "  I  am  anxious  to  learn  what  success  Keats'  new  poems 
have.  I  do  not  promise  myself  a  great  victory.  If  the  public 
cry  him  up  as  a  great  poet,  I  will  henceforth  be  their  humble 
servant ;  if  not,  the  devil  take  the  public." 

The  new  poems  were,  comparatively  speaking,  a  great 
success.  Miss  Reynolds  writes  to  Mrs.  Dilke,  "  I  hear  that 
Keats  is  going  to  Rome,  which  must  please  all  his  friends  on 
every  account.  I  sincerely  hope  it  will  benefit  his  health,  poor 
fellow  !  His  mind  and  spirits  must  be  bettered  by  it ;  and 
absence  may  probably  weaken,  if  not  break  off,  a  connexion 
that  has  been  a  most  unhappy  one  for  him." 

Keats  died  admired  only  by  his  personal  friends,  and  by 
Shelley ;  and  even  ten  years  after  his  death,  when  the  first 
memoir  was  proposed,  the  woman  he  had  loved  had  so  little 
belief  in  his  poetic  reputation,  that  she  wrote  to  Mr.  Dilke, 
"  The  kindest  act  would  be  to  let  him  rest  for  ever  in  the 
obscurity  to  which  circumstances  have  condemned  him." 

Mr.  Dilke,  however,  lived  not  only  long  enough  to  be  able 
to  help  Lord  Houghton  in  his  Life  of  Keats,  but  long  enough 
to  come  to  see  the  name  of  Keats  placed  among  the  first  in  the 
roll  of  the  English  poets. 

In  1859,  Mr.  Dilke  was  consulted  by  Mr.  Severn,  when  he 
came  to  England  to  raise  the  question  of  a  new  monument  to 
Keats  at  Rome,  and  a  long  correspondence  passed  between 
them  on  the  subject. 

On  Feb.  5th,  1859,  Mr.  Dilke  wrote  to  Lord  Houghton, 
then  Mr.  Monckton  Milnes,  "  If  you  are  of  opinion  that  a 
monument  should  be  erected  to  Keats,  whether  in  Rome  or  in 


12  MEMOIR. 

London,  I  shall  be  most  happy  to  subscribe,  but  to  destroy  tJie 
existing  monument,  and  erect  another  on  its  site,  seems  to  me 
very  like  falsifying  history.  If,  as  Mr.  Severn  says,  this  un- 
seemly stone  was  erected  when  Keats's  memory  was  cherished 
by  few,  and  his  genius  known  to  fewer ;  and  if  Keats  was  so 
embittered  by  discouragement  that  he  desired  those  words  to 
mark  his  grave,  then  the  unseemly  stone  tells  the  story  of  his 
life.  If  the  fame  of  Keats  be  now  world- wide  the  anomaly  is 
another  fact,  and  I  for  one  am  willing  to  join  in  recording  it  on 
another  monument.  As  to  the  proposed  inscription,  it  is 
certainly  not  to  my  taste  ;  but  if  you  approve  I  will  waive  my 
objections,  and  will  hope  you  are  right." 

The  following  is  in  one  of  Procter's  letters : — • 
AN  ELEGY. 

ON  THE  DEATH  OF  THE  POET  KEATS. 
I. 

Pale  poet,  in  the  solemn  Roman  earth, 
Cold  as  the  clay,  thou  lay'st  thine  aching  head  ! 
Ah,  what  avails  thy  genius, — what  thy  worth, — 
Or  what  the  golden  fame  above  thee  spread  ? 

Thou  art  dead,— dead  ! 

n. 

Too  early  banished  from  thy  place  of  birth, 
By  tyrant  Pain,  thy  too  bright  Spirit  fled  ! 
Too  late  came  Love  to  shew  the  world  thy  worth  ! 
Too  late  came  Glory  for  thy  youthful  head  ! 

in. 

Mourn,  poets  I  mourn; — he's  lost !     0    minstrels,  grieve  ! 
And  with  your  nrnsic  let  his  fame  be  fed  ! 
True  lovers  !  'round  his  verse  your  sorrows  weave  ! 
And,  maidens  !  mourn,  at  last,  a  poet  dead  ! 

He  is  dead, — dead, — dead  ! 

Nothing  will  so  simply  give  an  idea  of  Mr.  Dilke's  per- 
sonality or  character  as  a  few  extracts  from  private  family 
letters.  The  following  is  from  one  to  his  wife  : — 


MEMOIR.  13 

"  Give  my  kindest  love  to  my  dear  boy.  Tell  him  that  if 
anything  could  have  made  me  love  him  more  than  ever,  it 
would  have  been  his  most  affectionate  parting  with  me, 
although  for  a  short  time.  But  I  cannot  love  him  better,  or 
I  both  ought  and  should.  I  hope  that  he  will  sometime  or 
other  be  the  first  boy  in  the  school,  and  that  he  will  soon  be 
the  first  of  his  age."  This  letter  relates  to  Mr.  Dilke's  only 
son,  afterwards  Sir  Charles  Wentworth  Dilke,  Baronet,  M.P., 
who,  born  in  1810,  was  at  Westminster  from  1815  to  1826, 
when  he  was  taken  by  his  father  to  Italy,  where  he  lived  with 
Mr.  Charles  Brown  at  Florence  for  two  years  before  going  to 
Cambridge.  The  relations  between  him  and  Mr.  Dilke  were 
throughout  life  as  affectionate  as  those  between  Mr.  Dilke  and 
his  father.  Mrs.  Dilke,  writing  to  Mr.  Dilke,  senior,  in  1819, 
says:  "  Dilke  makes  the  most  delightful  father  lever  saw.  He 
is  so  afraid  of  Charley's  being  a  bad  temper  that  I  tell  him  I 
should  not  wonder  if  he  himself  was  not  to  be  in  his  old  age — 
one  of  the  sweetest.  He  never  allows  the  boy  to  see  him  in  a 
bad  one." 

The  following  is  from  Mr.  Dilke  to  his  father  on  the  latter's 
80th  birthday  :— 

"  MY  DEAR  FATHER, 

"  We  had  all  determined  to  send  you  our  congratu- 
lations, and  my  wife  begged  for  one  side,  but  as  she  fears  to  be 
cabined  and  confined,  and,  like  King  John,  to  lack  '  elbow- 
room,'  she  takes  care  to  have  the  first  side,  that  she  might  if 
she  pleased  run  over  all  three.  This  I  honestly  believe  she 
would  have  done  but  for  our  violent  interruption.  You  will 
please  to  understand  that  I  am  the  first  stirring  in  the  house : 
— that  I  meet  you  on  the  stairs  : — that  I  have  shaken  hands 
with  you,  and  wished  you  many  happy  returns  of  the  day ; — 
and  then,  my  voice  giving  notice  that  you  are  coming,  out 
rush  wife  and  boy  from  the  front  room.  Let  them  drive  as  hard 
as  they  please  : — bump  and  thump  against  the  passage  walls  : — 
stumble  up  the  stairs, — but  there  I  am,  and  therefore  they  can 


14  MEMOIR. 

only  dispute  for  second.  And  now  that  the  hurry  and  bustle 
is  over,  and  we  are  quietly  seated  at  breakfast,  I  have  time  to 
congratulate  you,  not  only  upon  your  birthday,  but  on  your 
health  and  spirits." 

On  the  20th  Nov.,  1820,  Mrs.  Dilke  writes  to  her  father- 
in-law  :  "  Were  you  not  astonished  at  the  Bill  being  thrown 
out  ?  I  believe  it  was  not  at  all  expected.  Dilke  was  at  the 
House,  and  what  do  you  believe  the  Duke  of  Clarence  did  ? — 
(what  no  other  duke  could  have  done) — he  had  got  one  of 
those  '  pocket-pistols '  that  men  carry  when  they  travel  out- 
side a  coach,  and  was  continually  putting  it  up  to  his  mouth. 
Dilke  says  the  peer  that  sat  next  him  seemed  so  ashamed, 
that  he  leant  forward  every  time  to  try  and  screen  him.  Now 
there  was  no  excuse  for  such  behaviour,  as  peers  can  always 
leave  to  take  refreshment.  I  suppose  he  thought  he  was  acting 
'  the  sailor '  to  perfection." 

Also,  in  1820,  is  the  following:  — "  There  has  been  a  wager 
between  Dilke  and  Mr.  Charles  Brown.  It  was  made  on 
Christnias  Day.  The  conversation  turned  on  fairy  tales — 
Brown's  forte — Dilke  not  liking  them.  Brown  said  he  was 
sure  he  could  beat  Dilke,  and  to  let  him  try,  they  betted  a 
beef-steak  supper,  and  an  allotted  time  was  given.  They  have 
been  read  by  the  persons  fixed  on — Keats,  Reynolds,  Rice, 
and  Taylor — and  the  wager  was  decided  the  night  before  last 
in  favour  of  Dilke.  Next  Saturday  night  the  supper  is  to  be 
given ;  BEEF-STEAKS  AND  PUNCH  :  " — the  food  of  the  "  Cockney 
school." 

It  is  difficult  to  trace  Mr.  Dilke's  numerous  writings, 
as  he  never  put  his  name  to  anything ;  never  kept  a  copy 
or  a  note  of  titles,  and  never  even  told  his  son,  or  in  later 
times,  his  grandson.  In  1821  he  wrote  a  political  pamphlet 
— which  was  published  by  Rodwell  and  Martin — under  the 
title  of  "  The  Source  and  Remedy  of  the  National  Diffi- 
culties, deduced  from  Principles  of  Political  Economy," 


MEMOIR.  15 

in  a  LETTER  TO  LORD  JOHN  RUSSELL.  It  has  for  motto 
this  passage  from  Milton: — "  How  to  solder,  how  to  stop 
a  leak — that  now  is  the  deep  design  of  a  politician."  The 
tone  of  the  pamphlet  was  extremely  Radical — its  conclusion 
was  the  abolition  of  the  Corn-Laws ;  its  literary  style  was 
excellent,  though  archaic.  The  preface  is  as  follows : — "  I 
address  your  lordship  because  I  believe  you  to  be  sincere  and 
zealous  in  your  public  opinions  and  conduct,  and  because  I 
know  you  to  be  a  young  man,  and  therefore  less  likely  to  have 
your  understanding  encrusted  by  established  theories.  I  was 
confirmed  in  this  intention  by  an  essay,  in  a  work  generally 
attributed  to  your  lordship,  wherein  you  acknowledge  the 
little  satisfaction  you  have  hitherto  received  from  the  contra- 
dictory opinions  of  writers  on  this  subject.  They  are,  indeed, 
my  lord,  contradictory,  not  only  the  one  to  the  other,  but  to  our 
best  feelings  and  plainest  sense.  From  all  the  works  I  have 
read  on  the  subject,  the  richest  nations  are  those  where  the 
greatest  revenue  is  raised ;  as  if  the  power  of  compelling  men 
to  labour  twice  as  much  at  the  mills  of  Gaza  for  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  Philistines,  were  the  proof  of  anything  but  a 
tyranny  or  an  ignorance  twice  as  powerful." 

In  1821  Mr.  Dilke  went  for  a  cruise  in  the  Channel,  and 
was  wind-bound  at  Lydd,  in  Romney  Marsh.  He  writes:  "  My 
landlady  has  no  doubt  they  '  made  away  with  the  Queen.' 
"When  I  objected  to  the  gratuitovs  infamy  of  the  thing,  she 
said,  'Lord,  sir,  he  that  got  rid  of  his  own  child  wouldn't 
stick  at  his  wife  ! ' ' 

In  1822  Mr.  Dilke  was  writing  in  (Taylor's)  London 
Review,  and  Outturn's  New  Monthly,  and  Mr.  Charles  Brown 
writes  from  Italy  :  "  Galignani  has  republished  some  of 
Dilke's  articles  in  his  Parisian  Literary  Gazette."  In  1823 
he  wrote  in  the  London  Magazine  as  "  Tlmrusa."  One  of  his 
most-talked-of  articles  was  in  Outturn's  New  Mmitlthf,  in 
November,  1823. 

On  the  12th  November,   1822,   Mr.   Charles   Brown  writes 


16  MEMOIR. 

to  him  from  Florence  :  "  When  Lord  Byron  talked  to  me  of 
the  'Vision  of  Judgment,'  I  interrupted  him,  for  a  Blackwoodish 
idea  came  across  my  mind  with  '  I  hope  you  have  not  attacked 
Southey  at  his  fire-side,'  when  he  expressed  quite  an  abhor- 
rence of  such  an  attack,  and  declared  he  had  not." 

"  There  never  was  a  poor  creature  in  rags  a  greater  Radical 
than  B}7ron.  My  qualms  were  satisfied  much  in  the  same 
reasonable  way  as  they  were  excited,  and  my  satisfaction  will 
appear  to  you  just  as  unreasonable.  I  was  angry  at  him,  not 
for  expressing  an  opinion  on  Keats'  poetry,  but  for  joining  in 
the  ridicule  against  him.  He  did  so,  in  a  note  to  a  poem, 
forwarded  to  Murray ;  but  soon  afterwards,  when  he  learnt 
Keats'  situation,  and  saw  more  of  his  works  (for  he  had  only 
read  his  first  volume  of  poems,  and  flew  out  at  the  passage 
about  Boileau),  he  ordered  the  note  to  be  erased,  and  this, 
foolish  soul  that  I  am,  quite  satisfied  me,  together  with  his 
eulogium  on  Hyperion,  for  he's  no  great  admirer  of  the 
others." 

In  1825,  Mr.  Dilke  wrote  much  in  the  Retrospective  Revieir. 
One  of  his  most  praised  articles  was  published  in  the  month  of 
March.  He  appears  also  about  this  time  to  have  been  the 
editor  of  the  London  Magazine,  in  which  he  wrote,  as  did 
at  the  same  time  Lamb,  Hood,  Reynolds,  Hazlitt,  Poole 
(Paul  Pry),  Talfourd,  Barry  Cornwall,  Horace  Smith,  Allan 
Cunningham,  De  Quincey,  John  Bowring,  George  Darley, 
Hartley  Coleridge,  and  Julius  Hare. 

In  the  letters  of  1825  the  building  of  Belgrave  Square  is 
discussed,  as  a  subject  affecting  the  neighbourhood,  for  with- 
out as  yet  giving  up  his  house  at  Hampstead,  Mr.  Dilke  had 
come  to  live  at  Lower  Grosvenor  Place,  at  a  house  where  he 
lived  until  his  wife's  death,  five-and-twenty  years  later,  in 
1850.  It  is  now  pulled  down,  and  No.  1,  Grosvenor  Gardens 
occupies  its  site.  Leigh  Hunt  is  a  good  deal  mentioned,  as  a 
friend.  In  1825  began  also  the  longest  friendship  of  Mr. 
Dilke's  life — that  with  Sydney  Lady  Morgan,  which  lasted 


MEMOIH.  17 

until  her  death.  In  a  letter  he  relates  an  interview  with  Lady 
Morgan,  at  the  latter's  wish,  to  see  her  portrait,  in  terms 
which  are  singularly  amusing,  but  which  he  would  not  have 
used  in  later  years,  for  though  the  authoress  of  the  "Wild  Irish 
Girl "  was  vain  enough,  Mr.  Dilke  liked  her  afterwards  a  great 
deal  too  well  to  have  said  so — whatever  may  have  been  his 
private  convictions. 

In  1826  Mr.  Dilke  took  his  son,  who  had  left  Westminster, 
being  then  sixteen,  and  in  the  highest  position  in  the 
school,  by  Ghent,  Brussels,  Cologne,  Munich,  Augsburg,  and 
Trent  to  Venice,  and  thence  to  Florence.  After  seeing 
Bruges  and  Antwerp,  they  made  their  real  start  from  Brussels 
in  August,  and  posted  in  one  carriage  the  whole  way.  He 
raves  about  Pisaroni  the  contralto,  and  goes  on  to  Rome,  and 
writes:  "  I  have  seen  poor  Keats'  tomb,  and  the  very  charming 
little  monument  that  Severn  raised  to  him.  Severn,  then  a 
poor  young  artist,  who,  though  now  comparatively  successful, 
lives,  as  he  himself  told  me,  on  half-a-crown  a  dajr,  including 
his  servant's  wages,  and  at  that  time  had  little — but  hope — 
raised  this  monument,  and  never  would  allow  Brown  to  pay 
part  of  the  expense  of  it.  I  always  liked  Severn,  and  shall 
like  him  the  better  as  long  as  I  live.  You  will  readily  believe 
me  when  I  tell  you  I  felt  a  great  deal,  though  I  had  nerve  to 
conceal  it ;  Brown  was  brought  to  tears  and  walked  off,  but 
what  was  most  strange,  your  boy  cried  a  great  deal,  and  was 
evidently  much  affected,  though  nothing  was  said  by  any 
one  at  all  likely  to  affect  him ;  indeed,  very  little  was  said 
at  all." 

Mr.  Dilke  went  on  to  Naples,  but  seems  to  have  found 
reading  Spenser  among  the  orange  trees  at  Mola  di  Gaeta 
the  pleasantest  thing  in  his  journey.  Returning  to  Florence, 
he  left  his  son  there,  and  came  back  to  England  by  Geneva, 
Paris,  and  Rouen.  His  letters  contain  extremely  good 
opinions  and  criticisms  on  architecture,  which  he  thoroughly 
understood  ;  and  on  scenery,  which,  like  all  his  friends  of 


18  MEMOIR. 

the  Cockney  school,  he  worshipped.  A  trait  of  the  times 
is  the  note  that  he  sold  his  carriage  at  Geneva  for  100 
francs  in  money,  and  "  conveyance  with  food  to  Paris  in  six 
days,  supposed  to  represent  500  francs."  He  reached  his 
office  on  the  day  he  had  fixed,  when  he  set  out  six  months 
before,  and  "  having  spent  111.  less  "  than  he  intended.  Here 
is  a  little  bit  from  one  of  his  foreign  letters  to  his  wife  : — 
"I  like  your  little  journeyings,  and  above  all  your  visit  to 
Old  Chaucer's  Lane,  poor  and  beggarly  as  it  now  is.  There 
is  something  in  names,  and  something  in  taking  names  on 
trust.  /  know  no  more  of  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  and  of  fifty 
others  whom  I  reverence  and  worship,  than  you  do  of  old 
Geoffry,  but  what  I  do  not  know  to  be  wrong,  I  love  to  think 
is  right,  and  am  always  better  pleased  to  add  a  new  name 
to  my  roll  of  fame,  even  upon  repute,  than  to  take  one 
from  it." 

Here  is  a  letter  to  his  son  from  Genoa  : — "  I  ought  to  be  in 
bed,  but  somehow  you  are  always  first  in  my  thoughts  and 
last,  and  I  prefer  five  minutes  of  gossiping  with  you,  which, 
as  it  is  unexpected,  will  perhaps  be  the  more  welcome.  "How, 
indeed,  could  it  be  otherwise  than  that  you  should  be  first  and 
last  in  my  thoughts,  who  for  so  many  years  have  occupied  all 
my  thoughts.  '  Othello's  occupation's  gone.'  For  fifteen 
years  at  least  it  has  been  my  pleasure  to  watch  over  you,  to 
direct  and  to  advise.  Now,  direct  and  personal  interference 
has  ceased.  You  have  a  good  heart — an  excellent  heart — and 
good  sound  understanding;  but  my  confidence  is  in  your 
heart,  and  without  a  good  heart  knowledge  as  often  leads  to 
wrong  as  to  right — just  as  strength  may  be  an  instrument  of 
good  and  of  wrong.  It  is  natural  perhaps  that  I  should  take 
a  greater  interest  than  other  fathers,  for  I  have  a  greater 
interest  at  stake.  I  have  but  one  son.  That  son,  too,  I  have 
brought  up  differently  from  others,  and  if  he  be  not  better 
than  others,  it  will  be  urged  against  me,  not  as  a  misfortune, 
but  as  a  shame.  From  the  first  hour  I  never  taught  you  to 


MEMOIJl.  19 

believe  what  I  did  not  myself  believe.  I  have  been  a  thousand 
times  censured  for  it,  but  I  had  that  confidence  in  truth,  that 
I  dared  put  my  faith  in  it  and  in  you.  And  you  will  not  fail 
me.  I  am  sure  you  will  return  home  to  do  me  honour, 
and  to  make  me  respect  you  as  I  do,  and  ever  shall  love 
you." 

The  friends  at  home  most  spoken  of  in  1827,  8,  and  9, 
are  the  Morgans,  the  Hoods,  the  Reynolds,  Woodfall,  and 
AVilkin,  the  painter.  Mr.  Dilke  was  at  this  time  writing  in  the 
New  Monthly.  "  The  Morgans  have  had  another  treaty  with 
Bulwer ;  however,  I  believe  all  is  now  settled.  The  agreement 
is  a  capital  one  for  Bulwer.  I  do  not  say  a  word  to  them,  for 
they  think  he  has  behaved  very  liberally.  Mind,  he  has  not 
behaved  illiberally ;  but  as  a  man  of  business,  who  was 
bargained  with,  and  closed  the  bargain  in  his  own  favour. 
But  if  I  were  to  say  a  word  they  would  re-open  the  treaty,  and 
tliis  the}"  could  not  do  without  loss  of  caste." 

Trelawny,  Lander,  and  Kirkup,  are  the  men  oftenest  named 
in  the  letters  from  Florence.  In  April,  1829,  we  find  the 
following  bit  about  Landor : — "  I  am  sorry  to  tell  you  that  a 
week  ago  Landor  had  orders  from  our  President  to  quit 
Tuscany  for  ever,  within  the  space  of  three  days.  On  applica- 
tion for  more  time,  three  more  days  were  granted.  He  will 
leave  this  for  Lucca  to-morrow  morning  at  six.  There  is  no 
use  in  going  into  particulars.  No  government  on  earth  would 
have  endured  what  he  did,  or  rather — said :  nay  more,  in  a 
direct  or  public  message  to  the  President,  who  immediately 
replied,  'Either  I  must  turn  him  out,  or  my  power  is  at  an 
end.'  There  are  not  two  opinions  of  his  conduct,  as  wilful 
and  imprudent,  though  everyone  admires  him  for  his  manliness 
on  receiving  the  order,  and  on  his  letter  to  the  Grand  Duke. 
The  most  potential  among  the  English,  our  minister,  instantly 
interfered  on  his  behalf.  In  the  midst  of  this  I  proved  that 
the  accusation  contained  in  his  message  was  an  error.  I  ran 
to  him,  and  in  two  words  gave  my  proof,  when  he  stared,  and 

c  2 


20  MEMOIR. 

said,  '  Then  I  am  bound,  as  a  gentleman,  to  write  and  beg 
his  pardon.'  Which  he  did  in  ten  minutes.  After  this  letter, 
the  universal  interference  for  him,  and  the  displeasure  shown 
by  the  Grand  Duke  at  the  order,  it  is  believed  that  he  will 
return  in  a  few  days  with  permission  to  remain.  When  I  say 
that  there  are  not  two  opinions  of  his  conduct,  I  include  his 
own  opinion,  for  he  said  to  me,  '  I  suppose  the  President  was 
in  the  right.' 

"  P.S. — 23rd  April.  Landor  is  not  gone  on  his  tour,  and 
we  imagine  the  order  will  be  reversed.  Everyone  wonders, 
that  on  account  of  his  books  (his  Imy  confabs),  he  has  been 
permitted  to  stay  at  all  after  their  publication.  But  this  is  a 
totally  distinct  question,  and  they  don't  care  about  his 
publications." 

The  following  is  a  letter  from  Mr.  Dilke  to  his  son  just 
before  the  latter  left  Florence  for  Cambridge  : — 

"MY   VERY   DEAR   BoY, 

"  When  we  cannot  do  what  we  wish,  we  must  do  what 
we  can.  If  there  be  no  great  deal  of  deep  thinking  in  this 
apothegm,  there  is  a  vast  deal  of  truth.  You  will  receive 
this  letter  on  your  birthday.  I  would  wish  to  meet  you  coming 
downstairs,  or  to  welcome  you  at  your  first  waking, — or  my- 
self to  waken  you  with  congratulations.  To  take  yon  by  the 
hand  ;  to  kiss  your  forehead ;  to  give  you  my  blessing ;  to 
wish  you  all  possible  happiness.  This  cannot  be.  All  that  I 
can,  is  to  wish  you  happy ;  and  to  wish  you  may  deserve  to  be 
happy,  by  being  virtuous  and  good.  However,  there  are  some 
illusions  that  are  pleasant  and  worth  indulging  in.  I  will 
persuade  myself  that  I  slept  last  night  in  Florence ;  that  I 
felt  the  wind  come  cutting  round  the  Baptistry  five  minutes 
since  as  I  came  to  breakfast ;  that  I  cast  an  admiring  eye  at 
the  old  Belfry,  and  wondered  how  they  ever  came  to  build  with 
such  materials ;  that  I  pushed  open  the  great  outer  door,  and 
took  care  to  shut  it  after  me ;  rang  the  bell ;  said  '  Good  day ' 
in  answer  to  Madelana's  good-tempered  welcoming ;  have  just 


MEMOIR.  21 

warmed  myself  at  the  stove  ;  and  now  '  Here  comes  my  boy  ! 
Give  us  your  hand,  old  tiger.  No,  your  right  hand  !  There  ! 
God's  blessing  on  you,  my  dear,  dear  boy.  Many,  many,  many 
happy  returns  of  this  day  to  you  and  to  all  of  us.  Your  mother 

and  myself  beg  your  acceptance  of Zounds  !  There's  no 

cheating  myself  any  longer ! — of  something,  and  that's  all  I 
know.  Something  that  I  hope  Brown  has  had  cunning  enough 
to  find  out  that  you  would  like. 

"  You  are  a  good  fellow  to  think  of  us  so  often,  and  your 
letters  are  more  and  more  entertaining.  You  tell  us  more  of 
yourself,  of  your  studies,  and  of  your  pleasures,  and  your  last 
letter  was  full  of  interest.  I  like  your  purchases,  and  envy  yon 
the  pleasure  of  reading  the  Letters  of  the  Younger  Pliny.  You 
seem  to  have  something  of  your  father  and  of  your  grandfather 
in  you,  and  to  love  books ;  but  do  not  mistake  buying  them 
for  reading  them,  a  very  common  error  with  half  the  world. 
If  you  have,  as  I  hope,  bought  Terence,  and  Plautus,  and 
Valerius  Maximus,  and  the  others,  because  you  intend  to  read 
them,  and  if  you  do  read  them,  in  defiance  of  the  little  diffi- 
culties you  will  at  first  meet  with,  you  will  very  soon  be  off  my 
mind ;  there  will  no  longer  be  much  occasion  for  me  to  think 
for  you,  or  to  advise  you;  the  thing  desired  will  be  ac- 
complished. Once  feel  the  pleasure  of  learning,  or  rather  of 
knowledge,  and  I  cannot  conceive  a  man  ever  forsaking  it.  It 
would  be  leaving  a  fair  pasture  to  starve  upon  the  barren  moor. 
If  you  buy  what  you  do  not  intend  to  read,  your  library  is 
no  better  than  a  curiosity-shop.  A  library  is  nothing  unless 
the  owner  be  a  living  catalogue  to  it.  I  do  not  mean  that  you 
ought  not  to  buy  what  you  cannot  immediately  read,  or  read 
through ;  some  books  are  to  be  skimmed,  others  are  for 
reference,  others  are  to  be  bought  because  the  opportunity 
offers,  and  are  to  be  read,  though  not  at  that  time. 

"  I  do  not  desire  to  have  you  a  great  Latin  scholar.  If  I 
had,  1  would  have  kept  you  drudging  at  established  forms. 
But  I  do  wish  you  to  know  and  understand  Latin  as  well  as 
you  do  English.  The  way  to  read  Latin  with  facility  is,  first 
to  read  with  great  care,  as  with  your  master,  and  then  to  read 
a  great  deal  with  less  care,  not  waiting  or  stopping  for  every 


22  MEMOIR. 

word  or  phrase  you  do  not  recollect,  but  satisfied  if  you  per- 
fectly understand  the  general  sense.  These  two  going  on 
together  would  very  soon  accomplish  the  thing,  and  the 
trouble  and  time  is  nothing ;  for  it  is  not  so  much  spent  in 
learning  Latin  as  in  reading  history  and  acquiring  general 
knowledge.  The  old  objection  to  Latin  and  Greek  is  the  loss 
of  time,  Why,  a  man  must  understand  history,  and  it  takes  less 
jtime  to  read  Livy  than  to  read  Hook,  and  you  drink  at  the 
fountain  wrhile  others  drink  where  the  waters  have  been  mixed 
.and  muddled  with  people  dabbling  in  them.  I  have  hopes 
from  your  purchases  that  you  have  seen  this  already,  and  that 
I  am  only  explaining  your  own  feeling.  In  this  way  I  should 
think  Valerius  Maximus  and  the  Letters  might  be  read. 
Plautus  and  Terence  are  more  serious  gentlemen — an  odd  way 
pf  expressing  nryself  about  two  writers  of  comedy.  I  should 
recommend  you  to  run  over  Virgil's  Bucolics.  In  Italy  you 
will  find  the  very  scenes.  After  such  reading,  a  walk  will 
illustrate  Virgil,  and  Virgil  explain  a  walk.  Keep  your  mind 
always  awake  to  what  is  going  on  about  you — to  the  habits  of 
people,  especially  the  country  people.  Get  into  talk  with 
them,  observing  their  manner  of  cultivation,  the  rotation  of 
crops,  the  price  of  land,  both  for  purchase  and  rental.  This 
is  knowledge,  and  knowledge  gained  by  merely  opening  your 
ears  and  your  eyes.  It  costs  no  time,  no  labour,  no  money. 
When  you  walk  to  Fiesole,  you  admire  the  fine  view.  That 
is  one  thing  worth  walking  to  Fiesole  for.  But  it  will  not 
detract  from  the  view  if  you  descend  from  looking  at  the  works 
of  God  to  look  at  the  works  of  man.  Observe  of  what  the 
view  is  made  up — how  much  of  hill,  how  much  of  valle}',  how 
much  of  cultivated,  how  much  of  barren  land ;  of  the  cultivated, 
how  much  arable  and  how  much  pasture.  Ask  yourself  why 
this  or  that  crop  is  grown  here  in  preference  to  any  other. 
This  is  walking  with  an  object  instead  of  without  one.  We 
cannot  here  acquire  the  information  but  with  labour  and  loss 
of  time.  You,  living  there,  pick  it  up  without  either.  There 
are  advantages  in  travel  often  overlooked.  The  majority  of 
travellers  are  like  the  majority  of  those  who  stay  at  home — 
idle,  thoughtless  people.  They  go  to  the  picture-gallery — and, 


MEMOIR.  23 

x 

indeed,  whoever  should  neglect  this  would  deserve  to  be  hooted 
at ;  but  if  a  man  hopes  to  distinguish  himself — to  be  a  writer, 
or  a  statesman,  or  to  desire  to  be  qualified  to  be  these,  which 
all  men  ought — then  he  must  contrast  laws  with  laws,  agri- 
culture with  agriculture,  peasantry  with  peasantry,  and  then 
his  country  may  benefit  by  his  observation  and  travel. 

"  Here's  a  pretty  birthday  letter  of  congratulation !  Never 
mind,  my  dear  fellow ;  I'm  afraid  all  my  letters  will  run  into 
this  prosing.  The  fact  is,  I  never  think  of  you  but  it  is  how 
to  make  you  happy,  respected,  self-respected.  Forgive  me  if 
I  am  not  so  entertaining  as  you  might  expect.  Whatever  I 
am,  I  wish  you  once  more  health,  happiness,  and  many  future 
pleasant  birthdays,  and  remain  for  ever, 

"  Your  affectionate  father, 

"  C.    W.    DlLKE. 

"P.S. — I  agree  with  you,  and  love  the  French ;  but  if  my 
judgment  be  worth  anything,  the  Germans  are  the  first  people 
in  Europe,  not  excepting  our  own  countrymen,  who,  however, 
are  only  second,  if  not  equal,  to  the  first.  "Where  would  you 
find  any  but  a  German  with  enthusiasm  enough  to  walk  all 
over  Italy,  when  he  could  not  ride,  like  our  friend  with  the 
pipe  ?  If  you  meet  him  on  his  return  through  Florence,  you 
may  take  off  your  hat  to  him,  and  say  I  told  you  to.  That  is 
the  way  to  acquire  knowledge :  to  make  all  sacrifices  to  it. 
But  unfortunately  people  rarely  know  it  is  worth  all  sacrifices 
until  they  already  have  a  good  deal  of  knowledge." 

The  principles  which  in  this  letter  Mr.  Dilke  preached  to 
his  son  with  regard  to  libraries  he  himself  practised.  He  was 
a  "  living  catalogue"  to  his  own  library  of  12,000  volumes,  and 
knew  every  book. 

The  only  literary  fruit  that  Mr.  Dilke's  long  journey  seems 
to  have  borne  was  a  notice  of  Venice,  which  appeared  in  one  of 
the  annuals  of  those  days — the  Gem — for  1829.  Conder,  the 
author  of  "  The  Modern  Traveller,"  in  his  "  Italy,"  a  three- 
volume  work  published  in  1834,  extracts,  at  p.  150  of  the  second 


24  MEMOIR. 

volume,  a  portion  of  the  article,  praising  it  very  highly.  Mr. 
Dilke  was,  perhaps,  also  at  this  time  writing  in  Fraser's 
RIagazine. 

In  the  }*ear  1830,  Mr.  Dilke  obtained  the  sole  control  of 
the  AtliencBum,  with  which  he  continued  to  be  more  or  less 
associated  until  his  death  in  1864. 

The  second  of  the  three  parts  into  which  Mr.  Dilke's  life  may 
be  divided  is  that  which  extends  from  1830,  when  he  became 
editor  of  the  Athenceum,  until  1850,  when  his  wife  died,  and 
when  he  retired  from  active  life  and  went  to  live  with  his  son. 
Jn  this  second  period  his  chief  intimate  friends  were  the  Hoods, 
the  Morgans,  Chorley,  Charles  Lamb,  Allan  Cunningham, 
Dickens,  John  Forster,  Miss  Jewsbury,  and  Douglas  Jerrold. 
His  most  noticeable  friends  or  acquaintances,  Thackeray, 
Cobden,  Barry  Cornwall  and  Mrs.  Procter,  Lady  Blessington, 
Mrs.  Austin,  L.  E.  L.,  Landor,  Hook,  George  Daiie}r, 
Moscheles,  N.  P.  Willis,  Mrs.  Hemans,  Miss  Mitford,  Bulwer, 
the  Howitts,  and  the  Brownings.  A  great  deal  about  his  life 
at  this  time  will  be  found  in  the  Memorials  of  Hood,  in 
the  "Life  of  Chorley,"  in  the  two  books  about  Lady  Morgan, 
viz.  her  autobiography,  and  the  volumes  published  by  her 
executors,  and  in  Miss  Mitford's  book.  He  was  a  man  who 
made  a  great  impression  upon  his  friends  by  the  solidity  of 
his  judgment ;  and  the  phrase  "  consult  Dilke "  occurs  re- 
peatedly in  the  letters  of  Keats,  Hood,  and  Lady  Morgan. 
His  chief  friends  abroad  were  d'Abbadie,  Quetelet,  Ste.  Beuve, 
Heine,  and  Janin. 

From  1828  to  1832  the  affairs  of  the  Athen&um,  which  was 
at  that  time  far  from  a  paying  property,  were  in  some  con- 
fusion. Mr.  Dilke  was  one  of  several  proprietors,  of  whom 
others  were  Mr.  Holmes  the  printer,  Hood,  Allan  Cunning- 
ham, and  John  Hamilton  Reynolds ;  but  in  1830  Mr.  Dilke's 
control  over  the  paper  became  complete,  and  in  1832  he  and 
Mr.  Holmes  remained  the  sole  proprietors,  Mr.  Dilke  owning 
three-fourths  and  Mr.  Holmes  one-fourth. 


MEMOIR.  25 

The  first  Athemeum  letter  which  presents  itself  is  one  from 
Lamb  : — 

"  MY  DEAR  BOY, 

"  Scamper  off  with  this  to  Dilke,  and  get  it  in  for 
to-morrow;  then  we  shall  have  two  things  in  in  the  first  week. 

"  YOUR  LAUREAT." 

The  next  is  from  John  Hamilton  Reynolds,  and  regards  the 
lowering  of  the  price  of  the  paper  from  Sd.  to  4d. 

"  BRIGHTON,  15th  Feb.,  1831. 
"  MY  DEAR  DILKE, 

"  You  astound  me  with  your  fall.  It  is  more  decided 
than  Milton's  '  Noon  to  Dewy  Eve '  one  !  From  Sd.  to  4d. 
is  but  a  step,  but  then  it  is  also  from  the  sublime  to  the 
ridiculous.  Remember  what  an  increase  must  take  place  to 
get  it  all  home.  A  sale  of  6000  !  Mercy  on  us  !  I  certainly 
hoped  the  change  would  allow  us  to  lower  our  outgoings,  and 
consequently  fatten  our  profits.  But  after  the  cost  of  writers, 
printers,  duty,  and  paper,  what  in  the  name  of  the  practical 
part  of  a  farthing  remains  to  report  upon  as  profit.  A  midway 
lowering  of  price  would  better  suit  the  public  and  ourselves. 
6d.  unstamped  !  There  is  something  more  respectable,  too,  in 
the  sum.  Something  less  Tattlerish,  and  Mirrorish  and  Two- 
penny-Trashish.  However,  do  what  you  please.  If  apoplexy 
is  the  fancy,  my  head  is  ready,  and  I  am  prepared  to  go  off. 
Consumption,  which  I  take  to  be  a  complaint  arising  out  of 
non-consumption — a  sort  of  Incus  a  non  lucendo — is  a  sad  death 
for  us  very  lively  critics." 

So  excited  was  he,  that  on  the  same  afternoon  he  wrote  a 
second  time : — 

"  DEAR  DILKE, 

"  Hood  and  I  have  been  calculating  this  afternoon, 
and  the  result  is  appalling.  To  lower  below  6d.  woidd,  in  my 
opinion,  be  an  unadvisable  course,  and  such  a  fall  would  show 
that  our  previous  state  was  hopeless.  The  difference  between 
6(f.  and  4d.  would  be  SI.  6s.  Sd.  a  week  in  a  thousand  copies. 


26  MEMOIR. 

The  loss  per  annum  on  5000  copies  would  be  2,1651.  And 
you  should  remember  that  this  very  2d.  is  in  reality  the  cream 
of  the  profit,  for  between  the  expenses  and  the  4dL  there  can 
be  the  merest  shadow  of  a  gain.  We  are  quite  against  the 
total  change  in  our  paper-constitution  which  you  threaten. 

"  J.  H.  R." 

The  change  was  made,  however,  and  with  magnificent 
results.  Mr.  Dilke  writes  to  his  wife : — "  I  think  this  first 
day,  and  these  first  hours,  the  experiment  has  succeeded  well. 
You  remember  that  at  the  outset  we  professed  we  should  be 
well  pleased  if  at  starting  we  doubled  our  sale.  We  have 
already  trebled  it."  The  next  day  he  writes  : — "  Our  sale  up 
to  the  present  time  has  been  six  times  our  former  sale.  I 
begin  now  to  have  hopes  that  I  was  right,  and  all  the  world 
wrong,  for  that  is  about  the  proportion  for  and  against  the 
measure.  A  first  number,  of  course,  has  novelty ;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  I  do  not  believe  that  our  advertisements  are  yet 
beginning  to  be  felt  in  the  country."  Mr.  Reynolds  retired 
from  proprietorship  on  the  8th  of  June,  1831,  but  continued 
to  write  for  many  years. 

In  1832  the  success  of  the  Athenaeum  became  complete, 
and  much  of  Lamb's  best  work  and  of  Hood's  best  comedy 
appeared.  Hogg,  the  Ettrick  Shepherd,  Leigh  Hunt,  William 
Roscoe,  and  Sir  Charles  and  Lady  Morgan,  were  also  writing. 
An  amusing  war  with  Bulwer-Lytton,  who  was  editing  the 
New  Monthly,  raged  through  this  year.  Mr.  Dilke  accused 
the  New  Monthly  of  plundering  the  gossip  of  the  Athenceum. 
The  future  Lord  Lytton  at  last  surrendered  : — 

"PEAR  SIR, 

"  I  have  seen  Mr.  Hall.  The  custom  since  the 
magazine  began  has  been  to  make  up  that  part  of  it  from 
compilation.  It  has  been  the  general,  though  not  the  in- 
variable, custom  to  quote  the  source  of  the  intelligence.  I 
beg  to  assure  you  of  my  sincere  regret  to  have  appeared  un- 


MEMOIR.  27 

consciously  interfering  with  the  subjects  of  your  journal,  or 
wanting  in  courtesy  to  yourself. 

"  IJiave  the  honour  to  be,  dear  sir, 

"  Your  obedient  servant, 

"  EDW.  LYTTON  BULWER." 

In  1833  this  acquaintance  had  improved  its  character,  and 
Bulwer  wrote  to  Mr.  Dilke,  of  the  Athenaum  as  "an  able  and 
generous  contemporary."  In  the  same  year  Lamb  writes  : — 

"  May  I  now  claim  of  you  the  benefit  of  the  loan  of 
some  books.  Do  not  fear  sending  too  many.  But  do  not  if  it 
be  irksome  to  yourself, — such  as  shall  make  you  say,  '  damn  it, 
here's  Lamb's  box  come  again.'  Dog's  leaves  ensured  !  Any 
light  stuff :  no  natural  history  or  useful  learning,  such  as 
Pyramids,  Catacombs,  Giraffes,  Adventures  in  Southern 
Africa,  &c.  &c. 

"  With  our  joint  compliments,  yours, 

"  C.  LAMB. 
"CHURCH  STREET,  EDMONTON." 

"  Novels  for  the  last  two  years,  or  further  back — nonsense 
of  any  period." 

The  printer  sends  Lamb  a  proof  of  a  little  scrap.  He 
replies  : — "  I  have  read  the  enclosed  five  and  forty  times  over. 
I  have  submitted  it  to  my  Edmonton  friends;  at  last  (O 
Argus'  penetration),  I  have  discovered  a  dash  that  might  be 
dispensed  with.  Pray  don't  trouble  yourself  with  such  useless 
courtesies.  I  can  well  trust  your  editor,  when  I  don't  use 
queer  phrases,  which  prove  themselves  wrong,  by  creating  a 
distrust  in  the  sober  compositor." 

Hood  writes  : — "  Every  day  I  am  a  step-father  to  being  a 
parent." 

John  Hamilton  Reynolds,  sending  some  verses,  says  : — "  I 
hope,  as  I  write  for  my  bread,  you  do  not  weigh-in  poetry  as 


28  MEMOIR. 

lone."  Another  of  his  notes  runs  thus  : — "  Dear  D.,  are  you 
mad,  or  only  brazen  ?  How  on  earth  could  I  read  three 
volumes  of  dullish  chit-chat,  and  write  a  paper  on  it  by  Wed- 
nesday morning  ?  You  might  as  well  have  sent  me  the  Ency. 
Brit,  to  turn  into  verse  in  the  same  time  !  " 

Allan  Cunningham  writes  : — 

"  DEAR  DILKE, 

"I  send  you  Montgomery's  new  poem.  He  wishes 
for  justice.  But  you  must  give  more.  You  must  be  merciful. 
He  is  now  suffering  under  the  double  misery  of  being  over  and 
under  praised.  Make  the  Athenceum  the  happy  medium.  I 
have  ever  considered  him  a  young  man  of  good  poetic  talent, 
who,  had  he  been  left  more  to  himself,  would  have  done  better 
than  he  has. 

Yours  ever  and  ever, 

ALLAN  CUNNINGHAM. 

Cunningham's  notes  are  daily  ones,  and  often  of  interest : — 

"  DEAR  DILKE, 

"  Shall  I  do  the  R.  A.  Exhibition  for  you,  or  do  JTOU 
wish  for  cleaner  hands  ?  Who  is  the  author  of  that  odd, 
queer,  natural  and  unnatural  book,  Contarini  Fleming  ?  " 

"  Here  is  something  which  I  think  rather  readable  than 
otherwise.  Cut  out  the  libels  and  mind  the  grammar ! 

"  Wilkie  was  with  me  on  Sunday,  but  though  I  did  not 
praise  his  works,  and  attacked  his  King,  he  was  just  as  he  ever 
is,  and  as  you  saw  him.  He  is  a  genius." 

"  My  connexion  with  the  Athemeum  is  well  known,  and  I 
have  made  no  secret  of  it,  but  I  am  prouder  of  the  avowed 
hearty  friendship  of  its  downright  honest  and  worthy  editor." 

-"  I  have  always  liked  the  paper  since  it  has  become  yours, 
for  its  candour,  good  sense,  and  good  feeling.  In  these  it  is 
unmatched. 

"  Ever  yours, 

"A.  C." 
Mr.   Dilke,  in  Dec.  1833,  writes  to  Cunningham : — "  You 


MEMOIR.  29 

cannot  but  have  observed  that  I  have  essentially  changed  the 
character  of  the  Journal.  I  rely  now  little  upon  '  original,' 
unimaginative  papers.  I  have  not  asked  you  for  one  for  a 
twelvemonth.  Without  abandoning  them  altogether,  I  put  all 
the  strength  into  reviews.  I  can  command  assistance  now, 
and  want  rather  quality  than  quantity." 

Here  is  Cunningham's  last  note  in  1833  : — 

"  BELGKAVE  PLACE. 
"  DEAR  DILKE, 

"  As  a  handful  of  clean  corn  to  a  bushel  of  chaff: — 
as  a  grain  of  gold  to  a  ton  of  gravel : — as  an  honest  lawyer  to 
the  knaves  of  his  profession — so  is  the  worth  to  the  worthless- 
ness  of  '  Anecdotes  of  Artists.'  Yet  a  shrewd  man  may  pick 
something  out  of  them.  The  half  of  them  are  lies,  and  of  the 
other  moiety  you  durst  not  use  them  if  you  would. 

"  I  am  anything  but  well.  I  feel  as  if  I  had  been  punned 
upon  by  Hood,  and  my  hideous  scarecrow  hung  up  in  the  very 
centre  of  the  Athenczum. 

"  Yours  in  haste  and  love, 

"  ALLAN  CUNNINGHAM." 

In  1831  Mr.  Dilke  had  made  the  acquaintance  of  the  Howitts, 
with  whom  he  corresponded  in  1832  and  1833.  William 
Howitt  at  first  wrote  in  Quaker  style  : — 

"NOTTINGHAM. 
"  ESTEEMED  FRIEND, 

"  I  was  much  obliged  by  thy  polite  invitation  to  thy 
party  the  night  I  arrived  in  town.  The  fact  was  that  I  was 
very  anxious  to  have  done  it  personally,  and  made  several 
attempts  to  reach  thy  house,  but  owing  to  the  immense  dis- 
tances of  London,  and  the  want  of  punctuality  in  London 
people,  I  found  it  impossible  to  complete  my  business  and  see 
my  friends  in  the  time  to  which  I  was  limited.  My  wife  desires 
me  to  thank  thee  and  Mrs.  Dilke. 

"  Allow  me  to  subscribe  myself  very  respectfully  thy  friend, 

"W.  HOWITT." 


30  MEMOIIi. 

Within  six  months  the  form  of  letter  is  completely  changed, 
and  Howitt  writes, — 

"  MY  DEAR  SIR, 

"  I  feel  much  obliged  by  your  " — and  so  forth. 

This  letter  is  accompanied  by  one  from  Atherstone,  the 
author  of  the  "  Fall  of  Nineveh,"  in  most  extravagant  praise  of 
the  poems  of  Miller,  then  twenty-four.  He  speaks  of  him  as 
"  a  second  Keats,"  which  roused  Mr.  Dilke  to  wrath,  though 
he  admitted  Miller's  merits,  and  printed  several  of  his  poems. 
William  Howitt  then  replied: — "As  to  Miller's  book,  your 
opinion  of  it  was  just,  though  not  quite  so  encouraging  as  it 
might  have  been  had  you  known  more  about  the  man.  But  I 
do  not  know  but  it  is  quite  as  well.  Poetry  is  so  mischievous  a 
propensity  to  a  poor  man,  that  it  is  as  well  checked  a  little  now 
and  then.  By  some  curious  process  of  reasoning,  poor  poets 
forget  that  they  write  for  their  amusement,  and  the  public 
reads  for  its  amusement,  and  if  this  same  public  does  not 
happen  to  relish  the  fruits  of  the  poet's  amusement,  it  is  not 
bound  to  maintain  him, — as  he  soon  gets  a  notion  that  it 
ought.  I  want  to  preach  up  to  Miller  the  necessity  of  sticking 
close  to  his  baskets,  and  of  looking  on  poetry  as  only  the  best 
of  recreations." 

Another  correspondence  of  1833  was  that  with  a  "  per- 
verted "  member  of  another  Quaker  family,  H.  F.  Chorle}', 
with  whom  Mr.  Dilke  maintained  an  unbroken  friendship  fro~m 
1830  till  his  own  death  in  1864  ;  a  friendship  continued  between 
his  son  and  grandson,  and  Mr.  Choiiey,  until  the  latter's  death 
in  1872,  and  which,  at  a  later  period  than  1830,  embraced  the 
other  members  of  both  families.  Even  in  1833,  Mr.  Chorley 
had  begun  to  write  in  the  tone  which  he  was,  as  musical  critic 
of  the  AtliencEum  for  thirty  years,  to  make  famous.  "I  wish 
you  would  in  good  earnest  undertake  a  crusade  against  the 
modern  quackeries  by  which  English  music  is  debased."  In  1834 


MEMOIR.  31 

( 'horley  alludes  to  the  great  effect  produced  by  Mr.  Dilke's  own 
criticisms  of  the  labours  of  the  Society  for  the  Diffusion  of 
Knowledge.  Chorley  attacks  Balzac ;  is  comforted  by  Mr. 
Dilke's  opinion  of  what  his  own  book  "  might  have  been. 
(Rather  queer  this ;  but  you  are  one  of  the  very  few  who  have 
encouraged,  without  spoiling,  me.)"  Lady  Blessington,  it  is  to  be 
feared,  was  one  who  both  "encouraged"  and  "spoilt"  Chorley. 
But  he  was  never  much  spoilt  after  all.  Mr.  Dilke  wrote  to 
him,  that  he  might  go  to  Lady  Blessington's,  "  because  she  is 
Lady  Blessington,"  but  nowhere  else,  and  Chorley  replied  that 
he  agreed  that  "of  all  tuft-hunters,  literary  tuft-hunters  are  the 
worst."  This  was  during  a  short  absence  of  Mr.  Dilke  from 
town  in  which  Mr.  Cooke-Taylor  was  acting  as  editor,  with 
Chorley,  and  N."  P.  Willis,  the  American  poet,  better  known  as 
"Namby  Pamby  Willis,"  for  his  "  subs." 
Chorley  writes  in  1834  : — 

"  WEDNESDAY  MORNING. 

"  Braham  is  dead  of  cholera.  I  have  sent  to  Charles 
Dance  for  a  notice  of  him,  as  he  goes  back  beyond  my  remem- 
brance, and  we  ma}'  between  us  make  up  the  article.  Moore  is 
in  town.  Abbotsford  to  be  let. 

"  Yours  faithfully, 

"H.  F.  C." 

"  N.B. — Braham  is  not  dead,  nor  has  he  been  ill.  So  much 
for  the  new  papers." 

Allan  Cunningham,  twitting  Mr.  Dilke  upon  his  radicalism, 
sends  a  catalogue  of  sins  of  the  newspapers,  and  adds  "  What 
think  you,  now,  of  an  unstamped  press." 

With  regard  to  the  Lady  Blessington  incident  mentioned 
above,  it  may  be  observed  that  while  Mr.  Dilke  was  editor  of 
the  Atlienceum,  he  made  it  a  rule  not  to  go  into  society  of  any 
kind,  in  order  to  avoid  making  literary  acquaintances,  which 
might  either  prove  annoying  to  him,  or  be  supposed  to  com- 


33  MEMOIR. 

promise  the  independence  of  his  -journal.  His  old  friends, 
named  above,  he  saw  only  at  his  own  house,  and  at  Lady 
Morgan's,  when  he  was  sure  of  his  fellow  guests. 

In  October,  1834,  Mr.  Dilke  sent  a  messenger  to  Paris  on 
behalf  of  the  A  thencsutn  in  reference  to  two  matters,  of  whicli 
the  first  was  the  Life  of  Coleridge.  This  agent  writes  : — "  I 
have  seen  the  Mr.  Underwood  to  whom  Sir  E.  Bull  referred. 
The  letter  of  Coleridge  does  not  refer  to  the  Regiment,  but  is 
about  his  early  "  wives."  He  sa}rs  that  Quincey's  account  is 
uncommonly  true,  with  two  exceptions.  1.  About  his  being 
Treasurer  to  Sir  A.  (sic)  Ball,  and  2.  About  his  being  forced  to 
marry  Miss  Taylor.  He  was  only  secretary,  and  was  exceed- 
ingly enamoured  of  his  wife.  His  appointment  of  secretary 
was  thus : — Coleridge  got  hold  of  a  sum  of  money  (Mr. 
Underwood  thinks  it  was  his  allowance  from  the  Wedgewoods), 
and  with  that  he  ran  off  to  Malta.  There  Sir  J.  Holland,  then 
Mr.  Holland  and  Attorney- General,  was  at  a  ball  at  the 
Governor's,  when  he  was  told  a  gentleman  from  England 
wished  to  see  him.  He  went  out,  and  saw  Coleridge.  "  My 
God  !  what  has  brought  you  here."  "  To  see  you."  "  Well, 
as  you  are  here,  one  must  be  glad  to  see  you.  Come  and  have 
some  supper."  This  was  the  meeting.  Coleridge  was  soon 
introduced  to  Sir  E.  Ball  and  appointed  Secretary,  but  was  so 
totally  inefficient  that  they  could  not  get  on.  Colin  Mackenzie 
had  at  that  time  (the  height  of  the  war),  got  a  ship  to  bring 
him  home,  and  arrangements  were  made  that  Coleridge  should 
accompany  him.  Underwood  and  Mackenzie  say  that  there 
was  more  humbug  in  Coleridge  than  in  any  man  that  was  ever 
heard  of.  Underwood  was  one  day  transcribing  something  for 
Coleridge  when  a  visitor  appeared.  After  the  common-places, 
Coleridge  took  up  a  little  book  lying  upon  the  table  and  said, 
"  By  the  bye,  I  casually  took  up  this  book  this  morning,  and  was 
quite  enchanted  with  a  little  sonnet  I  found  there."  He  then 
read  off  a  blank  verse  translation,  and  entered  into  a  long 
critique  upon  its  merits.  The  same  story,  the  same  trans- 


MEMOIR.  33 

lation,  and  the  same  critique  were  repeated  five  times  in  that 
day  to  different  visitors,  without  one  word  being  altered.  Mr. 
Underwood  sa}rs  that  every  one  of  his  famous  evening  conver- 
sations was  got  up."  Truly  a  hero  is  not  a  hero  to  his  valet. 
The  other  matter  upon  which  this  agent  was  sent  to  Paris  to 
report  was  the  purchase  of  the  Stuart  papers,  the  agreement 
as  to  which  was  finally  signed  on  the  2nd  August,  1836. 
They  were  to  be  purchased  for  3,000  francs,  for  the  use  of 
Mr.  Dilke,  and  to  be  afterwards  re-sold  to  the  English  Govern- 
ment at  "  such  sum  as  shall  be  considered  their  value  by 
competent  persons,  to  be  agreed  on  with  the  Government,  even 
though  there  might  be  reason  to  suppose  that  a  larger  sum  might 
be  obtained  by  selling  them  by  auction  or  otherwise."  The 
price — over  3,000  francs-^-was  to  be  divided  between  the  persons 
who  made  the  sale.  These  were  the  papers  deposited  by 
James  II.  in  the  "  Scots  College  at  Paris,"  whence  they  were 
stolen  during  the  Revolution. 

In  1835  we  find  Chorley  receiving  a  "wigging"  from  Mr. 
Dilke  for  naming  to  his  friend,  Miss  Mitford,  George  Darley 
as  the  author  of  an  article  in  the  Athenaum*  Chorley  humbly 
acknowledges  his  transgression.  On  the  28th  Dec.  Allan 
Cunningham  writes  : — •"  So  you  enlarge  the  Athenaum  ?  You 
alread}'  give  too  much  for  the  money."  Great  friends  of  Mr. 
Dilke  at  this  time  were  two  Spanish  exiles,  the  famous 
physician,  Dr.  Seoane,  father  of  the  present  Conde  Se"oane, 
and  Montesinos,  who  in  1872  was  Home  Minister  under 
Amadeo.  In  1836  Seoane  returned  to  Spain  and  writes : — 
"  We  are  in  a  situation  extremely  disagreeable,  but  I  have  not 
lost  hope  or  courage.  Perhaps  I  am  over-sanguine,  but  I 
cannot  yet  believe  that  Don  Carlos  will  reign  in  Spain.  I  have 
been  with  the  army  six  months,  and  those  six  months  have 
been  the  worst  of  my  life.  I  am  sick  of  revolution  and  civil 
war.  Thank  God  that  I  have  not  been  elected  a  member  of 
the  Cortes.  I  do  not  belong  to  any  of  the  parties  who  fight 
for  power,  I  am  on  bad  terms  with  everybody.  I  sent  in  my 

VOL.   T.  'Q 


34  MEMOIR. 

resignation  five  times  before  the  last  revolt  (it  is  no  revolution) 
and  three  times  since,  and  cannot  get  any  answer,  but  I  am 
determined  not  to  hold  any  place."  Other  letters  from  Spain 
were  those  of  Miss  Frances  B.  (Fanny)  much  mentioned  in  the 
Life  of  Keats,  who  had  followed  her  husband,  an  officer  in  the 
English  Legion.  Her  sister,  Margaret,  had  married  M. 
D'Acunha,  the  Brazilian, Minister  to  France.  Mr.  Dilke  was 
their  trustee.  Keats's  sister  had  also  gone  to  live  in  Spain, 
as  Mrs.  Llanos,  and  is  still,  indeed,  at  this  moment  (1875) 
living  in  Madrid.  The  poet's  brother  George  who  went  to 
America  has  long  been  dead,  but  has  left  children  and  grand- 
children in  Kentucky,  some  of  them  being  very  like  John 
Keats. 

J.  Landseer,  father  of  Sir  Edwin,  writes  in  defence  of  Gillray 
the  caricaturist,  and  then  sends  a  second  note: — "You  make 
me  wish  I  was  at  Jersey,  or  some  happier  island  of  the  watery 
waste,  where  good  purposes  and  well-meaning  folk  are  not 
frustrated,  and  dragons  of  editors  do  not  roam  about  seeking 
whom  they  may  devour. 

"  Mr.  Landseer  sends  herewith  a  little  book  containing  his 
son's  Alpine  dogs,  for  review." 

Atherstone,  the  author  of  the  "  Fall  of  Nineveh,"  writes  in  a 
rage,  and  is  told  in  reply,  that  the  only  three  definite  state- 
ments that  he  makes  are  all,  without  his  being  aware  of  it, 
absolutely  untrue,  and  that  he  "  has,  moreover,  been  only 
tickled,  not  tomahawked." 

Other  letters  of  this  period  are  from  Mrs.  Gore,  Mrs.  Austen, 
L.  E.  L.,  D'Abbadie,  N.  P.  Willis,  and  Walter  Savage  Landor. 
One  of  Mrs.  Gore's  letters  is  amusing.  In  the  course  of  it  she 
says  ; — "  You  will  receive  in  a  day  or  two  a  novel  of  mine,  called 
'  The  Sketch  Book  of  Fashion.'  I  should  feel  greatly  obliged 
if  you  would  not  notice  it  at  all,  unless,  indeed,  you  find  that  it 
contains  something  demanding  reprobation.  As  you  may 
imagine  there  is  something  mysterious  in  this  Medea-like 
proceeding  towards  my  offspring,  I  ought  to  add  that  general 


MEMOIR.  35 

condemnation  has  rendered  me  somewhat  ashamed  of  my 
sickly  progeniture  of  fashionable  novels,  and  that  I  have  .now  in, 
the  press  a  series  of  stories  founded  on  the  history  of  Poland, 
which  I  hope  will  prove  more  worthy  of  attention."  But  alas  ! 
the  Polish  tales  were  "  damned." 

The  friendship  between  Mr.  Dilke  and  Mrs.  Austen  lasted 
till  1859,  and  in  a  quarter  of  a  century  produced,  as  may  be 
expected,  a  plentiful  crop  of  letters.  It  also  brought  the 
Athenaum  into  pleasant  relations  with  Grimm  in  Germany, 
and  with  the  leading  literary  Orleanists  and  moderate  Re- 
publicans of  France.  Also  with  her  friends  Humboldt  and 
Sir  Alexander  Gordon.  Also  with  De  Vigny,  and  Cousin,  the 
latter  of  whom  wrote  largely  for  the  Athenceum  between  1834 
and  1848.  A  few  points  of  interest  in  Mrs.  Austen's  letters 
may  be  noted  : — "  Miss  Martineau  is  the  last  person  with  whom 
I  wish  to  enter  these  or  any  lists.  She  is  my  relation,  and  I 
have  a  vast  respect  for  her  on  a  great  many  points ;  but  also 
her  views  on  many  subjects,  especially  regarding  women,  are 
diametrically  opposed  to  mine,  and  the  kind  of  notoriety  she 
courts  would  make  me  wish  myself  three  feet  underground." 
In  1834  Mrs.  Austen  writes  : — "  My  friend  Henry  Taylor  is 
writing  on  Wordsworth  for  the  Quarterly.  Nobody  is  so  kind 
to  me  as  Lord  Jeffrey,  and  though  he  and  I  are  at  interminable 
warfare  on  all  political  questions,  I  could  not  attack  the 
Edinburgh  as  I  would.  However,  its  days  of  mischief  are 
over."  In  1836  Mrs.  Austen  was  attacked  in  the  Quarterly  and 
wrote,  "I  am  utterly  at  a  loss  to  understand  the  secret  motives 
for  this  unprovoked  attack.  While  I  am  said  to  have  been 
proner-ing  Raumer  at  all  the  Whig  houses,  I  was  not  in  London, 
but  at  Hastings."  In  1847,  she  says : — "  Faucher  is  a  good 
man, but  he  has ' la  manie  d'enseigner  1'Angleterre  aux Anglais.' " 
In  1849,  she  accuses  Louis  Napoleon,  then  Prince  President, 
of  having  tried  to  sell  a  copy  of  a  Raphael  to  Sir  John  East- 
hope,  as  an  original,  for  £5,000.  Sir  John  afterwards  bought 

it  at  the  Prince's*  sale  for  a  much  smaller  sum.     The  Prince 

D  2 


36  MEMOIR. 

had  told  Sir  John  that  the  one  in  the  Louvre  was  a  copy,  and 
that  the  Emperor,  his  uncle,  had  given  the  original  to  Queen 
Hortense  !  In  1852,  Mrs.  Austen  wrote  to  Mr.  Dilke  : — "  The 
entire  collection  of  pictures  of  the  Duchess  of  Orleans  is  to  be 
sold.  I  need  not  tell  you  with  what  feelings  Scheffer  con- 
templates this,  for  independently  of  his  long  attachment  to  the 
family,  his  upright  mind  and  high  spirit  appreciates  the  noble 
character  of  this  most  unfortunate  lady.  The  Duchess  looks 
forward  to  the  retention  of  her  dower  as  probable.  No  doubt 
every  form  of  plunder  will  be  resorted  to."  This  was  the  act 
which  the  Procureur- General  Dupin  described  as  being  only 
"  le  premier  vol  de  YAigle."  In  1856,  she  sends  an  article  in 
which  Arago  is  much  attacked,  though  the  article  is  by  a 
valued  French  correspondent  of  the  Athenteum,  and  not  by  her. 
She  adds,  "  It  is  too  bad  to  confound  Arago's  pretence  at  a 
refusal,  with  the  real,  solid  sacrifice  of  such  men  as  Barthelemy 
St.  Hilaire.  I  never  heard  one  honourable  republican  wrho  did 
not  treat  that  '  comedie '  as  '  deplorable.' "  Also  in  1856, 
attacking  the  Emperor,  she  writes  : — "  Our  silly  enthusiasm  for 
one  unprincipled  man  has  cost  us  the  respect  and  friendship  of 
all  that  is  wise  and  honourable  in  France." 

There  is  nothing  in  N.  P.  Willis's  letters  while  he  was  in 
Europe,  but  like  others  he  fell  foul  of  Walter  Savage  Landor, 
and  after  his  return  to  America  he  writes,  "  I  have  once  or  twice 
been  very  gravely  asked  by  friends  whether  it  is  true  that  I 
destroyed  or  took  away  Lander's  MSS.  as  stated  in  his  Pericles 
and  Aspasia  !  " 

The  letters  of  Bryan  Waller  Procter,  and  of  Mrs.  Procter 
to  Mr.  Dilke,  records  of  a  friendship  which  extended  over  four- 
and-thirty  years,  till  Mr.  Dilke's  death  in  1864,  were  of  course 
very  many,  and  very  full  of  interest.  Barry  Cornwall  not 
only  contributed  many  charming  poems  to  the  Athenaeum,  but 
among  other  never-to-be-forgotten  contributions,  wrote  the 
obituary  notice  of  their  common  friend  Charles  Lamb  at  his 
death,  in  1835.  His  notes  are  mostly  of  too  intimate  a 


MEMOIR.  37 

character  to  be  fit  for   publicity.      Here  is  one,  written  in 
1844  :— 

"4,  GRAY'S  INN  SQUARE. 
"  DEAR  DILKE, 

"  Lend  me  your  cool  judicious  head  for  five  minutes. 
My  friends  are  alarmed  at  one  of  my  poems  now  in  the  press, 
which  they  think  has  a  revolutionary  turn.  Chorley  will  show 
it  you.  The  4th  and  5th  stanzas  seem  the  most  objection- 
able, but  I  do  not  wish  to  extinguish  the  poem  altogether,  if  I 
can  help  it.  I  have  no  respect  for  mob  law  or  Ljrnch  law. 
Even  Tartar  law  is  better,  perhaps.  You  will  recollect  that 
I  am  a  sort  of  servant  of  government  in  my  character  of  Com- 
missioner of  Lunacy,  and  I  really  have  no  intention  of  writing 
a  Marseillaise,  as  I  told  Chorley. 

"Yours  ever, 

"  B.  W.  PROCTER." 

Barry  Cornwall  had  by  this  time  quite  got  over  the  fear  of 
verse-writing,  by  which  he  was  oppressed  in  1831,  when  he 
wrote  to  Reynolds,  "  I  am  very  anxious  that  what  I  have  said 
in  the  early  part  of  the  '  Address  to  the  Public '  may  be 
known.  In  it  I  disclaim  the  vanities  of  poetry,  and  state  that 
I  have  sobered  into  prose."  On  the  same  day  he  writes  to 
Mr.  Dilke,  "I  HAVE  GIVEN  OVER  WRITING  VERSE,  for  it  does 
me  no  good  with  my  legal  friends,  I  fear."  But  shortly  after 
he  had  repented,  and  sends  a  poem,  with  the  remark,  "  I  mean 
to  decline  giving  my  name  at  present.  I  professed  in  my  book 
to  give  up  rhyming,  and  it  will  look  ludicrous  to  publish  verse 
instantaneously.  But,  if  my  name  be  material,  take  it.1'  On 
2nd  May,  1839,  he  writes :— 

* 

"  ILLUSTRIOUS  DILKE, 

"  You  are  sitting  there  in  all  the  pride  of  science, 
railroads,  your  Elysian  fields,  chimneys,  your  delectable 
mountains,  artesian  wells,  your  castles  ;  and  yet  with  all  this 
disadvantage  and  prejudice  against  me,  I  drive  on,  head  fore- 


38  MEMOIR. 

most,  and  send  you  a  dozen  lines,  rendered  literally  almost 
from  Victor  Hugo — a  gentleman  of  some  mark  (God  save  it!) — 
and  who  will  be  remembered,  perhaps,  when  Tredgold  and  the 
999  associates  have  been  pounded  and  pulverized  into  fresh 
magnesia,  to  supply  the  future  bones  of  the  mechanical 
geniuses  of  1939.  Why  do  you,  a  man  of  large  heart,  take 
under  your  wing  (your  waistcoat)  the  wheels,  and  levers,  and 
cogs,  and  spinning  jennies  of  the  time.  Jennies  I  would 
excuse,  and  even  laud  you  for,  but  spinning  jennies  are  good 
for  nothing  but  to  spin.  Better  health  to  your  worship, 

"  From,  your  labourer  in  the  poetic  vineyard, 

"BARRY  CORNWALL." 

A  little  later  Mr.  Procter  writes  :  "  Many  of  the  characters 
of  Shakespeare  strike  me  in  a  different  way  from  that  in  which 
they  seem  to  have  smitten  others.  "Whether  my  eye-sight  is 
more  dim  or  clear,  who  knows  ?  Amongst  other  things,  the 
parallels  which  have  been  drawn  between  some  of  the  cha- 
racters seem  to  me  odd  enough.  For  instance,  Macbeth  and 
Richard  3rd — nothing  can  be  more  imlike.  Macbeth  and 
Hamlet  are  far  more  like,  I  think.  The  same  infirmity,  the 
same  speculative,  melanchoty,  imaginative  character  in  each. 
Hamlet  is  a  sort  of  good  Macbeth.  These  so-called  "  parallels  " 
are  in  themselves  strong  evidences  of  the  wonderful  power  of 
Shakespeare,  for  it  is  impossible  (amongst  I  know  not  how 
many  characters)  to  find  two  alike.  There  are  no  parallels 
properly  speaking.  I  myself  do  not  see  a  case  in  which  Shake- 
speare has  borrowed  from  any  of  his  other  characters.  Perhaps 
Biron  (in  "Love's  Labour's  Lost")  and  Benedick  approach  the 
nearest  to  each  other ;  yet  they  are,  after  all  is  said,  and 
though  one  has  certainly  generated  the  other,  quite  different." 
One  of  Procter's  letters,  dated  May  1st,  1833,  is  as  follows : 
"  If  Mrs.  Dilke  has  not  received  the  child  by  the  carrier  from 
her  anonymous  correspondent,  we  have  one  still  at  her  service. 
Say  whether  I  shall  send  the  boy  or  the  girl."  This  might 


MEMOI&.  39 

be  somewhat  hard  to  understand  without  an  explanation.  The 
anomnnous  letter  itself  is  in  existence,  and  is  as  follows : — 
(shamefully  written) 

"  MRS.  DILKE, 
"  MADAM, 

"By  having  seen  some  Benevolent  recura  nienda- 
tions  in  the  Athenium  and  supposing  their  by  the  Editor  too 
be  huinain  disposd  and  Having  no  othe  Means  of  Publishing 
my  own  case  which  is  as  follows  I  humbly  Beg  leav  to  say  I 
am  left  with  Eleven  offspring  the  yungest  off  whom  But  a 
munth  old  none  so  Much  as  taste  Butchers  Meat  and  nothing 
in  the  World  to  lay  on  xcept  straw  winter  and  summer  owing 
to  my  Family  am  unabel  to  get  or  do  ether  nedle  work  or 
charing  and  there  father  am  sorry  to  say  not  willing  if  he 
could  get  work  but  peple  wont  employ  Him  on  account  of 
caracter  to  Be  sure  he  was  Born  to  verry  different  Prospects  in 
life  my  mane  object  being  to  get  sum  of  the  children  of  my 
hands  am  intending  to  send  one  up  to  you  by  the  Saturdays 
carryer  hoping  you  will  excuse  the  offence  and  if  approved  of 
god  willing  may  be  the  Means  of  getting  him  into  sum  sittiation 
in  London  witch  is  verry  scarse  hearabouts  and  the  Allmity 
Bless  and  prosper  you  for  such  and  as  the  well  noon  gudness 
of  Hart  of  you  and  Mr.  Dilke  will  I  trust  exert  in  Behalf  of 
our  deplorible  states  and  am  begging  your  Humbel  pardin  for 
trubling  with  the  distresses  of  a  Stranger  But  not  to  your 
gudness  your  humbel  servant  L  P." 

The  next  morning  there  came  by  carrier's  cart  a  sucking  pig 
from  Hood,  of  which  this  had  been  the  "  envoi  !  " 

Hood's  communications  in  the  Athenaeum  were  a  great 
success,  but  all  the  readers  did  not  approve  of  some  of  them, 
and  almost  the  same  post  which  brought  the  anonymous  letter 
given  above,  carried  to  the  Athenceum  office  a  letter  in  which 
Hood  again  tried  a  hoax.  It  began,  "  Sir,  In  your  critique 
of  that  infamous  ode  by  Thomas  Hood,  which  you  inserted  in 
your  No.  of  the  16th,  you  requested  your  readers  '  to  be 


40  MEMOIR. 

satisfied.'  Now,  if  they  feel  on  the  subject  as  I  do,  they  will 
be  very  far  from  satisfied.  Many  of  them  certainly  never 
expected  to  be  regaled  with  so  irreligious  a  feast  as  you,  the 
editor  of  the  once  respectable  journal — the  Athenceum — have 
seen  fit  this  last  week  to  set  before  them,"  and  went  on  through 
four  large  pages  in  this  style.  This  was  probably  a  burlesque 
of  some  real  letter.  Hood  was  very  far  indeed  from  being  an 
irreligious  man,  but  his  ode  to  Agnew  in  one  of  the  "  Comic 
Annuals  "  offended  some  persons  in  the  religious  world. 

Of  the  long  friendship  with  the  Morgans — -Lady  Morgan's 
autobiography  and  her  memoirs  form  the  best  record,  just  as 
Chorley's  Memoirs,  Keats's  Life,  and  Hood's  Memorials  do  for 
other  friendships  of  Mr.'Dilke's  life.  Lady  Morgan  was  not 
much  of  a  letter- writer,  except,  indeed,  in  quantity ;  but  Sir 
Charles  Morgan  wrote  excellently  in  this  form,  and  his  corre- 
spondence, dated  from  Dublin  up  to  1837,  then  from  London, 
and  in  1841  from  Brighton,  where  the  Morgans  were  staying 
with  the  Horace  Smiths,  is  always  full  of  fun,  In  one  of  his 
Dublin  letters,  he  writes,  "  Dear  Dilke,  I  have  not  a  word  to 
throw  at  the  head  of  a  dog,  much  less  at  the  head  of  a  great 
editor.  The  state  of  things  here  socially  and  politically  is  as 
bad  as  possible.  Moore  has  been  here  doing  the  popular ! 
Going  to  n^ass,  getting  up  dinners,  and  what  is  more,  getting  a 
pension  of  30Q/.  a  year  and  the  'refusal  of  a  place  I  wish  I 
had  the  acceptance  of." 

Here  is  one  from  Lady  Morgan  ; — 

"  KILDARE  STREET,  DUBLIN,  April  2Srd,  1834. 
"  MOST   AMIABLE    OF   MEN, 

"  If  I  wrote  to  you  all  the  letters  I  have  projected, 
and  if  you  answered  them,  what  spoils  we  should  leave  for 
some  future  Colburn,  and  how  charmingly  we  should  go  to- 
gether to  posterity.  But,  alas,  nobody  has  time  now  to  pen 
'  familiar  epistles.'  Until,  however,  some  steam  machinery  be 
invented  for  striking  proof  copies  off  the  mind,  and  realising 
its  intentions  without  manual  labour,  we  must  write.  ,  .  .  Our 
government  here  is  simply  executive,  for  which  judges  pass 


MEMOIR.  41 

sentence,  and  '  wretches  hang.'  A  duck  fluttering  after  its 
head  is  cut  off  is  a  type  of  Ireland  at  present  ....  May  1st. 
Lo  !  I  find  by  the  papers  Mrs.  Trollope  has  got  the  start  of 
me,  has  bivouacked  on  my  ground,  and  made  the  field  her 
own.  Of  course  she  will  be  upheld  by  the  Quarterly,  and  all 
stanch  haters  of  liberty  and  America." 

Here  is  a  reflection  by  Sir  Charles  Morgan  on  the  town  of 
Graiitham :  "  I  wonder  that  any  one  should  live  in  a  country 
town  when  he  or  she  might  die  so  much  cheaper."  The  fol- 
lowing bit  is  from  one  of  his  Dublin  letters,  dated  21st  Dec., 
1835  : — "  A  more  inviting  administration  than  the  present 
Ireland  never  saw,  and  the  Orangemen  can't  hold  out,  but  are 
striving  to  get  their  knees  under  the  administrative  mahogany, 
even  though  the  Church  be  in  as  much  danger  as  it  may." 
Here  is  a  scrap,  dated  1837  : — "  Have  you  got  rid  of  your 
spasms  ?  I  cannot  flatter  you  on  Hood's  mode  of  cure,  i.e., 
the  not  having  a  side  wherewith  to  be  spasmodic,  for  I  have 
had  the  devil's  own  pain  during  an  influenza  in  a  tooth  I  lost 
twelve  3*ears  ago,  and  Adam  never  had  so  much  pain  in  his 
life  as  in  the  rib  which  was  removed  during  his  first  sleep." 

In  the  early  days  of  the  Athenceum  its  dramatic  criticism  was 
entrusted  to  George  Darley  and  Charles  Dance.  In  1838  a 
long  correspondence  took  place  between  the  latter  and  Mr. 
Dilke,  in  which  all  the  principles  of  dramatic  criticism  were 
discussed,  with  the  acceptance  of  Mr.  Dance's  resignation  as 
a  result.  One  of  the  points  of  difference  was  as  to  a  notice 
by  Mr.  Dance  of  "  Every  Man  in  his  Humour,"  in  July,  1838. 
This  notice  was  cancelled,  and  did  not  appear.  Mr.  Dilke 
writes  :  "  It  is  very  true  that  Ben  Jonson,  more  than  most  of 
his  contemporaries,  depicted  manners  which  are  in  their  nature 
local  and  temporary,  rather  than  passions  which  are  universal 
and  for  all  time.  But  in  this  particular  instance  the  motive 
power  is  passion — jealousy,  and  there  are  few  finer  things  in 
dramatic  literature  out  of  Shakespeare  than  the  development  of 
this  passion,  with  its  mean  suspicions  and  the  perplexity  arising 


42  MEMOIR. 

from  the  consciousness  of  this  meanness,  in  the  earlier  scenes. 
It  is  finely  contrasted,  too,  with  the  same  passion  when 
awakened  in  the  wife.  Further,  as  to  the  question  of  '  man- 
ners,' while  I  admit  their  influence  on  the  success  of  a  revival 
(especially  in  the  present  day,  when  the  highest  aim  of  a  dra- 
matist, like  the  clown  of  a  Merry- Andrew,  is  but  to  set  the 
barren  spectators  a-laughing),  still  these  manners  with  a  dif- 
ference— that  is,  modified,  qualified,  diluted,  and  be-farced — 
have  been  and  are  a  stock-in-trade  for  the  moderns  when  they 
attempt  to  delineate  character  at  all.  It  would  be  curious  to 
calculate  how  many  times  Bobadil  has  served  as  a  lay  figure 
and  been  clothed  after  the  fashion  of  the  hour.  Nor  should 
we  forget  how  admirably  in  Ben  Jonson  the  '  humours '  are 
varied,  and  how  they  work  together  to  make  a  story  which  at 
the  close  seems  literally  self-developed.  It  is  also  true,  I 
admit,  that  the  language  of  the  old  dramatists  is  more  coarse 
than  jumps  with  the  humour  of  our  times ;  but  while  it  awakes 
disgust  it  cannot  waken  passion.  The  Bible  itself  is  '  tainted,' 
to  use  your  words,  with  the  '  unbridled  expression  of  the 
time,'  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  '  annoyance '  to  which  3*ou 
are  *  subject  '  at  a  representation  of  the  elder  dramatists 
you  cannot  altogether  escape  from  at  church.  Still,  I  am 
willing  to  allow  full  force  to  your  argument  put  generally ;  but 
then  it  is  less  true  as  applied  to  Ben  Jonson  than  to  his  con- 
temporaries, and  not  true  at  all  in  reference  to  '  Every  Man 
in  his  Humour.'  With  the  exception  of  some  half  dozen  lines 
in  the  talk  between  the  water-carrier  and  his  wife,  and  some 
half  dozen  other  words  which  could  of  course  have  been 
omitted,  there  is  not  a  line  or  word  objectionable  in  the  whole 
play."  In  his  answer  to  Mr.  Charles  Dance's  reply,  Mr. 
Dilke  writes  :  "  You  triumph  as  over  a  proved  prejudice  of 
mine  because  I  say  we  never  can  have  a  drama  equal  to  that 
of  the  Elizabethan  age.  But  I  submit  that,  right  or  wrong, 
this  opinion  rests  on  a  much  broader  basis  than  the  question 
of  comparative  genius  to  which  you  try  to  limit  it.  The  drama 


MEMOIR.  43 

is  by  me  considered  as  the  natural  form  through  which  the 
genius  of  that  age  made  itself  manifest.  The  genius  of  a  suc- 
ceeding age  can  no  more  surround  itself  by  the  circumstances 
of  the  age  of  Elizabeth  than  a  river  can  flow  upwards  to  the 
spring-head  whence  it  bubbles  forth." 

In  June,  1.836,  Mr.  Dilke  had  had  a  dramatic  correspondence 
of  a  different  kind,  namely,  with  Miss  Mitford,  in  reference  to 
her  "  Charles  the  First."  In  the  same  year  Chorley  writes  from 
Paris  :  "  My  first  introduction  has  been  to  Eugene  Sue,  a  fierce, 
black-faced  fellow,  who  looked  ready  and  willing  to  eat  me  up." 
Mr.  Dilke  was  at  this  time  staying  in  Germany  with  the  Hoods. 
The  investigations  by  Mr.  Dilke  into  the  management  of  the 
Literary  Fund,  which  were  twenty  years  later  to  lead  to  the 
publication  of  the  "  Case  of  the  Reformers  of  the  Literary 
Fund,  stated  by  C.  W.  Dilke,  Charles  Dickens,  and  John 
Forster,"  had  already  begun  in  this  year.  Mr.  Britton,  the 
antiquary,  wrote  to  Mr.  Dilke  as  follows  : — "  Taking  a  warm 
interest  in  the  Literary  Fund,  as  I  have  done  for  more  than 
twenty  years,  I  am  gratified  by  seeing  }'ou  so  constantly  in 
attendance,  and  so  ardently  devoted  to  the  same  cause.  In- 
tending to  do  something  for  that  society  at  death,  I  am  more 
than  commonly  anxious  to  see  its  management  sound,  discreet, 
discriminating.  Yet  I  fear  that  my  zeal  may  sometimes  have 
subjected  me  to  your  disapproval.  To  convince  you  that  I  am 
pleased  with  your  conduct,  that  I  am  delighted  with  your 
impartial  and  highly  intrepid  manner  of  dealing  with  these 
matters,  I  am  desirous  of  better  acquaintance  in  the  autumn 
of  my  life,  and  shall  esteem  it  a  favour  if  you  will  dine  here 
on  Friday.  I  expect  the  first  astronomer,  the  first  antiquary, 
and  I  hope  the  first  critic,  to  be  of  the  party."  Mr.  Dilke 
replied,  declining  the  invitation,  but  adding :  "  I  am,  I  confess, 
well  pleased  to  find  that  my  eternal  opposition  at  the  Literary 
P'und  has  not  been  mistaken  for  personal  and  fractious  carping. 
I  have  indeed  endeavoured,  in  the  performance  of  a  most 
painful  duty,  to  avoid  giving  offence,  and  I  cannot  even  in 


44  MEMOIR. 

a  friendly  note  permit  you  to  say  that  you  fear  your  zeal  has 

subjected  you  to  my  disapprobation I  should  not,  indeed, 

presume  to  question  the  decisions  of  the  committee,  if  they 

were  but  consistent,  but  rather  my  own  judgment All 

I  want  is  some  well-defined  and  intelligible  course  of  pro- 
ceedings, some  recognised  principle  that  we  may  rest  on  and 

refer  to  as  a  rule  of  conduct It  stands  recorded  on  the 

books  that  the  largest  sum  of  money  (double  the  amount  of 
any  other  vote)  was  given  to  the  widow  of  a  member  of  the 
committee — a  man  who  had  died  possessed  of  ;£7000.  When 
this  fact  was  proved — and  it  was  proved,  though  the  committee 
would  not  furnish  the  proof — it  was  stated  that  the  money  had 
been  voted  in  error.  What,  then,  so  reasonable  as  to  inquire 
how  the  committee  were  led  into  so  extraordinary  an  error  ? 
Wrho,  according  to  the  established  forms,  applied  for  the 
grant?  Who  certified  to  the  'distress'?  And  yet,  for  want 
of  such  certificates,  I  have  seen  fifty  cases  rejected.  No  trace 
was  to  be  found  on  the  books  or  on  the  papers.  Was  it  on 
the  representation  of  a  member  of  the  committee  ?  Who 
moved  and  seconded  the  resolution?  Again,  money  was  lately 
voted  to  one  person  as  the  widow  of  a  literary  man,  and  a  few 
months  afterwards  there  was  a  second  vote  to  a  second  widow. 
How  was  the  committee  misled  in  the  first  instance  ?  "  Mr. 
Dilke  goes  on  at  great  length  to  quote  other  cases  of  a  similar 
kind. 

In  1837,  Chorley,  who  had  been  again  sent  to  Paris  on 
Athen&um  business,  wrote  :  "I  saw  Janin  yesterday.  He  is 
wilder  and  dirtier  than  ever.  His  dressing-gown  full  of  holes, 
and  his  braces  very  immodestly  absent.  He  piques  himself 
on  the  mildness  and  sobriety  of  his  article,  written,  he  says, 
a  VAnglaise,  and  on  the  extreme  moderation  of  his  criticisms. 
Said  I,  '  Par  exemple,  sur  Paul  de  Kock  !' ' 

A  correspondence  with  Bulwer-Lytton,  which  never  wholly 
ceased,  blazed  up  also  in  1837.  Bulwer  had  a  perfect  mania 
for  criticising  his  critics.  Early  in  January  he  wrote  to  Mr. 


MEMOIR.  45 

Dilke :  "I  venture  to  proffer  this  request  as  a  comment  on 
your  notice  of  the  acting  of  'La  Valliere,'  viz.,  that  you  will  not 
judge  the  author  by  the  actors,  and,  ahove  all,  that  you  will 
not  think  immoral  that  which  was  intended  as  a  satire  on 
immorality,  but  which  either  the  coarseness  of  representation 
or  the  inability  of  an  audience  to  transplant  themselves  to 
another  time  and  country,  or  want  of  skill  in  myself  hostile 
to  my  own  design,  may  have  marred.  Perhaps,  also,  you  will 
have  the  kindness  to  remember  that  no  sooner  did  I  find  my 
own  intended  effects  misconstrued,  than  I  directed  every  part 
so  misconstrued  to  be  omitted."  In  his  next  letter,  which  is 
very  agreeable  in  its  tone,  he  sa}rs  at  the  end :  "  I  think  I  have 
the  Public  with  me.  The  Press  I  never  had."  In  one  of  the 
author's  letters,  he  admits  that  he  had  on  one  occasion  pre- 
sented a  silver  inkstand  to  Mr.  Jerdan,  the  editor  of  the 
Literary  Gazette,  a  curious  instance  of  the  state  of  journalism 
forty  years  ago,  and  one  which  shows  how  necessary  it  was  for 
Mr.  Dilke  to  avoid  all  society  himself,  and  to  lay  down  rules, 
which  at  first  sight  might  seem  harsh  and  pedantic,  to  guide 
the  conduct  of  the  contributors  to  the  Athenceum.  A  temporary 
coldness  sprang  up  between  him  and  Mr.  John  Hamilton  Rey- 
nolds in  this  fashion.  The  latter  had  written  to  ask  leave  to 
review  a  certain  book.  Mr.  Dilke  wrote  to  ask  him  whether 
he  was  not  acquainted  with  either  author  or  publisher.  Mr. 
Reynolds  sent  back  the  book :  "  That  you  may  consign  it  to 
some  independent  hand,  according  to  your  religious  custom. 
I,  alas !  know  author  and  bookseller/'  A  little  later  Bulwer 
returned  to  the  charge  about  "  La  Valliere"  :  "  Had  I  actors  who 
could  embody  my  conceptions  with  proper  delicacy,  who  could 
preserve  the  ideal  of  the  written  parts,  I  would  not  have  altered 
a  word  for  the  stage.  I  do  not  abate  an  iota  of  my  own  judgment 
that  with  a  proper  Lauzun,  La  Valliere,  and  Montespan,  the 
play  would  on  the  stage  secure  the  moral  effects  designed  for 
it  in  the  writing.  The  acting  burlesques  it  in  some  instances, 
and  (if  I  may  coin  the  word)  coarsens  it  in  others ;  but  this 


46  MEMOIR. 

does  not  tell  against  it  as  a  play  that  might  be  acted,  but  as  a 
play  in  which  the  parts  were  not  written  for  the  actors."  The 
author  having  on  another  occasion  stated  that  the  unfavourable 
criticism  on  "  La  Valliere  "  was  "  written  by  one  who,  having 
himself  an  interest  in  a  play  the  production  of  which  was  (as  to 
tune)  incidental  on  the  success  of  '  La  Valliere,'  had  every  motive 
of  personal  interest  to  induce  him  to  assist  and  procure  its  failure, 
was  assured  by  Mr.  Dilke  that  he  was  mistaken,  and  apologised. 
He  meant  Chorley,  but  the  criticism  was  probably  written  by 
George  Darley,  though  Chorley  was  in  the  house  on  the  first 
night.  Chorley  certainly  did  not  write  it,  but  did  write  a 
private  one  equally  unfavourable. 

1839  offers  few  notes  of  interest.  Mr.  Dilke  writes  to  his 
son:  "  Went  to  see  the  '  Tempest.'  The  play  cannot  be  played 
— dramatic  representation  in  these  days  is  essentially  for  the 
enjoyment  of  the  half-civilized.  The  spiritual,  as  represented 
in  Ariel,  was  of  course  too  gross,  and  the  sensual,  in  Caliban, 
merely  brutal — mere  bad  substitutes  for  beautiful  imaginings. 
The  music  and  the  scenery  are  perfect,  and  confirmed  my 
opinion  that  the  drama  in  a  high  civilization  must  decline. 
Music  is  then  run  after/^because  it  is  a  language  the  symbolic 
meaning  of  which  cannot  be  strictly  defined,  and  we  are  there- 
fore free  to  give  to  it  the  colouring  of  our  own  imagination." 

In  1840  Mr.  Dilke  writes  to  his  son  (of  the  London  University 
conflicts)  :  "  Get  your  share  registered  at  the  London  Univer- 
sity. I  am  not  sure  that  this  is  necessary,  but  I  think  it  must 
be,  and  that  you  ought  to  sign  the  deed.  There  will  be  a  grand 
field-day  on  the  24th,  and  it  may  be  well  to  be  prepared  with  a 
vote.  A  large  and  active  party  are  resolved  to  turn  out  Tooke 
and  substitute  Taylor  as  treasurer.  Now  Taylor  we  know 
and  like,  and  Tooke  I  know  and  dislike,  not  because  he  is  a 
jobber,  but  because  he  is  the  patron  of  jobbers.  At  any  other 
time  I  would  have  gone  to  Beersheba  to  vote  against  Tooke, 
and  I  think  I  must  vote  against  him  now.  Everything  I  have 
heard  points  that  course  out  as  a  duty.  But  I  hate  to  join  in 


MEMOIR.  47 

a  hue  and  cry,  and  as  I  once  committed  myself  by  trying  to 
take  the  tin  kettle  from  the  tail  of  a  Socialist,  so,  acting  on. 
feeling,  I  am  half  inclined  to  make  a  snatch  at  the  kettle  on 
Tooke's  tail,  even  though  I  should  bring  away  an  inch  or  two 
of  the  tail  with  it.  Tooke  again  spoke  to  me  to-day.  I  told  him 
honestly  that  my  opinions  with  respect  to  the  Diffusion  Society 
were  well  known,  and  that  I  had  always  found  him  the  fore- 
most man  in  doing  what  I  disapproved,  and  that  I  was  not 
prepared  to  say  what  course  I  should  pursue.  On  my  return 
I  found  a  sixteen-paged  letter  from  Dr.  Kay,  written  to  me 
specially,  from  which  I  infer — either  that  I  am  a  much  greater 
man  than  I,  or  you,  or  anyone  had  a  suspicion  of,  or  that 
parties  are  very  nicely  balanced." 

In  1840,  Mr.  Dilke  had  been  for  ten  }rears  in  sole  control  of 
the  Athenceum.  It  was  now  a  success,  but  not  yet  a  financial 
success,  if  past  losses  were  added  to  the  wrong  side  of  the 
account.  It  was  paying  well,  but  had  not  repaid  the  money 
which  had  been  sunk  on  it  at  first.  It  was  fifteen  or  twenty 
years — from  1830 — before  this  was  the  case,  and  even  then  the 
account  would  allow  for  no  salary  to  Mr.  Dilke,  who  gave  his 
whole  time  to  the  paper  up  to  1846,  when  he  may  be  said  to  have 
ceased  to  edit.  Another  paper,  which  was  started  by  his  son, 
in  conjunction  with  Sir  Joseph  Paxton  and  Professor  Lindley, 
the  great  botanist,  with  his  advice  and  aid,  about  this  period, 
became  a  great  financial  success  much  sooner  than  did  the 
Athenaeum.  This  was  the  Gardener's  Chronicle,  to  which  was 
afterwards  joined,  during  many  years,  The  Agricultural  Gazette, 
now  (1875)  once  more  become  a  separate  journal.  In  reference 
to  this  new  paper  Mr.  Dilke  wrote  to  his  son:  "I  do  not 
think  that  the  announcement  of  a  new  journal  is  to  be  con- 
sidered as  a  mere  advertisement.  It  ought  to  develope  new 
views  of  Social  Life  on  which  its  claims  ought  to  rest,  and  to 
be  read,  therefore,  with  more  or  less  pleasure  by  all  persons. 
I  think  that  the  enclosed  is  in  the  right  spirit — suggestive  of 
much  more  than  is  said,  and  that  it  would  be  read  with  interest, 


48  MEMOIR. 

because  it  provokes,  as  it  were,  the  reader  to  consider  and  to 
controvert  it  or  admit  its  truth." 

The  public  were  by  this  time  beginning  to  recognize  the 
solidity  of  the  independent  principles  on  which  the  Atlienaum 
was  managed,  but  it  was  still  often  necessary  for  Mr.  Dilke  to 
explain  them  to  individuals.  Mr.  Dilke  during  the  earlier 
years  pushed  his  principles  to  the  extreme  only  because  of  the 
bad  system  which  had  grown  up  in  other  quarters.  To  Robert 
Montgomery,  the  poet,  who  had  sent  him  his  works  to  his 
private  house,  he  writes,  returning  them  :  "I  am  sensible  of 
your  kindness,  but  it  has  ever  been  a  rule  with  me  since  my  first 
connexion  with  the  Athenaeum  to  decline  presents  of  books  from 
authors  or  publishers.  Even  duplicates  have  invariably  been 
returned.  There  have  been  many  occasions  when  the  abiding 
by  this  rule  has  given  me  pain  and  has  had  the  appearance  of 
affectation  and  pretence."  French  editors  seem  to  have  had  at 
this  period  a  singular  idea  of  the  habits  of  the  editors  of 
literary  journals  in  these  respects.  The  editor  in  chief  of  the 
official  journal  of  France  wrote  to  Mr.  Dilke  in  1840  informing 
him  that  his  name  had  been  placed  upon  the  free  list,  and 
begging  Mr.  Dilke  to  ask  the  English  publishers  for,  and  to 
send  him,  six  English  books  which  he  needed  !  Mr.  Dilke  in 
wonder  and  amaze  writes  :  "  You  are  evidently  not  informed  of 
our  usage  in  such  matters.  During  the  ten  years  that  I  have 
been  [editor  of  the  Athenceum  I  have  never  asked  for  a  single 
copy  of  any  work.  Since  the  journal  has  attained  its  present 
rank  copies  of  new  works  are  generally  sent  to  it — not  always, 
and  when  they  are  not  sent,  and  are  important,  they  are 
purchased.  It  would  be  impossible  for  me  to  comply  with  your 
request,  even  had  I  no  other  reasons  for  not  doing  so."  That 
Paris  customs  were  indeed  different  from  London  ones  in  this 
respect  appears  also  from  a  correspondence  in  1842  with  the 
Paris  correspondent  of  the  Aihenaum  :  "I  cannot  let  a  single 
post  pass  without  replying  to  your  letter.  You  have,  it  appears, 
been  in  communication  with  the  principal  publishers  in  Paris. 


MEMOIR.  49 

Having  accepted  advance-sheets  you  are  unable  to  condemn 
their  works.  What  then  is  the  value  of  your  criticism  ? 
During  the  many  years  that  I  have  had  the  Atherueum  I  have 
never  asked  a  favour  of  a  publisher.  Favour  and  independence 
are  incompatible.  It  is  no  use  under  these  circumstances  for 
you  to  send  me  reviews  at  present."  This  was  during  an  in- 
terregnum in  the  Paris  correspondence  of  the  Atheiueum  :  after 
Ste.  Beuve  and  Janin,  and  before  Philarete-Chasles  and  About. 
The  following  is  a  letter  to  a  publisher  who  had  spoken  of  a 
"promise"  that  a  book  should  be  reviewed  at  length:  "I 
gave  you  no  other  assurance  than  the  assurance  given  to  all 
publishers,  that  a  good  book  will  be  spoken  of  as  a  good  book 
in  the  Athenceum,  let  who  will  be  the  publisher."  Another 
publishing  firm  was  named  by  a  writer,  who  was  specially 
employed  to  write  on  the  books  of  a  particular  foreign  country, 
as  having  "made  an  arrangement"  to  lend  him  those  he 
wanted,  which  produced  another  explosion.  Another  firm, 
again,  wrote  to  complain  of  the  review  of  a  particular  book, 
stating  that  they  knew  as  a  fact  that  it  was  by  Mr.  Alaric 
Watts  who  disliked  the  writer  of  the  book  :  "  It  is  utterly  false 
that  Mr.  Alaric  Watts  is,  or  ever  was,  connected  with  the 
Athenaeum"  (this  was  in  1838)  :  "After  this,  I  need  scarcely 
add,  that  he  did  not  write  the  review  of  Mr.  R.'s  book.  I  now 
submit  that  I  ought  not  to  rest  content  with  your  stating  this 
fact  to  Mr.  R.  for  the  purpose  of  '  disabusing  his  mind.'  I 
care  not  in  what  ridiculous  suspicions  the  mortified  vanity  of  a 
weak  man  may  find  a  consolation,  but  he  has,  it  appears,  stated 
these  circumstances  to  others ;  circumstances  which,  if  true, 
seriously  affect  the  character  of  the  journal,  and,  I  think,  I 
have  a  right  to  require,  either  that  he  give  up  his  authority,  or 
admit  in  writing,  that  he  is  satisfied  there  never  was  the 
slightest  foundation  for  such  an  assertion." 

To  this  period  belongs  the  letter  of  Lady  Morgan,  from 
which  the  following  is  an  extract: — "  I  have  addressed  a  letter 
to  the  Pope,  praying  him  to  erase  my  name  and  my  work  on 

YOl.   I.  B 


50  MEMOIR. 

'  Italy'  from  the  Index,  for  if  /was  wrong,  his  Infallibility  is 
not  right."  It  is  not  easy  to  do  much  with  the  letters  of  Lady 
Morgan.  The  friendship  of  thirty  years  produced  a  letter 
a-day,  hut  nearly  all  are  undated  ;  all  are  nearly  illegible, 
and  some  quite.  Here,  however,  are  a  few  more  bits : 
"  Colburn  came  here  to-day  with  the  *  Wild  Irish  Girl '  under 
his  arm,  proposing  to  publish  a  new  edition,  and  wanting  a 
preface  ;  but  not  coming  to  a  decision  as  to  what  I  was  to  get,  I 
hesitated.  Besides,  I  am  afraid  to  let  it  re-appear.  It  is  but 
a  girl's  sentimental  nonsense."  "  I  have  had  a  most  curious 
letter  from  old  Lady  Cork,  announcing  the  death  of  her 
celebrated  Macaw,  and  requesting  that,  as  I  wrote  his  life 
('  Memoirs  of  the  Macaw  of  a  Lady  of  Quality '),  I  would  write 
his  epitaph.  But  I  have  no  genius  for  the  Elegiac."  "  I  long 
much  to  have  a  chat  with  you,  particularly  on  the  Cardinal 
Archbishop  of  Westminster,  my  old  foeman,  who  got  me  put 
in  the  Index  Expurgatorius.  What  do  you  think  of  my  writing 
a  letter  at  him  first,  to  remind  him  of  the  obligation  ?  "  This  idea 
Lady  Morgan  afterwards  carried  out  in  her  famous  "  Letter  to 
Cardinal  Wiseman."  She  wrote,  after  it  had  appeared  :  "  The 
first  copy  shall  be  laid  at  your  feet.  But  it's  time  you  threw 
yourself  at  mine." 

In  1841  several  letters  of  some  little  interest  passed  between 
Mr.  Dilke  and  Haydon  the  painter ;  the  latter  writes  of  his 
"first  attempt  at  fresco  :  " — "  Restless  and  miserable  at  the 
idea  of  foreign  assistance,  I  set  to  work  night  and  day  to 
ascertain  the  Italian  process  ;  had  in  an  experienced  plasterer ; 
I  had  a  portion  of  the  outer  coat  of  my  painting-room  wall 
chipped  away  ;  the  groundwork  laid  in  due  proportions  of  sand, 
lime,  and  water,  and  when  it  began  to  set,  I  painted  away. 
The  subject  is  '  Uriel  disturbed  at  meditation  by  the  approach 
of  Satan.'  The  figure  is  only  as  far  as  the  waist :  '  His  radiant 
visage  turned.' " 

Soon  afterwards  Haydon  again  wrote  : — 


MKMOIK.  51 

"14,  BURWOOD  PLACE,  Coxx.vruHT  TERRACE. 

"  Nowhere  is  the  principle  of  relative  and  essential  form 
so  out  of  place  as  in  an  English  exhibition.  Above  you  may 
be  a  lad}-  in  velvet,  with  a  simple  expression ;  on  your  right, 
a  favourite  pony ;  on  your  left,  a  landscape  at  Kensington 
gravel  pits;  and  below,  an  exquisite  lapdog.  A  great  work 
looks  like  an  insanity,  and  entirely  out  of  place.  I  do  not 
believe  my  '  Judgment  of  Solomon '  if  now  produced  for  the 
first  time,  would  make  the  impression  it  did  twenty-eight  years 
ago.  The  taste  is  altering  ;  detail,  copper-finish,  and  polished 
varnish  are  required,  instead  of  breadth,  size,  drawing,  power; 
and  yet  we  are  on  the  eve  of  great  works,  when  nothing  will 
do  but  the  qualities  of  execution/'  In  another  letter  he  speaks 
of  himself  as  having  tried  to  keep  those  qualities  in  view,  and 
"  by  making  dissection  and  drawing  niy  bases  of  instruction, 
have  sent  out  Landseer  and  Eastlake  (my  first  pupil),  and  by 
such  pupils  have  begun  a  reform  of  the  English  school." 

Mr.  Dilke  was  a  great  admirer  of  the  work  of  Fuseli, 
Haydon's  friend,  and  of  Blake,  who  was  also  the  friend  of 
both.  He  formed  one  of  the  best  collections  of  Blake's  draw- 
ings, and  was  one  of  the  earliest  admirers  of  his  poems. 

In  1843  Chorley  writes  : — "  Have  you  seen  the  Quarterly  on 
Theodore  Hook  ?  The  blackest  piece  of  Crokerism  yet  perpe- 
trated." "I  always  thought  '  Wapping  Old  Stairs'  was 
Dibdin's,  but,  to  my  surprise,  looked  for  it  in  vain  among  his 
poems."  In  1845,  Professor  de  Morgan,  a  very  different  kind 
of  man,  but  also  an  intimate  friend,  writes  an  account  of  the 
attempt  of  Sir  James  Sheepshanks  to  recover  damages  for 
defects  in  his  great  telescope  : — "  It  came  out  that  the  defects 
were  like  the  defects  in  Mr.  Winkle's  skates,  which  had  an 
awkward  gentleman  on  them  (see  Pickwick)."  De  Morgan's 
next  letter  was  an  odd  one  for  a  mathematician,  although  there 
is  a  certain  connection  with  astronomy  in  the  subject : — 


E  2 


S2  MEMOIR. 

"My  DEAR  SIR, 

"  As  to  the  '  Lady  of  Branksome,'  I  can  admit  that 
Scott  might  have  meant  that  the  moon  would  only  shine  on 
that  St.  Michael's  night,  and  not  the  year  before  or  after,  but 
it  is  not  likely,  for  had  he  seen  the  point,  he  must  also  have 
seen  how  he  would  be  taken  from  his  words  as  they  are.  The 
charm  appears  to  consist  in  choosing  a  time  at  which  the  red- 
cross  in  St.  Michael's  hand  on  the  window  would  throw  its 
image  on  the  tomb  of  Michael  Scott,  the  image  being  made  by 
the  moonlight.  When  the  lady  says, 

"  '  For  this  will  be  St.  Michael's  night, 
And  tho'  glass  be  dim,  the  moon  is  bright, 
And  the  cross  of  bloody  red 
Will  point  to  the  grave  of  the  mighty  dead.' 

She  leaves  the  reader,  I  think,  to  suppose  that  moonlight,  in 
one  direction,  at  a  particular  time  of  the  night,  is  a  conse- 
quence of  its  being  St.  Michael's  night.  I  do  not  think  Scott 
would  have  represented  the  lady  making  such  a  mistake,  as  a 
mistake,  for 

"  I.  She  is  verified  by  the  fact — 

"  'Look,  warrior,  look,  the  cross  of  red 
Points  to  the  grave  of  the  mighty  dead.' 

"  II.  Scott  was  aware  that  the  people  of  those  times  knew 
more  about  moonlight  than  we  do.  We  look  at  our  almanacks 
when  we  want  them.  Thej^  had  to  do  without. 

"  As  to  Davy  Ramsay,  I  am  clear  about  it.  Scott  meant 
him  for  a  mathematician,  and  as  far  as  he  could,  gave  him  the 
technical  character  of  one.  He  makes  him  an  astrologer, 
which  in  those  days  meant  astronomer  too.  Now,  David 
Ramsay  was  a  contemporary  of  Napier,  and  must  have  known 
his  '  bones  '  or  multiplication  helps.  Sir  Walter  Scott  is  just 
as  wrong  when  he  makes  the  old  usurer  Trapbois,  in  Alsatia, 
have  no  other  book  except  the  '  Whetstone  of  Wit.'  This  was 
the  first  English  book  on  algebra,  and  we  might  just  as  well 
suppose  Newton's  '  Principia '  lying  in  a  Mincing  Lane  counting- 


MEMOIR.  53 

house.  Even  Napier  didn't  know  the  book,  as  appears  by  his 
own  algebra. 

"  Yours  faithfully, 

"A.  DE  MORGAN." 

About  this  time  Jerrold  writes,  "  Lady  is  trying  to 

convert  Thackeray  to  Romanism.  She  had  better  begin  with 
his  nose." 

In  1845,  Mr.  Dilke  wrote  largely  in  the  Athenceum  on 
"  Mesmerism,"  for  which  he  had  a  profound  dislike,  and  in 
1846,  he  wrote  on  one  of  his  favourite  subjects,  "  Stained 
Glass,"  which  he  understood  perhaps  better  than  any  one. 
But,  until  after  he  retired  from  the  editorship  of  the  paper,  he 
wrote  on  the  whole  but  little  in  it,  finding  that  editorial  super- 
vision is  better  exercised  when  the  editor  does  not  write  him- 
self. In  1846,  Mr.  Dilke  ceased  to  take  so  active  a  share  in. 
the  management  as  he  had  done  before  that  time,  and  was 
succeeded  by  Mr.  T.  K.  Hervey.  Mr.  Hepworth  Dixon  also, 
first  became  attached  to  the  paper  in  that  year. 

The  following  scraps  may  give  an  idea  of  the  family  relations 
of  Mr.  Dilke  in  1846.  The  first  gives  a  good  notion  of  the 
turn  of  Mr.  Dilke's  own  mind,  and  the  second  is  testimony  to 
a  remarkably  warm  affection  for  one  existing  between  a  father 
of  fifty-seven  and  a  son  of  thirty-six.  Such  intensely  strong 
affections  are  perhaps  commoner  in  youth  than  in  old  age. 
Mr.  C.  Wentworth  Dilke,  jun.,  had  sent  him  a  business  list 
of  "  arrangements."  He  replies  : — 

"  MY  ARRANGEMENTS. 

Saturday. — Leave  by  the  eleven  train,  and  reach  the  dreariest 
waste  within  thirty  miles  of  this  great  fever  hospital. 
Get  there  at  twelve.  Sit  on  a  gate  and  drink  in  the 
quiet  and  fresh  air,  until  the  fever  of  the  brain  is 
calmed.  Then  to  bed. 

Sunday. — Devote  to  the  highest  and  noblest  purposes  :  ques- 
tion self;  humble  self;  commune  with  the  spirit  of 


54  MEMOIR. 

beauty,  of  truth,  of  goodness  which  pervades  all  things 
above,  below,  and  around.  Give  thanks  for  the  thou- 
sand undeserved  blessings  I  enjoy  in  wife,  son,  grand- 
son, and  in  kind  and  considerate  friends ;  for  possessing 
everything  that  can  be  required,  and  more  than  ought 
to  be  required,  for  the  happiness  of  a  poor  forked- 
radish. 

Monday. — The  same. 

Tuesday. — The  same,  and  so  on  until  the  weary  spirit  is 
refreshed.  Then  back  to  the  duties  of  life  ;  cheerful 
and  happy  ;  better  able  to  love  ;  more  able  to  be  loved ; 
more  worthy  to  be  loved,  because  better  able  to  sym- 
pathise with  humanity  in  its  strength  and  weakness, 
and  to  find  good  in  everything. 

The  other  scrap  is  this  : — "  And  now,  dear  "Wentworth, 
thanks  for  all  your  kindness  and  attention.  Your  considerate 
kindness  and  attentions  I  am  at  all  times  very  sensible  of  it, 
though  it  is  only  on  rare  occasions  that  I  speak.  The  recol- 
lection of  it  yesterday  made  even  my  long  railway  journey 
pleasant.  It  threw  a  son-shine  over  it.  And  I  only  hope 
that  some  half-century  hence  your  own  dear  boy  will  have 
repaid  you.  Your  thoughtful  kindness  to  me,  like  all  good 
deeds,  has  its  influence  on  all  around  you,  and  dear  Mary  and 
all  else  seem  anxious  not  only  to  please  but  to  humour  me. 
God  bless  you  and  yours,  says  your  father." 

In  1846  began  the  friendship  between  Mr.  Dilke  and  Mr. 
Thorns,  with  the  first  publication  of  the  "  Folk-Lore  "  articles 
in  the  Athenaeum,  out  of  which  ultimately  grew  Notes  and 
Queries. 

About  this  time  died  two  old  friends,  George  Darley  and 
Thomas  Hood.  Some  of  the  most  interesting  of  such  of 
Hood's  letters  as  could  be  published  appeared  in  his  '  Me- 
morials.' The  acquaintance  of  Mr.  Dilke  and  Mr.  Hood  dated 
from  1816,  their  warm  friendship  from  1830.  Of  Hood's  letters 
which  remain  unpublished  a  few  fragments  may  be  selected  : 


MEMOIR.  55 

"B.  is  a  rare  example  of  the  old  Tory,  to  whom  all  that  is  bad 
in  High  Life  is  good,  and  all  that  is  good  in  Low  Life  is  bad. 
What  do  you  think  of  that  for  a  definition  ?  He  said  the 
other  day  he  almost  suspected  I  was  a  Badical ;  whereupon  I 
told  him  he  was  mistaken,  for  I  was  a  Republican."  "  Each 
party  of  our  black-sheep  has  a  pet  black-shepherd."  "  I  am 
sick  of  my  species.  What  can  be  more  disgusting  than  the 
Emancipationists  getting  a  victory  by  a  manoeuvre,  having 
God,  the  Bible,  and  reason  on  their  side,  and  then  the  House 
rescinding  its  own  resolution."  "  Have  you  the  Quarterly  ?  I 
am  rather  anxious  to  see  the  article  on  '  Theodore  Hook.'  I 
suspect  the  Tories  grudge  the  New  Monthly  very  much  to  a 
Liberal  editor,  who  can  allow  such  latitude  as  our  friend  Sir 
Charles  Morgan  requires  now  and  then."  Hook  (also  after- 
wards Hood)  succeeded  Bulwer  as  editor.  This  bit  is  after 
the  appearance  of  "  Tylney  Hall :  " — "  You  have  revived  in 
me  the  delights  of  young  authorship,  and  I  am  young  in  the 
path  I  am  treading ....  Raby  and  Grace  are  failures  ;  I  can't 
write  love-scenes ;  as  a  fellow  said  at  my  piece  at  the  Surrey, 
'  I  can  act  the  part,  but  I  forget  the  words.' "  On  the  4th 
June,  1838,  Hood  writes  on  Mr.  Rowland  Hill's  postage  scheme, 
and  on  the  use  of  franks  by  rich  men  : — "  But  I'm  a  low-lived, 
ungenteel,  villanous,  blackguard  Radical.  There  is  a  deep 
stigma  on  the  Have-nots  trying  to  take  from  the  Have-some- 
things, but  what  ought  to  be  the  stigma  on  the  Have-every- 
things  trying  to  take  from  the  Have-nothings  ?  Chorley  has 
proclaimed  me  a  '  Liberal.'  I  don't  mind  being  called  at  once 
a  Moderate  Republican."  "  Tom  Junior  has  picked  up  in  his 
visiting  a  new  phrase,  and  applied  it  this  morning  as  follows  : 
Fanny  floored  a  fly  at  breakfast  with  a  fork,  whereupon  re- 
marks Tom  very  gravely,  '  There,  you've  laid  the  blame  upon 
him.' "  The  two  following  bits,  from  two  different  letters, 
are  of  course  of  the  time  when  Hood  was  engaged  upon  "  Miss 
Kilmansegg."  "  No  K  this  month.  I  was  too  ill  to  finish  it. 
The  long  run  of  wet  floored  me  at  the  last.  A  sample  of  my 


56  MEMOIR. 

Belgian  breakdowns."     "  A  Count  Kielmansegge  just  arrived 
as  envoy  from  Hanover  !  I  hope  it  isn't  her  brother !  " 
Here  is  another  letter  on  the  same  subject : — 

"DEAR  DILKE, 

"  You  will  be  glad  to  hear — that  I  have  kill'd  her  at 
last,  instead  of  her  killing  me.  I  don't  mean  Jane,  but  Miss 
Kilmansegg ;  and  as  she  liked  pomp,  there  will  be  twelve  pages 
at  her  funeral.  She  is  now  screwing  in  at  Beaufort  House  ; 
and  being  a  happy  release  for  all  parties— you  will  conclude  it 
is  a  relief  to  me,  especially  as  I  come  in  for  all  she  is  worth. 
Love  to  all,  and  no  more  news  from 

"Yours  very  truly, 

"  T.  HOOD." 

The  following  is  from  Wanstead,  where  he  lived  at  Lake 
House,  and  where  he  wrote  "  Tylney  Hall :  " — "  I  am  fagging 
hard  at  the  comic.  It's  an  ill  fire  that  bakes  nobody's  bread, 
and  the  Great  Conflagration  will  make  an  excellent  subject. 
I  was  up  all  last  night,  bright  moonlight,  drawing  cuts  and 
writing,  and  watching  a  gang  of  gipsies  encamped  just  out  of 
my  bounds.  I  saved  my  fowls,  and  geese,  and  pigs,  but  they 
took  my  faggots.  However,  I  shot  two  cats,  that  were  poach- 
ing. As  Scott  says,  '  My  life  is  a  mingled  yarn.'  To-day, 
the  man's  missing.  I'm  afraid  he's  scragged,1'  "  The  Bills 
that  people  back,  should  be  called  not  Bills  but  Beaks  :  such, 
I  mean,  as  preyed  upon  Prometheus."  When  Southey  dies, 
Hood  writes  to  ask  if  it  is  supposed  that  he  would  have  any 
chance  for  the  laureateship.  Here  is  a  letter  from  the  "  Vale 
of  the  White  Horse  :  "— 

"Dined  every  day  with  a  regular  old  English  squire — 
Goodlake — the  famous  breeder  of  greyhounds.  Lounged 
delightfully,  and  had  what  I  have  been  longing  for :  a  lie  on 
the  grass.  No  such  green  Turkey  carpets  abroad,  Dilke. 
Then,  for  company,  a  Mrs.  Smiley,  of  May  Fair.  What 
isn't  there  in  a  name  ?  God  bless, 

'•'  T.  H." 


MEMOIR.  57 

At  another  time  he  writes  :  "I  burn  without  getting 
warm.  I  wish  I  were  the  ham  between  two  buttered  slices  of 
bread,  well  mustarded — that  seems  like  warmth.  But  this 
wind  is  keen  enough  to  cut  sandwiches.  I  could  cry  with 
cold,  only  I'm  afraid  of  the  icicles.  I  wish  that  in  settling 
other  Eastern  questions,  they  had  deposed  this  wind.  I  con- 
fess, for  two  nights  past  I  have  wished  for  a  little  '  warm- with,' 
but  the  only  bottle  I  am  allowed  is  at  my  feet,  and  even  then, 
only  warm  water — without.  I  almost  fancy  myself  a  gander 
sometimes,  and  web-foo'ted.  My  stomach  is  like  a  house 
where  the  washing  is  done  at  home — all  slop,  hot- water,  and 
tea.  So  I  stop.  I'm  so  cold  and  washy,  I'm  only  fit  to 
correspond  with  a  frog.  Give  my  love  to  all,  but  you  had 
better  mull  it." 

When  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Dilke  were  leaving  London  on  their 
way  to  visit  the  Hoods  at  Coblentz,  Mrs.  Hood  sent  a  list  of 
things  she  "  could  not  get,"  which  she  wished  Mrs.  Dilke  to 
bring.  Hood  got  hold  of  it,  and  burlesqued  it  as  follows. 
The  Clarence  was  a  club,  on  the  committee  of  which  both 
Dilke  and  Hood  had  been  ; — 

"  DEAR  DILKE, 

"  I  trust  to  your  kindness  to  bring  with  you  the  fol? 
lowing  little  commissions.  Like  Jane's  '  you  can  put  them  all 
in  a  bag,'  or  in  your  pocket,  whichever  you  prefer  : — 

"  A  dish  of  pork  chops  with  tomato  sauce,  &  la  Clarence. 
"  Some  sweets,  London-made,  for  T.  H.,  jun.,  who  is  back- 
ward in  his  lollipops. 

"  A  hundred  of  temperance  tracts  for  me  to  distribute. 
"  Two  penn'orth  of  slate  pencil  (not  to  be  got  here), 
"  Two  pieces  of  red  tape  as  wide  as  this  ||, 
"  A  warming-pan,  and 
"  A  Welsh  wig." 

Speaking  of  his  miseries  in  another  letter,  Hood  says,  "  I 
am  a  little  Job  in  afflictions,  but  without  his  patience."  He 


58  MEMOIR. 

was  ordered  not  to  speak :  "  The  silent  system  did  not  answer 
at  all.  Jane  and  I  made  but  a  sorry  game  of  our  double 
dumby,  for  the  more  signs  I  made  the  more  she  didn't  under- 
stand them.  For  instance,  when  I  telegraphed  for  my  night- 
cap she  thought  I  meant  my  head  was  swimming, — and  as  for 
Mary,  she  knew  no  more  of  my  signals  than  Admiral  Villeneuve 
of  Lord  Nelson's.  At  last  I  did  burst  out,  fortissimo,  but 
there  is  nothing  so  hard  as  to  swear  in  a  whisper.  The  truth 
is,  I  was  bathing  my  feet,  and  wanted  more  hot  water, — but  as 
the  spout  poured  rather  slowly,  Mary,  whipping  off  the  lid  of 
the  kettle,  was  preparing  to  squash  down  a  whole  cataract  of 
scalding.  I  was  hasty  I  must  confess  ;  but  perhaps  Job  him- 
self would  not  have  been  patient  if  his  boils  had  come  out  of  a 
kettle." 

Here  is  more  of  Hood's  : — 

"2,  UNION  STREET,  HIGH  STREET,  CAMBERWELL. 
"  GENTLEMEN, 

"  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  a  letter  from 
your  secretary,  which  has  deeply  affected  me. 

"  The  adverse  circumstances  to  which  it  alludes  are,  unfor- 
tunately, too  well  known  from  their  public  announcement  in 
the  Athenaum  by  my  precocious  executor  and  officious  assignee. 
But  I  beg  most  emphatically  to  repeat  that  the  disclosures  so 
drawn  from  me  were  never  intended  to  bespeak  the  world's 
pity  or  assistance.  Sickness  is  too  common  to  humanity,  and 
poverty  too  old  a  companion  of  my  order  to  justify  such  an 
appeal.  The  revelation  was  merely  meant  to  show,  when 
taunted  with  '  my  creditors,'  that  I  had  been  striving  in 
humble  imitation  of  an  illustrious  literary  example  to  satisfy 
all  claims  upon  me,  and  to  account  for  my  imperfect  success. 
I  am  too  proud  of  my  profession  to  grudge  it  some  suffering. 
I  love  it  still,  as  Lord  Byron  loved  England  'with  all  its 
faults,'  and  should  hardly  feel  as  one  of  the  fraternity,  if  I  had 
not  my  portion  of  the  calamities  of  authors.  More  fortunate 
than  many,  I  have  succeeded  not  only  in  getting  into  print,  but 
occasionally  in  getting  out  of  it,  and  surely  a  man  who  has 


MEMOIR.  59 

overcome  such  formidable  difficulties  may  hope  and  expect 
to  get  over  the  common-place  ones  of  procuring  bread  and 
cheese. 

"I  am  writing  seriously,  gentlemen,  although  in  a  cheerful 
tone,  partly  natural  and  partly  intended  to  relieve  you  of  some 
of  your  kindly  concern  on  my  account.  Indeed  my  position 
at  present  is  an  easy  one,  compared  with  that  of  some  eight 
months  ago,  when  out  of  heart,  and  out  of  health,  helpless, 
spiritless,  sleepless,  childless.  I  have  now  a  home  in  my  own 
country,  and  my  little  ones  sit  at  my  hearth.  I  smile  some- 
times, and  even  laugh.  For  the  same  benign  Providence  that 
gifted  me  with  the  power  of  amusing  others  has  not  denied  me 
the  ability  of  entertaining  myself.  Moreover,  as  to  mere 
worldly  losses,  I  profess  a  cheerful  philosophy,  which  can  jest, 
'  though  China  fall,"  and  for  graver  troubles  a  Christian 
faith,  that  consoles  and  supports  me  even  in  walking  through 
something  like  the  Valley  of  the  Shadow  of  Death. 

' '  My  embarrassment  and  bad  health  are  of  such  standing 
that  I  am  become  as  it  were  seasoned.  For  the  last  six  years 
1  have  been  engaged  in  the  same  struggle,  without  sinking, 
receiving,  or  requiring  any  pecuniary  assistance  whatever.  My 
pen  and  pencil  procured  not  only  enough  for  my  own  wants, 
but  to  form  a  surplus  besides — a  sort  of  literary  fund  of  my 
own,  which  at  this  moment  is  '  doing  good  by  stealth  '  to  a 
person,  not  exactly  of  learning  or  genius,  but  whom,  according 
to  the  example  of  your  excellent  society,  I  will  forbear  to 
name. 

"  To  provide  for  similar  wants  there  are  the  same  means 
and  resources — the  same  head,  heart,  and  hands — the  same 
bad  health — and  may  it  only  last  long  enough  !  In  short,  the 
same  crazy  vessel  for  the  same  foul  weather ;  but  I  have  not 
thought  yet  of  hanging  out  my  ensign  upside  down. 

"  Fortunately,  since  manhood  I  have  been  dependent  solely 
on  my  own  exertions — a  condition  which  has  exposed  and 
enured  me  to  vicissitude,  whilst  it  has  nourished  a  pride  which 
will  fight  on,  and  has  yet  some  retrenchments  to  make  ere  its 
surrender. 

"  I  have  now,  gentlemen,  described  circumstances  and  feel- 


60  MEMOIR. 

ings,  which  will  explain  and  must  excuse  my  present  course. 
The  honourable  and  liberal  manner  in  which  you  have  enter- 
tained an  application — that  a  friendly  delicacy  concealed  from 
me — is  acknowledged  with  the  most  ardent  gratitude.  Your 
welcome  sympathy  is  valued  in  proportion  to  the  very  great 
comfort  and  encouragement  it  affords  me.  Your  kind  wishes 
for  my  better  health — my  greatest  want — I  accept  and  thank 
you  for  with  my  whole  heart ;  but  I  must  not  and  cannot 
retain  your  money,  which  at  the  first  safe  opportunity  will  be 
returned.  I  really  do  not  feel  n^self  to  be  yet  a  proper  object 
for  your  bounty,  and  should  I  ever  become  so,  I  fear  that  such  a 
crisis  will  find  me  looking  elsewhere — to  the  earth  beneath  me 
for  final  rest — and  to  the  heaven  above  me  for  final  justice. 

"  Pray   excuse    my   trespassing    at    such   length   on    your 
patience,  and  believe  that  I  am,  with  the  utmost  respect, 
"  Gentlemen, 

"  Your  most  obliged  and  grateful  servant, 

"Tnos.  HOOD. 

"Jany.  IQth,  1841." 

(The  above  is  a  copy  of  a  letter  from  Thomas  Hood  to  the 
Literary  Fund  declining  a  present  of  fifty  pounds.) 

The  following  lines  were  written  by  Hood,  on  receiving  three 
returned  letters  endorsed  "not  known  to  Mr.  Colburn"  (the 
famous  publisher,  with  whom  he  had  quarrelled)  : — 

"  For  a  couple  of  years  in  the  columns  of  Puff 
I  was  rated  a  passable  writer  enough  ; 
But  alas  !  for  the  favours  of  Fame  ! 
Since  I  quitted  her  seat  in  Great  Marlboro'  Street 
In  repute  my  decline  is  so  very  complete 
That  a  Colburn  don't  know  of  my  name  ! 

"  Now  a  Colburn  I  knew  in  his  person  so  small 
That  he  seem'd  the  feaZ/'-brother  of  no  one  at  all, 
Yet  in  spirit  a  Dwarf  may  be  big  ; 
B.ut  his  mind  was  so  narrow,  his  soul  was  so  dim, 
Where's  the  wonder  if  all  I  remember  of  him 
Is — a  suit  of  Boy's  clothes  and  a  wig  ! 

T.  H. 

"When  Mr.  Dilke  gave  up  the  editorship  of  the  Athenteum  in 


MEMOIR.  61 

]  846,  a  connection  began  between  him  and  the  Daily  News, 
which  lasted  until  the  spring  of  1849.  The  Daily  News,  to  judge 
by  books  which  were  copied  for  Mr.  Dilke  and  remained  in  his 
possession  (and  which  there  can  be  no  breach  of  confidence  in 
using  now,  when,  with  different  proprietors  and  at  a  different 
price,  under  circumstances  wholly  changed,  that  journal  is 
established  on  a  solid  basis  and  with  a  large  circulation),  was  at 
that  time  in  a  precarious  position.  It  was  but  three  months  old. 
Mr.  Dilke  was  called  in  at  first  as  "  consulting  physician." 
He  was  soon  invested  with  absolute  power  in  all  business 
matters,  and  with  the  right  to  discharge  any  one  connected 
with  the  paper,  except,  of  course,  the  chief  editor,  his  dear 
friend  Mr.  John  Forster.  Any  differences  which  might  arise 
between  them  were  to  be  decided  by  the  proprietors.  It  was  at  the 
same  time  agreed  to  try  the  entirely  novel  idea  of  lowering  the 
price  from  5d.  to  %^d.,  which,  in  those  days,  before  the 
abolition  of  the  compulsory  stamp,  meant  l|-cZ.  By  this  step 
the  Daily  News  became  the  forerunner  of  that  cheap  daily 
press  which  has  now  in  London  alone  a  circulation  of  350,000 
in  the  four  and  twenty  hours.  The  immediate  result  of  the  change 
was  to  raise  the  circulation  from  a  declining  circulation  of  4,000 
and  under  to  an  increasing  circulation  of  22,000  and  over. 
This  change  took  effect  on  the  1st  of  June,  1846,  and  was 
announced  by  a  very  bold  and  telling  manifesto  written  by 
Mr.  Dilke. 

The  agreement  between  Mr.  Dilke  and  the  proprietors  was 
for  three  years  from  April,  1846,  and  for  three  years  he 
managed  the  journal.  He  was  not  a  salaried  manager,  but 
had  liberty  to  take  a  quarter  share  in  the  journal  at  any  future 
time.  The  leading  proprietors  were  Mr.  Dilke's  friends, 
Mr.  Bradbury,  Mr.  Evans,  Mr.  (afterwards  Sir  Joseph)  Paxton 
and  Sir  Joshua  Walmsley,  and  also  Mr.  William  Jackson,  M.P., 
the  last  not  being  a  personal  friend.  Mr.  John  Forster  also 
had  a  conditional  interest  in  the  journal. 

The  experiment,  as  it  was  called  in  Mr.  Dilke's  announce- 


62  MEMOIR. 

ment,  "  of  establishing  a  daily  newspaper  which  shall  look  for 
support,  not  to  comparatively  few  readers  at  a  high  price,  but 
to  many  at  a  low  price,"  rested,  as  he  said,  on  the  necessity  of 
proving  "  that  the  projectors  are  capable  of  competing  with  the 
high-priced,"  and  it  was  on  this  point  that  failure  took  place. 
There  was  not  sufficient  capital  forthcoming  at  the  right 
moment  to  enable  the  manager  of  the  Daily  News  to  compete 
on  equal  terms  with  the  magnificently  organised  Indian  and 
other  foreign  services  of  the  Times.  Here  is  a  memorandum 
which  vividly  recalls  the  days  of  the  great  struggles,  and  costly 
struggles,  in  the  Red  Sea  for  the  Indian  mails.  "  According 
to  Mr.  Baldwin's  report,  our  agent  (that  is  the  agent  of  the 
Daily  News  and  Herald)  succeeded  at  Suez  in  obtaining  a 
single  copy  of  one  India  paper,  which  he  expressed  to  Alexandria 
and  succeeded  in  getting  a  courier  with  it  on  board  the  French 
steam-boat  then  just  about  to  start  for  Marseilles.  Hence,  of 
course,  it  was  expressed  to  London  and  arrived  at  London  Bridge 
at  ten  minutes  past  two,  and  at  the  Herald  office  before  half- 
past  two.  The  first  slip  from  the  Herald  reached  the  Daily 
News  at  a  quarter  to  four.  Now,  the  Times,  Post  and  Chronicle 
all  announced  the  arrival  and  gave  (the  same)  a  column  and  a 
half  of  news,  and  I  have  ascertained  that  the  Times  and 
Herald-Daily  News  couriers  arrived  together  at  the  terminus. 
Now,  there  must  have  been  treachery  or  concert  somewhere. 
?  Paris?  The  India  express  of  October  (that  is,  Waghorn's 
express  via  Trieste)  arrived  at  the  Times  office  on  Saturday, 
the  3rd  October.  The  Daily  News  had  arranged  to  be,  and 
was,  forewarned  of  its  arrival  by  telegraph.  After  a  time  Mr.  C. 
went  to  the  Herald  to  consult,  when  a  messenger  arrived  from 
the  Times  bringing  slips  to  the  Herald.  Mr.  C.  asked  for  one 
and  was  refused  on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  mere  courtesy 
from  the  Times  to  the  Herald.  ?  A  return  courtesy  ? 

"  On  Wednesday,  the  India  papers  arrived  by  post,  and  were 
•delivered  at  the  Daily  Neics  office  between  twelve  and  two. 

"  On  Thursday,  at  5  A.M.,  Mr.  Crowe  was  sent  for  to  the 


MEMOIR.  63 

Herald  and  offered  his  choice  of  two  letters,  both  without 
covers. 

"  On  Thursday  night  there  was  brought  from  Paris  by  our 
Paris  express  a  letter  from  our  correspondent  at  Alexandria. 
Now,  as  the  correspondent  at  Alexandria  would  assuredly 
have  enclosed  his  own  letter  in  his  own  express,  it  follows 
that  the  express  was  opened  at  Paris,  and  that  the  delay  in 
delivering  the  express  letters  sixteen  hours  after  the  letters  by 
mail  arose  from  that  fact,  and  the  further  delay  in  forwarding 
our  letter  from  Alexandria,  which  had  never  been  in  the  post, 
from  transferring  it  to  our  Paris  correspondent."  On  receiving 
this  report,  the  proprietors  passed  the  following  resolution  : — 
"  The  arrangements  between  the  Herald  and  the  Daily  News 
having  been  this  day  put  an  end  to,  and  the  Daily  News  being 
now  left  to  contend  single-handed  against  all  the  other 
morning  papers  now  combined,  by  which  great  additional 
expenses  may  be  thrown  on  the  Daily  News,  we  fully  autho- 
rise Mr.  Dilke  to  raise  the  price  of  the  paper  to  3d.  at  any 
time  he  may  think  it  desirable  to  do  so." 

The  other  papers  at  this  time  sold  at  5d. 

On  this  Mr.  John  Forster  sent  his  resignation  (as  editor), 
through  Mr.  Dilke,  to  the  proprietors,  in  a  letter  which  did 
him  the  highest  honour  from  its  tone  of  warm  friendship  com- 
bined with  the  most  distinct  assertion  of  a  hostile  opinion. 
Mr.  Dilke  in  reply  wrote  thus  :  "Let  me  thank  you  for  the 
generous  construction  you  have  put  on  my  conduct,  motives, 
and  feelings.  Though  kind  in  the  highest  degree  it  is  but  just. 
I  foresaw  from  the  first  that  the  circumstances  under  which  I 
joined  the  paper  were  of  such  a  nature  that  my  every  word 
would  be  open  to  misrepresentation,  and  that  my  every  act 
would  appear  like  presumptuous  intermeddling.  However 
hard  this  might  be  to  bear,  I  was  content  to  bear  it  patiently  ; 
but  there  was  one  thing  I  was  resolved  should  not  be  miscon- 
strued— my  conduct  towards  you,  and  almost  the  only  satis- 
faction which  has  yet  resulted  fruui  my  hard  labour  is,  that, 


64  MEMOIR. 

though  you  part  from  us,  it  is  on  no  ground  of  personal 
objection  to  any  act  or  word  of  mine." 

Some  of  the  proprietors  found  themselves  in  1847  unable  to 
advance  the  further  capital  needed,  and  Mr.  Dilke  wrote :  "I 
need  scarcely  assure  you  how  deeply  I  regret  the  present  issue 
of  all  your  anxieties.  The  more  so  as  the  great  experiment 
was  progressing  as  hopefully  as  could  have  been  expected,  and 
a  favourable  result  seemed  reasonably  certain  within  reasonable 
time.  My  sole  purpose  in  now  writing  is  to  authorise  you  to 
treat  for  the  sale  or  part  sale  of  the  paper  as  if  I  had  no  con- 
tingent claim ;  to  negotiate  with  your  hands  free  ;  to  make 
the  best  bargain  you  can.  New  men  may  desire  a  new  policy, 
and  require  a  controlling  power.  Understand,  however,  that 
if  you  and  the  proprietors  desire  to  leave  the  paper  under  my 
direction,  I  do  not  shrink  from  the  labour.  I  mean  neither 
more  nor  less  than  that  I  most  willingly  consent  to  be  put 
aside  altogether  if  it  should  appear  that  I  or  any  supposed 
interests  of  mine  stand  in  the  way  of  your  interests.  In  that 
case  I  shall  be  content  to  retire  without  even  a  regret,  except 
for  the  sacrifices  you  have  made."  The  proprietors  expressed 
a  wish  that  Mr.  Dilke  should  continue  to  manage  the  Dally 
News. 

In  1847,  the  great  event  was  the  general  election,  in  refer- 
ence to  which  the  following  letter  was  written  to  Mr.  Dilke  by 
Mr.  W.  H.  Wills  on  behalf  of  the  staff :- 

"  DAILY  NEWS  OFFICE, 

"29th  July,  1847. 

"  MY  DEAR  SIR, 

"  I  need  scarcely  say  that  your  letter  has  given  my 
colleagues  and  myself  unfeigned  pleasure.  We  feel,  however, 
that  we  cannot  take  the  credit  you  so  handsomely  give  us 
without  qualification.  The  system  by  which  our  exertions  are 
always  guided  is  wholly  and  solely  yours,  and,  as  respects  the 
elections,  the  details  even  were  of  your  own  suggestion.  That 
we  have  carried  them  out  to  your  satisfaction  is  most  gratifying 


MEMOIR.  65 

to  us  all.  For  myself  I  cannot  fully  express  my  sense  of 
obligation  for  the  advantages  I  have  derived  from  your  guid- 
ance and  advice  in  the  performance  of  duties  which  were 
comparatively  new  to  me.  *  *  * 

"  Ever  faithfully  yours, 

"W.  H.  WILLS." 

With  regard  to  this  same  matter  of  the  elections,  Mr.  Dilke 
wrote  as  follows  to  the  proprietors  : — •"  My  stipulations  respect- 
ing non-interference  (in  the  original  agreement)  were  not  made 
from  a  love  of  power ;  the  little  power  I  have  arbitrarily  exercised 
proves  this;  but  for  the  interests  of  the  proprietors.  The  past 
was  then  strong  in  the  memory  of  all  parties ;  the  impossibili ty  of 
pleasing  many  masters,  and  of  reconciling  contradictory  opinions, 
at  that  time  manifest  enough ;  and  my  hope  was  that  by  establish- 
ing a  dictatorial  authority,  order  might  be  established, — a 
definite  end  sought-for  and  obtained,  and  above  all  that  every- 
one connected  with  the  establishment  might  be  made  to  feel 
that  his  services  were  appreciated,  and  his  errors,  when  errors 
occurred,  calmly  considered,  not  with  reference  to  the  ex- 
ceptional error,  but  to  general  character  and  conduct.  This 
hoped-for  result  has  been  obtained.  In  news,  we  are  not 
surpassed,  we  are  not  equalled,  by  any  paper  in  London.  I  say 
this  without  hesitation,  because  I  have  no  more  to  do  with  it 
than  by  having  awakened  confidence  and  zeal,  and  made  that  a 
pride  and  a  pleasure,  which  was  always  a  duty.  I  will  refer  to 
the  election  in  proof.  Feeling  doubtful  of  my  future  position, 
I  thought  it  right  for  the  interest  of  the  proprietors,  to  test  the 
system.  I,  therefore,  left  Mr.  Wills  and  Mr.  Dickens  to  work 
the  machinery  on  this  nervous  occasion,  advising  with  them 
when  consulted,  but  controlling  only  so  far  as  expense  was 
concerned.  The  expense  will  be  about  one  half  of  what  was 
thought  to  be  a  minimum,  yet  our  results  were  more  perfect 
than  those  of  any  other  paper,  as  was  proved,  I  believe,  to  your 

VOL.    I.  T 


66  MEMOIR. 

satisfaction  by  an  elaborate  and  careful  comparison.  This 
anxious  and  laborious  duty  was  got  through  without  a  single 
additional  assistant." 

The  Daily  News  was  looked  upon  as  the  "  organ "  of  the 
Manchester  School,  and  conflicts  occurred  between  Mr.  Dilke, 
who  was  an  old  Benthamite,  and  Messrs.  Bright  and  Cobden, 
after  the  fresh  lease  of  power,  which  a  deed  of  18th  November, 
1847,  gave  to  Mr.  Dilke,  again  as  a  conditional  proprietor; 
managing,  without  salary.  Mr.  George  Wilson  came  in  as  a 
proprietor  to  represent  the  Anti-corn-law  League,  which  made 
the  Lancashire  influence  on  the  board  overwhelming.  As 
was  seen  in  the  account  given  of  Mr.  Dilke's  pamphlet  of  1821, 
he  had  always  held  League  views,  but  he  was  strongly  opposed 
to  conducting  the  Daily  News  as  a  sectional  "  organ."  In 
January,  1849,  Mr.  Bright  was  driven  distraught  by  a  hostile 
criticism  on  a  book  by  Mr.  Baptist  Noel,  and  Mr.  Dilke  was 
tempted  to  remark  that  Manchester  "  believed  the  three  old 
kingdoms  to  be  only  a  part  and  parcel  of  Lancashire,  and  that 
the  one-eyed  are  the  only  people  that  can  see."  To  Mr. 
Bright  he  wrote  a  letter  which  ended  thus  : — "  If,  as  might  be 
inferred  from  your  letters,  you  have  taken  up  the  opinion  put 
forth  in  the  dissenting  journals,  that  the  Daily  News  was  about 
to  come  forth  as  a  dissenter's  newspaper,  it  is  a  mistake.  I 
believe,  indeed,  the  most  intelligent  dissenters  here  would 
admit  such  a  policy  to  be  suicidal.  I  believe  the  proprietors 
would  object.  I  should,  and  therefore,  if  we  differ,  you  had 
better  bring  the  question  under  consideration  at  the  next 
meeting."  In  March,  1849,  Mr.  Bright  and  Mr.  Dilke  had  a 
tussle  over  the  House  of  Commons  reporting,  but  in  later  years, 
and  especially  during  the  course  of  the  Civil  War  in  America, 
Mr.  Dilke  conceived  the  profoundest  respect  for  his  former 
antagonist.  To  show  with  what  a  task  Mr.  Dilke  was  charged, 
here  is  a  letter  from  Mr.  Paxton,  another  of  the  proprietors : — 
"  The  general  paper  is  excellent.  If  we  fail  it  will  be  entirely 
owing  to  the  radical  leading  articles  ;  they  serve  them  up  in 


MEMOIR.  67 

and  out  of  season,  without  discretion.     Mr.  Dilke  should  take 
this  matter  in  hand.     We  will  support  him." 

Mr.  Cobden  used  also  to  complain  bitterly  of  the  reporting, 
adding,  however,  on  one  occasion  : — "  If  they  had  misprinted 
the  whole  of  our  speeches  for  weeks  I  don't  think  the  country 
would  have  had  much  reason  to  complain."  In  general  Mr. 
Cobden's  letters  were  extremely  friendly,  and  the  following  one 
must  be  considered  an  exception  : — 

"MANCHESTER,  14  Dec. 
"My  DEAR  SIR, 

"  In  the  letter  from  your  United  States  correspondent 
in  yesterday's  Daily  News  I  observe  not  only  that  the  writer 
predicts  that  the  American  tariff  will  be  raised,  but  he  makes 
you  give  currency  to  all  the  old  rubbishy  arguments  in  favour 
of  protection.  Now  I  doubt  the  accuracy  of  his  predictions, 
for  I  don't  expect  the  Agricultural  States  of  the  Far  West,  who 
have  begun  to  taste  the  advantages  of  Free  Trade  with  England 
in  flour,  pork,  Indian  corn,  etc.,  will  be  willing  to  vote  for  dear 
clothing,  and  thus  obstruct  their  trade  for  the  benefit  of  a  few 
New  England  manufacturers.  But  whether  or  no,  I  expect 
his  arguments  against  free  trade  when  inserted  in  your  paper 
are  afterwards  reproduced  in  the  monopolist  press  in  the 
United  States.  The  writer  is  trumpeting  Mr.  Abbott  Lawrence 
as  the  future  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  ;  he  is  the  great  leader 
and  paymaster  of  the  protectionist  party. 

"  Don't  let  your  City  article  man  appear  to  be  a  bull  in  the 
Railway  Market.  It  suits  me  very  well,  for  I  have  some  shares 
that  I  should  like  to  see  at  par  again ;  but  the  writer  of  your 
City  article  should  have  no  animus. 

"  I  return  to  town  to-morrow.  I  fear  the  manifold  splits 
among  the  Liberals  in  the  West  Riding,  upon  Fitz-William, 
Roebuck,  and  Education,  have  handed  the  representation  for 
the  present  over  to  the  Tories. 

"  Ever  yours  truly, 

"  R.  COBDEN." 
The  next  complaint  is  from  one  of  Mr.  Dilke's  oldest  and 

T    2 


G3  MEMOIR. 

dearest  friends,    Professor   Lindle)'',   the   great   botanist.      It 
smells  of  Chartist  days,  and  is  dated  1848  : — 

"  Surely,  my  dear  Dilke,  your  leader  about  Kennington 
Common  in  the  Daily  News  of  to-day  is  a  mistake.  I  don't 
mean  that  the  attack  on  Government  is  in  itself  wrong,  or  the 
remarks  individually  objectionable,  but  the  article  will  be 
regarded  as  a  symptom  of  a  bad  tendency.  For  my  part  I 
have  advised  all  the  volunteers  that  will  offer  at  Chiswick  to  be 
sworn  in  special  constables,  and  I  am  to  be  in  the  garden  to- 
day with  my  son  and  others  for  the  same  purpose.  I  do  so 
because  I  think  that  such  a  demonstration  as  we  are  to  be 
treated  to  on  Monday  can  only  be  effectually  stopped  by 
respectable  people  enrolling  themselves  in  mass ;  not  to  sup- 
press the  meeting,  but  to  put  down  disorder  and  maintain  the 
public  peace.  I  do  not  know  that  you  discourage  special 
constables,  but  I  cannot  find  that  you  say  a  word  to  encourage 
their  embodiment. 

"  But  such  a  meeting  as  that  of  Monday  is  in  these  times 
highly  dangerous,  whatever  such  people  as  Feargus  O'Connor 
may  tell  us.  He,  I  daresay,  is  frightened  at  his  own  acts ;  but 
if  a  fight  should  begin,  no  one  can  say  where  it  will  stop. 

"  You  blame  the  Times  for  its  article  of  yesterday.  I  thought 
it  admirable  ;  well-timed  ;  such  as  I  should  have  liked  to  see 
in  the  Daily  News.  I  do  not  recollect  that  it  actually  recom- 
mended the  meeting  to  be  put  down  by  force,  but  that  the 
crowds  should  not  be  permitted  to  proceed  to  the  House  of 
Commons,  because  no  one  can  answer  for  the  consequences  of 
crowding  streets  with  unmanageable  numbers.  Suppose  that 
a  fight  begins — that  an  irritable  soldier  or  a  nervous  constable 
strikes  the  first  blow;  the  pretence  is  given,  and  who  can 
answer  for  the  temper  or  nerve  of  thousands  of  troops,  con- 
stables, special  and  ordinary,  pensioners,  and  others,  who  must 
of  necessity  be  gathered  together  to  preserve  peace. 

"  Yours, 

"  JOHN  LINDLEY." 


MEMOIR.  69 

There  is,  perhaps,  some  interest  in  the  following  reply  from 
Mr.  Dilke  to  Dr.  Lardner,  who  was  correspondent  of  the 
Daily  News  at  Paris;  dated  1st  Sept.  1848 :— "  If  I  were 
editor  as  well  as  manager  I  would  put  forth  a  distinct  justifi- 
cation of  the  late  French  government — daring  men  who  took 
on  themselves  a  responsibility  from  which  others  shrank,  and 
who,  of  course,  could  only  succeed  in  keeping  an  insane  mob 
from  slaughter  by  yielding,  and  temporising,  and  acquiescing 
in  the  wildest  projects,  and  who  did  this  until  a  government 
was  strong  enough  to  succeed  and  suppress.  That  they  did  a 
thousand  illegal  things  is  true,  and  must  be  true,  seeing  that 
no  law  remained  for  their  guidance,  or  no  force  to  enforce  a 
law.  I  say  this  without  any  love  for  ttZira-democrats.  We 
differ,  of  course,  but  can  afford  to  tolerate  such  differences. 
You  are  heated  with  the  bath.  I  am  a  looker  on." 

In  April  1849,  at  the  end  of  his  three  years  of  management, 
Mr.  Dilke  retired  from  the  Daily  News,  receiving  the  fol- 
lowing letter  from  Mr.  Wills  "  in  the  name  of  the  staff:  " — 

"  ATHOLL  COTTAGE. 
"  MY  DEAR  SIR, 

"  I  am  sure  there  is  not  an  individual  connected  with 
the  Daily  News — who  knows  its  true  interests — who  will  not 
look  upon  this  day  as  the  blackest  in  its  calendar,  for  to*day, 
I  am  told,  you  finally  retire  from  the  management  of  the 
paper. 

"  I  can  safely  take  it  upon  myself  to  say  for  my  more  inir 
mediate  colleagues  that  they,  as  I  do,  deeply  deplore  the 
unproductiveness  to  yourself  of  all  the  toil  and  anxiety  which 
you  have  had.  At  the  same  time  we  feel  most  grateful  to 
you — for  we  have  been  the  gainers.  Without  your  energy  and 
consummate  skill,  the  Daily  News  would  have  died  a  few 
months  after  its  birth. 

"  Judging  from  expressions  which  I  have  heard  since  your 
intention  to  retire  became  known,  I  am  certain  that  from  the 
sub-editors  down  to  the  smallest  boy,  there  is  not  one  in  the 


70  MEMOIR. 

office  that  has  had  direct  communication  with  you,  who  does 
not  look  upon  your  loss  as  a  personal  misfortune.  There  has 
been  such  perfect  reliance  in  the  justice  of  even  your  censures, 
that  I  never  yet  heard  a  man  say  he  was  aggrieved  by  the 
severest  of  them,  and  when  you  found  room  for  praise  and 
gave  it,  the  recipient  felt  he  had  something  to  be  proud  of. 
Thus  I  honestly  believe  that  every  individual  strove  his  best 
to  obtain  your  approbation,  knowing  that  his  endeavours 
would  be  appreciated. 

****** 
"  To  me  your  retirement  is  irreparable  *     *     * 

"  Ever  faithfully  yours, 

"W.  H.  WILLS." 


Shortly  after  Mr.  Dilke's  retirement,  Dr.  Lardner's  engage- 
ment as  Paris  correspondent  was  put  an  end  to  by  the  pro- 
prietors, and  he  called  in  his  friend  Professor  De  Morgan  to 
advise  him,  who  did  so,  and  wrote  to  Mr.  Dilke  : — "  If  he  has 
any  idea  of  making  a  public  matter  of  it,  his  rule  of  three  and 
mine  differ ;  my  '  answer '  '  comes  out '  as  follows  : — 

As  trying  to  stir  up  public  opinion  against  the  management 
of  a  paper,  is  to 

Appealing  to  the  devil  against  his  dam,  so  is 

Anything  you  like  to  name,  to  itself. 

Seriously,  he  can  say  nothing  but  that  the  new  management 
is  blind  to  its  own  interest,  which  it  has  a  right  to  be  if  it 
pleases." 

So  ends  the  episode  of  the  three  years'  management  of  the 
Daily  News  by  Mr.  Dilke,  which  brought  no  friendship  to  an 
end,  which  even  strengthened  the  old  friendships  with  Mr. 
John  Forster  and  with  Mr.  Charles  Dickens,  as  well  as  with 
Mr.  Wills,  and  which  created  a  new  friendship  between  Mr. 
Dilke  and  Sir  Joshua  Walmsley,  which  lasted  through  life. 
Mr.  Dilke's  friendship  with  Mr.  John  Forster  had  begun  about 


MEMOIR.  71 

1838,  and  lasted  till  Mr.  Dilke's  death.  The  Dickenses 
and  the  Dilkes  have  been  friends  from  the  beginning  of 
the  century  to  the  present  day;  Mr.  Dilke's  father  and 
Mr.  Charles  Dickens's  father  were  in  the  same  office  under 
Government. 

Mr.  Dilke  now  retired  into  private  life,  and  began  those 
literary  researches  which  hid  him  from  the  world,  to  make 
him  known  to  a  small  chosen  circle,  but  which  brought  to 
himself   many   years   of   perfect    scholarly  happiness.      The 
Athenceum  was  now  well  able  to  take  care  of  itself.     There 
were  writing  in  it  besides   Chorley,  T.  K.  Hervey,  and  Mr. 
Hepworth  Dixon,  Sir  Harris  Nicolas,  Graham  (Master  of  the 
Mint),  Robertson,  Lady  Morgan,  Professor  Cooley,  Professor 
Gray,  the  Howitts,   Mr.  Payne  Collier,  Professor  Sedgwick, 
Mrs.  Austen,  John  Chorley  (the  great  Spanish  scholar),  Pro- 
fessor Wheatstone,  Janin,  Philarete-Chasles,  Jerrold,  St.  John, 
Dr.  William  Smith,  Miss  Jewsbury,  Mrs.  Busk,  Peter  Cun- 
ningham, Professor  Lindley,  Bonomi,  the  Costellos,  Professor 
Forbes,  Dr.   Lankester,  Miss  Martineau,  Mr.   Cole  (at  that 
time  best  known  as  Felix  Summerley),  Mr.  Sheepshanks  (of 
the  Sheepshanks  Collection  fame),  Miss  Fanny  Corbaux,   Sir 
John  Herschel,  Professor  De  Morgan,  Professor  Gassiott,  Sir 
Charles  Lyell,  Professor  Venables,  Dr.  Bowerbank,  Heraud, 
Sir  Alexander  Gordon,   Mrs.  Jameson,  Savage  (of  the  Exa- 
miner),  Sir  M.  Digby  Wyatt,    Mrs.    Trollope,    James    Wild 
(the  architect),  Miss  Kavanagh,   Hemans,  Dr.  Lardner,  Dr. 
Donaldson,  Vernon    (of    the   Vernon   Gallery),   Sir   William 
Hamilton,  Sydney  Dobell,  Bergenroth,  Sir  David  Brewster, 
Sir  John  Bowring,  John  Bruce,  Professor  Conington,  Bolton 
Corney,  Dr.  Davidson,  Mr.  Deutsch,  Mr.  Ford,  Dr.  Doran, 
Freiligrath,  Mrs.  Gaskell,  Sir  Charles  Fellowes,  Dr.  Hooker, 
Professor     Henslow,    Professor    Jukes,     Hazlitt,     Professor 
Faraday,    Sir    Charles  Eastlake,    Sir   Edwin  Landseer,   Dr. 
Daubeny,  Sir   Henry  De   la  Beche,    Mary  Brotherton,  and 
many  others,   of  whom  the  above  alone  are  named  because 


72  MEMOIR 

they  were  Mr.  Dilke's  friends  and  correspondents.  In  the  last 
years  of  his  life  his  chief,  and  intimate,  associates,  besides 
those  who  have  been  already  named,  were  Mr.  W.  J.  Thorns 
(afterwards  editor  of  Notes  and  Queries,  and  now  librarian  of 
the  House  of  Lords),  Mr.  Elwin,  and  Mr.  Joseph  Parkes. 

In  the  autumn  of  1850,  Mr.  Dilke  suffered  the  great  blow  of 
the  loss  of  his  wife,  with  whom  he  had  lived  in  the  most  com- 
plete happiness  for  more  than  forty  years.  He  spent  sixteen 
months  in  wandering  through  the  remoter  parts  of  Scotland, 
and  along  the  north  and  west  coast  of  Ireland,  but  corre- 
sponded incessantly  with  his  daughter-in-law,  to  whom  he  was 
much  attached,  and  who  was  at  that  time  in  a  deep  decline,  of 
which  she  died  in  1853.  During  a  great  part  of  the  time  he 
had  with  him  his  eldest  grandson,  then  a  boy  of  seven  or  eight. 
While  Mr,  Dilke  was  awajr,  his  house  in  Lower  Grosvenor 
Place  was  sold,  and  his  son  built  a  library  for  his  father  at  his 
own  house.  Here,  with  his  son,  and  two  grandsons,  Mr. 
Dilke  spent  the  remainder  of  his  London  life,  having  made 
over  to  his  son  at  this  time  the  greater  portion  of  his  property. 

The  letters  which  passed  between  Mr.  Dilke  and  his 
daughter-in-law  in  1851,  though  full  of  charm,  are  of  too 
intimate  a  character  to  make  their  publication  desirable.  In 
1852  his  mind  began  to  recover  its  balance,  and  "  Diogenes  " 
gradually  suffered  himself  to  be  lured  back  to  "  his  tub," — as 
his  library  was  called.  Here  is  a  postscript  to  one  of  his 
letters  of  that  year  : — "  As  an  amusing  proof  of  what  a  cheerful 
fellow  I  am,  I  considered  after  concluding  the  above  paragraph, 
of  what  I  could  say  to  you  that  would  be  pleasant,  and  the 
first  thought  that  came  into  my  mind  was  to  send  you  an 
epitaph !  one  which  I  picked  up  in  a  churchyard  at  Athlone. 
It  is  idle,  Mary,  dear,  to  try  and  make  myself  other  than  I 
am ;  it  is  the  silk  purse  and  the  sow's  ear ;  it  is  washing  the 
blackamoor  white  ;  it  is  anything  that  is  hopeless  and  impos- 
sible ;  so  you  shall  have  the  epitaph  if  I'm  hanged  for  it : — 
'  Sacred  to  the  memory  of  Mary  Quinn,  alias  McManus,  who 


MEMOIR.  73 

*  *     This  tomb  was  erected  by  her  loving  husband 

as  an  act  of  filial  love.' '  Here  is  a  bit  from  one  of  his  letters 
to  his  grandson  : — "  My  dear  dear  Charleyboy, — though  we 
are  widely  separated  just  now,  yet  the  same  sun  shines  on  us 
both,  and  the  same  stars  light  us  to  bed,  so  that  morning  and 
evening  I  am  reminded  of  you,  and  in  the  daytime  you  are  not 
forgotten." 

Mr.  Dilke's  series  of  articles  on  "Junius,"  to  which  a  longer 
reference  will  presently  be  made,  had  been  begun  in  1848,  and 
from  the  following  passages  it  is  clear  that  his  collection  of 
works  on  the  subject  was  already  formed.  Mrs.  Wentworth 
Dilke  writes  to  him : — "  There  are  all  your  old  '  Junius's ' 
looking  so  smart  you  will  not  know  them."  "  Bound,"  said  Mr. 
Francis,  '  according  to  your  instructions — no  two  alike.'  What 
a  dandy  you  are  without  knowing  it !  a  real  dandy  at  heart !  " 
He  answers  : — "  So  you've  found  out  that  I'm  an  unconscious 
dandy  !  Half  truth ;  half  error  !  I  am  a  dandy,  but  quite 
conscious  of  it.  Old  people  have  infirmities  which  they  can- 
not help  and  cannot  hide.  They  should,  therefore,  be  careful 
not  to  let  the  indolent  habit  of  age  make  them  indifferent  even 
to  trifles.  You  have,  however,  drawn  right  conclusions  from 
wrong  premises.  My  Junius  volumes  are  bound  '  no  two 
alike '  that  I  may  know  each  one  at  a  glance.  But  I  admit 
that  I  have  a  sort  of  social  life  in  my  books.  They  stand  to 
me  in  degrees  of  relationship,  I  feel  to  some  of  them  as  to- 
wards old  friends.  I  know  when  and  where  I  first  made  their 
acquaintance  ;  I  have  a  heartful  of  association  with  some  of 
them.  It  was  not  always,  dear  Mary,  as  it  is  now,  when  books 
are  bought  and  turned  out  again  by  the  dozen  with  a  yes,  or 
no,  pronounced  with  equal  indifference.  They  were  once 
weighed  against  gold  ;  against  a  thousand  temptations  which 
gold  represented,  and  bought  only  when  solid  worth  turned 
the  scale  in  their  favour.  Many  and  many  a  day  have  I 
tramped  the  same  streets  to  get  a  glimpse  of  the  same  trea- 
sure, turned  and  returned,  and  at  last,  with  desperate  resolu- 


74  MEMOIR. 

tion,  carried  it  off  in  triumph,  but  perhaps  not  without  a  little 
upbraiding.  You  cannot  wonder  that  I  look  on  some  of  these 
old  fellows  as  old  friends." 

His  son  consulted  him  a  good  deal  as  to  the  Great  Exhibi- 
tion of  1851,  in  which  he  played  a  well-known  part.  When 
the  permanency  of  a  building  for  exhibitions  was  proposed, 
Mr.  Dilke  wrote  a  series  of  letters  which  discussed  the  whole 
question  of  annual  international  exhibitions  and  of  an  art 
museum,  with  arguments  which  would  in  these  days  be  familiar ; 
but  which,  at  the  time,  were  remarkable  for  their  novelty.  He 
summed-up  against  the  first  and  for  the  second.  Soon  after 
we  find  him  writing  to  his  daily  correspondent,  Mrs.  Wentworth 
Dilke,  with  regard  to  the  bringing  up  of  children  :  "  On  the 
subject  of  a  little  paragraph  in  your  letter  I  could  write  a  good 
deal.  The  subject  is  to  me  one  of  the  deepest  interest  and 

ever  has  been Children  live  wholly  in  the  present. 

The  past  is  with  them  clean  gone,  and  the  future  unknown  and 
undreamt  of.  You  may  easily  make  them  actors,  and  it  is 
thought  a  fine  thing  when  they  are  actors.  You  may  even  make 
them  artful,  cunning,  hypocritical,  but  you  cannot  alter  their 
nature.  They  are  still  children.  You  may  make  them 
miserable  for  a  moment  by  bringing  the  past  or  the  future 
before  them  as  if  it  were  the  present,  but  leave  nature  play  for 
an  hour  and  they  are  living  only  in  the  present  again.  You 
cannot  trifle  with  this  part  of  child-nature  without  fearful  mis- 
chief to  the  moral  future.  Correction,  too,  of  those  faults 
which  are  common  to  all  children  must  be  left  to  time  and 
their  own  sense.  They  are  not  corrected  at  all  by  external 
force.  The  fault  remains,  with  hypocrisy  superadded, — cun- 
ning to  conceal.  The  only  true  correction  is  self-correction, 
and  this  must  be  consequent  on  increased  knowledge  and 
enlarged  sympathy  and  feeling.  It  is  well  to  direct  a  child's 
attention  to  a  bad  habit  and  to  help  him  to  correct  it ;  but 
only  to  one  error  or  habit  at  a  time.  To  attack  all  is  to  keep 
up  a  worry,  in  which  all  the  authority  derived  from  affection 


MEMOIR.  75 

is  lost.  Children  are  children  as  kittens  are  kittens.  A  sober 
sensible  old  cat,  who  sits  purring  before  the  fire,  does  not 
trouble  herself  because  her  kitten  is  hurrying  and  dashing 
here  and  there,  in  a  fever  of  excitement,  to  catch  its  own  tail. 
She  sits  still  and  purrs  on.  People  should  do  the  same  with 
children.  One  of  the  difficulties  of  home  education  is  the 
impossibility  of  making  parents  keep  still ;  it  is  with  them,  out 
of  their  very  affection,  all  watch  and  worry." 

The  old  Radical  continues  his  long  journeys,  showing  him- 
self in  all  his  letters  to  be,  like  all  old  Radicals,  a  violent  Tory 
in  everything  but  pure  politics.  He  hates  railroads — loathes 
manufacturers  :  "  IJ  I  had  not  seen  Manchester,  I  should  have 
thought  Leeds  the  vilest  spot  on  earth."  "  Never  talk  to  me 
against  Bristol.  It  has  a  human  heart  in  it ;  "  this,  with 
Mr.  Dilke,  means  several  old  book-shops.  He  gradually  comes 
nearer  and  nearer  to  his  new  home.  At  last  he  writes  from 
Chichester  to  his  daughter-in-law  a  letter  which  is  not  without 
its  interest  in  showing  character.  Mr.  Dilke,  proud  of  the 
connection  of  his  family  with  the  Puritan  Wentworths  and 
with  the  Lord  President  Bradshaw,  had  been  making  out  the 
descent  of  Mrs.  Wentworth  Dilke  from  the  "  regicide  "  Cawley. 
Her  family  being  all  staunch  Conservatives  were  shocked  and 
horrified.  He  wiites :  "  Cawley  was  an  estated  gentleman  in 
Sussex,  early  left  an  orphan.  He  was  a  man  both  of  mind  and 
of  manners — gentle,  thoughtful,  dreamful,  benevolent,  and  like 
most  such  men,  had  a  touch  of  melancholy  in  his  disposition. 
When  he  came  of  age  he  made,  after  the  fashion  of  the  day,  a 
rejoicing,  but  a  rejoicing  not  after  the  fashion.  His  was  a 
revival  of  the  early  Christian  love  feasts,  to  which  the  poor 
were  the  invited  guests.  On  this  occasion  he  laid  the  foundation 
of  a  '  Domus  Dei,"  or  '  Maison  Dieu,'  a  retreat  for  old  worn- 
out  folk,  which  he  endowed  with  broad  and  fertile  lands  cut  off 
from  his  patrimonial  estate.  Benevolence  was  his  guiding  star 
through  life.  It  led  him,  whether  right  or  wrong,  to  endeavour 
to  advance  the  interests  of  the  weak  against  the  strong  ;  of  the 


76  MEMOIR. 

many  against  the  few.  The  question  came  to  bloody  issue, 
and  though  he  and  his  friends  failed  so  far  as  the  hour  was 
concerned,  we  are  indebted  to  them  for  many  of  the  liberties 
we  enjoy,  and  for  much  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  greatness 
of  the  nation.  To  the  sufferings  of  those  men,  I  believe,  we 
owe  the  peace  with  which  we  have  been  blest  at  home  during 
the  revolutions  which  have  deluged  Europe  with  blood.  All 
honour  to  their  memory.  Into  the  thick  of  battle  your  ancestor 
hurried,  contrary  to  all  the  tendencies  of  his  gentle  nature,  and 
without  a  thought  of  selfish  ends ;  and  when  the  cause  was  lost, 
retiring  to  Holland,  he  expressed  no  selfish  regrets,  but  made 
it  his  only  request,  that  his  body  might  be  conveyed  to  England 
and  allowed  to  rest  in  the  house  which  he  had  built  to  the 
glory  of  God.  Now,  Mary  dear,  is  that  an  ancestor  to  be 
ashamed  of?  A  century  and  a  hah0  after  his  death  the  world- 
lings of  Chichester  got  an  Act  of  Parliament  to  enable  them  to 
convert  the  revenues  of  his  hospital  to  their  own  uses  and 
God's  house  into  a  workhouse.  On  it,  however,  there  has 
been  written,  spiritually  at  least,  one  glorious  name  and 
beneath  it  '  circumspice,'  though  it  may  not  be  visible  to  parish 
officers.  If  3rou  like,  I  suppose  you  can  convert  the  Roundhead 
into  a  Cavalier,  and  serve  his  history  up  to  Charley  as  an 
example  of  the  deeds  and  sufferings  of  a  Loyalist.  Only  a 
change  of  name." 

In  1853,  the  care  of  his  grandsons  during  his  son's  absence 
in  America,  as  Royal  Commissioner  to  the  New  York  Exhibi- 
tion, and  afterwards  during  their  mother's  dying-illness,  after 
her  husband's  sudden  return  by  her  ph}rsician's  advice,  took  up 
all  Mr.  Dilke's  time  with  family  affairs.  In  1854,  he  again 
began  to  write  largely  upon  the  history  and  literature  of  the 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries.  There  is  not  much  of 
interest  in  his  correspondence  of  this  time,  except  in  that  with 
Mr.  Thorns,  which,  however,  deals  too  much  with  the  details 
of  literary  research  to  make  it  of  a  nature  to  publish.  In  this 
year,  Mr.  Panizzi  writes  to  him  of  one  of  the  best  known 


MEMOIR.  77 

literary  men  of  England  :  "  Fancy  Mr.  C.  wanting  to  have 
permanently  a  private  room  in  the  Museum  for  himself." 
Chorley  writes  :  "So  far  as  music  is  concerned,  we  are  living 
in  a  time  without  great  men,  but  with  a  public  more  and  more 
numerous,  more  and  more  cultivated,  and  more  and  more 
anxious  day  by  day  to  come  to  a  close  knowledge  of  past  great- 
ness. It  seems  to  me  that  what  would  have  been  caviar 
twenty  years  ago  is  now  generally  liked."  Here  is  a  Greenwich 
dinner  with  Chorley  :  "A  gleam  of  sunshine  on  Monday  set 
the  Bedlamites  raving  about,  '  Summer  is  come  again.' 
Chorley  being  under  the  delusion,  persuaded  me  to  start  with 
him  '  up  or  down ;  somewhere,  anywhere,'  by  the  steam-boat. 
We  found  ourselves  in  Greenwich  Park.  Chorley  was  in 
raptures  at  the  '  Watteaus,'  which,  by  the  way,  had  just 
arrived  in  three  vans  from  Spitalfields.  Following  out  old 
tradition,  Chorley  sat  on  the  gravel  and  called  it  '  luxuriating 
on  the  grass.'  When  choked  with  dust,  we  walked  through  a 
Mohammadan  Paradise,  where  houris  in  tight  boots  invite  to 
superhuman  luxuries  at  '  9d.  a-head,'  to  the  mud  banks  of 
the  river  where  we  had  a  '  fish  dinner,'  and  where  there  never 
was  a  dish  of  fish  put  on  table  that  was  fit  to  eat.  Then  to 
town  in  a  boat  full  of  other  lunatics,  who  sang,  '  Row,  brothers, 
row,'  to  help  the  paddle-wheels  to  keep  time,  and  sloppy  in 
this  '  sweet  summer  weather,'  were  happy  to  reach  home  in 
cabs  or  omnibuses.  It's  a  mad  world,  and  I  wish  somebody 
would  bite  me." 

In  1854,  Mr.  Dilke  was  hard  at  work  upon  the  Caryll 
papers  which  he  had  lately  purchased,  and  which  are  now  in 
the  British  Museum.  Mr.  Dilke  writes  thus  to  his  grandson  : 
"  My  doings,  indeed  !  gropings  among  old  fusty  MSS.  cannot, 
I  suppose,  be  considered  very  successful,  because  there  has 
been  but  little  result ;  but  to  me  there  is  pleasure  in  the 
search  itself,  just  as  a  sportsman  loves  the  hunt  for  the  hunt's 
sake,  for  he  must  have  a  strange  taste  if  he  eat  his  fox  when 
he  has  killed  it.  It  is  like  fishing  and  catching  nothing,  which 


78  •  MEMOIR. 

is  a  pleasure  in  which  I  have  known  my  grandson  join  very 
heartily.  However,  my  hunting  led  me  over  a  pleasant 
country.  I  gave  you  an  account  in  my  last  of  my  visit  to 
Ladyholt.  On  another  occasion  I  went  to  Harting  to  see  the 
grand  monument  of  the  Carylls.  Well,  these  Gary  11s  were  so 
great  in  their  day — strutted  so  bravely  in  their  hour — that  their 
dust  was  not  to  mingle  with  the  dust  of  the  commonalty ;  so  they 
built  a  chapel  or  chantry,  and  there  they  were  to  lie  alone  in 
their  state  and  dignity.  Now,  as  I  told  you  in  my  last,  the 
very  name  of  the  Carylls  is  forgotten  where  they  lived,  and 
while  the  church  of  the  commonalty  is  in  excellent  repair,  the 
chantry  of  the  Carylls  has  been  turned  into  a  carpenter's  work- 
shop. Their  alabaster  monuments  serve  as  props  for  deal 
boards,  and  all  the  heralds'  blazonry  is  hid  by  cobwebs  and 
shavings."  Mr.  Croker,  Mr.  Peter  Cunningham  and  Mr. 
Kerslake,  the  old  bookseller  of  Bristol,  made  a  fierce  onslaught 
on  Mr.  Dilke  to  induce  him  to  state  the  circumstances  under 
which  the  Caryll  papers  came  into  his  possession ;  but  as  the 
papers  have  now  been  presented  to  the  nation  and  can  be  in- 
spected by  all  scholars  interested  in  them,  it  is  only  necessary 
to  say  that  the  circumstances  are  known  to  the  family  and 
witnessed  by  documents  in  their  possession  ;  that  they  involve 
the  honour  of  no  person  concerned  in  the  sale,  and  that  the 
sale  was  by  the  seller  made  conditional  upon  the  approval  of 
the  highest  officer  having  authority  over  him  being  obtained, 
which  authority  was  obtained  as  required. 

Mr.  Dilke's  contributions  at  this  period  to  Notes  and  Queries 
were  very  large  indeed ;  and  as  he  did  not  care  to  be  known 
when  dealing  with  these  smaller  matters,  he  had,  as  he  said,  "  as 
many  aliases  as  an  Old  Bailey  prisoner ;"  but  those  who  are 
interested  in  questions  of  literary  research  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries  may  trace  his  contributions  thus  :  he  nearly 
always  used  the  initials  of  the  first  three  words  of  the  heading 
of  his  contributions.  Suppose,  for  instance,  it  was  "  The 
Carylls  of  Ladyholt,"  it  would  be  signed  "  T.  C.  O."  Mr. 


MEMOIR.  79 

Dilke's  secretary,  whose  initials  were  "  W.  M.  T.,"  often  wrote 
for  him,  but  sometimes  for  himself. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  among  the  miscellaneous  subjects 
in  the  list  of  Mr.  Dilke's  principal  later  writings,  the  manage- 
ment of  the  Literary  Fund  largely  figures.  Mr.  Dilke, 
Mr.  Charles  Dickens,  and  Mr.  John  Forster  were  the  three 
signers  of  the  pamphlet  called  "  The  Case  of  the  Reformers 
of  the  Literary  Fund,"  which  produced  a  fierce  war  of 
words  for  several  years,  but  which  itself  was  the  result  of  a 
war  which  had  been  already  raging  for  a  long  time  in  the 
heart  of  this  old  corporation.  Between  1 852  and  1859  a  very 
considerable  correspondence  took  place  between  Mr.  Dilke  and 
his  old  friends,  Mr.  Forster  and  Mr.  Dickens,  upon  this  sub- 
ject, and  between  the  two  first  of  those  gentlemen  and  Lord 
Lytton.  The  general  result  may  be  said  to  have  been  that  the 
reformers  were  beaten,  though  they  certainly  were  not  con- 
vinced, and  though  they  won  several  important  victories.  Mr. 
Dickens  was  very  keen  in  the  fight :  he  speaks  of  himself  as 
'  come  back  to  town  whooping  for  committee  scalps ' : — he  never 
names  the  Literary  Fund  but  as  the  "Bloomsbury  Humbug." 

"  TAVISTOCK  HOUSE, 
"  MY   DEAR  DlLKE,  "  Sixteenth  March,  1855. 

"You  see  the  Times  is  striking  for  us  this  morning; 
we  must  hold  to  the  Obstructives  now. 

"Will  you  send  me  some  facts  concerning  the  founder,  and 
his  original  intentions.  I  think  after  all  I  had  better  come 
out  in  Household  Words,  with  an  amiable  dash  at  the  enemy, 
and  that  I  cannot  do  better  than  take  that  position,  which  is 
plainly  the  one  we  must  maintain  in  the  committee. 

"  When  I  went  to  the  Fund  yesterday  to  see  Blewitt  about 
calling  our  committee  together,  '  O,'  said  he,  '  I'm  very  glad  to 
see  you,  because  here's  a  curious  point  has  arisen,  and  I  want 
your  opinion  on  it  very  much.  Supposing  three  or  four  part- 
ners in  a  firm,  and  the  firm  to  have  given  ten  guineas,  one  of 
the  partners  has  not  a  right  to  vote  has  he  ?  '  '  Oh,  dear  me  ! ' 


80  MEMOIR. 

said  I,  with  the  gentlest  suavity,  '  that  seems  to  me  to  be  per- 
fectly clear.  If  you  doubted  whether  that  partner  represented 
the  firm  in  voting,  you  would  write  to  the  firm  to  ask  the  ques- 
tion, and  on  their  replying  'yes,'  there  would  be  an  end  of  it.' 
'You  feel  quite  certain  about  that? '  said  he.  '  Perfectly,'  said  I. 
"  'Well  then,'  said  Blewitt,  'here's  another  curious  thing. 
We  think  there  were  people  here  yesterday  holding  up  their 

hands  who  were  not  members.     Did  you  see  P here  ? ' 

'  No,'  says  I.  '  Well,'  says  he,  '  Sir  Henry  Ellis  says  he  saw 
him,  and  he  is  not  a  member.  I  myself  saw  a  gentleman,  with 
his  back  to  the  door,  who,  when  I  offered  him  a  balloting 
paper,  told  me  he  was  not  a  member.'  '  Aye — aye  ! '  says  I, 
with  the  utmost  gravity,  '  on  which  side  do  you  suppose  these 
people  voted?'  'Oh!  I  say  nothing  about  that,'  replied 
Blewitt,  colouring,  '  we  have  all  an  equal  interest  in  keeping 
them  out,  that's  all  I  mean.'  '  But,'  said  I,  '  whose  business 
is  it  to  see  that  none  but  members  are  in  the  room  on  such  an 
occasion  ? '  Hereupon  he  coloured  again,  and  said,  '  Why,  if 
I  had  proposed  to  challenge  them,  Mr.  Dilke  might  have 
charged  me  with  some  sinister  object.'  'But  how  about  ascer- 
taining all  that  before  they  got  into  the  room  at  all  ?  '  said  I. 
He  then  made  a  proposal  on  this  to  which  I  assented,  and  we 
parted  with  infinite  affection. 

"  Believe  me,  my  dear  Dilke, 

"  Yours  truly, 

"  CHARLES  DICKENS." 

The  articles  by  Mr.  Dilke,  which  are  reprinted  in  this  work, 
are  not  chosen  as  his  best,  though  some  of  his  best  written 
articles  are  contained  among  them.  The  guide  as  to  what  to 
reprint  and  what  to  leave  aside  has  been  sought  in  asking  the 
question,  not — "Which  are  the  best?"  but — "Which  are 
most  asked  for  and  used  ? "  These  are,  without  doubt,  the 
articles  on  Junius  and  connected  subjects ;  on  Wilkes,  on 
Burke,  and  the  Grenville  papers ;  those  on  Pope,  Lady  Mary 
Wortley  Montagu,  and  Swift.  There  is  little  to  say  as  to 
most  of  them,  except  as  regards  Wilkes,  to  note  the  appearance 
of  the  interesting  work  of  Mr.  Rae.  The  only  Junius 


MEMOIR.  81 

controversy  that  has  occurred  since  the  death  of  Mr.  Dilke 
was  that  provoked  by  the  book  of  Mr.  Twisleton  on  the 
"  proofs"  from  handwriting.  This  was  dealt  with  by  a  review 
which  appeared  in  the  Athenceum  in  1870.  In  respect  to 
Pope,  Mr.  Elwin  has  published  several  volumes  of  his  great 
edition,  in  which  he  does  ample  justice  to  the  memory  of 
his  friend  and  fellow-worker.  But  it  has  not  been  thought 
necessary  either  to  refrain  from  printing  the  earlier  Pope 
articles  of  Mr.  Dilke,  or  to  add  notes  to  them,  merely  because 
Mr.  Elwin  has  had  access  to  them,  and  has  gone  over  the 
same  ground  ;  because  the  wish  to  see  them  and  possess  them 
still  exists,  and  because  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  the  scholars 
who  may  place  them  in  their  libraries  will  place  Mr.  Elwin's 
volumes  by  their  side.  The  notes  which  appear  with  Mr. 
Dilke's  articles  are  his  own.  It  was  his  custom  to  keep  his 
articles  in  books,  and  to  annotate  them  from  time  to  time  as 
fresh  matter  appeared.  It  has  also  been  necessary  in  the  case 
of  his  communications  to  Notes  and  Queries  to  print  some  few 
of  the  communications  from  other  pens  which  called  them  forth. 
In  addition  to  his  articles,  Mr.  Dilke  left  an  immense  number  of 
notes  on  Junius,  which  were  the  records  of  the  extremely  care- 
ful inquiries  which  preceded  the  writing  of  his  articles.  Here 
is  a  specimen  of  them  : — "  Junius  probably  obscure  man. 
New  to  writing  for  the  press.  Knows  obscure  press  writers 
and  their  private  habits.  Knows  and  repeatedly  uses  printers' 
terms  of  art.  Uses  contractions  largely.  For  example,  in 
Private  Letter  No.  33,  does  not  refer  to  Vindex  as  printed, 
but  to  V — x.  In  56,  not  to  Domitian,  but  to  Dom.  He  in- 
structs the  printer  (No.  35)  to  announce  "  Junius  to  the  D.  of 
G.,"  and  (No.  49)  to  advertise  "  Js.  to  L.  C.  J.  M.,"  meaning 
"  Junius  to  Lord  Chief  Justice  Mansfield."  He  writes  of 
Lord  C.,  the  D.  of  G.,  the  D.  of  B.  He  writes  like  a 
printer's  devil  of  "  the  philos  " — meaning  the  letters  of  Philos- 
Junius ;  West,  for  Westminster ;  D.  G.  for  David  Garrick ; 
Mr.  W.  for  Wilkes."  In  Mr.  Dilke's  private  correspondence 


82  MEMOIR. 

with  regard  to  Junius  is  a  curious  letter,  dated  1833,  from 
Mr.  Taylor,  asking  "  whether  a  short  series  of  articles 
entitled  '  Junius  further  identified,1  by  the  author  of  '  Junius 
identified,'  would  be  acceptable,  provided  Mr.  Dilke  was 
satisfied  at  the  conclusion  of  the  series  that  the  authorship 
had  been  completely  revealed !  "  One  of  the  letters  to  Mr. 
Dilke,  from  Mr.  W.  J.  Smith,  editor  of  "  The  Grenville 
Papers,"  contains  this  paragraph  : — "  I  have  long  thought 
that  Junius  had  at  least  a  finger  in  '  No.  45,'  as  well  as  in  some 
other  papers  of  the  North  Briton.  When  Mr.  W.  J.  Smith 
sent  Mr.  Dilke  proofs  of  his  introductory  parts,  in  which  he 
thought  he  had  established  that  Junius  was  Lord  Temple,  he 
very  fairly  added,  "  Alas  !  for  the  one  thing  needful,  the  one 
proof!  I  have  none.  Not  a  shadow  of  a  proof.  If  I  have 
been  led  into  any  too  confident  expressions,  I  shall  regret 
them.  I  have  only  endeavoured  to  do  what  my  predecessors 
have  done, — make  out  a  case.1' 

The  latest  notoriety  of  Mr.  Dilke's  Junius  articles  was  the 
reading  of  one  of  them  to  the  jury  in  the  Tichborne  case,  on 
the  subject  of  handwriting. 

The  correspondence  of  Mr.  Dilke  with  Mr.  Murray  and 
Mr.  Elwin,  with  regard  to  the  famous  "  Croker- Cunningham  " 
edition  of  Pope,  extended  over  1858,  1859,  and  1860.  Mr. 
Dilke  was  requested  by  Mr.  Murray  to  act  as  joint  editor  with 
Mr.  Elwin,  but  declined,  although  he  prepared  a  considerable 
portion  of  the  letters  for  Mr.  Elwin,  and  was  very  largely 
consulted  by  the  latter.  Mr.  Dilke  also  carried  on  a  very  con- 
siderable correspondence  with  his  friend  Mr.  Thorns  with 
regard  to  Pope,  in  which  the  friends  compared  notes  as  to 
their  purchases  and  editions  : — "  Who  bought  Dunciads  lately 
in  Red  Lion  Court,  and  in  King  Street,  Holborn ;  and  on 
Saturday  last,  near  the  Elephant  and  Castle,  Dilke  aut  Diabo- 
lus?"  "Are  you  going  to  bid  for  the  following  lots?" — "  J 
know  where  Pope's  skull  is," — and  so  on  in  a  tone  of  banter, 
— the  records  of  many  happy  years  of  scholarly  companionship. 


MEMOIR.  83 

Mr.  Carruthers,  the  editor  of  Pope,  was  a  modest  man,  and 
wrote  modestly  about  his  labours  : — "  It  was  very  incautious 
in  me  venturing  to  edit  Pope  at  such  a  distance  from  the 
public  libraries,  and  without  sufficient  time  for  research."  He 
said,  too,  nearly  the  same  thing  in  public.  In  another  letter 
Mr.  Carruthers  accepts  the  whole  of  Mr.  Dilke's  views,  as,  in 
many,  does  Mr.  Elwin.  The  only  Pope  critics  who  carried  on 
the  fight  were  Mr.  Kerslake,  the  bookseller,  who  is  dealt  with 
in  one  of  the  articles  of  Mr.  Dilke,  and  Mr.  Peter  Cunningham, 
as  to  whom  a  most  amusing  incident  occurred.  Mr.  Cunning- 
ham published,  as  new,  "  a  highly  characteristic  and  interesting 
letter"  to  "gladden  the  hearts  of  all  future  editors  of  Pope." 
Mr.  W.  M.  Thomas  wrote  to  pronounce  it  a  forgery.  Mr. 
Peter  Cunningham  then  broke  out : — "  A  literary  journal,  long 
conspicuous  for  its  captious,  sneering,  self-complacent  dog- 
matism, has  thought  proper " — "  brands  the  document  as 

a  forgery  " — and  so  forth !  Mr.  Dilke  then  wrote,  and  showed 
by  dates  that  it  must  be  a  forgery.  After  which  a  correspondent 
wrote  and  showed  that  it  had  already  been  printed  ninet}7  years 
before,  upon  which  another  correspondent  discovered  that  not 
only  was  this  true,  but  that  the  forgery  itself  had  already  been 
pointed  out  in  1764  !" 

Coming  to  the  last  two  or  three  years  of  the  life  of  Mr. 
Dilke  we  find  in  1860  a  characteristic  note  from  Professor  De 
Morgan :  "Is  Shakespear  driving  all  the  people  mad  who 
meddle  with  him  ?  If  he  said,  '  Curst  be  he  who  moves  my 
bones,'  what  would  he  have  said  to  these  meddlers  with  his 
text  ?  Has  not  the  epitaph  an  interior  meaning,  and  is  not  the 
text  the  real  carcase  referred  to  ?  Has  nobody  ever  hit  on  this 
bright  idea  before  ?  "  Here  is  another  from  De  Morgan  011 
"  Concert  Pitch  "— 

"  Down  with  it  by  fair  means  or  foul, 

Or,  sure  as  Greek  is  Greek, 
The  note  which  Handel  played  a  growl 
Onr  sons  will  play — a  squeak. 

"  LONGFELLOW." 

u  2 


84  MEMOIR. 

In  1861  and  1862  Mr.  Dilke  was  much  consulted  by  his 
son  (as  he  had  been  in  1851),  with  regard  to  Exhibition 
matters,  Mr.  C.  Wentworth  Dilke  being  one  of  the  five  (or 
virtually  four)  Commissioners.  Here  is  one  of  Mr.  Dilke's 
many  notes  : — "  I  see  that  the  Commissioners  have  instructed 
Mr.  Maclise  to  prepare  a  design  for  a  prize  medal.  It  is, 
therefore,  too  late  to  offer  advice  on  this  matter,  but  not  too 
late  to  prepare  you  for  well-founded  remonstrances.  Surely 
we  have  professed  medallists  who  ought  to  have  been  called  on 
to  prepare  the  design  as  well  as  to  execute  the  work.  But  if 
you  were  compelled  to  ask  for  a  design  from  others,  why  from 
a  painter  ?  and  why,  of  all  painters,  from  Maclise  ?  The 
painter  and  the  medallist  compose  on  antagonistic  principles. 
There  is  a  nearer  approach  to  the  same  principles  between  the 
medallist  and  the  sculptor.  It  is  strange,  but  you  yourselves 
have  an  idea  of  this,  for  among  those  called  on  to  assist  in 
Class  89 — '  Die-sinking  and  Intaglios  '  —  I  find  Foley  and 
Westmacott,  but  not  Maclise,  and  not  any  painter.  The 
Commissioners  are  thus  self-condemned." 

In  December,  1861,  Mr.  C.  Wentworth  Dilke  accepted  a 
baronetcy,  against  his  father's  advice.  In  the  autumn  of  1862, 
Mr.  Dilke's  eldest  grandson  went  to  his  father's  old  college, 
and  Mr.  Dilke  himself  began  to  live  exclusively  at  a  shooting 
place  in  Hampshire,  rented  by  his  son  from  the  Woods  and 
Forests,  in  a  county  with  which  he  had  been  long  connected, 
and  which  he  greatly  loved.  His  frequent  letters  to  his  son 
are  now  all  on  gardening,  an  old  passion  of  his,  to  which  he 
had  returned.  His  daily  letters  to  his  grandson  at  Cambridge 
are  concerned  only  with  the  studies  and  amusements  of  the 
latter.  His  joys  are  successful  boat-races,  and  his  curses — 
the  rabbits,  which  even  treble  wires  will  not  keep  out.  The 
father  passionately  fond  of  gardening,  and  the  son  passionately 
fond  of  sport,  were  likely  indeed  to  differ  on  this  point.  "  I 

am  much  concerned  about  the  mangold "  "  22nd  Dec.  ! ! ! 

ALICE  HOLT.  Important !  From  our  own  correspondent.  The 


MEMOIJt.  86 

Peas  have  made  their  appearance !  These  portentous  births 
do  not  pass  without  signs  and  wonders.  There  was  a  rain- 
storm which  threatened  the  loss  of  half  a  day  to  the  men,  but 
it  cleared  off." 

"ALICE  HOLT, 

"  13«A  May. 

"DEAR  WENTWOKTH, 

"  You  heard  I  believe  by  telegram  of  our  great 
triumph.  T.  H.  is  head  of  the  river,  with  a  good  prospect  of 
maintaining  itself  there.  They  overlapped  '  Third '  on  the 
first  night,  and  would  have  made  their  bump  but  that  they 
tried  too  soon.  The  two  nights  make  him  hopeful.  He's  in 
training  till  Thursday." 

On  the  6th  of  August,  1864,  Mr.  Dilke  wrote  his  last  letter  to 
his  grandson,  who  was  "  staying-up  "  at  Cambridge  for  the  Long 
Vacation.  He  was  then  fairly  well,  but  on  the  8th  his  grandson 
received  a  telegram,  telling  him  to  come  to  Alice  Holt,  which 
he  reached  early  in  the  morning  of  the  9th.  Mr.  Dilke  was 
then  dying,  and  after  speaking  with  much  difficulty  a  very  few 
never-to-be-forgotten  words,  he  desired  that  the  "  Gary  11  Papers  " 
and  the  "  Seaforth-Mackenzie  Papers  "  should  be  given  to  the 
Nation,  and  that  the  Museum  authorities  should  be  allowed  to 
select  such  as  they  chose  from  among  his  Junius  books,  if  it 
was  not  the  intention  of  his  grandson  to  work  upon  this  ques- 
tion. All  these  tilings  have  since  been  done,  and  of  his  MS. 
notes  such  dispositions  have  been  made  as  would  have  been 
agreeable  to  him  had  he  known  of  them.  On  the  10th  he 
died,  and  on  the  16th  he  was  buried  in  the  family  vault  at 
Kensal  Green,  between  his  wife  and  his  daughter-in-law.  His 
son  has  since  been  buried  by  his  side. 

The  fullest  justice  was  done  to  his  literary  career  in  the 
paragraphs  and  articles  of  the  newspapers  mentioning  his 
death.  The  weekly  and  monthly  journals  contained  more 
elaborate  biographies;  for  instance,  those  in  the  Publisher's 
Circular,  in  the  Bookseller  for  August  31st,  and  in  the  Journal 


86  MEMOIR. 

of  the  Society  of  Arts  for  September  23rd.  Notes  and  Queries 
spoke  as  follows: — "We  have  sustained  a  great  loss,  for, 
among  the  many  able  writers  who  have  from  time  to  time 
contributed  to  our  pages,  no  one  has  enriched  them  with  so 
many  valuable  papers  illustrative  of  English  history  and 
literature  as  he  whose  death  it  is  now  our  painful  duty  to 
record.  Mr.  Dilke  was  one  of  the  truest  hearted  men  and 
kindest  friends  it  has  ever  been  our  good  fortune  to  know. 
The  distinguishing  feature  of  his  character  was  his  singular 
love  of  truth,  and  his  sense  of  its  value  and  importance,  even 
in  the  minutest  points  and  questions  of  literary  history.  What 
the  independence  of  English  literary  journalism  owes  to  his 
spirited  exertions,  clear  judgment,  and  unflinching  honesty  of 
purpose,  will,  we  trust,  be  told  hereafter  by  an  abler  pen  than 
that  which  now  announces  his  deeply  lamented  death."  In 
1865  Mr.  Thorns  wrote  in  Notes  and  Queries  thus,  on  October 
28th : — "  None  but  those  who  know  how  thoroughly  our  la- 
mented friend  exhausted  every  inquiry  he  took  up,  can  form 
an  idea  of  the  perseverance  and  ingenuity  with  which  he  pur- 
sued such  researches.  He  had  no  pet  theory  to  maintain. 
The  truth,  the  whole  truth,  and  nothing  but  the  truth,  was  the 
end  and  object  of  all  his  inquiries,  and  in  the  search  after  this 
he  was  indefatigable."  On  the  30th  September,  1865,  Mr. 
John  Bruce,  the  antiquary,  wrote  also  in  Notes  and  Queries, 
of  "  Junius'  "  investigations  : — "  Not  only  has  the  grave  closed 
over  Mr.  Parkes  ....  but,  also,  over  that  greater  than  Mr. 
Parkes,  whose  acquaintance  with  the  whole  '  Junius  '  contro- 
versy, as  with  many  others  of  the  mysteries  of  our  literature, 
I  never  expect  to  see  equalled — I  allude  to  Mr.  Dilke.  With 
the  calmness  which  marked  his  outpourings  of  knowledge, 
indefatigably  gathered  up,  by  constant  inquiry  in  all  direc- 
tions, he  would  have  set  us  right  in  a  few  minutes  as  to  the 
true  bearings  of  Mr.  Hart's  new  documents."  Mr.  Elwin 
speaks  in  similar  terms  in  the  introduction  to  his  Pope,  and 
Mr.  Murray  of  his  "  great  respect  for  his  critical  judgment  and 


MEMOIR.  87 

his  inflexible  truth ;  "  while  the  Saturday  Review  and  the  Pall 
Mall  Gazette  in  their  articles  on  Mr.  Elwin's  Pope,  have  done 
similar  justice  to  the  work  of  Mr.  Dilke. 

These  papers  have  been  put  together  by  one  who  quotes 
the  words  of  others  only  because  he  can  find  none  of  his  own 
that  would  be  fitting  to  record  all  he  owes  to  the  subject  of 
this  Memoir. 


MR.   DILKE'S   WRITINGS. 

Mr.  Dilke's  chief  contributions  in  later  times  to  Notes  and 
Queries  were,  as  regards  Pope  and  connected  subjects,  on 
"  Pope  and  the  Pirates,"  on  Pope  and  Bathurst,  on  the 
Carylls,  these  being  in  the  first  series.  To  the  second  series, 
on  "  Pope's  Imitations,"  on  "  Additions  to  Pope,"  on  "  Molly 
Mog,"  on  "Jacobite  Honours,"  on  Swift,  on  Dryden,  on 
editions  of  the  Dunciad,  on  Bowles  v.  Roscoe,  on  Steele  and 
Swift,  on  Pope's  letters,  on  Swift  and  the  Scriblerians,  on 
Dr.  Andrew  Tripe,  on  the  Rape  of  the  Lock,  on  Sir  R. 
Steele,  some  of  these  last  running  into  the  third  series.  Also 
in  the  second  series,  on  "  Pope  at  Twickenham,"  on  Belinda, 
arid  on  the  Essay  on  Man ;  and  in  the  third  series,  on  "  The 
Impertinent." 

In  the  Atlien&um  the  first  great  Pope  articles  appeared  in 
1854,  on  the  8th,  15th,  22nd,  and  29th  of  July,  and  on  Sept.  9. 
In  1855,  Jan.  13,  Jan.  20,  and  April  14  contain  Pope  bits  by 
Mr.  Dilke,  and  p.  1420  of  this  Aihenanm  volume  should  also 
be  consulted ;  also  Notes  and  Queries  of  Oct.  13  of  the  same 
year,  and  of  28th  June  of  1856,  and  the  Athenaum  of  the  same 
date  and  of  Nov.  15, 1856,  and  Notes  and  Queries  of  Nov.  1,  on 
the  Pope  and  Blount  letters. 

In  1857  Pope  articles  appeared  on  Jan.  17,  May  30,  July  18, 
Sept.  26,  Oct.  3,  Nov.  21;  also  "Popiana"  (signed  D.)  in 
Notes  and  Queries  of  Nov.  21. 

In  1858,  in  the  Athenaum  of  May  8,  15,  and  22,  on  Pope, 


88  MEMOIR. 

and  on  Swift  on  July  3  and  Sept.  4  (signed  V.) ;  in  1859,  on 
Feb.  19 ;  in  1860,  on  Aug.  4,  Sept.  1,  8,  and  15,  and  also  on 
July  28;  in  1863,  on  Octf  10;  and  I  should  add  that  the 
writer  attacked  by  Mr.  Dilke  on  this  occasion  admitted  after- 
wards that  he  had  been  wholly  wrong, 

As  regards  "  Junius  "  : — 

In  the  Athenaum,  on  22nd  July  and  29th  July,  1848;  on 
7th  July,  1849 ;  on  Feb.  2,  Feb,  9,  Aug.  17,  Sept.  7,  14,  21, 
and  28,  and  Oct.  12,  1850 ;  on  March  22nd,  5th  April,  10th 
May,  17th  May,  and  24th  (these  last  being  on  "  The  Corre- 
spondence of  Horace  Walpole  and  the  Kev.  W.  Mason  "),  also 
July  12  and  Nov.  22,  1851. 

In  1852,  the  last  two  columns  of  an  article  of  21st  Feb.  on 
Grenville,  and  also  Jan.  17. 

In  1853,  on  Feb.  19,  June  11,  June  18,  and  Sept.  17,  and 
in  Notes  and  Queries,  Sept.  3  and  10. 

In  1856,  on  March  8. 

In  1858,  on  Jan.  9  and  July  17  (but  see  in  yol.  ii.  pp.  78, 
234,  268). 

In  1859,  on  July  2, 

In  I860,  on  Feb.  25  and  March  17  (but  see  volf  i,  pp.  265, 
306,  341,  366,  375,  409). 

See  also  of  Mr.  Dilke's  "Junius"  articles  in  Notes  and  Queries, 
S.  G.  on  George  Stevens,  G.  D.  on  David  Garrick,  C.  S.  on 
Collins,  P.  T.  A.  on  Park,  and  J.  P.  on  Junius ;  also,  first 
series,  xii.  193 ;  also  four  articles  in  the  same  volume  signed 
L.  J. ;  also  M.  J.  on  "Maclean  not  Junius,"  "  M.  M."  on 
Mr.  Macaulay  and  Sir  Philip  Francis,  C.  M.  L.  on  Colonel 
Lee ;  also  1st  s,  viii.  8,  signed  P.  A.  O. ;  1st  s.  x.  465,  S.  L. ; 
1st  s.  x.  523,  N,  E.  P. ;  1st  s.  xi.  187.  Also  2nd  s.  i.  37, 
"  V.  B."  on  "  Vellum-bound  Junius ;"  2nd  s.  i.  185,  "  W.  W.  J." 
on  "  Who  was  Junius  ?  "  2nd  s.  ii.  212,  W,  D.  W. ;  2nd  s.  v. 
121, 141,  161,  and  2nd  s.  vi.  16,  all  signed  "  D.  E," 

As  regards  Wilkes  : — 

In  the  Athenteuw,  on  3rd  Jan.  1852,  and  following  weeks, 


MEMOIR.  89 

and  17th  Sept.  1853 ;  in  Notes  and  Queries,  on  4th  July,  1857, 
with  continuations.  He  had,  however,  already  defended 
AVilkes  at  an  earlier  date,  namely,  in  an  article  on  Hunt's 
"  Fourth  Estate,"  on  20th  April,  1850;  also  10th  Jan.  1852, 
in  the  Athenaeum.  Those  of  3rd  and  10th  Jan.  1852,  were 
articles  on  the  history  of  Lord  Mahon,  now  Earl  Stanhope ; 
also  Sept.  17,  1853 ;  also  in  1857,  Notes  and  Queries,  a  cor- 
respondence beginning  July  4,  and  in  1860,  on  21st  Jan. 
As  regards  Burke  : — 

Incidentally,  in   1851,  on  Jan.  11  and  18 ;  in  1852,  Notes 
and  Queries,  28th  Feb. 

In  1853,  on  Dec.  3,  10,  and  17. 
In  1855,  on  Feb.  17. 
In  1858,  on  Feb.  20. 
In  1859,  on  July  2. 

In  1862,  on  Aug.  2nd,  and  in  Notes  and  Queries  of  about 
the  same  date,  in  several  notes  and  replies. 
On  other  subjects  : — 

In  1849  and  1850,  on  Lingard's  History ;  22nd  June,  1850, 
on  "  A  Universal  Catalogue  " — an  idea  of  a  catalogue  of  all 
books  known  to  have  been  printed,  to  which  he  attached  great 
importance,  and  which  he  developed  with  much  skill.  On  the 
Management  of  the  Literary  Fund,  on  Sept.  8  and  15,  1849, 
in  which  he  began  the  series  of  articles  which  were  destined 
to  extend  over  more  than  ten  years.  In  1850,  again  on  the 
Literary  Fund  on  the  16th  March  and  the  llth  May;  also  in 
this  }rear,  on  the  British  Museum,  on  the  26th  of  January. 
In  1851  Mr.  Dilke  reviewed  (Jan.  11  and  Jan.  18)  Lord 
Holland's  "  Foreign  Reminiscences  "  in  an  article  in  the 
course  of  which  he  made  charges  against  Burke.  On  the 
29th  March  of  this  year  he  reviewed  a  book  called  "Personal 
History  of  Charles  II.,  from  his  landing  in  Scotland  in  1650 
to  his  escape  from  England  in  1651."  The  escapes  of 
Charles  II.  were  a  subject  on  which  Mr.  Dilke  had  much 
knowledge,  and  considering  his  opinions  as  to  the  Common- 


0  MEMOIR. 

wealth  period  of  English  history,  it  is  somewhat  curious  that 
the  famous  Mrs.  Jane  Lane  figured  in  his  own  pedigree.  The 
ahove  are  all  in  the  Athenceum.  In  Notes  and  Queries,  he  wrote 
on  "  Hugh  Speke  and  the  Forged  Declaration  of  the  Prince  of 
Orange,"  a  series  of  notes  in  which  he  defended  one  of  the  leaders 
in  Monmouth's  rebellion  against  Lord  Macaulay,  who  had  called 
him  an  "  adventurer,"  and  showed  that  he  was,  on  the  con- 
trary, a  "venturer,"  a  man  of  position,  who  had  risked  and 
lost  all.  He  defended  this  ex-cavalier  with  the  same  zeal  and 
success  which  he  showed  in  the  defence  of  John  Wilkes ; 
indeed,  the  defence  of  reputations  was  one  of  Mr.  Dilke's 
favourite  literary  amusements.  In  the  Athenceum  in  1851, 
especially  in  April,  there  were  a  good  many  paragraphs  of  his 
on  Archaeology,  a  subject  on  which  he  was  most  learned,  for 
a  man  who  had  not  made  it  an  exclusive  study.  How  good 
a  local  Hampshire  and  Sussex  archaeologist  he  was,  he  showed 
by  many  communications  to  the  Athenceum,  especially  in  1853. 
In  1852,  Jan.  17,  24,  Feb.  14,  21,  four  articles  on  Grenville 
and  Rockingham,  full  of  minute  knowledge  of  the  politics  and 
men  of  the  last  century.  Another  reputation  which  Mr.  Dilke 
defended  was  that  of  "  Peter  Pindar,"  in  several  paragraphs 
of  this  same  year.  In  1853  several  communications  relating 
to  the  Grenville  papers ;  and  April  2  and  9,  articles  on  the 
Literary  Fund. 

In  1854  Mr.  Dilke  wrote  a  series  of  articles  against  patching 
up  the  British  Museum,  and  in  favour  of  dividing  the  collection 
by  subjects. 

In  1855,  on  23rd  June,  on  the  Literary  Fund.  On  April 
21st  we  find  Mr.  Dilke  again  at  work  whitewashing  reputa- 
tions, and,  further  on,  throwing  doubt  on  "autographs"  after 
his  wont.  On  Oct.  6,  13,  and  27,  a  series  of  articles  on 
George  III. 

In  1856,  on  Feb.  16,  he  is  again,  in  the  A  then&um,  defending 
a  reputation  from  attack.  On  8th  March,  and  again  in  October, 
he  was  writing  in  the  Athencetim  on  Shakespeare;  also  articles 


MEMOIR.  91 

on  Ma}r  17th  and  June  21st.  In  1857,  the  year  in  which  the 
chief  Pope  articles  appeared,  Mr.  Dilke  communicated  to  the 
Athencemn  articles  on  Hearne  and  on  Cunningham's  Walpole, 
which  showed  his  profound  knowledge  of  the  politics  and 
literature  of  the  last  century.  Also  an  article  on  Petersfield, 
which  showed  again  his  antiquarian  knowledge  of  the  south  of 
England.  The  7th  of  March  was  the  date  of  his  article  on  the 
Literary  Fund,  which  now  became  a  sort  of  annual  ceremony. 

In  1858  a  series  of  Literary  Fund  articles  from  his  pen 
appeared  on  Jan.  23,  March  6,  March  20,  and  May  1,  which 
summed  up  the  whole  question  of  the  reform  of  that  body. 
He  also  wrote  in  this  same  year  several  articles  on  the  literary 
characters  of  the  last  two  centuries. 

In  1859  he  wrote  in  the  Athenceum  on  "  Treasure  Trove,"  and 
on  31st  Dec.  about  "  1715  ;"  in  1860,  on  the  Soane  Museum, 
on  Smollett,  on  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough  (July  28),  and  on 
the  Literary  Fund  on  3rd  March.  Also  in  Notes  and  Queries, 
on  24th  Nov.,  on  "  The  Beggar's  Petition  "  (signed  T.  B.  P.). 

In  1861  (his  last  important  contributions  to  the  Athen&um), 
on  Lady  Mary  Wortley  Montagu,  on  April  6  and  13,  and 
Oct.  5 ;  also  on  the  Literary  Fund  on  Dec.  28.  In  1862,  on 
Feb.  15,  an  obituary  notice  of  one  of  his  oldest  friends,  Miss 
Woodfall,  daughter  of  the  publisher  of  "Junius."  Also  in 
Notes  and  Queries  on  22nd  Nov.  1862,  about  Bolingbroke, 
besides  many  other  contributions  on  Centenarianism,  on  the 
Commonwealth  period,  &c. 


POPE'S  WRITINGS. 

From  the  Athenaeum,  July  8,  1854. 
THE  LIFE   OF   ALEXANDER  POPE. 

DR.  JOHNSON,  more  than  once,  wrote  an  Introduction  to  a 
work  which  he  had  not  read  —  had  not  seen,  —  and  his  apology 
was,  we  think,  satisfactory  :  —  "  I  know  what  the  book  ought  to 
contain."  If  it  fell  short  of  the  promise,  that  was  the  fault  of 
the  writer  of  the  book,  not  of  the  writer  of  the  Introduction. 
A  like  apology  serves,  we  suppose,  to  quiet  the  consciences  of 
those  who  write  advertisements,  —  they  know,  none  better, 
what  books  ought  to  contain.  May  not  the  principle  be  ex- 
tended ?  May  not  the  critic  review  a  book  before  it  is  pub- 
lished ?  His  office  assumes  a  knowledge  of  what  a  book  ought 
to  contain.  Why  should  he  wait  the  issue  —  wait,  as  he  too 
frequently  does,  the  disappointment  of  publication  ?  If  the 
principle  were  once  admitted,  what  a  delightful  dream-world 
we  should  live  in  !  The  advertisement  and  the  review,  how 
pleasantly  they  would  harmonize  !  What  a  change  !  —  every- 
body in  good  humour  —  writers,  booksellers,  critics  !  —  The 
idea  dawns  on  us  like  a  summer  day.  Pleased  with  our  own 
fancy,  we  will  put  it  to  the  test  —  for  once,  at  least  ;  and  here 
is  a  model  advertisement,  on  which  to  try  "  a  'prentice 
hand."— 


WOEKS     OF     ALEXANDER    POPE. 

Containing  nearly  150  Unpublished  Letters. 

Edited  by  the  Right  Hon.  JOHN  WILSON  CROKER. 

Assisted  by  PETER  CUNNINGHAM,  F.S.A. 

6  vols.     8vo. 

%*  This  edition  will  be  collated,  for  the  first  time,  with  all  the  editions  which 
appeared  in  the  Poet's  lifetime,   including  those  of  Warburton,   Warton,  and 


94  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

Roscoe,  and  the  allusions  throughout  will  be  explained  with  greater  fulness  and 
accuracy  than  has  yet  been  attempted.  The  Letters  will  include  Pope's  hitherto 
unpublished  Correspondence  with  Edward  Earl  of  Oxford,  and  with  Broome,  his 
assistant  in  the  translation  of  the  Odyssey  ;  while  the  Life  will  contain  many  new 
facts  of  importance,  and  correct  many  errors  of  previous  biographers. 

Here  is  a  literary  treasure-trove  !  One  hundred  and  fifty  of 
Pope's  unpublished  Letters,  and  a  Life  with  many  new  facts, 
and  many  old  errors  corrected  !  We  linger  lovingly  over  the 
golden  promise.  We  "  take  the  ghost's  word," — not  because 
we  have  any  absolute  faith  in  ghosts,  or  in  advertisements, 
but  "  one  hundred  and  fifty  unpublished  letters  "  is  a  simple 
fact  about  which  there  can  be  no  mistake  ;  and  it  is  impossible 
for  any  one  to  look  carefully  into  any  of  the  many  Lives  of 
Pope,  from  Ayre  and  Ruffhead  and  Johnson  down  to  Carru- 
thers,  without  a  conviction  that  there  are  new  facts  which 
ought  to  be  added,  and  still  more  errors  which  ought  to  be 
corrected. 

Pope  is  once  again  in  the  ascendant.  For  a  moment  a  thin 
filmy  shadow  passed  over  his  name  and  fame  ;  \)\\t  time  has 
restored  "  all  its  original  brightness,"  and  Pope  now  stands, 
where  he  ever  will  stand,  amongst  the  foremost  men  in  the 
annals  of  his  country's  literature.  We  do  not  intend  on  this 
occasion  to  he  minute  and  critical.  So  far  as  Pope's  works 
are  concerned,  there  has  been  enough  of  criticism.  The  an- 
nouncement that  the  new  edition  is  to  be  collated  "with  all 
the  editions  which  appeared  in  the  Poet's  lifetime,  including 
those  of  Warburton,  Warton,  and  Roscoe,"  has  no  great  charm 
for  us.  We  have  no  doubt  as  to  the  value  of  collation — no 
doubt  that  to  a  few  students  and  scholars  it  is  pleasant  and 
instructive  to  trace  the  germinating  bud  to  its  full  and  perfect 
development  in  the  flower.  Such  persons,  however,  will 
pursue  their  studies  after  their  own  fashion, — and  in  a  case 
like  this,  of  modern  authorship,  a  few  shillings  or  a  few  pounds 
will  bring  all  editions  to  their  fireside,  and  the  pleasure  of  minute 
discovery  may  occupy  a  life  ;  for  there  is  scarcely  a  poem  of 
Pope's  that  was  not  subjected  to  "change — scarcely  a  letter 
published  by  Pope  that  was  not  positively  disguised  by  altera- 
tion. But  the  one  hundred  and  fifty  unpublisln  <1  letters, — the 


I.]  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  95 

many  new  facts  in  the  life  of  the  Poet,  —  and  the  correction  of 
the  many  errors  —  this  is  assuredly  most  welcome  news. 

Facts  in  the  life  of  a  great  man,  especially  of  a  great  poet, 
are  the  life  itself,  —  his  mind,  manners,  morals  grow  out  of 
them  ;  and  the  great  and  the  humble,  the  wise  and  the  unwise, 
are  all  more  subject  to  such  external  influences  than  the  pride 
of  man  is  willing  to  allow.  In  Pope's  case  they  are  of  unusual 
importance,  for  the  antecedents  and  the  surrounding  circum- 
stances of  his  early  life  were  exceptional.  What  Pope  said  of 
literary  judgments  is  equally  true  of  moral  judgments  :  —  You 

who  — 

--  the  right  course  would  steer, 
Know  well  each  proper  character, 
*  *  *  * 

Religion,  country,  genius  of  his  age,  — 
Without  all  these  at  once  before  your  eyes, 
Cavil  you  may,  but  never  criticise. 

Yet,  in  defiance  of  Pope's  own  rule,  we  have  only  to  turn  to 
a  century  of  Pope's  biographers,  to  find  proof  that  what  ought 
to  have  been  developed  has  been  obscured  or  passed  over; 
and  that  what  has  been  preserved  in  amber  is  but  too 
frequently  the  currelit  llOUHtSlise  oi  the  hour  —  the  babble  of 
ignorance  —  the  falsehood  of  enemies  —  the  misconstruction  of 
friends. 

So  far  as  Johnson's  Memoir  is  concerned  this  is  of  little 


consequence.  .rolm>nn  did  not  care  for  facts  :  —  too  indolent 
for  research,  it  was  enough  if  what  he  said  of  Pope  were  true 
of  human"  nature,  —  true  as  to  the  motives  and  feelings  that 
influence  men,  —  and  the  comment  was  of  universal  application. 
Johnson's  speculation  on  the  incidents  or  assumed  incidents 
in  the"*'  Life  of  Pope  "  is  philosophy  teaching  by  example  ;  and 
would  be  instructive  had  no  such  man  as  Pope  ever  lived,  — 
had  the  work  been  a  romance,  like  the  "  Life  of  Robinson 
Crusoe,"  "  Tom  Jones,"  or  "  The  Vicar  of  Wakefield." 

But  the  abstract  and  imperishable  value  of  Johnson's  Me- 
moir is  no  apology  for  another  and  for  every  other  writer.  "  In 
the"works  of  common  biographers  if  we  have  not  facts,  we  have 
waste  paper  —  worse,  rubbish  that  troubles  and  perplexes.  It 
is  the  duty,  the  especial  duty  of  such  persons  to  test  tradition  ; 


96  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

to  weigh  opposing  and  contradictory  authorities ;  to  feel  that 
their  respectability  grows  out  of  their  responsibility.  If  this 
be  not  felt — if  this  be  not  done,  and  with  great  care  and  sound 
discretion — the  very  treasures  which  time  opens  up  to  us  only 
encumber  our  progress. 

The  first,  and  perhaps  the  greatest,  difiiculty  which  the 
biographers  of  Pope  will  have  to  contend  with  is  "  the  Letters." 
Some  of  our  readers  will  remember  the  circumstances  under 
which  they  were  first  published.  Johnson  said,  and  truly,  that 
it  was  one  of  the  passages  in  Pope's  life  which  best  deserved 
inquiry ;  but  he  unfortunately  neglected  to  make  the  inquiry, 
for  at  that  time  the  truth  might  have  been  brought  to  light. 
Others  have  followed  his  example  :  set  up  a  theory,  commented 
on  it,  and  then  left  the  reader  to  grope  his  own  way  in  the 
dark.  Even  the  elder  D'Israeli,  who  devoted  a  chapter  or  two 
to  the  special  consideration  of  the  subject,  has  not  thrown  a 
single  ray  of  light  upon  it.  The  best  account  is  by  Mr. 
Carruthers. 

The  facts  may  be  thus  briefly  stated.  One  of  Pope's  early 
correspondents,  Mr.  Cromwell,  had  given  Pope's  letters  to  a 
Mrs.  Thomas,  who  professed  to  have,  and  probably  had,  a 
great  admiration  of  the  poet.  This  woman  fell  into  difficul- 
ties, sold  the  letters  to  Curll,  the  bookseller,  and  he  published 
them.  Pope  was,  or  affected  to  be,  indignant — professed  him- 
self to  be  miserable — to  live  in  fear  of  a  like  indiscretion  in 
other  friends  or  their  survivors — wrote  to  his  correspondents 
to  entreat  that  his  letters  might  be  returned  to  him.  Many 
complied,  others  did  not,  and  some  took  copies  before  they 
returned  the  originals ;  a  precaution  strictly  conformable  to 
Pope's  own  double  and  doubtful  policy.  Now  comes  the  mys- 
tery. Some  unknown  person  wrote  to  Curll,  and  offered  him 
Memoirs  of  Pope — then  "  a  large  collection  of  the  letters  of 
Pope  ;  "  and  eventually  a  third  party  appeared  in  masquerade 
costume,  a  clergyman's  gown  with  a  counsellor's  band,  and  de- 
livered to  Curll,  for  an  agreed  price,  printed  copies  of  Pope's 
correspondence  from  1704  to  1734.  Curll  announced  the 
instructed  to  do  so — as  a  Collection  of 


Letters,  written  by  and  to  the  late  Earl  of  Halifax,  the  Earl 


1.]  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  t>7 

of  Burlington,  and  a  long  list  of  illustrious  persons.  Here 
was  a  violation  of  what  was  then  considered  the  privilege  of 
the  ^Peerage — the  publication  of  a  Peer's  letters  without  his 
consent,— and,  at  the  instance  as  asserted  of  Pope,  Curll  was 
summoned  before  t lie  House  of  Lords.  Curll  laughed  at  the 
Lords,  and  was  dismissed,  for  no  letters  by  any  of  the  peers 
named  were  to  be  found  in  the  collection.  Here  was  a  theme 
for  gossip  at  the  coffee  houses.  Pope  offered  a  reward  of 
twenty  guineas  to  the  initial-obscurities  who  had  carried  on  the 
negotiation  with  Curll,  if  they  would  make  a  discovery  of  the 
facts,  and  of  double  that  amount  if  they  would  prove  under 
whose  direction  they  had  acted.  More  food  for  gossips  ! 
Pope's  own  version  of  the  story,  published  at  the  time,  was 
this, — that,  alarmed  by  the  indiscretion  of  Mr.  Cromwell,  he 
had  collected  his  letters — that,  as  several  of  them  served  to 
revive  past  scenes  of  friendship,  he  was  induced  to  preserve 
them,  to  add  a  few  notes  here  and  there,  and  some  small 
pieces  in  prose  and  verse,  and  that  to  effect  this  "  an  aman- 
uensis or  two  were  employed."  The  inference  which  Pope 
intended  is  obvious  ;  yet  Pope  never  called  on  these  aman- 
uenses, publicly  or  privately,  to  give  evidence  on  the  subject ; 
he  never  even  named  them.  In  brief,  Curll's  strange  story 
was  never  disproved  ;  and  Pope's  story,  still  more  strange, 
was  never  proved. 

Lintot,  the  bookseller,  the  son  of  Bernard,  declared  to  Dr. 
Johnson  that,  in  his  opinion,  Pope  knew  better  than  anybody 
else  how  Curll  obtained  the  copies,  and  gave  reasons  which 
seemed  to  place  the  question  on  evidence  rather  than  on 
opinion.  Johnson  certainly  agreed  with  Lintot;  and  every 
subsequent  inquirer,  with  the  exception  of  Roscoe,  has  come 
to  a  like  conclusion. 

Pope  forthwith  announced  that  this  surreptitious  and  in- 
correct edition  had  placed  him  under  the  necessity  of  publish- 
ing a  genuine  collection  of  his  letters ;  and  the  strongest 
corroborative  evidence  that  the  edition  by  Curll  had  been 
prepared  under  the  direction  of  Pope,  has  been  found  in  a 
comparison  of  some  few  letters,  still  in  manuscript,  with-  the 
copies  published  in  the  "surreptitious  and  in  the  genuine 

VOL.    I.  11 


98  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

edition.  As  Mr.  Carrutkers  states  :  "  Pope's  edition  of  tkose 
letters,  wkick  kad  been  printed  by  Curll,  is  tbe  same  as 
Curll's,  and  tkis  common  version  differs  essentially  from  tke 
original."  In  brief,  tke  letters  pubk'sbed  by  Curll,  wkick  Pope 
declared,  by  advertisement,  contained  "  so  many  omissions  and 
interpolations "  tkat  ke  could  not  own  tkem,  ke  kimself  re- 
publisked — describing  tkem  in  tke  Preface,  as  letters  written 
"  in  tke  openness  of  friendskip — a  proof  wkat  were  kis  real 
sentiments  as  they  flowed  warm  from  the  heart,  and  fresh  from 
the  occasion,  witkout  tke  least  tkougkt  tkat  ever  tke  world 
skould  be  witness  to  tkem."  Tke  omissions  and  interpolations 
in  Curll's  edition  were  precisely  suck  as  Pope  desired. 

Joknson's  conclusions,  made  in  ignorance  of  facts  witk 
wkick  we  are  acquainted,  were  skrewd  and  true  ;  but  do  not 
contain  tke  wkole  trutk.  Pope,  ke  conjectures,  being  desirous 
of  printing  kis  letters,  and  not  knowing  kow  to  do  so  witkout 
imputation  of  vanity,  "  contrived  an  appearance  of  compul- 
sion." But  Pope  not  only  desired  to  publisk,  but  to  omit  and 
interpolate — to  insert  kere  and  tkere  wkat  Jolmson  remarked 
in  tke  letters,  "  tke  unclouded  effulgence  of  general  benevo- 
lence ;  "  and  tke  extent  to  wkick  tke  letters  were  tampered 
witk  kas  startled  subsequent  inquirers.  But  Pope  wanted  to 
do  more,  and,  wkat  kas  never  been  suspected,  to  re-direct 
those  letters — to  construct  a  correspondence  wkick  kad  no 
real  existence !  to  take  liberties  wkick  ke  dared  not  to  kave 
taken,  kad  not  tke  letters  first  appeared  in  a  surreptitious 
edition — kad  ke  not  been  able  to  denounce  omissions  and 
interpolations — for,  tkougk  Wyckerley,  and  Walsk,  and  Trum- 
bull,  and  Edward  Blount,  and  Addison,  and  Steele,  and  Con- 
greve,  and  Gay,  and  many  of  kis  early  correspondents  were 
dead,  otkers  were  living,  and  Pope  wanted  tke  letters  addressed 
to  comparatively  obscure  persons, — 

Much  loved  in  private,  not  in  public  famed, — 

to  make  up  a  skow — not  a  skow  of  letters,  but  of  familiar 
correspondents.  A  little  "  collating  "  of  tbese  friendly  epistles 
— "warm  from  tke  keart  " — would  make  tke  reader  laugk, — if 
it  did  not  make  kim  sigk.  Purposely  to  add  to  tke  confusion 


I.J  POPl-r*   ll'JUTIXGH.  90 

— purposely  to  secure  the  publication  of  what  he  desired,  and 
yet  escape  from  the  consequences  of  publishing  what  he  knew 
and  what  others  knew  to  be  false — he  left  many  addresses 
doubtful — arranged  the  letters  confusedly  ;and  his  biographers 
have,  in  consequence,  stumbled  into  strange  absurdities.  Thus 
the  last,  and  not  the  worst,  following  the  example  of  Roscoe, 
elucidates  after  this  fashion  : — 

"  The  Poet's  liberal  and  tolerant  sentiments  on  the  subject 
of  religion,  with  the  praise  of  Erasmus  and  his  censure  of  the 
monks,  provoked  the  holy  vandals  of  his  Church.  Their  com- 
plaints were  forwarded  to  him  through  the  younger  Craggs. 
*  *  In  defending  himself,  the  Poet  says,  '  I  have  ever 
believed  the  best  piece  of  service  one  could  do  to  our  religion 
was,'  "  &c.,  &c. 

Think  of  a  suffering  Catholic — trembling  at  the  sight  of  a 
country  justice  or  a  parish  constable — writing  to  an  embryo 
Secretary  of  State  about  "  our  "  religion,  "  our  "  Church  ;  and 
think  of  "  holy  "  [Catholic]  vandals,  under  the  reign  of  George 
the  First  and  the  Penal  Laws,  making  this  same  embryo  Sec- 
retary the  confidant  of  their  complainings.  To  be  sure,  all 
this  is  consistent  with  other  letters  which  these  same  biogra- 
phers assume  to  have  been  addressed  to  Craggs,  wherein  Pope 
thanks  the  young  gentleman  for  his  prayers  !  and  returns 
thanks  for  hints  on  "  the  vanity  of  human  affairs  f " 

We  have  also  an  ^-Secretary  of  State  amongst  Pope's 
correspondents, — and  Miss  Aikin  observes,  that  to  this  ex- 
Secretary  to  King  William,  Pope  expressed  "  some  distaste 
at  being  mixed  up  in  a  Whig  triumph  !  "  True  : — and  strange, 
though  it  does  not  appear  to  have  so  struck  Miss  Aikin.  Pope 
was  even  more  emphatic  than  she  was  aware  of; — he  not  only 
mentioned  in  the  original  letter  that  he  had  been  "  clapped 
into  a  staunch  Whig  "  for  his  Prologue  to  "  Cato,"  but  added 
"  sore  against  my  will "  ; — a  brief  but  expressive  phrase  which 
dropped  out  on  publication,  and,  therefore,  before  the  letter 
was  addressed  to  Sir  William  Trumbull ;  who,  in  truth,  never 
set  mortal  eyes  on  it. 

So  Dr.  Johnson,  though  he  had  a  strong  suspicion  that  the 

H    2 


100  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

letters  had  been  tampered  with, — though  he  observes  that 
Pope  is  seen  in  the  collection  connected  with  contemporary 
wits,  at  an  advantage,  and  suggests  that  Pope  may  have 
favoured  himself, — yet  proceeds  to  argue  as  if  these  letters 
were  fair  exponents  of  feeling,  and  refers  to  them  in  proof  of 
"  the  gradual  abatement "  of  kindness  between  Addison  and 
Pope.  Gradual  abatement !  Why,  the  acquaintance  Degan  only 
in  1712:* — and  was  always,  we  suspect,  literary  rather  than 
personal.  Pope  about  that  time  took  liis  station  amongst  the 
wits  at  Button's, — was  introduced  to  Addison  by  Steele, — and, 
as  Pope  said,  they  met  there  almost  every  day  for  a  twelve- 
month. It  was  then  and  during  this  daily  intercourse  that 
Pope  wrote  the  Prologue  to  "  Cato,"  and,  as  we  think,  the 
"  Epistle  to  Addison,"  t  though  he  was  pleased  to  affect  the 
magnanimity  of  having  written  it  at  a  later  period.  In  the 
summer  of  1714, 1  Pope  and  Addison  were  at  open  variance, — 
the  cutting  satire  on  Addison  was  then,  or  about  that  time, 
written, — and  the  anxious  endeavours  of  Jervas  and  Steele 
to  bring  about  a  reconciliation  worse  than  failed.  Not  much 
time  for  the  growth,  development,  and  "  gradual  abatement " 
of  friendship.  It  is  quite  true  that  the  key-note  of  Pope's  first 
published  letter  to  Addison  was  struck  so  high  that  it  was  not 
in  human  sympathy  to  sustain  it. — 

"I  am  more  joy 'd  at  your  return  than  I  should  be  at  that 
of  the  sun." 

Strange  that  no  suspicion  crossed  the  mind  of  Johnson,  or 
of  any  of  the  many  biographers  of  Pope,  that  no  such  letter 
ever  was,  or  ever  could  have  been,  addressed  to  Addison. 
Strange  that  Mifis  Auon,  who  devoted  a  whole  chapter  to  this 

*  Steele's  letter  (Corr.  of  Steele,  i.  235)  promising  to  introduce  P.  to  A, — at 
least  so  assumed— is  dated  20  Jan.  17^.  It  must  have  followed  the  Spectator, 
No.  253— Dec.  20,  1711. 

t  Qy.  See  Note  on  Carr.  ii.  256. 

£  It  is  said,  and  anecdotes  are  told  which  lead  to  the  inference,  that  they  were 
friends 'after  this,  and  particulars  are  given  by  Ayre  and  by  D'Israeli  (Quarrels,  i. 
255)  of  a  subsequent  quarrel — "  some  years  after,"  says  Ayre.  See,  also,  Eoscoe's 
Life,  pp.  132-7.  This  latter  quarrel  is  said  to  have  given  rise  to  the  Lines  on 
Addison.  Eos.  Life,  137. 


I.]  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  101 

quarrel,  was  not  startled  into  a  doubt  by  not  finding  the  letter 
in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Tickell ;  to  whom  Addison's  papers 
had  descended  from  his  ancestor,  the  friend  and  executor  of 
Addison.  Mr.  Roscoe — who,  however,  assumes  as  a  matter 
of  course  that  the  letter  was  addressed  to  Addison — sees,  and 
very  naturally,  great  offence  in  the  reported  conduct  of  Addison 
and  Steele;  but  he  assures  us  that  "no  interruption  appears 
to  have  taken  place  in  the  friendly  intercourse  between  them." 
Indeed  !  then  Pope,  instead  of  being  one  of  the  most  irritable 
of  mortals  as  represented,  must  have  been  one  of  the  sweetest 
tempered.  According  to  the  published  letter,  Pope  "  offered  " 
his  pen  in  defence  of  Addison, — this  conditional  offer  the 
biographers  convert  into  act, — into  the  past  publication  of 
"  The  Narrative  of  the  Frenzy  of  J.  D.," — which,  we  are  told, 
Addison  immediately  denounced, — informed  the  publisher  of 
Dennis's  pamphlet,  and  through  him  Dennis  himself,  that 
he  "wholly  disapproved  of"  it,  —  and,  further  to  insult 
his  volunteer  defender,  employed  the  pen  of  their  friend 
Steele  as  the  instrument  of  offence.  Certainly  if  Addison 
knew  or  believed  that  Pope — the  writer  of  the  famous  Pro- 
logue to  his  "  Cato  " — had  thus  come  chivalrously  to  his 
defence — whether  wisely  or  unwisely  does  not  signify — his 
conduct  would  have  been  open  to  just  censure.  We  believe 
such  conduct  would  have  been  impossible  in  Addison. 

To  go  on  with  tins  mystery  and  mystification — is  it  not 
strange  that  no  one  of  all  the  intelligent  men  who  have  written 
on  this  subject  ever  observed,  that  in  another  of  these  letters, 
professedly  addressed  to  Addison,  Pope  "apologizes — tliat  is 
the  fact — for  writing  in  The  Guardian1! — that  he  regrets 
Steele's  political  violence,  who  about  that  time  was  unusuall}' 
fierce  against — whom  ?  Addison  and  his  Whig  friends  ?  No  ; 
against  the  Catholics  and  the  Jacobites — acknowledges  that 
such  association  had  rendered  him,  Pope,  a  suspected  Whig, 
and  says,  "  I  have  quite  done  with  them."  This  to 
Addison ! 

We  shall  be  content  to  indicate  rather  than  to  develope  the 
double-dealing  of  Pope  in  respect  to  these  letters.  Pope  has 
suffered  and  must  suffer  for  it.  lie  dug  his  garden  full  of 


102  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

pitfalls,  and  his  friends  are  always  stumbling  into  them. 
»Mr.  Thackeray,  in  his  genial  and  pleasant  paper  in  ''The 
i  Humourists,"  accuses  him  of  having  stolen  Gay's  delightful 
I  letter — giving  an  account  of  the  lovers  struck  "by  lightning — 

and  of  despatching  a  copy  to   Lady  M.  Wortley  Montagu  as 

I  if  it  were  his  own  !  It  is  quite  true  that  ;i  letter  signed  Gay, 
and  addressed  to  "  Mr.  F."  has  been  published  in  the  collection 
of  Pope's  letters. — B}r  whom  published  ? — all  are  agreed  by 
(Pope  himself.  Pope  at  that  time  was  unwilling  to  have  his 
name  associated  with  that  of  Lady  Mary — and  for  that  or  some 
other  miserable  purpose  of  mystification,  Tie  chose  that  the 
letter  should  figure  in  this  masquerade  costume.  Mr. 
Thackeraj',  unfortunately,  never  paused  to  consider  how 
Pope's  letter  of  the  6th  to  Martha  Blount  could  be  copied 
from  a  letter  which  only  professes  to  have  been  written  by 
Gay  on  the  9th  ?  These  dates  are  genuine  or  they  are  not : 
if  genuine,  they  are  conclusive  ;  if  not  genuine,  the  obvious 
inference  is,  that  Pope  meant  to  guard  against  such  possible 
inference,  by  affixing  a  date  of  the  9th  to  the  letter  he  pub- 
lished as  written  by  Gay.  How,  again,  could  a  letter  not 
written  by  Pope  nor  to  Pope  have  got  into  Pope's  possession — 
been  enshrined  in  the  two  mysterious  MS.  volumes  of  Pope's 
letters — got  into  print  through  the  same  piratical  agency,  and 
been  reproduced  in  the  authorized  edition  of  Pope's  letters  ? 
As  to  the  letter  to  Lady  Mary,  it  is  dated  the  1st  of  September, 
long  after  both  the  other  letters. 

What,  it  may  be  asked,  are  the  facts  underlying  all  this 
mystery  ?  Why  that  Pope's  early  letters  are  a  mere  manu- 
facture, dressed  up  to  suit  a  purpose.  No  such  letter  was 
written  by  Gay- — no  such  letters  were  addressed  either  to 
Addison,  or  to  Trumbull,  or  to  Craggs.  All  the  friendly 
sympathy  in  the  celebrated  and  often-quoted  letter,  which 
Warburton  tells  us  was  "  dictated  by  the  most  generous  prin- 
ciple of  friendship,"  and  which  the  cold  heart  of  Addison  was 
incapable  of  appreciating — was  just  so  much  theatrical  moon- 
shine. In  justice  to  Addison  we  WUl  give  the  genuine  letter — 
winch"  was  not  addressed  to  Addison  at  all-^aiul  the  "letter 
which  beUJPB  IliU  WWress  in  the  published  collection.  Collation 


l.J  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  103 

is  here  as  amusing  as  a  pantomime.  Note  how  deftly  Harlequin 
changes   his    coat, — how    the   figures    arrange'   themselves    in 

fresh" groups,— and  how  a  little  "  wet  "  turns  a  "  melancholy  " 
November  into  July  ! — 

The  manufactured  and  published  Letter. 

"  To  MR.  "ADDISOX. 

"  July  20,  1713. 

"  I  am  more  joy'd  at  your  return  than  I  should  Teatthat 
of  the  sun,  so  much  as  I  wish  for  him  this  melancholy/fwet 
season ;  but  'tis  his  fate  too,  like  yours,  to  be  displeasing  to 
owls  and  obscene  animals,  who  cannot  bear  his  lustre.  What 
put  me  in  mind  of  these  night-birds  was  John  Dennis,  whom, 
I  think,  you  are  best  revenged  upon,  as  the  Sun  was  in  the 
fable  upon  these  bats  and  beastly  birds  abovementioned,  only 
by  shining  on.  I  am  so  far  from  esteeming  it  any  misfortune, 
that  I  congratulate  you  upon  having  your  share  in  that,  which 
all  the  great  men  and  all  the  good  men  that  ever  lived  have 
had  their  part  of,  Envy  and  Calumny.  To  be  uncensured  and 
to  be  obscure,  is  the  same  thing.  You  may  conclude  from 
what  I  here  say,  that  'twas  never  in  my  thoughts  to  have 
offered  you  my  pen  in  any  direct  reply  to  such  a  critic,  but 
only  in  some  little  raillery ;  not  in  defence  of  you,  but  in 
contempt  of  him.*  But  indeed  your  opinion,  that  'tis  intirely 
to  be  neglected,  would  have  been  nvy  own  had  it  been  my  own 
case  ;  but  I  felt  more  warmth  here  than  I  did  when  first  I  saw 
his  book  against  myself,  (tho'  indeed  in  two  minutes  it  made 
me  heartily  merry.)  He  has  written  against  every  thing  the 
world  has  approv'd  these  many  years.  I  apprehend  but  one 
danger  from  Dennis's  disliking  our  sense,  that  it  may  make 
us  think  so  very  well  of  it,  as  to  become  proud  and  conceited, 
upon  his  disapprobation. 

"  I  must  not  here  omit  to  do  justice  to  Mr.  Gay,  whose  zeal 
in  your  concern  is  worthy  a  friend  and  honSurer  of  you.  He 
writ  to  me  in  the  most  pressing  terms  about  it,  though  with 
that  just  contempt  of  the  critic  that  he  deserves.  I  think  in 

*  ' '  This  relates  to  the  paper  occasioned  by  Dennis's  Remarks  upon  Cato, 
cull'il,  Dr.  Norm's  '  Narrative  of  the  Frenzy  of  John  Dennis.'" 


104  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [T. 

these  days  one  honest  man  is  obliged  to  acquaint  another  who 
are  his  friends ;  when  so  many  mischievous  insects  are  daily 
at  work  to  make  people  of  merit  suspicious  of  each  other ;  that 
they  may  have  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  them  look'd  upon  no 
better  than  themselves. 

"  I  am  "  Your,  &c." 

The  real  and  unpublished  Letter. 

"  BINFIELD,  Nov.  19,  1712. 

"  DEAR  SIR, — I  am  more  joy'd  at  your  return  and  nearer 
approach  to  us,  than  I  could  be  at  that  of  the  sun ;  so  much 
as  I  wish  him,  this  melancholy  season ;  and  though  he  brings 
along  with  him  all  the  pleasures  and  blessings  of  nature.  But 
'tis  his  fate  too,  like  yours,  to  be  displeasing  to  owls  and 
obscene  animals,  who  cannot  bear  his  lustre.  What  put  me 
in  mind  of  these  night-birds  was,  that  jail  bird,  the  Flying 
Post,  whom,  I  think,  you  are  best  revenged  upon,  as  the  Sun 
in  the  fable  was  upon  those  bats  and  beastly  birds  aboveuien- 
tioned,  only  by  shining  on,  by  being  honest,  and  doing  good. 
I  am  so  far  from  deeming  it  any  misfortune  to  be  impotently 
slandered,  that  I  congratulate  you  upon  having  your  share  in 
that,  which  all  the  great  men  and  all  the  good  men  that  ever 
lived  have  had  their  part  of,  Envy  and  Calumny.  To  be 
uncensured,  and  to  be  obscure  is  the  same  thing.  You  may 
conclude,  from  what  I  here  say,  that  it  was  never  in  my 
thoughts  to  offer  yon  my  poor  pen,  in  any  direct  reply  to  such 
a  scoundrel  (who,  like  Hudibras,  needs  fear  no  blows,  but  such 
as  bruise)  but  only  in  some  little  raillery ;  in  the  most  con- 
temptuous manner,  thrown  upon  him  ;  not  as  in  your  defence 
expressly,  but  as  in  scorn  of  him,  en  gaite  de  coeur.  But 
indeed,  your  opinion,  that  'tis  entirely  to  be  neglected,  would 
have  been  my  own  at  first,  had  it  been  my  own  case.  But  I 
felt  some  warmth  at  the  first  motion,  which  my  reason  could 
not  suppress  here,  (as  it  did  when  I  saw  Dennis's  book  against 
me,  which  made  me  very  heartily  merry,  in  two  minutes  time.) 
'Twas  well  for  us,  that  these  sparks'  quarrel  was  to  our  persons. 
One  does  not  like  your  looks ;  nor  t'other  my  shape.  This 
can  do  us  no  harm,  But  had  these  gentlemen  disliked  our 
sense,  or  so,  we  might  have  had  reason  to  think  so  very  well 


L]  :.  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  105 

of  our  understandings,  as  to  become  insufferably  proud  and 
conceited  upon  their  disapprobation. 

"  I  must  not  omit  here  to  do  justice  to  Mr.  Thomas  South- 
cotte,  whose  zeal  in  your  concern  was  most  worthy  a  friend  and 
honourer  of  you.  He  writ  to  me  in  the  most  pressing  terms 
about  it,  though  with  that  just  contempt  of  your  slanderer 
that  he  deserves.  I  think  that,  in  these  days,  one  honest  man 
is  obliged  to  acquaint  another  who  are  his  friends  ;  when  so 
many  mischievous  insects  are  daily  at  work  to  make  people  of 
merit  suspicious  of  each  other  ;  that  they  may  have  the  satis- 
faction of  seeing  them  looked  upon  no  better  than  them- 
selves. 

"  We  are  all  very  much  obliged  to  you,  for  the  care  of  our 
little  affair  abroad  ;  which  I  hope  you  will  have  an  account 
of;  or  else  we  may  have  great  cause  to  complain  of  Mr.  A.'s? 
or  his  correspondent's  negligence,  since  he  promis'd  my  father 
to  write  (as  he  press'd  him  to  do)  some  time  before  your  journey. 
He  has  received  the  fifth  bill ;  but  it  seems  the  interest  was 
agreed  at  51.  10s.  per  cent,  in  the  bond  ;  which  my  father  lays 
his  commands  upon  me  to  mention,  as  a  thing  he  doubts  not 
you  forgot.  I  plead  this  excuse  for  suffering  any  consideration 
so  dirty  as  that  of  money  to  have  place  in  a  letter  of  friendship, 
or  in  anything  betwixt  you  and  me. 

"  I  enclose  a  few  lines,  upon  the  subject  you  were  pleased 
to  propose,  only  to  prove  my  ready  obedience,  for  'tis  such  a 
bastard,  as  you'll  scarce,  I  fear,  be  willing  to  father ;  especially 
since  you  can  make  so  much  handsomer  things  of  your  own, 
whenever  you  please.  Some  little  circumstances,  possibly, 
may  require  alteration,  which  you  will  easily  mend.  You  see 
my  letters  are  scribbled  with  all  the  carelessness,  and  un- 
attention  imaginable ;  my  style,  like  my  soul,  appears  in  its 
natural  undress  before  my  friend.  'Tis  not  here  I  regard  the 
character  of  a  wit.  Some  people  are  wits  all  over,  to  that 
degree  that  they  are  Fools  all  over.  They  are  wits  in  the 
church, »wits  in  the  street,  wits  at  a  funeral ;  nay,  the  unman- 
nerly creatures  are  wits  before  women.  There  is  nothing  more 
wrong  than  to  appear  always  in  the  Pontificalibus  of  one's 
profession,  whatever  it  be.  There's  no  dragging  your  dignity 
about  with  you  everywhere  ;  as  if  an  Alderman  should  con- 


106  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

stantty  wear  his  chain  in  his  shop.  Mr.  Roper,  because  he  has  the 
reputation  of  keeping  the  best  pack  of  fox-hounds  in  England, 
will  visit  the  ladies  in  a  hunting  dress ;  and  1  have  known  an 
author,  who,  for  having  once  written  a  tragedy,  has  never  been 
out  of  buskins  since.  He  can  no  more  suffer  a  vulgar  phrase 
in  his  own  mouth,  than  in  a  Roman's ;  and  will  be  as  much  out 
of  countenance,  if  he  fail  of  the  true  accent  in  his  conversation, 
as  an  actor  would,  were  he  out  upon  the  stage.  For  my  part, 
there  are  some  things  I  would  be  thought,  besides  a  wit ;  as,  a 
Christian,  a  friend,  a  frank  companion,  and  a  well-mannered 
fellow,  and  so  forth ;  and,  in  particular,  I  would  be  thought, 
deai'  sir,  your  most  faithful,  and  obliged,  friend  and  servant, 

"  A.  P." 

We  are  sorry  for  the  consequence — sorry  at  the  exposure  of 
such  duplicity — sorrj*  for  the  want  of  sincerity,  honesty  and 
truthfulness  of  our  little  hero ;  but,  before  the  sensitive 
creature  is  absolutely  condemned,  let  the  reader,  as  we  said  at 
starting,  remember  his  antecedents — "religion,  country,  genius 
of  his  age," — remember  the  enforced  seclusion  of  the  forest, 
the  confiding  candour  of  youth  stifled  and  silenced  in  fear 
and  trembling,  education  stolen  in  secret,  and  the  prayer  of 
innocent  childhood  stammered  out  with  the  hesitation  of  a 
criminal, — remember  that,  from  his  birth,  he  and  his  parents 
and  all  the  loving  circle  of  his  narrow  home,  were  branded  and 
proscribed — lived,  as  he  himself  said,  "in  some  fear"  even 
"  of  a  country  justice," — remember,  in  brief,  all  the  degrading 
influences  of  Penal  Laws,  and  the  resiilt  will  be  found  general, 
not  exceptional ;  and  the  world  should  learn  from  Pope  and 
Pope's  conduct  not  to  condemn  the  individual,  but  the  system 
that  made  him  what  he  was. 

Let  the  new  editors  labour  diligently  to  clear  away  the 
mystification  of  the  past ;  and  let  us,  and  the  public,  rejoice 
over  the  hundred  and  fifty  new  and  true  letters  !  We  shall  be 
heartily  glad  to  get  them.  Pope  is  a  part  of  us  and  of  our 
greatness.  His  golden  threads  are  woven  into  the  common 
fabric  of  our  daily  life.  Nothing  real  of  such  a  man  can  come 
amiss.  Were  the  letters  five  hundred  and  fifty  we  should  have 
"  stomach  for  them  all." 


I.]  POPirs  irA777.Y'/S.  107 

We  must  now  descend  to  particulars,  and  shall  pass  at 
once  to  the  stories  told  for  a  hundred  years,  from  Ruffhead 
and  Johnson  down  to  Chalmers  and  Carruthers,  about  Pope's 
father's  money-box,  Pope's  early  "  distress,"  and  Pope's  love 
of  money — greediness  or  avarice. 

Pope's  father,  we  are  told,  was  disaffected,  he  would  not  trust 
the  Government,*  and  therefore  put  his  money  into  a  strong- 
box and  lived  on  the  principal.  Is  this  credible  ?  Think  of 
Pope's  mild,  patient,  gentle  father — 

Stranger  to  civil  and  religious  rage — 

carrying  his  disaffection  so  far  as  to  ruin  himself  and  his  loved 
son  !  Think  of  a  man  who  had  made  his  money  in  trade,  not 
knowing  how  to  invest  it,  except  in  the  Funds  !  It  is  quite 
true  that  the  Penal  Laws  were  severe, — that  Catholics  were 
much  at  the  merc}r  of  informers, — were  so  subject  to  persecu- 
tion, penalties  and  imprisonment  that  most  of  them  were 
accustomed,  in  proportion  to  their  fortune,  to  keep  money 
lying  idle,  not  because  of  their  disaffection,  but  that  they 
might  have  it  available  towards  their  escape  or  their  main- 
tenance, if  forced  to  fly  from  their  homes  or  their  country. 
Even  Pope,  whose  genius  was  a  protection,  felt  the  galling 
chain  : — "  It  is  not  for  me,"  he  said,  "  to  talk  of  it  [England] 
with  tears  in  my  eyes.  I  can  never  think  that  place  my 
country  where  I  cannot  call  a  foot  of  paternal  earth  my  own." 
It  is  equally  true  that  from  the  operation  of  these  same  laws 
the  Catholics  had  more  difficulties  than  other  people  to  find 
safe  investments  for  their  money ;  for  Catholics  were  not 
merely  compelled  to  pay  double  taxes,  but  were  forbidden  to 
buy  real  property,  or  to  take  a  mortgage  or  other  security  on 
real  property ;  and  were  thus  driven  almost  of  necessity  to 
lend  their  money  on  bond,  invest  it  in  foreign  securities,  and, 
as  we  believe,  to  speculate,  out  of  proportion  to  their  numbers 


*  Pope's  father  did,  I  think,  "trust  the  government" — that  is,  did  invest  in 
one  or  other  of  the  public  funds.  See  Pope's  letter  to  his  father  (Supp.  Vol. 
p.  150),"  I  have  sold  500""  at  100""  wch  [is  bad]  luck,  since  it  might  have  been 
sold  yesterday  and  to  day  at  101  and  a  half." 


103  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

or  their  wealth,  in  Mississippi  schemes  and  South  Sea  schemes, 
and  other  bubbles  of  the  day.  Yet  because  Pope  had  money 
so  invested, — so  invested,  as  believed,  at  the  friendly  suggestion 
of  Mr.  Secretary  Craggs,  and  after  the  example  of  half  the 
nation, — Mr.  Chalmers  infers  that  Pope  was  avaricious,*  and 
tells  us,  that  "  he  endeavoured  to  accumulate  wealth  by  risking 
his  money  on  all  kinds  of  securities."  Thus,  the  father  is 
condemned  for  ignorance  and  disaffection  because  he  did  not 
profitably  invest  his  money,  and  the  son  for  his  greed  because 
he  did  or  tried  to  do  so  ;  while  both  acted  under  the  penalties 
of  laws  which  are  put  altogether  out  of  consideration  ! 

Johnson  not  only  assumes  the  truth  of  this  story  about  the 
money-box,  but  pushes  it  to  its  legitimate  consequence,  the 
early  poverty  of  the  son, — takes  a  casual  observation  of  the 
son's,  that  he  had  at  one  time  wanted  money  to  buy  as  many 
copies  of  the  classics  as  he  required  or  desired,  as  an  ex- 
ceptional position,  as  if  every  young  man  had  not  wanted 
money  to  indulge  his  tastes,  whether  virtuous  or  vicious, — and 
concludes  with  a  rejoicing  that  the  subscription  to  Homer 
relieved  him  from  the  "  pecuniary  distress ''  against  which  he 
had  struggled.  Is  not  this  mere  exaggeration  ?  Pope's  father 
was  not  an  estated  gentleman — not  a  man  of  fortune — not  a 
man  accustomed  to  the  luxuries  or  perhaps  the  elegancies  of 
life ;  he  could  and  did 

— live  on  little,  with  a  cheerful  heart, 

— had  saved  sufficient,  as  he  believed,  for  his  own  life  and  the 
lives  of  his  children,  for  whom  he  made  early  provision, 
according  to  his  means.  The  letter  we  have  just  published 
shows  that  the  Popes  understood  well  enough  all  about 
"interest,"  and  could  calculate  it  to  a  half  per  cent.  In  June 
1713,  the  very  moment  of  time  to  which  Johnson  refers  Pope's 
"  pecuniary  distress,"  Pope  thus  wrote  to  a  friend,  though  the 
passage  does  not  appear  in  any  of  the  published  letters  : — 


*  Before  we  charge  him  with  being  avaricious  some  one  should  tell  us  what  is 
his  estate,  &c.     See  Grub  Street  Journal,  in  Savage's  Collec".    Essays,  p.  4. 


I.]  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  109 

"  I  have  a  kindness  to  beg  of  you.  That  you  would  please 
to  engage  either  your  son  or  some  other  correspondent  you  can 
depend  upon  at  Paris,  to  take  the  trouble  of  looking  himself 
'  into  the  books '  of  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  to  be  satisfied  if  our 
name  be  there  inserted  for  3,030  livres  at  10  per  cent,  life-rent 
on  Sir  Rich.  Cantillion's  life,  to  begin  Midsummer  1705. 
And  again  in  my  father's  name  for  my  life,  for  5,520  livres  at 
10  per  cent.,  to  begin  July,  1707." 

In  1713-14  Pope's  father  became  alarmed  at  the  state  of  the 
French  finances,  and  some  proposed  changes,  and  the  son 
wrote  again  and  anxiously  about  certain  other  French  securities 
in  which  his  father  had  invested  money.  Long  before  this, 
Pope's  father  had  money  out  on  bond  in  England, — and  the 
bond  was  not  cancelled  for  nearly  twenty  years. 

It  is  possible,  and  indeed  not  improbable,  that  at  or  about 
this  time  the  Popes  suffered  some  loss,  or  that  the  payment  of 
the  interest  of  their  French  investments  was  deferred.  Pope 
himself  said,  on  the  death  of  his  father, — "  he  has  left  me  to 
the  ticklish  management  of  so  narroAv  a  fortune,  that  any  one 
false  step  would  be  fatal."  But  Pope's  father,  as  we  have 
shown,  had  secured  to  his  son  an  annuity  registered  at  the 
Hotel  de  Ville — had  invested  money  for  his  benefit  in  other 
French  securities — had  lent  money  on  interest  011  the  bonds  of 
more  than  one  Englishman — and  by  will,  dated  the  9th  of 
February,  1710,  after  some  other  bequests,  he  left  to  "his 
dear  son  and  only  heir,"  all  the  rest  of  his  property,  real  and 
personal,  "  but  more  especially  his  yearly  rent-charge  upon 
Mr.  Chapman's  estate,  the  manor  of  Huston,  in  the  county  of 
York,  and  his  lands  and  tenements  at  Binfield,  in  the  county 
of  Berks,  and  "Windsham  [Windlesham] ,  in  the  county  of 
Surrey."*  Pope's  fortune  may  have  required  careful  manage- 
ment; but  with  his  independent  spirit,  he  was  surely  far  above 
"  pecuniary  distress."  But  Pope  was  writing  to  a  gentleman 
of  "large  acres,"  to  whom  any  fortune  which  the  retired 
tradesman  might  have  left  would  have  appeared  "narrow;" 

*  Pope  also,  when  he  died  in  1744,  held  a  bond  for  £200,  given  in  1714.     See 
Carr.  Life,  2nd  edit.  p.  456. 


110  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

and  Pope  himself,  be  it  remembered,  was  now  become  the 
habitual  associate  of  such  men,  and  was  therefore,  probably, 
made  to  feel  what  neither  he  himself  nor  his  father  had  felt 
before.  We  will  only  further  observe,  as  curious,  that  at  the 

I  very  time  when  Johnson  speaks  of  Pope's  "pecuniary  distress," 
Pope  was  writing  to  inquire  about  the  French  investments  : 
and  when,  according  to  the  report  of  others,  he  was  revelling 
in  the  Homer  subscriptions,  had  just  bought  his  villa,  and  was 
busy  in  building,  adorning,  and  entertaining  "illustrious 
friends  "  with  "  polished  hospitality,"  we  hear  from  Pope  him- 
self— in  an  easy  gossiping  way — the  first  whisper  about  narrow 
fortune. 

Johnson  and  others  throughout  argue  under  the  misappre- 
hension that  Pope's  whole  dependence  was  on  "  public  appro- 
bation." Pope  was  in  no  such  position ; — we  mean  no  disrespect 
to  those  who  are  or  have  been,  for  the  class  includes  many  of 
whom  a  nation  has  reason  to  be  proud.  But,  thanks  to  his 
father,  Pope's  fortune  was  enough  to  place  him  above  depen- 
dence.*" No  matter  what  was  the  amount  of  his  patrimony, 

*  We  find  also  in  Hearne  a  reference  to  the  fortune  of  the  elder  Pope,  which 
agrees  with  our  conjectures.  Hearne  evidently  wrote  on  the  authority  of  Berk- 
shire Catholics,  with  whom  he  was  acquainted  and  at  whose  houses  he  visited  : — 

"  1718,  Dec.  17-  Mr.  Robert  Eyston  tells  me,  that  sir  Robert  Throgmorton  is 
a  man  of  about  5000  libs,  per  annum  at  least.  This  sir  Robert  Throgmorton, 
who  hath  one  seat  at  Bucklands,  near  Farindon,  Berks,  is  a  Roman  catholick, 
and  a  very  worthy  man.  He  hath  more  than  once  sent  for  me  to  come  over  to 
him  at  Bucklands.  The  person  told  h:'m,  that  1  could  not  ride.  '  1  will  send 
(says  he)  a  coach  and  six  for  him. '  But  he  can  ride  no  way,  says  the  person  :  he 
always  walks.  '  Why  the  duce  is  in  it,  (says  sir  Robert ;)  so  all  antiquaries  use 
to  do.  I  have  known  several,  and  they  have  all  walked,  Antony  Wood  not 
excepted.  They  are  men  that  love  to  m<ike  remarks,  and  they  prefer  walking  to 
riding  upon  that  account.'  Mr.  Eyston  mentioned  Mr.  Pope,  the  translator  of 
Homer,  as  a  man  of  about  30  years  of  age,  and  of  about  three  or  four  hundred 
libs,  per  an.  left  by  his  father,  of  Biufield,  Berks." 

Three  or  four  hundred  a  year  was  a  handsome  fortune  for  a  retired  tradesman 
to  leave  to  his  son  one  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago.  The  elder  Mr.  Pope  also  left 
a  widow,  and  had  already  given  a  fortune  to  his  daughter  on  her  marriage.  That 
Mrs.  Rackett  was  Mr.  Pope's  daughter  by  a  former  marriage  has  been  con- 
jectured, but  never  proved.  It  is  a  fact,  however,  capable  of  proof  :  enough  at 
present  if  we  refer  to  the  account  of  Mrs.  Pope's  death,  obviously  written  by 
Pope  and  published  at  the  time  in  the  Grub  Street  Journal,  to  which  he  was  an 
acknowledged  contributor,  but  overlooked  by  all  the  biographers,  —where  it  is 
said  "she  lived  with  her  son  (Itcr  only  child)  from  the  time  of  his  birth  to  her 
death." — Athetuxum,  1857. 


I.J  POPE'S    WRITIKii*.  Ill 

his  spirit  was  independent,  and  he  resolved,  from  the  first,  to 
limit  his  desires  to  his  means  ;  as  he  told  Lord  Halifax  when 
offered  patronage  and  a  pension — "All  the  "Difference  I  see 
between  an  easy  fortune  and  a  small  one,'7  is~T)efween~Tiving 
"  agreeably  in  the  town  or  contentedly  in  the  country."  No 
doubt  the  splendid  subscription  to  his  Homer  enabled  him  to 
live,  as  he  desired,  "agreeably"  in  "  the  country,"  and  where 
he  pleased,  at  Twickenham  ;  it  enabled  him  "  to  buy  books  ;  " 
to  indulge  a  refined  taste  ;  to  surround  himself  witn  objects 
curious  or  beautiful ;  to  cultivate  his  garden,  and  fit  up  his 
grotto  without  anxious  consideration  of  cost ;  to  indulge  in  a 
hundred  little  luxuries  almost  needful  to  his  delicate  health  and 
delicate  body ;  to  entertain,  without  ostentation,  but  with  that 
easy  elegance  which  all  cultivated  men  naturally  desire,  the 
choice  friends  with  whom  his  genius  had  surrounded  him  ; 
and,  what  to  Pope  was  the  greatest  luxury  of  all,  to  aid  and 
help  those  friends  he  loved.  Pope  greedy  of  money  !  AYhy 
Johnson  admits  that  he  gave  away  an  eighth  part  of  his  in- 
come; and  where  is  the  man,  making  no  ostentatious  profession 
of  benevolence — subscribing  to  no  charities,  as  they  are  called, 
or  few — standing  in  no  responsible  position  before  the  world, 
which  indeed  he  rather  scorned  than  courted,  of  whom  the  same 
can  be  said  ?  Pope,  we  suspect,  with  all  his  magnificent  sub- 
scriptions, did  not  leave  behind  liim  so  much  as  he  had  received 
from  his  father.  His  pleasure  was  in  scattering,  not  in  hoard- 
ing, and  that  on  others  rather  than  on  himself.  He  was 
generous  to  the  Blounts ;  and  because  one  proof  has  accicleht- 
alty'ftecomeTmbwnV'it  has  been  winged  with  scandal ; — he  was 
generous  to  his  half-sister, — generous  to  her  sons, — generous 
to  Dodsley,  then  struggling  into  business, — nobly  generous 
to  Savage ;  for  though  the  weakness  and  the  vice  of 'Savage 
compelled  Pope  to  break  off  personal  intercourse,  he  never 
deserted  him.  These  facts  were  known  to  his  biographers ; 
and  we  could  add  a  bead-roll  of  like  noble  actions,  but  that  it 
would  be  beside  our  purpose  and  our  limits.  Pope,  indeed, 
was  generous  to  all  who  approached  him ;  and  {hoTiglTTiis 
bodily  weakness  and  sufferings  made  him  a  troublesome  visitor, 
especially  to  servants, — though  one  of  Lord  Oxford's  said  that, 


112  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

"  in  the  dreadful  winter  of  forty,  she  was  called  from  her  bed 
by  him  four  times  in  one  night,"  yet  this  same  servant  de- 
clared, "that  in  a  house  where  her  business  was  to  answer 
his  call,  she  would  not  ask  for  wages."  TVTiat  more  could  be 
told  of  the  habitual  liberality  of  a  man  who  never  possessed 
more  than  a  few  hundreds  a  year  ?  It  startled  persons  accus- 
tomed to  the  munificence  of  the  noble  and  the  wealthy. 

The  exact  amount  of  Pope's  income  is  not  known.  Johnson 
says  eight  hundred  a  year  ;  and  that  "  the  estate  of  the  Duke  of 
Buckingham  was  found  to  have  been  charged  with  five  hundred 
pounds  a  year,  payable  to  Pope,  which  doubtless  his  translation 
enabled  him  to  purchase."  We  doubt  the  "doubtless."  Few  men 
underrate  their  income;  and  Pope  said  incidentally  to  Spence, 
when  speaking  of  another,*  "  The  man  will  never  be  contented, 
he  has  already  twice  as  much  as  I,  for  I  am  told  he  has  a  good 
thousand  pounds  a  year."  Mrs.  Rackett,  Pope's  half-sister, 
said  of  him,  "  'Tis  most  certain  that  nobody  "everToveJ  money 
so  little  as  my  brother."  Martha  Blount  confirmed  this  : 
"  He^ever TmcT~any  love  for  money;  and  though  he  was  not 
extravagant  in  anything,  he  always  delighted,  when  he  had  any 
sum  to  spare,  to  make  use  of  it  in  giving,  lending,  building,  and 
gardening,  for  these  were  the  ways  in  which  he  disposed  of  all 
the  overplus  of  his  income."  Pope  himself  said,  "  I  never 
save  anything  ;  unless  I  meet  with  such  a  pressing  case,  as  is 
absolute  demand  upon  me.  Then  I  retrench  fifty  pounds  or  so 
from  my  own  expenses.  As  for  instance,  had  such  a  thing 
happened  this  year,  I  would  not  have  built  my  two  summer 
houses." 

Pope  was  never  rich — never  poor,  for  no  man  is  poor  who  is 
independent.  He  had  active  and  liberal  friends  in  both  parties, 
and  might  have  profited  by  their  generous  intentions.  Oxford, 
when  Minister,  hinted  at  a  place,  the  state  of  his  health,  and 
the  convenience  of  keeping  a  coach.  A  "  place  "  Pope  could 
not  have  held  without  renouncing  his  religion, — not,  therefore, 
without  giving  "  pain  to  his  parents,"  which  he  said,  "  I  would 

*  Swift,  after  staying  with  Pope  for  four  months  in  1727,  thus  wrote  to  invite 
him  to  Ireland — "  Did  you  ever  consider  that  I  am  for  life  almost  twice  as  rich 
as  you  are  ?  "— lietter  of  Oct.  30,  1727. 


I.J  POPE'S  WHITINGS.  113 

not  have  given  to  either  of  them,  for  all  the  places  he  could 
have  bestowed  on  me," — and  he  proved  the  truth  of  the 
assertion  by  his  whole  devoted  life  ;  and  consoled  himself  with 
"liberty,  without  a  coach."  Pope,  indeed,  doubted  whether 
he  had  much  talent  for  active  life.  "  Contemplative  life,"  he 
said,  "  is  not  only  my  scene,  but  it  is  my  habit  too." 

Halifax,  also,  as  we  have  mentioned,  offered  him  a  pension, 
and  assured  him  that  "nothing  should  be  demanded  in  return." 
Johnson's  comment  on  this,  as  observed  by  Roscoe,  is  harsh 
and  supercilious,  and  unjust  to  both  parties.  His  personal 
and  beloved  friend  Craggs  also  offered  him  a  pension,— a 
pension"  too,  out  of  the  secret- service  money,  and  which, 
therefore,  would  not  have  been  known  while  Trails,  at  least, 
continued  in  office.  Pope_ declined,  adding,  however,  hearty 
thanks, — and,  in  proof  that  he  was  not  unwilling  to  receive 
favours  from  a  friend,  told  him  that  if  he  ever  wanted  a  hundred, 
or  even  five  hundred,  pounds,  he  would  apply  to  him  personally ; 
—but  Pope  never  did  and  never  meant  to  apply.  Swift  more 
than  once  was  active  in  recommending  Pope  for  a  pension.  Pope 
was  sensible  of  the  kindness,  but  earnestly  remonstrated — "I 
was  once  before,"  he  wrote,  "  displeased  with  you  for  com- 
plaining to  Mr. of  my  not  having  a  pension.  I  am  so 

again.  *  *  I  have  given  proof  in  the  course  of  my  life, 
from  the  time  that  I  was  in  the  friendship  of  Lord  Bolingbroke 
and  Mr.  Craggs  even  to  this  time,  when  I  am  civilly  treated 
by  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  that  I  never  thought  nryself  so  warm 
in  any  party's  cause  as  to  deserve  their  money, — and,  therefore, 
never  would  have  accepted  it." 

As  to  the  purchase  of  an  annuity  of  five  hundred  a  year  out  of 
the  subscriptions  to  Homer,  Ruff  head,  we  suppose,  alludes  to  the 
same  story.  Pope,  he  tells  us,  regretted  the  "undistinguished 
choice  of  friends  in  his  youth,"  and  in  illustration  says,  "in 
those  times"  Arbuthnot  asked  him  "what  makes  you  so 
frequent  with  John  of  Bucks  ?  He  knows  you  have  got  money 
by  Homer,  and  he  wants  to  cheat  you  out  of  it."  This  sus- 
picion, adds  the  biographer,  was,  "in  the  opinion  of  some, 
thought  to  have  been  warranted,  by  his  persuading  the  poet  to 
buy  an  annuity  of  him  when,  in  the  general  opinion,  there  was 

VOL.  I.  I 


114  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

not  the  least  "probability  that  he  could  survive  his  youth." 
Perhaps  not, — yet  still  he  might  have  survived  Buckingham, 
for  Buckingham  was  about  forty  years  old  when  Pope  was  born  ; 
and  under  such  circumstances  that  Buckingham  should  have 
speculated  on  benefits  to  result  from  survivorship  is  somewhat 
improbable.  It  is  true,  as  Johnson  supposed,  that  Pope  had 
too  much  discretion  to  squander  away  his  subscription-money ; 
certain  that  he  did  endeavour  to  sink  it  in  an  annuity ;  certain 
that  he  himself  calculated  on  "  some  advantage "  from  the 
state  of  his  health.  Thus  he  wrote  from  Binfield,  and  there- 
fore early  in  1716,  about  the  time  of  the  publication  of  the 
second  volume  of  Homer : — 

"  I  have  a  little  affair  of  business  to  add  to  this  letter.  You 
would  oblige  me  if  you  knew  any  secure  estate  on  which  I 
might  purchase  an  annuity  for  life  of  about  5001.  I  believe 
my  unfortunate  state  of  health  might,  in  this  one  case,  be  of 
some  advantage  to  me.  The  kind  interest  which  I  know  you 
always  take  in  my  fortunes  gives  me  reason  to  think  such  an 
inquiry  will  be  no  trouble  to  you." 

The  disposable  money  soon  rose  to  a  thousand ;  and  on 
22nd  August,  1717,  he  had  more  than  double  that  sum  at  his 
command,  and  thus  wrote  to  the  same  friend  : — 

"  The  question  I  lately  begged  you  to  ask  concerning  any 
person  who  would  be  willing  to  take  a  thousand  pound  to  give 
an  annuity  for  life,  is  what  I  may  extend  further,  to  2,OOOZ. 
in  proportion ;  and  what  I  shall  look  upon  as  a  most  particular 
favour.  It  is  possible  some  that  would  not  care  to  take  up  a 
smaller  sum  might  engage  for  a  more  considerable  one,  so  that 
I  could  undertake  for  either  one,  two,  or  between  two  and  three 
thousand  pounds,  as  they  might  have  inclination." 

It  is" possible,  of  course,  that  "John  of  Bucks"  may  have 
had  some  of  this  money;  but  here  we  see  Pope  straining 
every  resource  to  increase  the  available  amount;  and  yet, 
towards  the  close  of  1717,  he  could  not  collect  together  one 
half  the  sum  required  to  purchase  an  annuity  of  500Z.  a  year : 


I.]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  115 

and  Buckingham  died  (1720)  before  the  subscription  was 
opened  for  the  '  Odyssey.'  We  conclude,  therefore,  that  this 
story  about  the  500£.*  a  year,  secured  on  the  estate  of  the 
Duke,  is  either  a  fiction  or  an  exaggeration,  or  Pope  must 
have  inherited  from  his  father  a  much  larger  fortune  than  we 
have  supposed — a  fortune  that  removed  him  far  indeed  from 
"  the  pecuniary  distress "  to  which  Johnson  refers.  Both 
stories  cannot,  we  think,  be  true.  Yet  both  would  not  include 
the  whole  of  his  fortune — for  we  know  that  he  had  money  in 
French  securities,!  and  on  the  bonds  of  more  than  one 
Englishman,  and  we  have  no  reason  to  doubt  that  he  still  held 
the  "  yearly  rent-charge  upon  Mr.  Chapman's  estate,"  and  the 
"  lands  and  tenements  at  Windsham ;  "  and  as  his  biographers 
tell  us  that,  tempted  by  his  avaricious  greediness,  he  was 
nearly  ruined  in  the  South  Sea  scheme,  Pope  must  have  had 
a  good  round  available  sum  remaining  over  and  above  all  his 
investments  !  Pope  himself,  indeed,  as  we  have  shown,  speaks 
more  modestly  of  his  fortune  about  that  time ;  and  as  to  the 
South  Sea  affair,  he  himself  acknowledged  that  he  lost  by  it- 
was  one  of  those  who  lost  "half  of  what  they  imarjined  they 
had  gained." 

Johnson,  not  content  with  starting  Pope  as  a  beggar,  mounts 
him  on  horseback  in  middle  age,  and  tells  us  that  he  talked 
too  much  "  of  his  money."  Johnson  fortunately  adds,  what 
may  help  to  an  interpretation — "  in  his  letters  and  in  his 
poems,  his  garden  and  his  grotto,  his  quincunx  and  his  vines, 
some  hints  of  his  opulence  are  always  to  be  found."  Why  it 
were  as  reasonable  to  prefer  a  like  charge  against  other  men, 
because  in  their  letters  they  make  mention  of  their  wives  and 
children.  To  Pope,  whose  whole  life  was  but  prolonged 
suffering,  his  garden,  his  grotto,  his  quincunx,  and  his  vines, 

*  Cunningham  (Johnson's  Lives,  iii.  31)  corrects  Johnson,  and  says  it  was 
£200  a  year,  and  that  the  deed  was  once  in  possession  of  Sir  John  Hawkins. 
Qi/.  The  Duke  at  all — Qy.  The  Duchess,  of  whom  he  bought  an  annuity  in 
1728.  See  (MS. )  Letter  to  Bathurst,  7  NOT. 

t  Still  held  1  June,  1719.  "I  recd  yours  with  ye  enclosed  Bill  on  Ld  Moly- 
neux  for  400  livres,  but  *  *  the  sum  is  too  small  to  be  worth  much  trouble,  and 
therefore  if  you  would  remit  both  this  and  ye  year  of  ye  Life-rent  together,  by  a 
Bill,"  &c.  Supp.  Vol.  123. 

i  2 


116  PAPEPS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

were  wife  and  children — everything.  Only  a  twelvemonth 
before  he  died  he  thus  wrote — 'TI  have  lived  much  by  myself 
of  late,  partly  through  ill  health,  and  partly  to  amuse  myself 
with  little  improvements  in  my  garden  and  house,  to  which 
possibly  I  shall  (if  I  live)  be  much  more  confined  " — yet  so  little 
thought  had  he  "of  his  money"  or  money's  worth,  that  he  was 
then  dying  and  knew  it,  and  knew  that  on  his  death  garden 
and  house  and  quincunxes  and  vines  would  all  pass  away  to 
strangers. 

Next  to  this  delight  in  his  "  possessions,"  says  Johnson, 
Pope  loved  to  commemorate  "the  men  of  high  rank  with  whom 
he  was  acquainted."  Here,  as  before,  the  usual  balancing  of 
the  sentence  neutralizes  the  censure ;  for  Pope,  he  adds, 
"never  set  genius  to  sale ;  he  never  flattered  those  he  did  not  love, 
or  praised  those  whom  he  clicl  not  esteem  " — and  he  dedicated 
his  great  work  the  '  Iliad,'  not  to  a  man  of  high  rank,  but  to  a 
literary  fellow -LiTTdurer — to  Congreve.  So  far  indeed  was  Pope 
from  seeking  Lords  for  his  acquaintance,  that  those  he  did 
know  sought  him  ;  and  those  who  sought  him  were"  amongst 
the  most  distinguished  and  intellectual  men  of  his  age.  "Was 
he  toTgfuse  such  associates — was  he  to  refuse  such  testimony 
to  his  worth — such  worshippers  of  his  genius — because  they 
were  men  of  distinguished  rank  and  high  position  ?  To  Pope, 
more  than  to  any  other  man,  literature  is  indebted  for  its  in- 
dependent position  : — he  found  it  servile  and  base,  and  he 
jj  made  it  free.  We  must  not,  in  our  conscious  independence, 
forget  what  was  its  position  when  Pope  first  appeared — in  the 
days  of  Dryden  and  dedications — Dryden  the  man  of  high 
family,  and  Pope  the  little  tradesman's  son, — contemporaries 

I  in  one  sense,  yet  separated  to  an  immeasurable  distance  when 
judged  by  their  literary  position.  Pope's  dedications  were  to 
his  personal  friends, — for  kindness  and  courtesies  received,  not 
for  favours  humbly  sought  and  condescendingly  given, — ex- 
pressions of  feeling  to  individuals,  not  to  a  class, — for  against 
the  class,  it  has  been  urged,  he  was  somewhat  eager  and  osten- 
tatious in  expressing  his  "  scorn."  Pope  loved  the  great  in 
intellect  before  the  great  in  rank, — his  bosom  friends  were 
(lay  and  Swift,  and  Arbuthnot  and  Bolingbroke,  and  other  the 


I.]  ruPE'ti   WHITISH*.  117 

master  spirits  of  the  age.  He  was  never  weary  of  service  to 
such  men  when  opportunity  offered,  or  in  expression  of  his 
love  and  admiration  at  all  times.  While  yet  a  boy  he  sought  to 
gratify  the  cravings  of  his  young  ambition  by  a  sight — a  sight 
only — of  John  Dryden  :  — he  thought  it  "  a  great  satisfaction  " 
at  sixteen  "  to  converse  "  with  Wycherley.  He  loved  those  who 
were  great  in  rank  only  in  proportion  to  their  genius  and  their 
worth  ;  and  whatever  Johnson  may  have  said  to  the  contrary, 
Burlington,  and  Bolingbroke,  and  Cobham  were  more  dis- 
tinguished and  distinguishable  than  the  amiable  Bathurst, 
whom  Johnson  admits  to  have  been  worthy  the  honour  of  the 
dedication  ;  in  which  he  now  lives. 

Here  then  are,  doubtless,  some  of  the  "  many  errors  of 
previous  biographers"  which,  the  labours  of  Messrs.  Croker 
and  Cunningham  will  correct.  We  may  notice  others  next 
week. 


[Second  Article.] 

THE  publication  of  Spence's  '  Anecdotes  '  has  enabled  sub- 
sequent biographers  to  correct  some  6F  the  errors  into  which 
Johnson  fell — fell  even  though  he  had  the  use  of  Spence's 
manuscripts.  Thus  we  now  know  that  Deane  was  not  the 
priest  in  the  Forest  to  whom  Pope  was  indebted  for  a  few 
months'  instruction,  but  his  bondjide  schoolmaster,  with  whom 
he  resided  in  Marylebone  and  subsequently  at  Hyde  Park 
Corner.  It  was  while  with  Deane  that  Pope,  though  a  mere 
child,  frequented  the  theatre,  and  wrote  or  compiled  the  drama 
which  his  schoolfellows  performed  with  the  assistance  of  th@ 
gardener. 

Johnson  observes  that,  "of  a  youth  so  successfully  employed 
and  so  conspicuously  improved,  a  minute  account  may  be 
naturally  desired ;  " — yet  Johnson  tells  us  nothing  about 
Deane,  who  was  remarkable  not  only  in  connexion  with  Pope, 
but,  in  a  small  way,  for  his  own  fate  and  fortune.  Subsequent 
biographers  are  equally  silent,  until  we  arrive  at  Mr.  Carruthers, 
who  reminds  us,  from  Ayre,  that  Deane  was  "  a  Catholic  con-. 


118  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

vert."  Converts,  Catholic  or  Protestant,  are  not  so  rare  as  to 
excite  interest  or  attention ;  but  from  a  few  words  of  Ayre's, 
not  quoted  by  Mr.  Carruthers,  the  reader  would  learn  that 
Deane*  had  been  a  Fellow  of  University  College,  Oxford  ;  and 
on  turning  to  the  '  Athena?  Oxonienses,'  that  this  obscure 
master  of  Pope  was  an  old  historical  acquaintance ;  the 
"  creature  and  convert,"  as  Wood  calls  him,  of  Obadiah  Walker, 
and  one  of  those  Fellows  of  University  College,  deprived — 
declared  "  non-socius  " — after  the  Revolution.  All  circum- 
stances tend  to  show  that  Deane  was  a  weak,  vain  man,  but 
certainly  honest.  Curious  that  his  first  appearance,  so  far  as 
we  know,  was  in  a  reply  to  Pope's  friend  Atterbury ;  and  that 
thirty  years  after,  when  the  one  was  struggling  on  in  the  depths 
of  poverty  and  the  other  had  risen  to  be  a  bishop,  they  were 
fighting  side  by  side  in  favour  of  the  House  of  Stuart.  Wood 
says,  Deane  was  "  a  good  tutor  in  the  College  " — Pope,  that 
he  was  a  bad  tutor  out  of  it,  for  he  nearly  forgot  under  him 
what  he  had  learnt  before ;  and  all  the  acquisition  he  made 
was  "to  be  able  to  construe  a  little  of  Tully's  Offices." 
Deane's  great  zeal  outran  his  little  discretion ;  his  weak  head 
was  intent  on  controversy  and  revolutionary  projects  rather 
than  on  the  dull  duties  of  a  schoolmaster.  Deane  was  often 
in  prison,  and  Wood  says,  that  in  1691  he  stood  in  the  pillory 
under  the  name  of  Thomas  Franks.  He  was  for  years  a 
pensioner  on  the  Catholic  party,  and  on  his  scholars.  About 
1727,  Deane  is  mentioned  in  an  unpublished  letter  of  Pope's, 
— and  still  we  find  him  in  prison. 

"  The  subject  of  the  letter  which  miscarry'd,  was  Mr.  Dean, 
my  old  master,  who  had  writ  me  one  whereby  I  perceiv'd  his 
head  happy  in  the  highest  self-opinion,  whatever  became  of  his 
Bod}r.  And  hereupon  writ  you  a  dissertation  proving  it  better 
for  him  to  remain  a  Prisoner  than  to  have  his  liberty.  I 
show'd  that  self-conceit  is  the  same  with  respect  to  the 
Philosopher,  as  a  good  Conscience  to  a  Religious  Man,  a 

*  There  is  in  the  Collectanea  Curiosa,  i.  287,  a  copy  of  the  Dispensation 
granted  by  James  in  May,  1686,  to  Walker,  Boyse,  Thomas  Deane,  and  J. 
Bernard,  to  absent  themselves  from  church,  &c. 


I.J  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  119 

Perpetual  Feast,  &c.  But  to  be  serious,  I've  told  Mr.  Webb 
that  I  will  contribute  with  Lord  Dormer  and  you  in  what 
manner  you  shall  agree  to  think  most  effectual  for  his  relief. 
My  own  judgement  indeed  is,  that  giving  him  a  small  yearly 
pension  among  us  and  others,  even  where  he  is,  would  keep 
him  out  of  harms-way ;  which  writing  and  publishing  of  Books 
may  bring  him  into.  And  that  I  find  to  be  the  project  that 
bites  him.  He  was  all  his  life  a  Dupe  to  some  project  or 
other." 

A  newspaper,  which  ought  to  be  well  informed  on  the 
subject,  has  just  aroused  public  attention  by  the  announce- 
ment that — "  a  choice  literary  treasure  has  turned  up,  and  is 
now  in  Mr.  Wilson  Croker's  hands,"  an  unpublished  character 
in  verse,  by  Pope,  of  Maiiborough,  intended  for  insertion  in 
the  Moral  Essays — a  companion  portrait,  no  doubt,  to  Atossa. 
The  Fact  is  of  interest  in  itself,  and  of  interest  in  so  far  as  it 
will  compel  the  new  Editors  to  be  a  little  more  intelligible 
than  their  predecessors  in  respect  to  the  asserted  bribe  of  a 
thousand  pounds,  given  by  the  Duchess  for~suppression.  The 
public,"  however,  must  wait  the  publication  of  the  new  edition, 
equally  for  the  "  character  "  and  the  explanation.  Meanwhile, 
we  have  "  a  choice  literary  treasure  "  of  our  own, — and  may 
as  well  publish  it  before  we  take  leave  of  Pope's  school-boy 
life. 

Pope  has  himself  told  us  that  he  "  lisp'd  in  numbers."  We 
have,  indeed,  one  poem — the  Ode  to  "Holitude — which  Pope 
said  in  a  letter  to  Cromwell  was  written  when  he  was  not 
twelve  years  old.  Dodsley,  however,  who  was  intimate  with 
and  indebted  to  Pope,  mentioned  that  he  had  seen  several 
pieces  of  an  earlier  date, — and  it  is  possible  that  the  following 
may  have  been  one  of  them,  although  according  to  the  literal 
interpretation  of  the  words  of  the  poet  prefixed,  it  must  rank 
the  second  of  his  known  works.  The  copy  before  us  is  in  that 
beautiful  print  hand,  with  copying  which  Pope  all  his  life  occa- 
sionally amused  himself — 


120  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

A  PARAPHRASE  ON  THOMAS  A  KEMPIS  ;  L,  3,  C,  2. 
Done  by  the  Author  at  12  years  old. 

SPEAK,  Gracious  Lord,  oh  speak  ;  thy  Servant  hears  : 

For  I'm  thy  Servant,  and  I'll  still  be  so  : 
Speak  words  of  Comfort  in  my  willing  Ears  ; 

And  since  my  Tongue  is  in  thy  praises  slow, 
And  sine*  that  thine  all  Rhetorick  exceeds  ; 
Speak  thou  in  words,  but  let  me  speak  in  deeds  ! 

Nor  speak  alone,  but  give  me  grace  to  hear 

"What  thy  ccelestial  Sweetness  does  impart ; 
Let  it  not  stop  when  entred  at  the  Ear 

But  sink,  and  take  deep  rooting  in  my  heart. 
As  the  parch'd  Earth  drinks  Rain  (but  grace  afford) 
"With  such  a  Gust  will  I  receive  thy  word. 

Nor  with,  the  Israelites  shall  I  desire 

Thy  heav'nly  word  by  Moses  to  receive, 
Lest  I  should  die  :  but  Thou  who  didst  inspire 

Moses  himself,  speak  thou,  that  I  may  live. 
Rather  with  Samuel  I  beseech  with  tears 
Speak,  gracious  Lord,  oh  speak  ;  thy  Servant  hears, 

Moses  indeed  may  say  the  words,  but  Thou 

Must  give  the  Spirit,  and  the  Life  inspire  ; 
Our  Love  to  thee  his  fervent  Breath  may  blow, 

But  'tis  thyself  alone  can  give  the  fire  : 
Thou  without  them  may'st  speak  and  profit  too  ; 
But  without  thee,  what  could  the  Prophets  do  ? 

They  preach  the  Doctrine,  but  thou  mak'st  us  do  't  j 
They  teach  the  misteries  thou  dost  open  lay  ; 

The  trees  they  water,  but  thou  giv'st  the  fruit ; 
They  to  Salvation  show  the  arduous  way, 

But  none  but  you  can  give  us  Strength  to  walk  ; 

You  give  the  Practise,  they  but  give  the  Talk. 

Let  them  be  Silent  then  ;  and  thou  alone 
(My  God)  speak  comfort  to  my  ravish'd  ears ; 

Light  of  my  eyes,  my  Consolation, 

Speak  when  thou  wilt,  for  still  thy  Servant  hears. 

What-ere  thou  speak'st,  let  this  be  understood : 

Thy  greater  Glory,  and  my  greater  Good  ! 

Respecting  what  Pope  calls  "  one  of  the  grand  eras  of  niy 
days  " — his  removal  from  the  Forest  — all  the  biographers  are 
agreed.  Ayre,  a  contemporary,  tells  us,  that  from  Windsor 
Forest  Pope  "  moved  to  Twickenham  for  the  remainder  of  his 
days  " — Johnson,  that,  "  having  persuaded  his  father  to  sell 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS  121 

their  estate  at  Biiifield,"  he  purchased  "  that  house  at  Twick- 
enham, to  which  his  residence  afterwards  procured  so  much 
celebration,  and  removed  thither  with  his  father  and  mother ;  " 
and  there,  in  1717,  his  father  died,  "  having  passed  twenty- 
nine  years  in  privacy."  Warton  follows  Johnson  pretty  much 
as  a  matter  of  course.  Roscoe  is  a  little  more  circumstantial ; 
and  adds,  that  Pope's  mother  "  was  buried  at  Twickenham,  in 
the  same  vault  with  his  father."  Bowles  illustrates  with  facts 
and  circumstances  ;  but  seems  to  suggest  a  doubt  as  to  the 
privacy  of  the  latter  years  of  old  Mr.  Pope's  life,  for  he  tells 
us,  that  Pope  was  now 

"surrounded  by  illustrious  friends;  possessed  of  fortune 
sufficient  to  enable  him  to  receive  with  polished  hospitality, 
those  whom  he  selected  and  loved,  in  a  new  and  not  inelegant 
mansion  of  his  own  design,  surrounded  by  land,  on  which  he 
might  employ  his  taste  and  skill  in  rural  decoration,  which, 
next  to  poetry,  was  his  favorite  pursuit.  The  sunshine  of 
these  enjoyments  were  now  for  a  while  suddenly  clouded,  by 
the  death  of  his  father,  1717,  in  the  seventy-fifth  year  of  his 
age ;  who  survived  the  removal  from  the  Forest  only  two 
years." 

Yet  all  the  authority  of  all  the  biographers,  strengthened  by 
more  than  a  century  of  agreement,  cannot  shake  our  faith  in 
our  own  eyes  and  the  parish  register.  Pope,  when  he  left  the 
Forest,  did-,  as  Mr.  Bowles  says,  arise  "  among  the  Swans  of 
Thames ;  "  but  it  was  at  Chiswick,*  not  at  Twickenham — at 
"  Mawson's  New  Buildings  at  Chiswick  " — and  there  he  and 
his  father  and  mother  lived  quietly  and  contentedly  we  doubt 
not, — and  there  the  father  died, — and  there,  at  Chiswick, 
according  to  the  register,  was  buried  on — 

"  26th  Octo.,  1717,  Mr.  Alexander  Pope." 
Strange  that,  in  more  than  one  hundred  years,  not  one  of  all 

*  Dennis,  in  his  "  Remarks  "  on  the  Dunciad  (1729),  p.  20,  says,  "  P.  talks 
of  Taylor  the  water-poet  :  but  *  *  P.  is  properly  the  water-poet  who  has  water 
language,  which  he  seems  to  have  lived  so  many  years  at  Chiswick  and  Twicken- 
ham on  purpose  to  learn  from  his  daily  transitory  masters  the  scullers. " 


122  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

Pope's  biographers  should  have  taken  the  trouble  to  test  a 
story  which  numberless  circumstances  made  improbable.  In 
further  proof — of  what,  indeed,  there  can  be  no  doubt — we  will 
here  give  another  unpublished  extract  from  one  of  Pope's 
letters,  dated  the  20th  of  April,  1716  :— 

"You  will  think  the  better  of  your  friend,  and  judge  more 
truly  of  that  friendship  and  regard,  which  must  be  constant  in 
him,  if  you  consider,  he  never  yet  neglected  to  pay  you  his 
acknowledgments  from  time  to  time,  but  when  business,  hurry 
and  accident  prevented.  I  have  had  enough  of  all  three,  of 
late,  to  make  me  forget  anything  but  you.  Imprimis,  my 
father  and  mother  having  disposed  of  their  little  estate  at 
Binfield,  I  was  concerned  to  find  out  some  Asylum  for  their 
old  age ;  and  these  cares  of  settling  and  furnishing  a  house 
have  employed  me  till  yesterda}r,  when  we  fixed  at  Chiswick, 
under  the  wing  of  my  Lord  Burlington." 

So  the  first  letter  to  Digby  was,  when  published  by  Curll, 
dated  "  Chiswick," — so  other  letters,  subsequently  published, 
are  addressed — so  the  letter  of  the  22nd  of  June,  1716,  to 
Edward  Blount,  was  in  the  original  dated  from  "Mawson's 
New  Buildings  in  Chiswick ;  "  though  the  address  does  not 
appear  to  the  letter  in  the  quarto  :  and  the  beginning  of  the 
second  paragraph  of  the  Blount  letter  runs  thus  : — "  Though 
the  change  of  my  scene  of  life  from  Windsor  Forest  to  the 
waterside  at  Chiswick,"  —  another  significant  word  which 
dropped  out  on  publication.  Here,  by  the  way,  we  have  a 
proof  how  errors,  originating  in  accident,  are  perpetuated  by 
carelessness.  This  letter  was  dated  the  22nd  of  June,  1716 ; 
and  the  date  was  so  printed  in  three  or  four  editions  published 
during  Pope's  lifetime.  It  happened,  however, — by  accident, 
we  suppose, — that  in  the  edition  of  1739  the  date  was  changed 
to  1717  ;  and  so  it  has  ever  since  appeared — in  Warburton, 
in  Warton,  in  Bowles,  and  in  Roscoe — each  and  every  one, 
however,  illustrating  with  the  original  note  : — "  This  [letter] 
was  written  in  the  year  of  the  affair  at  Preston."  After  all, 
Pope's  letters  ought  to  have  warned  the  editors  against  this 
blunder  about  his  removal  from  Binfield  direct  to  Twickenham;* 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  123 

for  in  one  of  them,  which  they  have  all  published,  he  avowedly 
gives  "  the  history  of  my  transplantation  and  settlement ;  "  and 
thus  wrote  on  the  12th  of  December,  1718  : — "  At  last,  the 
gods  and  fate  have  fix'd  me  on  the  borders  of  the  Thames,  at 
Twickenham :  it  is  here  I  have  passed  an  entire  year  of  my 
life." 

Now  a  word  or  two  on  an  illustrative  note  to  the  "  merum 
sal" — to  what  Johnson  justly  calls  "the  most  airy,  the  most 
ingenious,  and  the  most  delightful  of  all  Pope's  compositions." 
Huff  head,  following  Warburton,  tells  us  that  "  Mr.  Caryl  (a 
gentleman  who  was  Secretary  to  Queen  Mary,  wife  of  James 
the  Second,  whose  fortunes  he  followed  into  France ;  and 
author  of  the  comedy  of  '  Sir  Solomon  Single  '  and  of  several 
translations  in  Dryden's  '  Miscellanies ')  originally  proposed 
the  subject  to  our  author."  All  the  biographers  agree  to  this 
statement — re-echo  it  in  just  so  many  words ; — Warton  and 
Bowles  and  Roscoe,  indeed,  give  it  as  "  Pope's  own  account !  " 
and  Mr.  Bowles  adds,  that  "the  widow  of  this  respectable 
gentleman  lived  at  West  Grinstead  many  years.  She  had  one 
daughter.  The  estate  descended  to  a  nephew ;  he  sold  it,  and 
afterwards  went  to  Boulogne,  where  he  died."  It  is  scarcely 
possible,  we  think,  to  condense  in  fewer  words  a  greater  number 
of  errors  ;  and  yet  such  careless  biographers  not  only  mislead 
one  another,  but  mislead  our  historians;  for  "Mr.  Secretary" 
has  a  place  in  history,  and  Mr.  Macaulay  tells  us — 

"  This  gentleman  was  known  to  his  contemporaries  as  a  man 
of  fortune  and  fashion,  and  as  the  author  of  two  successful  ^ 
plays ;  a  tragedy,  in  rhyme,  which  has  been  made  popular  by 
the  action  and  recitation  of  Betterton,  and  a  comedy  which 
owes  all  its  value  to  scenes  borrowed  from  Moliere.t  These 
pieces  have  long  been  forgotten  ;  but  what  Caryll  could  not  do 
for  himself  has  been  done  for  him  by  a  more  powerful  genius. 
Half  a  line  in  the  '  Rape  of  the  Lock '  has  made  his  name 
immortal." 

*  There  is  abundant  evidence  of  this  late  removal  to  Twickenham, 
t  See  Pepys,  iii,  422. 


121  PAPERS  OF  A  CELTIC.  [L 

Yes,  indeed,  his  name — nothing  more.  It  is  true,  that  Mr. 
Secretary  was  one  of  "  the  moh  of  gentlemen  who  wrote  with 
ease  " — one  of  the  twinkling  stars  in  the  '  Miscellanies  ' — for 
whose  comedy,  as  he  said — -before  Mr.  Macaulay, — 

you  must  thank  Moli&re. 

— a  comedy  in  one  respect  distinguishable  amongst  its  con- 
temporaries ;  for  there  was  not  one  line  or  one  word  in  it 
which,  dying,  a  good  man  might  wish  to  blot. 

Mr.  Secretary,  however,  though  not  a  man  of  genius,  was  of 
some  mark  and  likelihood ;  and  ought  not  to  have  his  indi- 
viduality merged  and  lost  in  "  a  name."  He  it  was  who,  on 
the  accession  of  James  the  Second,  was  sent  on  a  sort  of 
embassy  to  Rome,  with  some  special  instructions.  Mr. 
Macaulay  says  that  he  acquitted  himself  of  his  delicate  mission 
with  good  sense  and  good  feeling, — Lingard,  that  he  was  "  too 
timid  for  the  high  Catholic  party  " ;  and,  therefore,  we  sup- 
pose, was  superseded  by  Castlemaine.  On  his  recall,  Caryll 
was  appointed  Secretary  and  Master  of  Requests  to  the  Queen. 
In  that  office  he  continued  until  James  fled  from  England, 
when  he  retired  with  him,  and  became  what  Kennett  calls  one 
of  the  King's  Ministry — one  of  the  five  who  were  truly  the 
Cabinet.  He  was  subsequently  created  a  Peer,  and  made 
Secretary  of  State ;  in  which  office  he  continued  to  serve  the 
son,  as  he  had  served  the  father,  with  zeal,  ability  and  in- 
tegrity, even  into  extreme  old  age.  In  1695-6  he  was  out- 
lawed ;  and  his  estate  granted  to  Lord  Cutts.  As  the  principal 
estate  was  entailed,  the  forfeiture  and  grant  could  only  extend 
to  his  life  interest,  and  this  was  repurchased  by  the  family  for 
6,5001.;  but  a  further  sum  was  realized  by  Cutts  from  the 
sale  of  certain  unentailed  estates.  This  we  learn  from  a 
petition  presented  to  the  House  of  Commons,  when  the  ques- 
tion was  under  consideration  whether  the  House  should  not 
resume  the  grants  of  the  forfeited  estates,  and  apply  the  money 
to  the  use  of  the  public.  "  Mr.  Secretary,"  or  "  my  Lord," 
died  on  the  4th  of  September,  1711,  aged  about  eighty-six. 

It  is  now  obvious  that  as  "  Mr.  Secretary  "  left  England  the 
very  year  in  which  Pope  was  born,  and  never  returned,  Pope 


I.]  POPE'S   WEITINGS.  125 

could  not  have  known  him  personally — and  could  not  have 
corresponded  with  him  but  at  the  risk  of  his  life.  Briefly  but 
conclusively,  as  the  biographers  have  published  letters  which 
passed  between  Pope  and  the  assumed  "  Mr.  Secretary  "  long 
after  "Mr.  Secretary"  was  dead,  the  absurdity  of  the  assump- 
tion is  manifest. 

But  Pope  himself  tells  us,  the  "  Verse  to  Caryll,  Muse,  is 
due;"  and  Spence,  a  good  authority,  says  that  "old  Mr. 
Caryll,  of  Sussex,"  was  the  party  referred  to.  So  he  was ; 
and  Mr.  Caryll,  of  Sussex,  Pope's  correspondent,  was  old 
enough  to  have  a  son,  who  was  a  correspondent  of  Pope's — 
old  enough  to  have  grandchildren, — but  not  quite  so  old  as 
his  own  father's  elder  brother.  Pope's  correspondent  here 
alluded  to  was  a  nephew  of  Mr.  Secretary's — a  man,  like  his 
uncle,  of  literary  tastes — a  Catholic — and  here,  too,  like  his 
uncle,  tolerant  of  difference  though  strict  in  his  own  religious 
opinions  and  observances — much  looked  up  to  and  consulted 
by  the  Catholic  party.  Pope  in  his  early  da}rs,  and  the  Pope 
family,  were  naturally  proud  of  his  countenance  and  friendship ; 
and  their  intimacy  continued  for  life.  Gay,  in  '  Pope's  Wel- 
come from  Greece,'  remembers  him  and  his  whole  family: 

I  see  the  friendly  Carylls  come  by  dozens, 

Their  wives,  their  uncles,  daughters,  sons,  and  cousins. 

Pope's  friend  died  in  1736 ;  and  it  was  his  widow  to  whom 
Bowles  referred,  and  who  lived  at  West  Grinstead,  and  died 
there,  at  upwards  of  ninety  years  of  age.  The  estate  passed 
to  and  from  their  grandson. 

The  extent  of  Pope's  intimac}'  and  correspondence  with  the 
Carylls  cannot  be  even  inferred  from  the  published  letters. 
Pope  studiously  avoided  to  take  rank,  before  the  public,  with 
the  Catholics ;  and  when,  later  in  life,  he  went  into  open 
opposition,  it  was  as  one  of  a  political,  not  of  a  religious, 
party. 

It  is,  however,  a  fact,  that  though  Pope  did  not  know  "  Mr. 
Secretary,"  he  wrote  an  epitaph  on  him,  in  recognition  of  his 
Catholic  zeal  and  Jacobite  sufferings,  and,  no  doubt,  still  more 
out  of  compliment  to  the  nephew.  But  "  paper-sparing  Pope  " 


126  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

was  sparing  in  other  things  as  well  as  paper ;  and  as  it  was  the 
policy  of  his  life  never  to  appear  publicly  as  deeply  sympa- 
thizing in  the  concerns  of  a  Pariah  caste,  he  subsequently 
made  other  use  of  this  same  epitaph — made  the  first  six  lines 
serve  to  introduce  his  Whig  friend  Trumbull ;  *  and  the  re- 
mainder was  re-cast,  and  appears  as  a  flourish  about  Bridge- 
water  in  '  The  Epistle  to  Jervas.'  As  it  is,  in  newspaper 
phrase,  a  "  choice  literary  treasure,"  our  readers  may  like  to 
see  it : — 

EPITAPH  ON  JOHN  LD.  CARYL. 

A  manly  Form  ;  a  bold,  yet  modest  mind  ; 

Sincere,  tho'  prudent  ;  constant,  yet  resigned  ; 

Honour  unchang'd ;  a  Principle  profest  ; 

Fix'd  to  one  side,  but  mod 'rate  to  the  rest ; 

An  honest  Courtier,  and  a  Patriot  too  ; 

Just  to  his  Prince,  and  to  his  Country  true  : 

All  these  were  join'd  in  one,  yet  fail'd  to  save 

The  Wise,  the  Learn'd,  the  Virtuous,  and  the  Brave  ; 

Lost,  like  the  common  Plunder  of  the  Grave  ! 

Ye  Few,  whom  better  Genius  does  inspire, 
Exalted  Souls,  inform'd  with  purer  Fire  ! 
Go  now,  leam  all  vast  Science  can  impart ; 
Go  fathom  Nature,  take  the  Heights  of  Art  ! 
Kise  higher  yet  :  learn  ev'n  yourselves  to  know  ; 
Nay,  to  yourselves  alone  that  knowledge  owe. 
Then,  when  you  seem  above  mankind  to  soar, 
Look  on  this  marble,  and  be  vain  no  more  ! 

Johnson's  comments  on  the  epitaph  on  Trumbull  are,  under 
the  circumstances,  curious  : — "  To  what  purpose,"  he  observes, 
"  is  anything  told  of  him  whose  name  is  concealed  ?  the  virtues 
and  qualities  so  recounted  are  scattered  at  the  mercy  of  fortune 
to  be  appropriated  at  guess."  They  were,  it  now  appears,  an 
appropriation.  Again,  Johnson  shrewdly  observes  : — "  There 
are  some  defects  which  were  not  made  necessary  by  the  cha- 
racter in  which  he  was  employed.  There  is  no  opposition 
between  an  honest  courtier  and  patriot ;  for  an  honest  courtier 

*  The  Epitaph  on  Tmrnbull  was  first  published  in  Pope's  Works,  quarto,  1717, 
simply  as  '  Epitaph. '  It  was  republishcd  in  2nd  vol.  of  his  Works,  4to,  as  '  On 
Sir  William  Trumbull.' 

"  It  is  a  kiud  of  sacrilege  (do  you  think  it  is  not  ?)  to  steal  an  epitaph."  P.  to 
Cromwell,  17  May,  1710. 


1.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  127 

must  be  a  patriot."  Johnson,  we  think,  would  have  admitted, 
that  though  there  was  nothing  in  the  character  or  employment 
of  Trumbull  to  justify  the  distinction,  it  might  be  excused 
with  reference  to  the  outlawed  "  Mr.  Secretary." 

Now,  a  word  or  two  on  the  Loves  of  Pope.  If  we  are  to 
believe  the  biographers,  this  tender,  delicate,  sickly,  suffering 
man,  shaken  b}7  every  wind  like  an  aspen,  was  in  love — and  in 
downright  wicked  earnest — with  half-a-dozen  women  at  the 
same  time,  or  in  hurried  succession:  —  the  "Unfortunate 
Lady,"  ending  so  terribly  and  tragically — 

The  fair-haired  Martha  and  Teresa  brown — 

her  stately  and  turbaned  "  majesty,"  Lady  Mary,  and  others, — 
some  of  whom  are  not  yet  known  to  us  ;  for  Mr.  Thackeray 
hints  mysteriously  about  a  certain  "  Lady  M."  with  whom 
Pope  was,  or  affected  to  be,  in  love  in  1705 ;  and  to  whom  he 
wrote  greater  nonsense  than  usual, — which,  as  he  was  just 
seventeen,  we  think,  if  he  wrote  love  letters  at  all,  is  probable. 
Pope  no  doubt  wrote  to  all  these  and  to  other  ladies  after 
the  foolish  fashion  of  his  age — an  age  sincere  neither  in  ita 
vices  nor  its  virtues — and  as  Pope  could  "wr i£e"  Better  than 
otheF  men,  so  no  doubt  he  super-added  extravagancies  sur- 
passing the  extravagancies  of  others,  in  proof  of  his  genius ; 
but  Pope  had  no  more  mischief  in  his  heart  than  the  dullest 
of  his  contemporaries.  He  was,  indeed,  so  little  conscious  of 
offence  in  that  style  of  writing,  which  so  offends  our  more 
decent  age,  that  some  of  the  very  passages  which  have  given 
rise  to  this  censure — that,  for  example,  in  his  first  letter  to 
Lady  Mary,  on  which  Bowles  so  indignantly  comments — were 
not  in  the  genuine  letters,  but  inserted  by  Pope  as  piquant 
paragraphs,  when  he  had  resolved  to  publish.  In  our  opinion, 
the  home-affections  of  Pope's  life  were  security  against  moral 
offences  of  the  nature  charged.  He  who  would  not  give  pain 
to  his  parents  for  all  the  places  in  the  gift  of  Oxford  would  not 
have  given  pain  to  his  virtuous  mother  for  all  the  "  love-darting 
eyes  " — all  the  "  variegated  tulips  "  of  the  world. — 

Me  let  the  tender  office  long  engage 
To  rock  the  cradle  of  reposing  age, 


128  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

With  lenient  arts  extend  a  mother's  breath, 
Make  languor  smile,  and  smooth  the  bed  of  death. 

Pope  may  have  been,  as  he  himself  well  said,  for  a  moment  of 

time — 

The  gayest  valetudinaire, 
Most  thinking  rake  alive — 

but  it  could  have  been  for  a  moment  only.  To  have  touched  the 
heart  of  Pope,  the  woman  must  have  come  within  the  range  of 
his  domestic  loves — into  the  sunshine  of  his  happy  home,,  and 
been  respected  by  his  mother,  from  whom  Pope  had  no  separate 
existence. 

We  have  evidence,  however,  in  the  case  of  '  The  Unfortunate 
Lady,'  how  ingeniously  Pope  and  his  biographers  can  contrive 
to  build  up  a  passionate  and  terrible  love-scene.  All  we  know 
is  that  Pope  wrote  a  noble  '  Elegy  to  the  Memory  of  an  Un- 
fortunate Lady ; '  and  all  we  are  told  by  the  biographers,  no 
matter  how  circumstantially,  is  merely  conjectural,  made  up 
from  hints  in  the  Elegy,  fanciful  interpretations  of  passages  in 
Pope's  letters,  assumption  of  dates,  changes  of  persons,  and 
traditional  or  original  nonsense.  Ayre  told  us,  more  than  a. 
hundred  years  ago — 

"  This  young  lady,  who  was  of  qualit}^  had  a  very  large 
fortune,  and  was  in  the  eye  of  our  discerning  poet,  a  great 
beauty,  was  left  under  the  guardianship  of  an  uncle  who  gave 
her  an  education  suitable  to  her  title,  for  Mr.  Pope  declares 
she  had  titles,  and  she  was  thought  a  fit  match  for  the  greatest 
peer,  but  very  young  she  contracted  an  acquaintance  and  after- 
wards some  degree  of  intimacy  with  a  young  gentleman,  who  is 
only  imagined,  and  having  settled  her  affections  there,  refus'd 
a  match  propos'd  to  her  by  her  uncle ;  spies  being  set  upon 
her  it  was  not  long  before  her  correspondence  with  her  lover  of 
lower  degree  was  discover'd,  which  when  tax'd  with  by  her 
uncle,  she  had  too  much  truth  and  honour  to  deny.  The 
uncle  finding  that  she  could  not,  nor  would  strive  to  withdraw 
her  regard  from  him,  after  a  little  time  forc'd  her  abroad,  where 
she  was  receiv'd  with  all  due  respect  to  her  quality,  but  kept 
up  from  the  sight  or  speech  of  any  body  but  the  creatures  of 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINHH.  I2» 

tliis  severe  guardian,  so  that  it  was  impossible  for  her  lover 
even  to  deliver  a  letter  that  might  ever  come  to  her  hand. 
Several  were  receiv'd  from  him  with  promise  to  get  them 
privately  deliver'd  to  her,  but  those  were  all  sent  to  England 
and  only  serv'd  to  make  them  more  cautious  who  had  her  in 
care.  She  languish'd  here  a  considerable  time,  went  through 
a  great  deal  of  sickness  and  sorrow,  wept  and  sigh'd  continually, 
at  last  wearied  out  and  despairing  quite,  the  unfortunate  lady 
— as  Mr.  Pope  justly  calls  her,  put  an  end  to  her  own  life, 
having  bribed  a  woman  servant  to  procure  her  a  sword ;  she 
was  found  dead  upon  the  ground,  but  warm.  The  severity  of 
the  laws  of  the  place  where  she  was  in,  denied  her  Christian 
burial,  and  she  was  buried  without  solemnity,  or  even  any  to 
wait  on  her  to  her  grave,  except  some  young  people  of  the 
neighbourhood,  who  saw  her  put  into  common  ground,  and 
strew' d  her  grave  with  flowers." 

Ruffhead  followed  Ayre,*  and  Johnson  followed  Ruffhead, 
acknowledging  that  he  could  add  nothing  to  tho  story,  though 
he  had  made  "  fruitless  inquiry,"  as  to  the  lady's  "  name  and 
adventures."  Wai-ton,  too,  made  "many  and  wide  inquiries;" 
and  either  Warton~7)r  Bowles,  or  some  other  of  the  curious, 
gathered  up,  what  diligent  seekers  ever  find,  many  treasures  of 
tradition.  Roscoe  came  later  into  the  field,  and  therefore,  as 
became  him,  was  sagacious  and  critical ;  saw  some  things  were 
"  impossible  "  in  the  statements  of  others — which  notwith- 
standing turn  out  to  be  true — and  made  statements  himself 
which  others  may  rank  with  the  impossibles.  But  not  to  waste 
space  in  an  elaborate  development  of  these  several  speculations, 
we  will  briefly  condense  into  a  paragraph  the  general  con- 
clusions to  be  deduced  from  the  biographers  and  elucidators, 
though  we  are  not  sure  that  they  will  be  considered  either 
clear  or  conclusive.  Thus,  from  one  we  learn  that  the  "  un- 
fortunate Lady"  was  hideously  deformed,  and  in  love  witli 
Pope — from  another  that  she  was  beautiful  as  an  angel,  and  in 
love  with  the  Duke  of  Berry — virtuous  says  one,  mistress  to 

*  Ayre's  account  is  substantially  from  the  Poem,  and  a  like  license  of  inter- 
pretation may  have  suggested  "  Welsted's  lie" — who  told  "that  Mr.  P.  had 
occasioned  a  lady's  death,  and  to  name  a  person  he  had  never  heard  of." 

VOL.   I.  K 


130  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [T. 

the  Duke  of  Buckingham  says  another,  his  relation  says  a 
third — she  led  a  wandering  vagabond  life  says  A — she  retired 
to  a  monastery  says  B — this  is  confirmed  by  C,  who  tells  us 
that  she  was  forced  into  it  by  a  cruel  guardian  ;  but  is  contra- 
dicted by  D,  who  maintains  that  she  retired  there  voluntarily— 
stabbed  herself  in  a  foreign-  country,  according  to  the  old 
version — hanged  herself,  according  to  the  new. 

Many  of  the  corroborating  circumstances  adduced  are  equally 
curious.  Thus,  the  Editors  are  agreed  that  the  'Elegy'  was 
one  of  Pope's  early  writings, — and  Bowles  affixes  the  date 
about  1709  or  1710  (Vol.  1,  p.  xxxii.)  and  proves  it,  we 
suppose,  (Vol.  7,  p.  264)  by  evidence  that  the  "  beckoning 
ghost"  of  1709  or  10  was  alive  "in  the  flesh"  in  May  1712, 
and  just  gone  on  a  visit  to  her  aunt !  Pope  himself  is  brought 
in  to  support  some  of  these  strange  stories.  His  name  appears 
to  the  following  note  : — 

"  See  the  Duke  of  Buckingham's  verses  to  a  Lady  designing 
to  retire  into  a  Monastery,  compared  with  Mr.  Pope's  Letters 
to  several  ladies.  She  seems  to  be  the  same  person  whose 
unfortunate  death  is  the  subject  of  this  poem. — Pope"* 

Why  Pope  could  have  spoken  positively  to  the  fact  had  it 
been  one,  and  need  not  have  made  the  reference  had  he  wished 
to  conceal  it.  But  Pope  loved  mystery  and  mystification. 

Buckingham,  as  we  have  shown,  was  nearly  forty  years  old 
when  Pope  was  bom — he  described  himself  soon  after  they 
became  acquainted,  in  a  poem  prefixed  to  Pope's  works,  as 
"too  dully  serious"  even  for  "the  Muses'  sport;"  and  his 
Duchess,  the  third  wife,  or  her  amanuensis,  confirms  this — 
says  that  he  was  in  her  time,  and  therefore  in  Pope's  time,  full 
of  shame  and  regrets  at  the  "libertinism"  of  his  youth,  and 
was  "often  found  on  his  knees  at  prayers:" — in  brief,  unless 
Pope  was  in  love  with  his  grandmother,  or  one  of  her  con- 
temporaries, "the  unfortunate  lady"  could  not  have  been  out 
of  her  bib  and  tucker  when  the  Duke  took  to  repentance, 
prayer,  and  a  third  wife. 

*  On  \Varburton  and  others  affixing  '  Pope'  to  certain  notes,  see  Roscoe's  Life, 
p.  117. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITIMM.  131 

What  a  field  for  speculation  and  research  is  here  opened  to 
the  new  Editors.  Fortunately,  all  the  later  biographers  have 
taken  Pope's  hint — have  referred  to  the  "letters  to  several 
ladies" — and  are  therefore  agreed  that  "the  unfortunate"  was 

the  "  Mrs.  W "  of  the  letters,  and  that  "  Mrs.  W " 

was  Mrs.  "  Winsbury  or  Wainsbury."  Now  lest  this  una- 
nimity should  mislead,  we  will  venture  to  say,  not,  as  must  be 
evident,  that  all  the  stories  of  the  biographers  cannot  be  true, 
but  that  by  singular  ill  fortune  they  are  all  untrue. 

The  earliest  reference  to  "  Mrs.  W "  we,  at  the 

moment,  remember  is  in  a  paragraph  in  the  letter  of  June  18, 
1711,  which,  like  so  many  others  of  interest,  dropped  out  on 
publication. 

"  If  you  please,  in  your  next,  let  me  know  what  effect  your 
conference  with  Sir  W.  G.  had  in  reference  to  the  Lady's 
business  (unless  you  have  already  done  it  to  her).  I  shall  be 
glad  to  inform  her,  to  whom  every  little  prospect  of  ease  is  a 
great  relief,  in  these  circumstances.  I  am  certain  a  letter  from 
yourself  or  Lady  would  be  a  much  greater  consolation  to  her 
than  your  humility  will  suffer  either  of  you  to  imagine.  To 
relieve  the  injured  (if  you  will  pardon  a  poetical  expression  in 
prose)  is  no  less  than  to  take  the  work  of  God  himself  off  his 
hands,  and  an  easing  Providence  of  its  care — 'tis  the  noblest 
act  that  human  nature  is  capable  of,  is  in  a  particular  manner 
your  talent,  and  may  you  receive  a  reward  for  it  in  Heaven,  for 
this  whole  world  has  not  wherewithall  to  repay  it."* 

In  other  dropped  paragraphs,  in  subsequent  letters,  Pope 
speaks  of  "  the  disagreeing  pair,"  from  which  we  learn  that 
"Mrs.  W "  was  married;  and,  in  a  very  intelligible  Post- 
script, he  adds : — 

"  I  am  just  informed  that  the  tyrant  is  determined  instantly 
to  remove  his  Dater  from  the  Lady.  I  wish  to  God  it  could 
be  put  off  by  Sir  W.  G.'s  mediation,  for  I  am  heartily  afraid 
't  will  prove  of  very  ill  consequence  to  her" — 

from  which  we  learn  that  she  had  a  daughter. 

*  See  MS.  25  June,  1711  (Quarto,  i.  75).  See  also  19  July,  1711,  for  "  a 
certain  deer,"  &c.  (Quarto,  i.  80). 


132  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

In  his  letter  of  the  18th  of  June,  as  above  quoted,  Pope  had 
suggested  that  his  correspondent  or  his  Lady  should  write  to 
"  Mrs.  \V.," — and  from  another,  of  the  2nd  of  August,  we  learn 
not  only  that  his  correspondent  had  done  so,  but  had,  also, 
written  to  the  husband.  Pope  says — 

"  I  delivered  the  inclosed  to  the  Lady.  She  seem'd  not  to 
approve  of  Mrs.  N.'s  writing  to  the  gentleman  ;  since,  if  sense 
of  honour  and  a  true  knowledge  of  the  case,  which  you  have 
already  given  him,  are  too  weak  to  move  him,  'tis  to  be  thought 
nothing  else  ever  will.  I  cannot  but  join  with  you  in  a  high 
concern  for  a  Person  of  so  much  merit,  as  I'm  daily  more  and 
more  convinced,  by  her  conversation,  that  she  is,  whose  ill 
Fate  it  has  been  to  be  cast  as  a  pearl  before  Swine ;  —  and  he 
who  put  so  valuable  a  present  into  so  ill  hands  shall  (I  own  to 
you)  never  have  my  good  opinion,  tho'  he  had  that  of  all  the 
world  besides.  God  grant  he  may  never  be  my  Friend  !  and 
guard  all  my  friends  from. such  a  Guardian."* 

This  Mrs.  N.  was  a  Mrs.  Nelson,  a  Catholic  lady  much 
looked  up  to  by  Pope's  friends,  but  whom  Pope  did  not  like, 
and  with  whom  he  was  soon  after  at  open  variance.  This 
Lady  ought  to  have  figured  in  the  published  correspondence  ; 

for  she  was,  in  truth,  the  "  Mr. "  of  July  19,  1711,  who 

had  assured  him  that  he  "  had  said  nothing  which  a  Catholic 
need  to  disown."  Pope,  perhaps,  thought  that  a  Lady  would 
not  carry  sufficient  authority  with  the  public,  or,  as  in  the  case 
of  Lady  Mary,  he  did  not  choose  to  have  his  name  associated 
with  Mrs.  Nelson's. 

In  a  published  letter  of  the  23rd  of  May,  1712,  Pope's 
correspondent  writes  :  "I  have,  since  I  saw  you,  corresponded 

with  Mrs.  W .  I  hope  she  is  now  with  her  Aunt." — On 

the  28th  Pope  replies : — 

"  It  is  not  only  the  disposition  I  always  have  of  conversing 

*  See  another  reference  to  Mr.  and  Mrs.  W — ,  as  I  think,  March  1713,  MS., 
and  qy.  as  to  Sappho  and  the  lady  at  Hammersmith  in  MS.  p.  72,  written 
l>efore  1713.  Oarruthers,  2nd  edit.,  Appendix,  prints  one  of  her  letters. 


I.]  POPE'S   WHITINGS.  133 

with  you  that  makes  me  so  speedily  answer  your  obliging 
letter,  but  the  apprehension  lest  your  charitable  intent  of 
writing  to  my  Lady  A.  on  Mrs.  W.'s  affair  should  be  frustrated 
by  the  short  stay  she  makes  there." 

As  this  letter  has  been  published,  we  need  not  quote 
further. 

Mrs.  Nelson  must  now  come  prominently  before  the  reader, 

for  she  took  an  active  part  in  the  cause  of  "  Mrs.  W ," 

and  the  following  is  an  extract  from  a  letter  of  hers,  dated  the 
8th  of  August,  1712:— 

"  I  hope  Mrs.  W.'s  affairs  are  in  a  better  posture  since  her 
brother  has  been  with  her.  I  find  she  is  perfectly  satisfied 
with  her  visit,  with  the  expressions  of  affection  he  made  her, 
and  his  resolution  to  employ  all  means  in  his  power  for  her 
ease  and  satisfaction.  She  fears  only  the  number  and  artifices 
of  her  Enemies  ;  but  when  Mr.  Gage  returns  from  Sherburne  ; 
''  you  will  have  another  important  occasion  to  exert  your 
friendship  and  goodness  by  giving  him  some  further  light  into 
those  misfortunes  he  is  so  well  disposed  to  redress,  and  which 
he  declares  were  the  only  reason  of  his  coining  over  so  soon." 

These  few  facts  are  sufficient — because  the}'  are  facts — to 
enable  us  to  solve  a  mystery  which  for  more  than  a  century 
has  perplexed  the  biographers, — to  enable  us  not  only  to  say 

who  "Mrs.  W "  was,  but  who  she  was  not: — she  was  not 

Mrs.  Winsbury,  nor  Mrs.  Wainsbury,  nor  "  The  Unfortunate 
Lady," — i/that  fortunate  unfortunate  and  immortal  ever  had  a 
veritable  flesh-and-blood  existence.  We  have  here  in  im- 
mediate connexion  with  "  Mrs.  W "  a  host  of  friends  and 

relations, — a  husband — a  daughter — a  brother — a  guardian — 
Sir  W.  G. — Lady  A. — and  Mr.  Gage.  Why  the  very  names 
thus  brought  into  juxtaposition  will  tell  the  whole  story  to  any 
intelligent  person  conversant  with  the  family  histoiies  of 
Surrey  and  Sussex.  Here  it  is  in  brief. 

The  "Mrs.  Wr "  of  Pope's  letters  was  Mrs.  Weston.  She 

was  Elizabeth,  eldest  daughter  of  Joseph  Gage  (son  of  Sir 
Thomas,  of  Firle),  who  inherited  Sherborne  Castle  in  right  of 


134  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

his  mother,  and  ultimately  the  large  property  of  the  Penrud- 
docks,  in  right  of  his  wife.  She  was  sister  to  Thomas,  who 
succeeded  as  eighth  Baronet  and  was  first  Viscount,  and  to 
Joseph,  mentioned  by  Pope  in  the  Epistle  to  Bathurst — 

The  crown  of  Poland,  venal  twice  an  age, 
To  just  three  million  stinted  modest  Gage, — 

an  allusion  to  his  enormous  gains,  subsequently  lost,  by  specu- 
lations in  the  Mississippi  scheme ;  when,  as  reported,  he 
offered  to  buy  the  crown  of  Poland  and  the  island  of  Sardinia, 
and  to  attach  the  latter  to  the  former  as  a  kitchen-garden — a 
man  whose  whole  life  was  a  romance,  and  who  ended  his  career 
as  a  grandee  of  Spain  of  the  first  class !  Her  father  died  in 
1700,  and  left  Sir  W.  Goring,  of  Burton,  in  Sussex,  executor 
and  "  guardian  "  of  his  children.  Her  aunt,  Catherine  Gage, 
became  the  second  wife  of  Walter  Lord  Aston.  Mrs.  Elizabeth, 
the  lady  in  question,  married  John  Weston,  of  Sutton,  in  the 
county  of  Surrey.*  They  lived  unhappily,  were  soon  separated, 
had  only  one  child,  or  only  one  who  survived,  a  daughter 
Melior,  who  died  unmarried  in  June  1782,  aged  79. 

Here  we  have  the  whole  of  the  characters  of  the  tragedy, 
comedy,  history,  or  whatever  name  it  should  be  called  by, 

made  out  by  Pope  himself  and  the  heralds  : — "  Mrs.  W. " 

(Mrs.  Weston) — her  husband  (John  Weston) — her  daughter 
(Melior) — her  guardian  and  Sir  W.  G.  (Sir  Wm.  Goring) — her 
aunt  Lady  A.  (Catherine  Gage  Lady  Aston) — her  brother 
(Thomas  or  Joseph).  Mr.  Gage,  who  in  August,  1712,  was 
expected  from  Sherborne,  and  whose  "  only  reason  for  coming 
over  so  soon  "  was  to  redress  the  lady's  wrongs,  was  probably 
Joseph — "modest  Gage." 

Years  after  Pope's  indignation  was  still  fierce  against  Mr. 
Weston,  as  appears  from  the  following  to  Martha  Blount, 
dated  the  13th  of  September,  1717,  quoted  by  Mr.  Carruthers 
from  the  MS.  at  Mapledurham. — 

*  In  the  Return  of  Popish  Recusants,  &c.  (1  Geo.  I.)  is  John  Weston,  of 
Sutton  Place,  Surrey,  £359  15s.  lid.  ;  John  Weston,  of  Sutton  Place,  Surrey, 
£939  8s.  Id. 


I.]  POPE' H   WHITINGS.  135 

"I  *  galloped  to  Staines  *  *  and  lay  at  my  brother's,  near 
Bagshot,  that  night.  *  *  I  arrived  at  Mr.  Doncastle's  on 
Tuesday  morning,  having  fled  from  the  face  (I  wish  I  could 
say  the  horned  face)  of  Mr.  Weston,  who  dined  that  day  at  my 
brother's." 

Hence  it  appeal's,  we  think,  that  the  Rackets  sided  with  the 
gentleman  against  the  lady,  and  this  will  explain  a  passage  in 
one  of  the  published  letters  of  the  28th  of  May,  1712,  where, 
speaking  of  "  Mrs.  W — ,"  Pope  says  : — 

"  The  unfortunate,  of  all  people,  are  the  most  unfit  to  be 
left  alone  ;  yet  we  see  the  world  generally  takes  care  they 
shall  be  so :  whereas,  if  we  took  a  considerate  prospect  of  the 
world,  the  business  and  study  of  the  happy  and  easy  should  be 
to  divert  and  to  humour,  as  well  as  comfort  and  pity,  the  dis- 
tressed. I  cannot,  therefore,  excuse  some  near  allies  of  mine 
for  their  conduct  of  late  towards  this  lady,  which  has  given  me  a 
great  deal  of  anger  as  well  as  sorrow  :  all  I  shall  say  to  you  of 
'em,  at  present,  is  that  they  have  not  been  my  relations  these  two 
months." 

Out  of  these  plain  prose  materials  the  reader  who  loves  to 
indulge  his  imagination  may,  if  he  so  pleases,  try  to  build  up 
the  Poem.  If  he  does  not  succeed  to  his  entire  satisfaction — 
if  he  does  not  recognize  the  lady,  though  some  features  will  be 
striking  enough — let  him  console  himself  that  her  own  blood 
relations  did  not  know  her  in  Pope's  fanciful  portrait,  if  it 
were  a  portrait — that  her  most  intimate  friends,  those  who 
had  been  consulted  and  called  on  for  advice  through  all  her 
troubles,  asked  Pope  innocently,  who  is  your  "Unfortunate"? 
It  will  not,  we  fear,  help  them  over  the  difficulty  if  we  add,  that 
"  Mrs.  W — "  lived  in  her  husband's  house  at  Sutton,  like  any 
ordinary  mortal,  years  after  the  "visionary  sword"  and  the 
"  bleeding  bosom  gored  "  had  sent  the  "  unfortunate  "  to  "  the 
pitying  sky ;  " — that  by  no  "  foreign  hands  "  her  "  dying  eyes 
were  closed  " — by  no  "  foreign  hands  "  her  "  decent  limbs  com- 
posed ;  " — she  died  as  we  have  stated,  and  was  buried  at 


136  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

Trinity  Church,  Guildford,  as  the  following  extract  from  the 
parish  Register  will  certify : — 

"  Elizabeth,  wife  of  John  Weston,  of  Button,  Esq.,  buried 
the  18th  of  October,  1724." 

Had  Pope's  friends — or  Mrs.  Weston's  friends — lived  until 
Pope's  letters  were  published,  there  would  have  been  fewer 
inquiries  about  "  the  unfortunate."  The  biographers  infer 
from  Pope's  silence  in  1717,  that  he  was  anxious  that  the 
secret  should  not  be  known.  If  so,  and  if  the  portrait  had 
any  resemblance  beyond  that  shadowy  outline  which  awakens 
a  vague  recollection  as  of  "  a  history,  now  quite  out  of  my 
head,"  it  must  then  have  become  knoAvn.  Let  us  trace  the 
history  as  developed  in  the  letters. 

In  the  piratical  editions  we  have  a  letter  called  '  Pope's 
answer '  to  the  Hon.  J.  C.,  dated  the  28th  of  May,  1712.  In 
another  part  of  the  same  edition  we  have,  amongst  what  are 
called  '  Letters  to  several  Ladies,'  one  without  name  or  date. 
On  the  publication  of  the  authorized  quarto  these  widely 
separated  letters  had  come  together,  and  by  the  addition  of  a 
postscript  to  the  one,  the  reader  learned  that  the  other  had 
been  enclosed  in  it — was  addressed  to  "  Mrs.  W — ,"  and 
written  "  in  the  lofty  style  agreeable  to  her  spirit."  To  make 
assurance  doubly  sure,  the  first  of  these  letters  was  described  in 
the  Table  of  Contents  as  "  Concerning  an  Unfortunate  Lady  " 
— and  the  second,  mystically,  "  To  the  same  Lady  " — which 
is  made  plain  in  Cooper's  edition,  also  authorized  by  Pope, 
where  it  is  described  as  "  To  An  Unfortunate  Lady.'1  After 
this  could  the  Hon.  J.  C.  (Mr.  Caryll),  to  whom  the  one  letter 
was  addressed  and  the  other  enclosed,  have  had  a  doubt? 
Would  he  have  asked  "  Who  is  the  unfortunate  ?  " 

Warton  observes,  that  "  the  true  cause  of  the  excellence  of 
this  Elegy  is,  that  the  occasion  of  it  was  real ;  *  *  that  the 
most  artful  fiction  must  give  way  to  truth,  for  this  lady  was  be- 
loved of  Pope."  This  opposition  of  the  real  and  the  fictitious 
in  poetry  was  a  theory  then  growing  into  a  fashion,  and,  as  we 
believe,  founded  on  error.  But,  assuming  it  to  be  true,  why 


1.]  POPE'S  WHITINGS.  137 

might  not  the  lacty  have  been  beloved  by  Pope,  without  the 
circumstances  of  the  poem  being  matter  of  fact  ?  Our  own 
conclusions  are,  that  Pope,  as  we  have  shown,  took  great  in- 
terest in  "  the  unfortunate  "  "  Mrs.  W.  " ;  and,  as  will  appear, 
suffered  not  a  little  from  the  slanderous  tongues  of  the  gossips. 
Pope  probably  wrote  the  poem  when  his  feelings  were  excited, 
—1711  or  1712, — imagined  possible  consequences  founded  on 
vague  words — took  Buckingham's  poem  as  a  model  (whoever 
carefully  and  critically  compares  these  poems  will  find  evidence 
of  this) — and  worked  out,  after  his  own  poetic  nature,  his  own 
poetic  idea.  Mrs.  Weston  served  as  lay  figure  for  the  poet's 
fancy  portrait : — traces  of  her  features  are  visible,  nothing 
more.  The  exquisite  pathos  and  general  truthfulness  of  the 
poem  led  to  questions  from  friends  and  acquaintances,  "  Who 
is  the  lady  ? "  The  poet  loved  the  excitement  and  the 
mystery,  and  was  silent.  In  the  same  humour,  long  after 
Mrs.  Weston  was  dead,  and  when  all  to  whom  the  truth^r  the 
untruth  was  known  were  dead,  he  endeavoured  to  keep  alive 
the  excitement — to  give  reality  to  the  poetic  vision,  without 
asserting  anything.  These,  however,  are  but  speculations, 
which  we  shall  leave  to  the  judgment  of  the  new  Editors. 

We  are  afraid  this  minute  criticism  may  have  been  a  little 
wearisome ;  but  all  will  excuse  it  who  are  curious  in  literary 
history — who  remember  that  for  more  than  a  century  this 
question  has  been  agitated,  and  that  critic  after  critic  has 
been  forced  to  acknowledge  that  he  could  not  unravel — could 
not  penetrate — the  mystery. 

Before  we  take  a  final  leave  of  the  "  unfortunate  lady,"  we 
shall  show,  by  a  passage  or  two  from  other  unpublished 
letters,  or  by  passages  dropped  out  of  published  letters,  that 
Pope  had  been  too  emphatic — too  much  in  earnest — about 
"  Mrs.  W.'s  "  affairs  to  escape  without  censure  and  some  scars. 
The  result  may  be  inferred  from  the  following  : — 

"  Some  other  calumnies  I  might  think  of  more  importance 
which  have  been  dispersed  in  a  neighbouring  family  I  have 
been  always  a  true  friend  to.  I  find  they  show  a  coldness 
without  inquiring  first  of  myself  concerning  what  they  have 


138  PAPERS  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I. 

heard  of  an  old  acquaintance  from  a  new  one.  I  shall  fairly 
let  them  fall,  and  suffer  'em  to  continue  deceived  for  their 
credulity.  When  flattery  and  lying  are  joined,  and  carried  as 
far  as  they  will  go,  I  drop  my  arms  of  defence,  which  are  of 
another  kind,  and  of  no  use  against  such  unlawful  weapons. 
A  plain  man  encounters  them  at  a  great  disadvantage,  as  the 
poor  naked  Indians  did  our  guns  and  fire-arms.  '  Virtute  med 
me  involvo,'  as  Horace  expresses  it.  I  wrap  nryself  up  in  the 
conscience  of  my  integrity,  and  sleep  after  it  as  quietly  as  I 
can." 

— The  conclusion  of  this  letter  is  under  circumstances  worth 
quoting. — 

"  DEAR  SIB, 

*•'  I  entreat  you  will  ever  believe  this  of  me  (whatever 
else  may  not  be  allowed  me)  that  I  am  a  Christian  and  a 
Catholic,  a  plain  friend,  without  design  or  flattery. 

"Your  most  obliged,  faithful,  and  affectionate  servant, 

"A.  P." 

The  neighbouring  family  was,  we  suppose,  the  Englefields  of 
Whiteknights,  as  he  afterwards  complains  of  their  neglect  and 
of  Mrs.  Englefield's  scandal-gossip.  In  a  letter  of  the  21st 
of  December,  1712,  Pope  thus  continues  the  subject. — 

"  I  had  not  mentioned  to  you  or  any  other  what  I  appre- 
hended of  the  misinformation  of  some  of  my  neighbours,  but 
that  I  could  not  tell  but  that  something  of  that  nature  might 
be  whispered  to  you  as  had  been  to  them.  More  men's  repu- 
tations, I  believe,  are  whisper'd  away  than  any  other  way 
destroyed.  But  I  depend  on  the  justice  and  the  honesty  of  your 
nature  that  you  would  give  me  a  hearing  before  you  past  the 
verdict.  What  I'm  certain  of  is  that  several  false  tales  have 
been  suggested,  and  I  fear  many  believed  by  them  since  they 
never  open'd  themselves  to  me  upon  the  subject.  But  I  shall 
make  a  further  '  trial,'  till  when  'twould  not  be  just  to  give  a 
further  account." 

The  scandal  continued  to  circulate.     Mrs.  Nelson  and  Mrs. 


I.]  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  139 

Englefield  gave  it  currency ;  and  even  "  Mrs.  W."  was  pre- 
judiced against  him  in  consequence.  He  now,  "  January  8, 
1712-13,"  enters  more  fully  into  the  subject  in  a  letter  still 
unpublished. — 


"  I  have  man}-  things  to  say  to  you,  many  hearty  wishes  to 
give  you,  and  yet  a  great  many  more  which  I  can  never  be  able 
to  say.  This  is  no  compliment,  upon  the  faith  of  an  honest 
man,  who  has  been  much  traduced  of  late ;  and  may,  'tis 
possible,  be  yet  more  so.  "SVliat  I  complain'd  of  to  you,  I 
mid,  was  only  a  little  letch ery  of  the  tongue  in  a  lady,  which 
must  be  allowed  her  sex.  *  *  'Tis  a  common  practice  now  for 
ladies  to  contract  friendships,  as  the  great  folks  in  ancient 
times  enterr'd  into  leagues.  They  sacrific'd  a  poor  animal 
betwixt  'em,  and  commenced  inviolable  allies,  ipso  facto.  So 
now  they  pull  some  harmless  little  creature  into  pieces,  and 
worry  his  character  together  very  comfortably.  Mrs.  Nelson 
and  Mrs.  Englefyld  have  serv'd  me  just  thus ;  the  former  of 
whom  has  done  me  all  the  ill  offices  that  lay  in  her  way,  par- 
ticularly with  Mrs.  W.  and  at  Whiteknts.  I  have  undeniable 
reasons  to  know  this,  which  you  may  hereafter  hear ;  nor 
should  I  trouble  you  with  things  so  wholly  my  concern  but 
under  the  sacred  seal  of  friendship,  and  to  give  some  warning, 
lest  you  might  too  readily  credit  any  thing  reported  from  the 
bare  word  of  a  person  of  whose  veracity  and  probity  I  wish  I 
could  speak  as  I  can  of  her  poetry  and  sense.  For  the  rest,  I 
know  many  good-conditioned  people  are  subject  to  be  deceiv'd 
by  tale-bearers,  and  I  can't  be  angry  at  them,  tho'  they  injure 
me.  The  same  gentleness  and  open  temper  which  make  'em 
civil  to  me,  make  'em  credulous  to  any  other  ;  and  t'would  be 
to  no  purpose  to  expostulate  with  such — 'tis  a  fault  of  their 
very  nature,  which  they  would  relapse  into  the  next  week. 
Every  man  has  a  right  to  give  up  as  much  as  he  pleases  of  his 
own  character,  and  I  will  sacrifice  as  much  of  mine  as  they 
have  injured,  to  my  ease,  rather  than  take  inglorious  pains  of 
a  chattering  eclaircissemenl  with  women  (or  men)  of  weak  cre- 
dulity. Ovid,  indeed,  tells  us  of  a  contention  there  was  once 
betwixt  the  Muses  and  the  Magpies,  but  I  don't  care  to 
moralize  the  Fable  in  my  own  example.  You'll  find  by  this 


140  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

hint  that  I  have  some  share  in  a  scribbler's  vanity,  or  at  least 
some  respect  for  myself;  which  if  it  be  ever  pardonable  to 
show,  it  is  certainly  when  others  regard  us  less  than  we  de- 
serve from  them.  However,  I  am  perfectly  contented  as  long 
as  you  and  a  few  such  as  you  entertain  no  ill  opinion  of  me ; 
who  I  am  confident  are  above  such  weak  credulity  of  every 
tale  or  whisper  against  a  man  who  can  have  no  [other]  interest 
in  your  friendship  than  the  friendship  itself." 

The  following  is  added  as  a  postscript. — 

"  After  what  I  have  told  you,  I  need  not  enjoin  your  silence 
as  to  this  affair,  for  I  design  no  more  than  to  be  a  civil  ac- 
quaintance at  Wh's  [Whiteknight's]." 

Pope  does  not  appear  to  have  been  quite  so  indifferent  about 
the  people  at  Whitekniglus  as  he  affected  to  be.  The  follow- 
ing is  from  another  unpublished  letter  of  the  12th  of  June, 
1713- 

"  One  word,  however,  of  a  private  trifle.  Honest  Mr. 
Eng — d  has  not  shown  the  least  common  civility  to  my  father 
and  mother,  by  sending  or  inquiring  of  them  from  our  nearest 
neighbours,  his  visitants  or  any  otherwise,  these  five  months. 
I  take  the  hint  as  I  ought  in  respect  to  those  who  gave  me 
being,  and  he  shall  be  as  much  a  stranger  to  me  as  he  desires. 
I  ought  to  prepare  myself  by  such  small  trials  for  those  nume- 
rous friendships  of  this  sort,  which  in  all  probability,  I  shall 
meet  with  in  the  course  of  my  life.  *  *  The  best  way  I  know 
of  overcoming  calumny  and  misconstruction  is  by  a  vigorous 
perseverance  in  everything  we  know  to  be  right,  and  a  total 
neglect  of  all  that  ensues  from  it." 

We  find  other  references  in  Pope's  letters  to  Mrs.  Weston, 
even  after  she  was  dead ;  but  they  would  best  serve  to  illus- 
trate other  subjects,  to  which  we  may  or  may  not  refer.  We 
can  only  take  advantage  of  a  lull  in  the  publishing  world  to 
indulge  in  speculations  on  advertisements. 


I.]  POPE'S   WETTINGS.  141 

[Third  Article.] 

JOHNSON  considers  the  epitaph  on  "Mrs.  Corbet"  as  the 
best  epitaph  written  by  Pope.  The  subject  of  it,  he  observes, 
"is  a  character  not  discriminated  by  any  shining  or  eminent 
peculiarities,  yet  that  which  really  makes,  though  not  the 
splendour,  the  felicity  of  life.  *  *  Of  such  a  character,  which 
the  dull  overlook  and  the  gay  despise,  it  was  fit  that  the  value 
should  be  made  known,  and  the  dignity  established.  Domestic 
virtue,  as  it  is  exerted  without  great  occasions  or  conspicuous 
consequences,  in  an  even  unnoted  tenor,  required  the  genius  of 
Pope  to  display  it  in  such  a  manner  as  might  attract  regard 
and  enforce  reverence.  Who  can  forbear  to  lament  that  this 
amiable  woman  has  no  name  in  the  Verses  ?  "  This  lamenta- 
tion, be  it  observed,  is  purely  critical ;  founded  on  the  opinion 
that  the  name  of  the  party  commemorated  should  always 
appear  in  the  epitaph.  Does  the  name  appear  at  all  ?  Of  a 
woman  celebrated  by  Pope,  and  whose  character,  as  here 
drawn,  was  admired  by  Johnson,  the  public  would  naturally 
desire  to  know  something,  yet  from  Ayre  to  Carruthers  we 
have  not  one  word  of  information  from  editors  and  biographers. 
This  unbroken  silence  leads  fairly  to  the  inference  that  they 
knew  nothing, — that  they  could  not  even  identify  the  lady. 
We,  therefore,  shall  venture  to  ask  whether  it  was  written  on  a 
Mrs.  Corbet  at  all  ?  We  doubt  it,  and  will  give  our  reasons, 
leaving  the  new  Editors  to  decide.  Our  inquiry  will,  at  any 
rate,  help  to  develop  the  character  of  Pope,  and,  in  essential 
things,  greatly  to  his  honour. 

We  have  already  noticed  and  proved  the  change  of  dates 
and  address,  the  studied  want  of  order  in  Pope's  published 
letters,  and  the  consequent  perplexity  and  confusion  of  his 
editors.  We  have  now  to  notice  a  letter  dated  "  September  2, 
1732,"  addressed  to  "  Mr.  C — ,"  which  Warton  assumes  to 
have  been  written  to  Mr.  Caryll,  a  gentleman  at  other  times 
figuring  in  the  correspondence  as  "the  Hon.  J.  C.,  Esq." 
This  Roscoe  says  "is  impossible,"  because  "it  is  probable" 
that  it  relates  to  "the  Unfortunate  Lady,"  and  Mr.  Caryll 


142  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

"  was  a  stranger  to  her  history."  We  do  not  see  the  force  of 
this  logic,  or  how  the  improbable  becomes  the  impossible. 
Be  that  as  it  may,  it  turns  out,  as  is  frequently  the  case  when 
men  are  confident,  that  the  impossible  is  not  only  possible, 
but  certain ;  and  that  the  probable  is  not  only  improbable,  but 
untrue.  The  "  Table  of  Contents"  told  Mr.  Koscoe  that  the 
letter  was  "  Expostulatory  on  the  Hardships  done  an  Unhappy 
Lady,"  not  an  "  Unfortunate  Lady," — a  distinction  preserved 
throughout  the  "  Table,"  and  poor  as  it  may  be,  sufficient,  we 
fear,  to  quiet  many  a  morbid  conscience. 

From  the  letter  heretofore  referred  to,  wherein  Pope  makes 
mention  of  "  the  holy  vandals,"  as  usual  passages  of  interest 
dropped  out  on  publication,  and  amongst  them  the  following. — 

"  I  am  infinitely  obliged  for  you/  bringing  me  acquainted 
with  Mrs.  Cope,  from  whom  I  heard  more  wit  and  sense  in  two 
hours  than  almost  all  the  sex  ever  spoke  in  their  whole  lives. 
She  is  indeed  that  way  a  relation  of  Mr.  Caryll's,  and  that's  all 
I  shall  say  of  the  lady." 

This  Mrs.  Cope  was  one  of  Gay's  "  dozens  "  and  "  cousins." 
Her  husband,  as  we  believe,  was  an  officer  in  the  army,  who 
received  his  commission  and  served  under  Marlborough  about 
1707.  In  one  respect  the  situation  of  Mrs.  Cope  and  Mrs. 
Weston  differed  essentially — the  one  was  rich  and  the  other 
poor.  It  agreed  only  in  this, — they  both  lived  unhappily  with 
their  husbands,  and  that  awakened  Pope's  sympathy.  There 
will  appear,  however,  so  many  points  of  seeming  agreement 
between  the  real  sufferings  of  the  "  Unhappy  Lady  "  and  the 
poetical  sufferings  of  the  "  Unfortunate  Lady,"  that  we  think 
it  well  to  forewarn  the  reader  that  the  Poem  was  published  in 
1717,  many  years  before  Mrs.  Cope  died. 

In  an  unpublished  letter,  written  about  1715  or  16,  as  we 
conjecture,  Pope  thus  wrote  : — 

"Meeting  with  the  gentleman  who  has  been  to  wait  on  you 
in  relation  to  Mrs.  Cope's  affair,  I  find  that  her  husband  is 
very  suddenly  to  go  back  to  his  command  ;  and  that  her  relief 


I.]  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  IKi 

will  be  almost  impracticable  if  not  attempted  before.  The 
Board  of  Officers  will  not  meddle  in  a  family  concern,  and 
people  of  skill  in  these  matters  assure  me  that  the  only  method 
is  to  procure  a  writ  from  the  Chancery,  Ne  exeat  regno,  which 
may  be  had  for  a  trifle,  and  will  so  far  distress  him  as  to 
oblige  him  to  find  bail,  and  bring  him  to  some  composition, 
not  to  be  hind'red  from  going  abroad.  If  once  he  is  over, 
you'll  be  obliged  to  a  prosecution  of  more  trouble  and  time, 
or  he  will  not  allow  her  a  groat  (as  he  has  declared).  I  cannot 
but  lay  before  you  this  case,  which  is  of  the  last  importance 
to  the  poor  lady;  and,  indeed,  must  affect  any  charitable 
man." 

"We  presume  that  Pope  meant  by  "  going  back  to  his  com- 
mand," returning  to  his  regiment.  It  is  a  curious  accident — 
but  an  accident  certainly — that  in  the  letter  wherein  Caryll 
asks  Pope,  "  Who  was  the  Unfortunate  Lady  you  address  a 
copy  of  verses  to  ?  "  he  thus  continues  : — 

"  Now  I  have  named  such  a  person,  Mrs.  Cope  occurs  to 
my  mind.  I  have  complied  with  her  desires,  though  I  think 
a  second  voyage  to  such  a  rascal  is  the  most  preposterous 
thing  imaginable  ;  but  mulierem  fortem  quis  inveniet !  It  is 
harder  to  find  than  the  man  Diogenes  looked  for  with  a  candle 
and  lantern  at  noonday." 

This  letter  is  dated  July,  1717  ;  and  the  "  desires  "  of  the 
unhappy  lady  was  for  an  advance  of  501.  to  enable  her  to 
proceed  to  Port-Mahon, — where,  we  infer  from  the  mention 
of  "  a  second  voyage,"  she  had  probably  been  before. 

The  issue,  we  fear,  justified  the  prediction.  No  doubt  the 
official  connections  of  the  new  Editors  will  enable  them  to 
throw  some  light  on  our  conjecture.  We  can  only  add,  that 
the  nineteenth  article  of  the  charges  preferred,  in  1719-20, 
against  Kane,  Lieut. -Governor  of  Minorca — chiefly  relating 
to  insults  offered  to  the  Catholic  religion,  during  the  preceding 
four  or  five  years — runs  thus, — 

"  That  Captain  Cope,  married  at  London  to  an  English 


144  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

woman,  is  suffered  in  the  regiment,  although  he  has  newly 
contracted  a  second  marriage  with  Eulalia  Morell,  which  the 
Vicar-General  has  declared  null  and  void." 

— This  looks  very  like  the  "  rascal "  we  are  in  search  of. 

Mrs.  Cope  had  returned  to  England  in  the  autumn  of  1720, 
and  soon  after  retired  to  France. 

Pope  never  ceased  to  take  an  interest  in  this  "  unhappy 
lady."  He  was  ever  chivalrous  in  defence  of  women,  and 
sided  with  them  in  all  quarrels  between  husbands  and  wives. 
Pope  thought,  and  perhaps  justly,  that  the  forms  and  con- 
ventionalities of  society  were  "  severe  to  all,  but  most  to 
womankind  " — 

Made  fools  by  honour,  and  made  fools  by  shame. 
Marriage  may  all  those  petty  tyrants  chase, 
But  sets  tip  one,  a  greater,  in  their  place  : 
Well  might  you  wish  for  change,  by  those  accurst, 
But  the  last  tyrant  ever  proves  the  worst. 
Still  in  constraint  your  suffering  sex  remains, 
Or  bound  in  formal  or  in  real  chains  ; 
"Whole  years  neglected,  for  some  months  ador'd, 
The  fawning  servant  turns  a  haughty  lord. 

The  subsequent  history  of  Mrs.  Cope  might  be  written  from 
the  references  to  her  in  Pope's  unpublished,  or  in  paragraphs 
dropped  out  of  his  published,  letters.  She  appears  to  have 
lived  for  a  time  at  Bar-sur-Aube  in  great  poverty,  maintained 
by  an  allowance  from  Pope  and  Caryll,  with  occasional  contri- 
butions from  benevolent  persons  whom  Pope  interested  in  her 
behalf, — for  Pope  was  not  only  liberal  himself,  but  an  active 
and  energetic  friend.  He  thus  wrote  to  Caryll  on  "  January  19, 
1725-6."— 

"  Talking  of  one  sufferer  puts  me  in  mind  of  another  whom 
I  remember  you  told  me  you  were  willing  to  assist,  whenever 
she  was  settled  abroad.  I  had,  three  days  since,  a  long  letter 
from  poor  Mrs.  Cope,  from  Bar-sur-Aube  en  Champagne,  where 
she  tells  me  she  has  stayed  several  months,  in  hopes  of  her 
brother's  coming  there  (as  he  gave  her  assurance),  to  live 
together ;  but  she  knows  no  more  of  him  yet  than  the  first 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  145 

day  she  arrived,  nor  hears  when  or  how  he  can  assist  her ; 
insomuch  that  the  little  money  I  sent  her  half  a  year  since 
was  actually  all  gone  then,  and  she  really  wanted  bread  when 
I  remitted  her  a  little  more  this  Xmas.  I  wish  I  could  serve 
her  farther,  but  really  cannot  wholly  supply  her,  being  out  of 
pocket  of  every  farthing  I  sent  her  this  last  twelvemonth.  I 
wish  you  could  remit  her  something,  for  I  believe  she  never 
needed  it  more  than  at  this  juncture." 

Well  might  the  poor  lady  say  she  hears  not  "  when  or  how  " 
her  brother  can  assist  her : — for  the  brother  to  whom  she 
refers  had,  as  Pope  tells  us,  lost  his  property  during  the 
Mississippi  madness. 

We  shall  continue  the  history  from  another  unpublished 
letter  of  Pope's,  dated  May  10,  1727.— 

"  I  received,  last  post,  a  letter  from  Mrs.  Cope,  by  which 
I  find  her  miseries  are  increased  by  a  cancer  in  her  breast, 

Surely  she  is  now,  every  day, 

a  greater  object  of  charity  than  other  people.  I  must  hope 
you  will  add  something  to  her  relief ;  since  really  that  (which 
she  tells  me  is  almost  all  her  subsistence),  the  little  I  yearly 
send  her,  cannot  suffice,  nor  can  I,  in  my  own  narrow  fortune 
(you  must  needs  be  so  sensible),  increase  it.  Mr.  Robert 
Arbuthnott,  out  of  friendship  to  me  and  his  own  natural 
generosity  of  mind,  has  been  kinder  to  her  than  anybody ; 
nor  is  it  in  my  power  to  make  him  any  return,  which  renders 
me  uneasy.  Letters  to  her  must  be  directed  to  him.  Banquier 
d  Paris  is  sufficient ;  and  he'll  faithfully  convey  to  her  any- 
thing you  think  fit  [to  send]  in  the  best  manner." 

If  the  reader  remembers  the  beautiful  epitaph  "  on  Mrs. 
Corbet,"  this  last  paragraph  will  have  suggested  the  terrible 
issue.  Mrs.  Cope  underwent  an  operation  described  as  "  one 
of  the  most  terrible  ever  made,"  and  as  borne  with  great  for- 
titude, but  died  in  consequence  on  the  12th  of  May,  1728.  In 
a  letter,  written  by  her  brother,  in  which  he  gives  an  account 
of  her  death,  he  says, — "  Nobody  ever  could  suffer  more  than 

VOL.    I.  L 


146  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

she  did  for  ten  months  before  her  death,  and  no  one  ever  bore 
sufferings  with  more  patience  or  was  better  prepared  to  die." 

Under  these  circumstances — considering  the  long  acquaint- 
ance Pope  had  with  this  lady  ;  his  respect  for  her  and  for  her 
"  wit  and  sense  "  ;  his  sympathy  with  her  in  her  sorrows  and 
her  sufferings  ;  his  generous  and  noble  conduct  towards  her, 
to  the  last  hour  of  her  life — we  think  it  probable  that  she, 
Mrs.  Cope,  is  entitled  to  the  honour  of  the  epitaph.  The 
question,  so  far  as  the  mere  name  is  concerned,  may  be  of 
little  consequence ;  but  the  character  of  any  one  in  whom  Pope 
took  so  deep  an  interest  is  part  and  parcel  of  his  own  life ;  and 
the  outline  sketch  we  have  given  of  Mrs.  Cope  and  her  sad 
sufferings  would  lose  nothing  of  its  value,  even  if  the  new 
Editors  could  show  that  Mrs.  Corbet  had  a  right  to  the 
honours  of  the  past  century. 

It  must  have  been  manifest  to  the  attentive  reader  that  Pope 
was  not  altogether  satisfied  with  his  friend  CarylTs  conduct 
towards  this  poor  relation.  He,  indeed,  said  so  in  a  remon- 
strance, which  does  him  honour ; — in  the  letter,  which  has 
been,  in  part,  published,  addressed  not,  as  usual,  to  "  the  Hon. 

J.  C.,"  but  to  "  Mr.  C ,"  and  with  the  date  altered  to  1732 

— the  letter  described  in  the  "  Table  of  Contents  "  as  "  Ex- 
postulatory  on  the  Hardship  done  an  Unhapp}'  Lady."  *  We 
acknowledge  the  virtue  of  the  man  in  having  written  that 
letter — a  letter  worthy  of  his  true  heart  and  of  the  true  service 
done  to  the  "  unhappy  lady."  But  the  propriety  of  publication 
is  a  different  question.  There  was  another  unhappy  lady  who 
had  claims  for  consideration — especial  claims  at  that  time,  for, 
though  an  old  and  a  life-long  friend,  who  had  served  him  in 
all  the  offices  of  active  friendship,  as  he  had  a  hundred  times 
acknowledged,  she  was  but  a  young  widow.  If  Pope  believed 
that  the  poor  disguise  we  have  noticed  was  sufficient  for  con- 
cealment,— that  neither  the  widow  of  Caryll — nor  his  children 
— nor  his  friends,  relations,  nor  the  public — could  discover  by 
whom  the  wrong  had  been  done  against  which  he  had  expostu- 

*  In  proof  of  the  snggestir+ntss  of  these  small  alterations  and  indications,  Pe 
Qnincey,  in  his  article^on  Pope  in  Enc.  Brit.,  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  this 
letter  related  to  the  Unfortunate  Lady.  See  Enc.  Brit. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  147 

lated,  then  the  letter  itself  sinks  into  one  of  those  foolish 
flourishings — the  "  unclouded  effulgence  of  general  benevo- 
lence " — which  offend  by  their  obvious  purpose  of  self-glorifica- 
tion. It  was  not.  It  is  impossible  to  believe  that  what  we  can 
read,  interpret  and  understand,  was  not  intelligible  to  living 
hearts  and  loving  memories.  Pope,  therefore,  is  open  to  just 
censure  for  having  published  that  letter  without  accompanying 
it  with  another,  wherein  he  acknowledged  his  error  and  fully 
acquitted  his  friend.  We  shall  print  this  now — it  is  never  too 
late  to  do  justice.  The  following  passage  is  all  that  concerns 
Caryll  in  the  "  expostulatory."  The  first  paragraph  only  has 
been  published,  and  this  with  slight  alterations  and  the 
omission  of  the  lady's  name. — 

"  TWICKENHAM,  Feb.  Zd,  1728-9. 

"  I  assure  you  I  am  glad  of  your  letter,  and  have  long  wanted 
nothing  but  the  permission  you  now  give  me  to  be  plain  and 
unreserved  upon  this  head,  upon  which  I  wrote  actually  a 
letter  to  you  long  since ;  but  a  friend  of  yours  and  mine  was 
of  opinion  it  was  taking  too  much  upon  me,  and  more  than  I 
could  be  entitled  to  by  long  acquaintance  or  the  mere  merit 
of  good  will.  I  vow  to  God  I  have  not  a  thing  in  my  heart 
relating  to  any  friend  which  I  would  not,  in  my  own  nature, 
declare  to  all  mankind.  The  truth  is,  what  you  guess  : — I 
could  not  much  esteem  your  conduct  to  an  object  of  misery  so 
near  you  as  Mrs.  Cope  ;  and  I  have  often  hinted  it  to  yourself. 
The  truth  is,  I  cannot  yet  esteem  it,  for  any  reason  I  am  able 
to  see.  But  this  I  promise  ;  I  will  acquit  you,  as  far  as  your 
own  mind  acquits  you.  I  have  now  no  further  cause  [of  com- 
plaint], for  the  unhappy  lady  gives  me  now  no  further  pain  ; 
she  is  no  longer  an  object  either  of  }Toiirs  or  of  my  compassion  ; 
and  the  hardships  done  her,  by  whomsoever,  are  lodged  in  the 
hands  of  God,  nor  has  any  man  more  to  do  in't  but  the  persons 
concern'd  in  occasioning  them.  As  to  my  small  assistance,  I 
never  dreamt  of  repayment ;  so  the  true  sorrow  you  express 
for  my  being  a  looser  is  misplaced.  Indeed,  I  was  a  little 
shockt  at  one  circumstance,  that  some  of  }rour  Sussex  acquaint- 
ance declared  that  you  remitted  me  ten  pd"  a  year  for  her  (which 
you  know  was  not  true  ;  but  I  don't  impute  this  report  to  you), 


148  PAPEKS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

The  only  thing  I  am  now  concern'd  at  is,  that  (for  want  of 
some  abler  or  richer  friend  to  her)  I  myself  stand  engaged  to 
Abbe  Southcotte  for  20Z.  toward  his  charges  for  surgeons  and 
necessaries  in  her  last  illness ;  which  is  all  I  think  myself  a 
looser  by,  because  it  does  her  no  good." 

An  explanation  was  immediately  given ; — to  which  Pope 
replied : — 

"TWITNAM,  Feb.  18. 

"  I  assure  you  once  more,  it  is  an  ease  to  my  mind  and  a 
contentment  to  receive  your  letter.  Nor  was  I  so  defective  as 
to  you  it  might  seem  in  not  beginning  in  this  matter.  I  had 
actually  written  and  directed  to  you  a  long  letter  upon  the 
whole ;  but  was  prevented  merely  by  another's  judgment, 
which  judgment,  too,  was  meant  in  respect  and  tenderness  for 
you.  I  wish  to  God  I  had  been  (according  to  my  own  nature) 
the  person  active  in  this  ;  and  I  give  you  with  reluctance  the 
merit  herein  of  doing  a  friend's  part.  As  to  the  lady  now 
dead,  I  have  had  the  most  positive  assurances  from  one  that 
could  not  be  mistaken  (unless  wilfully  so)  that  she  had  no  such 
assistance  as  what  you  now  tell  me  from  your  hands  of  20Z.  a 
year.  That  was  the  sum  I  sent  her  myself  constantly  (upon 
an  assurance  that  nobody  else  did  so  much,  or  near  so  much, 
ever  since  her  brother's  misfortune  in  the  Mississippi).  You 
will,  therefore,  be  so  just  as  to  acquit  me  of  any  hard  suspicion 
of  your  conduct  that  was  my  own  or  chargeable  upon  me,  since 
it  was  upon  assurances  and  positive  informations  that  I  thought 
you  unkind ;  and  Abbe  S.  yet  makes  a  demand  upon  me  for 
her  last  necessities,  which  I  am  sure  implies  no  other  defray'd 
them." 

We  will  not  say  that  Pope's  informant  had  "wilfully  "  stated 
what  was  untrue, — but  certainly  Pope  was  misinformed. 
Enough  for  our  present  purpose,  that  Carj'll  offered  proofs 
personally,  and  that  Pope  acknowledged  they  were  satis- 
factory : — 

"May  30,  1729. 

"  I  am  first  to  give  you  very  sincere  thanks  for  your  kind 
visit,  and  double  thanks  for  its  being  so  well  timed,  to  remove 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  149 

in  the  best  manner  the  little  shadow  of  misconstruction 
between  us.  I  assure  you  I  had,  and  have  thought,  and  shall 
think  often,  of  your  estimable  proceeding  in  this  affair.  How 
many  men  of  less  sense  and  less  friendship  had  taken  quite 
another  turn  than  I  see  by  pleasing  experience  you  can  be 
capable  of.  I  protest  I  never  twice  in  my  life  have  found  my 
own  sincerity  succeed  so  well,  and  I  beg  your  pardon  for 
doubting ;  but  I  was  not  without  some  doubt  of  it  herein.  I 
am  now  glad  you  question'd,  glad  I  disguis'd  nothing  ;  glad  we 
were  both  in  the  right,  nay,  not  sorry  if  I  was  a  little  other- 
wise; since  it  has  occasioned  the  knowledge  of  that  dependence 
which  I  ought  and  am  to  have  on  your  friendship  and  temper. 
I  hope  this  will  find  you  and  your  whole  family  in  that  perfect 
health  I  wish  them;  in  perfect  harmony  and  all  other  happiness 
I  am  sure  it  will ;  whatsoever  you  can  give  yourselves  by 
Virtue  you  will ;  let  but  Fortune  do  her  part  in  the  rest.  *  * 
Forgot  you  never  can  be,  esteem'd  you  ever  will  be,,  and  loved 
and  wish'd  well  you  ever  must  be,  by,  dear  sir,  your  affectionate, 
obliged  friend  and  servant." 

It  is  impossible  to  record  the  feet  of  Pope's  generosity  to 
this  "  unhappy  lady,"  unrecorded  and  unknown  for  more  than 
a  century  after  his  death,  without  forgiveness — hearty  forgive- 
ness— for  a  thousand  little  tricky  deceptions  ;  the  result,  as  we 
must  believe,  of  a  weak  and  diseased  body,  a  supersensitive 
and  morbid  temperament,  acted  on  by  unjust  laws,  and,  "  far 
worse  to  bear,"  unjust  prejudice. 

There  are  numberless  other  questions  of  interest  which  we 
must  leave  to  be  elucidated  by  the  new  Editors.  But  we  can- 
not pass  in  silence  over  Pope's  relations  with  the  Blounts. 
We  must  be  content,  however,  briefly  to  indicate  and  suggest. 

Pope  was  early  acquainted  with  the  Blounts,  and  took,  as 
usual  with  him,  a  deep  interest  in  their  affairs.  The  daughters, 
like  himself,  had  a  fortune  which  required  careful  management. 
Some  interesting  passages  in  the  letter  (addressed,  when 
published,  to  Edward  Blount)  of  March  20,  1715-16,  as  usual, 
dropped  out  on  publication.  We  have  inserted  them  in 
italics — 

"  This  brings  into  my  mind  one  or  other  of  those  I  love 


150  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

best;  and  among  them  the  widow  and  fatherless,  late  of 
Mapledurham.  As  I  am  certain  no  people  living  had  an  earlier 
and  truer  sense  of  other's  misfortunes,  or  a  more  generous 
recognition  as  to  what  might  be  their  own,  so  I  earnestly  wish 
that  whatever  part  they  must  bear,  may  be  render'd  as  sup- 
portable to  them  as  it  is  in  the  power  of  any  friend  to  make  it. 
They  are  beforehand  with  us  in  being  out  of  house  and  home  by 
their  brother's  marriage  ;  and  I  wish  they  hare  not  some  cause 
already  to  look  upon  Mapledurham  with  such  sort  of  melancholy 
as  we  may  upon  our  own  seats  when  we  lose  them." 

Had  this  letter  appeared  as  written,  the  biographers  could 
not  all,  with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Carruthers,  have  assumed 
that  his  correspondent  Blount  was  the  brother  of  the  Misses 
Blount.  Pope  was  strangely  prejudiced  against  the  brother, 
because  on  his  marriage  he  had  required  that  his  mother  and 
sisters  should  leave  Mapledurham.  Pope,  indeed,  was  so 
affectionately  devoted  to  his  own  mother,  that  such  conduct 
must  have  appeared  to  him  strange  and  unfeeling ;  but  he 
ought  to  have  judged  others  by  the  usage  of  the  world,  and 
remembered  the  circumstances — by  which  Pope  himself  was 
never  tried,  though  we  doubt  not  he  would  have  borne  the 
test. 

More  slanderous  nonsense  was  never  written  than  on  the 
COTIHC 'xioii  and  relation  of  Pope  and  the  Misses  Blount;  and  it 
is  but  a  poor  apology  to  say  it  was  written  in  ignorance  of  all 
those  facts  on  which  a  just  judgment  could  be  formed.  Talk 
contemptuously  of  the  gossip  of  old  women  !  Why  it  is  pure 
reason  and  pure  logic  compared  to  the  gossip  of  Lisle  Bowles. 
Here  are  a  few  specimens  of  his  philosophy  and  its  appli- 
cation.— 

"  The  most  extraordinary  circumstance  relating  to  this 
Epistle  in  Verse  [Epistle  to  Mrs.  Blount] ,  and  which  evinces 
the  grossness  of  the  times,  or  the  licentiousness  of  the  man, 
was  the  conclusion  of  it,  now  suppressed, — so  coarse  and 
indecent  that  it  almost  surpasses  belief  that  it  could  have  been 
sent  to  any  woman  (much  less  one  for  whom  he  professed 
esteem)  if  the  lines  in  his  own  handwriting  were  not  extant." 


I.]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  151 

That  "lines"  are  extant  in  Pope's  handwriting  is  no  proof 
that  they  were  sent  to  Miss  Blount ;  indeed  Bowles  is  of 
opinion  that  they  were  not,  but  "  kept  for  the  consilia  secretiora 
of  Cromwell  and  his  other  friends  of  like  character"  If  so,  the 
"most  extraordinary  circumstance "  would  turnout  to  be  no 
circumstance  at  all ;  and  the  proof  of  the  licentiousness  of  the 
man — and  of  the  woman  in  a  still  higher  degree — is  that  Pope 
sent  to  Miss  Blount  the  copy  of  a  poem  from  which,  before 
sending  it,  he  struck  out  all  that  was  indecent !  Mr.  Bowles 
further  tells  us — 

"  That  a  friendly  but  indefinite  connexion,  a  strange  mixture 
of  passion,  gallantry,  licentiousness,  and  kindness,  had  long 
taken  place  between  himself  and  the  Miss  Blounts."  (p.  Ixix.) 

By  the  "  indefinite  connexion"  Bowles  must  mean  undefined 
— unknown — yet  he  instantly  pronounces  it  to  have  been  "  a 
strange  mixture  of  passion,  gallantry,  licentiousness  and  kind- 
ness."— 

"  The  most  direct  addresses  to  Martha  were  not  conceived 
till  after  the  coolness  of  Lady  Mary,  and  the  death  of  the 
brother  in  1726.  Pope,  however,  was  in  this  respect  a  politician, 
and  he  carefully,  to  the  family,  at  least,  avoided  any  expressions 
in  his  letters  that  might  be  construed  into  a  direct  avowal;  and 
when  his  warmth  sometimes  betrayed  him,  he  generally  con- 
trived to  make  old  Mrs.  Blount  and  her  other  daughter  parties, 
so  that  what  was  said  might  appear  only  the  dictates  of  general 
kindness."  (p.  Ixx.) 

"  Many  facts  tend  to  prove  the  peculiar  susceptibility  of  his 
passions ;  nor  can  we  implicitly  believe  that  the  connexion 
between  him  and  Martha  Blount  was  of  a  nature  '  so  pure 
and  innocent'  as  his  panegyrist,  Ruff  head,  would  make  us 
believe.  But  whatever  there  might  be  of  criminality  in  the 
connexion,  it  did  not  take  place  till  the  '  hey-day'  of  youth  was 
over  ;  that  is,  after  the  death  of  her  brother  (1726)."  (cxxviii.) 

"  On  the  death  of  their  brother,  his  intimate  friend  and  cor- 
respondent, he  seems  to  speak  more  openly  his  undisguised 
sentiments  to  Martha,  who  from  this  time  became  his  confidant, 


152  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

having  admitted  a  connexion  ivhich  subjected  her  to  some 
ridicule,  but  which  ended  only  with  his  life." 

It  is  not  possible  after  this  to  mistake  Bowles's  opinion  : — 
let  us  then  examine  his  evidence. 

He  finds  his  proof  of  the  "  direct  addresses  to  Martha"  in  the 
fact,  that  there  is  no  "direct  avowal" — no  direct  addresses  in 
the  letters — the  only  evidence  within  his  reach — where  all  that 
is  said  appears  to  be  "  only  the  dictates  of  general  kindness," 
and  applies  as  much  to  the  one  sister  as  to  the  other,  and  to 
the  mother  as  to  either !  But  there  was  one  fatal  moment — 

(when  "the  hey-day  of  youth  was  over" — when  they  were 
released  from  moral  restraint  by  the  death  of  her  brother 
(1726)  and  then  the  "  criminality  of  the  connexion"  was  no 
longer  concealed.  What  an  answer  to  this  libellous  nonsense 
— what  a  comment  on  the  immoral  consequences  which  Bowles 
says  followed  the  death  of  the  brother — when  we  add,  that  the 
brother  did  not  die  in  1726 — did  not  die  for  thirteen  years 
after — not  till  1739  !  Mr.  Bowles  had  made  a  mistake  !  had 
confounded  Pope's  correspondent,  Edward  Blount,  of  Devon- 
shire, with  Michael  Blount,  of  Mapledurham,  in  Oxfordshire  ! 

Though  Bowles  could  not  believe  in  the  purity  and  innocence 
of  the  connexion  so  emphatically  asserted  by  Ruffhead,  who 
was  but  the  mouth-piece  of  Warburton,  he  could  and  did 
believe  all  that  was  said  against  Martha  Blount — even  to  the 
absurd  stories  about  her  indifference  to  and  neglect  of  Pope  in 
his  last  illness — although  he  knew  that  Warburton  was  excited 
against  her  by  personal  quarrels  ;  that  all  he  said  in  her  favour 
was  extorted  by  truth  from  an  unwilling  witness,  and  all  that 
was  said  against  her  was  coloured  by  his  passion  and  his 
prejudice. 

Martha  Blount  was  not  only  pure  and  good,  but  somewhat 
over- scrupulous  in  the  observance  of  what  were  then  considered 
the  proprieties — a  sound-hearted,  well-informed,  religious 
woman.  Her  ^connexion  with  Pope  was  of  the  character 
described  by  those  who  knew  them  intimately,  most  "innocent 
and  pure," — she  had,  as  Pope  said,  the 

gay  conscience  of  a  life  well  spent — 


I]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  153 

Roscoe  well  observes,  that  the  intimacy  which  subsisted  be- 
tween Martha  Blount  and  Pope — 

^ 

'  was  nothing  more  than  a  sincere  and  affectionate  friendship, 

begun  in  early  youth  and  continuing  with  a  mutual  increase  of 
esteem  and  attachment  through  life.  Of  all  the  friends  of 
Pope  she  was  incomparably  the  dearest  to  him.  In  moments 
of  affliction,  she  was  the  first  person  that  occurred  to  his 
thoughts,  and  her  happiness  was  to  him  a  continual  object  of 
the  most  earnest  solicitude.  She  adopted  all  his  connexions 
and  friendships  ;  and  was  esteemed  and  treated  by  all  his  noble 
and  accomplished  visitors  and  correspondents,  as  a  person  of 
unimpeachable  honour,  reputable  family,  and  eminent  good 
sense.  t  Even  after  the  death  of  Pope  she  maintained  an 
intercourse  with  persons  of  the  highest  character,  rank,  and 
fashion.  *  *  And  it  was  not  till  our  own  days  that  an  attempt 
has  been  made  to  defame  the  memory  of  an  elegant  and 
accomplished  woman,  who  passed  through  life  honoured  and 
respected,  and  who  was  distinguished  by  the  invariable  esteem 
and  friendship  of  a  man,  who  in  spite  of  her  detractors,  has 
rendered  her  name  as  immortaf  as  nis  own." 

Here  Mr.  Roscoe  has  stumbled — the  scandal  was  old,  and 
only  revived  by  Bowles.  It  is  not  worth  re-reviving,  even  for 
the  purpose  of  refuting.  Our  readers,  however,  may  be  pleased 
to  hear  a  word  or  two  from  Pope  himself  on  the  subject. 
Enough  at  present,  and  by  way  of  introduction,  to  say  that 
Pope  had  long  objected  to  the  conduct  of  Teresa — not  her 
conduct  to  himself,  but  to  others,  and  to  her  mother  and  sister : 
and  when  he  emphatically  urged  on  Martha  that  she  should 
"  settle,"  it  was  not  with  reference  to  himself  or  his  feelings, 
but  her  own  happiness.  Her  health,  he  said,  required  more 
quiet  than  she  could  ever  find  "  in  such  a  family."  The  only 
difference  to  him,  as  he  told  her,  was,  that  if  she  settled  while 
he  yet  lived,  it  would  make  him  happy  to  know  she  was  in 
peace,  if  after  his  death,  it  "  could  make  you  only  so."  Could 
there  be  a  wish  less  sensual  than  that  which  considered  the 
happiness  of  another  after  his  death  ? 


154  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

The  new  Editors  will,  perhaps,  throw  some  light  on  this 
subject — tell  us  what  truth  there  was  in  the  stories  about 
Zephylinda  and  Alexis,  Teresa  Blount  and  James  Moore 
Smythe.  That  Smythe  and  Pope  hated  each  other  is  known 
wherever  the  'Dunciad'  is  known.  That  there  was  no  jealousy 
between  them  we  believe: — that  the  "Advertisement"  was  a 
consequence,  not  a  cause,  of  quarrel  is  obvious : — the  story 
told  of  the  five-line  plagiarism  proves  an  intimacy,  more  or 
less,  after  June,  1723  ;  and  the  denouncing  it  a  quarrel  before 
the  close  of  17*27.  The  new  Editors  will,  probably,  explain 
why  these  five  lines,  from  "the  Verses  on  Mrs.  Patty,"  were 
subsequently  transferred  to  '  The  Characters  of  Women ' ;  and 
whether  their  position  in  that  poem  has  or  has  not  a  signifi- 
cance and  a  meaning.  Is  there  anything  in  the  following  in- 
consequential postscript  to  one  of  Pope's  unpublished  letters  to 
help  them  to  a  conjecture  ? — 

"  The  Verses  on  Mrs.  Patty  had  not  been  printed ;  but  that 
one  Puppy  of  our  sex  took  'em  to  himself  as  Author,  and 
another  Simpleton  of  her  sex  pretended  they  were  addrest  to 
herself.  I  never  thought  of  showing  'em  to  anybody  but  her ; 
nor  she  (it  seems)  being  better  content  to  merit  praises,  and 
good  wishes,  than  to  boast  of  'em.  But,  indeed,  they  are 
such,  as  I  am  not  ashamed  of,  as  I'm  sure  they  are  very  true 
and  very  warm." 

If  neither  Pope  nor  Martha  Blount  showed  these  Verses, 
the  Puppy  and  the  Simpleton  must  be  sought  for  within  a  very 
narrow  and  a  very  home  circle.  We,  however,  have  no  great 
confidence  in  Pope's  assertions ;  and  no  more  in  his  scandal- 
gossip  than  in  other  people's. 

Enough  for  us,  at  present,  to  say  that  there  were  scandalous 
reports  in  circulation  about  Pope  and  Martha  Blount  even  so 
early  as  1723-1725  ;  and  that  Pope  traced  them,  or  believed 
that  he  had,  to  her  family ;  and  thus  wrote  to  her  godfather 
on  the  subject.  This  interesting  but  painful  letter  has  never 
been  published  entire — 


I.]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  155 

"  25  Dec.  1725. 

"  I  wish  I  had  nothing  to  trouble  me  more  [than  ill-natured 
criticism].  An  honest  mind  is  not  in  the  power  of  any  dis- 
honest one.  To  break  its  peace  there  must  be  some  guilt  or 
consciousness,  which  is  inconsistent  with  its  own  principles. 
Not  but  malice  and  injustice  have  their  day,  like  some  poor 
short-liv'd  vermin,  that  die  of  shooting  their  own  stings. 
Falsehood  is  Folly  (says  Homer)  and  Liars  and  Calumniators 
at  last  hurt  none  but  themselves,  even  in  this  world.  In  the 
next,  'tis  Charity  to  say,  God  have  mercy  on  them !  They 
were  the  Devil's  Vicegerents  upon  Earth,  who  is  the  father  of 
lies,  and  I  fear  has  a  right  to  dispose  of  his  children.  I've  had 
an  occasion  to  make  these  reflections  of  late  much  juster  than 
from  anything  that  concerns  my  writings,  for  it  is  one  that 
concerns  my  morals,  and  (which  I  ought  to  be  as  tender  of  as 
my  own)  the  good  character  of  another  very  innocent  person  ; 
who  I'm  sure  shares  your  friendship  no  less  than  I  do.*  t  [You 
too  are  brought  into  the  story  so  falsely  that  I  think  it  but 
just  to  appeal  against  the  injustice  to  yourself  singly,  as  a 
full  and  worthy  Judge  and  Evidence  too  !  A  very  confident 
asseveration  has  been  made,  which  has  spread  over  the  Town, 
that  your  God-daughter,  Miss  Patty,  and  I  lived  2  or  3  years 
since  in  a  manner  that  was  reported  to  you  as  giving  scandal 
to  many  ;  that  upon  your  writing  to  me  upon  it,  I  consulted 
with  her,  and  sent  you  an  excusive,  alleviating  answer;  but 
did  after  that,  privately,  and  of  myself,  write  to  you  a  full 
confession  ;  how  much  I  myself  disapprov'd  the  way  of  life, 
and  owning  the  prejudice  done  her,  charging  it  on  herself,  and 
declaring  that  I  wish'd  to  break  off  what  I  acted  against  my 
conscience,  &c. ;  and  that  she,  being  at  the  same  time  spoken 
to  by  a  Lady  of  yr  acquaintance,  at  your  instigation,  did 
absolutely  deny  to  alter  any  part  of  her  conduct,  were  it  ever 
so  disreputable  or  exceptionable.  Upon  this  villainous  lying 
tale,  it  is  further  added  by  the  same  hand,  that  I  brought  her 
acquainted  with  a  noble  Lord,  and  into  an  intimacy  with  some 
others,  merely  to  get  quit  of  her  myself,  being  mov'd  in  con- 
sciousness by  what  you  and  I  had  conferr'd  together,  and 
playing  this  base  part  to  get  off.  You  will  bless  yourself  at  so 
*  Edit.  1735,  ii.  159.  t  Unpublished. 


156  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

vile  a  wickedness,  who  very  well  (I  dare  say)  remember  the 
truth  of  what  then  past,  and  the  satisfaction  you  exprest  I  gave 
you  (and  Mrs.  Caryll  also  exprest  the  same  thing  to  her  kins- 
woman) upon  that  head.  God  knows  !  upon  what  motives  any 
one  should  malign  a  sincere  and  virtuous  friendship.  I  wish 
those  very  people  had  never  led  her  into  anything  more  liable 
to  objection,  or  more  dangerous  to  a  good  mind,  than  I  hope 
my  conversation  or  kindness  are.  She  has  in  reality  had  less 
of  it  these  two  years  past  than  ever  since  I  knew  her ;  and 
truly  when  she  has  it,  'tis  almost  wholly  a  Preachment,  which 
I  think  necessary,  against  the  ill  consequences  of  another  sort 
of  company,  which  they  by  their  good  will  would  alwaj's  keep  ; 
and  she,  in  compliance  and  for  quiet  sake  keeps  more  than  you 
or  I  could  wish.  *  *  God  is  my  witness  I  am  as  much  a 
friend  to  her  soul  as  to  her  person ;  the  good  qualities  of  the 
former  made  me  her  friend.]  No  creature  has  better  natural 
dispositions,  or  would  act  more  rightly  or  reasonably  in  every 
duty,  did  she  act  by  herself,  or  from  herself." 

It  is  impossible,  we  think,  to  read  this  letter  without  feeling 
the  force  of  that  solemn  declaration,  "  God  is  my  witness  I  am 
as  much  a  friend  to  her  soul  as  to  her  person," — and  without  a 
conviction  that  the  connexion  between  Pope  and  Martha 
Blount  was  "  pure  and  innocent."  It  is  evident  that  gossiping 
slander  had  been  long  current — that  it  had  been  inquired  into 
by  those  who  had  a  right  to  be  satisfied,  and  who  were  satisfied. 
That  they  had  given  no  countenance  to  its  revival  is  clear  from 
what  follows : — 

"  TWITTENHAM,  Jan.  19,  1725-6. 

"  I  had  much  sooner  acknowledg'd  a  Letter  so  worthy  of 
you  as  your  last,  in  which  you  show  so  just  and  honourable  a 
regard  to  Truth  (which  ought  to  be  above  all  friends,  if  the  old 
saying  be  good  Amicus  Plato  sed  magis  arnica  Veritas)  and  at 
the  same  time  to  your  friends  also.  I  never  doubted  the  entire 
falsity  of  what  was  said  relating  to  you  any  more  than  of  what 
related  to  myself.  I  am  as  confident  of  your  honour  as  of  my 
own.  Let  Lies  perish  and  be  confounded,  and  the  authors  of 
'em,  if  not  forgiven  be  despised.  So  we  men  say,  but  I  am 
afraid  women  cannot :  and  your  injur'd  kinswoman  is  made  too 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  157 

uneasy  by  these  sinister  practices,  which  especially  from  one's 
own  Family  are  terrible." 

There  are  still  "  many  new  facts"  to  be  added  to  the  life  of 
Pope, — "  many  errors"  of  the  biographers  to  be  corrected, — 
and  still  more  questions  that  ought  to  be  and  must  be  discussed 
now  or  hereafter  by  us  or  by  others. 


POPE'S   EPITAPH   ON    'MRS.    CORBET.' 

From  the  Aihen&um. 

WE  have  received  three  communications  on  the  subject  of 
the  Epitaph  on  '  Mrs.  Corbet.'  As  the  writers  substantially 
agree  in  their  representations,  we  shall  print  the  one  which 
comes  from  a  Lady  who,  from  her  relationship  to  the  family, 
speaks  with  a  sort  of  authority.  She  thus  writes  : — 

"  LONGNOR,  NEAR  SHREWSBURY,  July  25,   1854. 

"After  reading  in  the  Atheruzum  of  the  22nd  inst.,  the 
remarks  there  made  on  the  Life  of  Pope,  and  the  well-known 
and  beautiful  Epitaph  written  by  him,  I  wish  to  state  that  in 
the  Corbett  family  the  belief  has  always  existed  that  that 
Epitaph  was  written  on  Elizabeth,  the  only  daughter  of  Sir 
Uvedale  and  Lady  Mildred  Corbett,  and  grand-daughter  of  Sir 
Richard  Corbett,  who  was  a  friend  of  William  Lord  Russell. 
A  portrait  of  this  lady,  by  Le  Garde,  is  at  Longnor  Hall,  in 
Shropshire — which  is  still  the  residence  of  that  branch  of 
the  Corbetts — and  the  Epitaph  is  on  her  monument  in  St. 
Margaret's  Church,  Westminster,  prefaced  by  the  following 
lines : — 

"  '  In  Memory  of  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Corbett,  who  departed  this  Life  at  Paris, 
March  1st,  1724,  after  a  long  and  painfull  sickness.  She  was  a  Daughter  of  Sir 
Uvedale  Corbett,  of  Longnor,  in  the  County  of  Salop,  Bart.,  by  the  Right  Hon. 
the  Lady  Mildred  Cecill,  who  ordered  this  Monument  to  be  erected. 

Here  rests  a  woman,  &c.  &c.' 

—Tradition  remains  in  the  family  that  Miss  Corbett's  long 
and  painful  sickness  was  caused  by  cancer,  so  that  probably 


158  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

her  sufferings  were  as  well  known  to  her  friends  as  those  of 
Mrs.  Cope,  and  it  is  singular  that  the  death  of  both  ladies 
took  place  in  Paris.  Lady  Mildred  (at  that  time  remarried 
to  Sir  Charles  Hotham),  who  erected  the  monument  to  her 
daughter's  memory,  died  herself  January  the  18th,  1726-7, 
which  gives  an  earlier  date  to  the  Epitaph  than  the  Death  of 
Mrs.  Cope.  These  particulars  are  all  given  in  the  second 
volume  of  the  '  English  Baronetage,'  London,  1741,  under 
the  head  of  '  Corbett  of  Leighton.'  I  hope  that  this  may 
prove  a  satisfactory  answer  to  your  inquiry  '  whether  there 
was  a  Mrs.  Corbet  at  all  ?  ' 

"'I  remain,  &c. 
"  FAVORETTA  HAMILTON,  nee  CORBETT." 

Our  Correspondent  cannot,  of  course,  suppose  that  we  meant 
literally  to  ask  whether  there  was  a  Mrs.  Corbet — any  Mrs. 
Corbet  then  alive.  There  may  have  been  many.  The 
question  was,  whether  there  was  a  "  Mrs.  Corbet  who  died  of 
a  cancer  in  the  breast,"  known  to  Pope,  and  on  whom  he 
wrote  his  epitaph  ?  The  inscription  on  the  monument,  in  St. 
Margaret's  Church,  does  not  so  inform  us  ;  as  neither  "  Pope" 
nor  "cancer "are  there  mentioned;  indeed  the  words  "who 
departed  this  life  after  a  long  and  painful  sickness  "  seem  to  us 
to  describe  any  mortal  disease  rather  than  cancer.  But  why 
this  suppression  of  the  fact  on  the  monument,  if  it  were  a  fact, 
when  it  was  given  for  universal  circulation  in  the  immortal 
types  of  the  poet  ?  Our  Correspondent  says,  there  is  a  tra- 
dition in  the  family  that  Mrs.  Corbet's  long  sickness  was 
caused  by  cancer.  No  doubt  of  it ; — there  is  more  than  a  tra- 
dition in  favour  of  that  opinion,  and  that  it  was  "  cancer  in  the 
breast" — the  inscription  in  the  poet's  verses,  which  has  stood 
unquestioned  for  a  century.  Further,  says  our  Correspondent, 
Mrs.  Corbet's  sufferings  were,  probably,  "  as  well  known  to  her 
friends  as  those  of  Mrs.  Cope."  Here,  again,  we  agree  ;  but 
submit  that  the  question  is,  were  her  sufferings  as  well  known 
to  Pope  ?  Can  our  Correspondent,  or  any  other  Correspondent, 
give  us  proof  that  Pope  was  in  intimate  and  close  friendship 
with  Mrs.  Corbet : — or  with  the  Corbet  family  at  the  time  the 


I.]  POPE'S   WETTINGS.  159 

epitaph  was  written  ?  We  have  shown  how  long  he  had 
known — how  much  he  admired — and  how  deeply  interested  he 
was  in  the  fate  and  fortune  of  Mrs.  Cope,  "  who  died  of  a 
cancer  in  the  breast."  We  have  shown,  too,  that  Pope  was 
not  unwilling,  on  occasions,  to  make  an  epitaph  do  double 
duty.  Hence  the  doubts — hence  the  difficulties.  Can  our 
Correspondent,  or  any  other,  tell  us  when  Pope's  lines  were 
inscribed  on  the  monument  ?  Our  Correspondent  quotes  the 
inscription  correctly ;  but  the  following,  not  quoted,  is  signi- 
ficant, and  wants  explanation. — 

"Here  lieth  also  inter'd  the  body  of  the  Right  Hon.  the 
Lady  Mildred  Hotham,  daughter  of  James  Cecill,  late  Earl  of 
Salisbury,  who  died  January  18,  1726—7.  She  was  first 
married  to  Sir  Uvedale  Corbet,  Bart.  Her  second  husband 
was  Sir  Charles  Hotham,  of  the  county  of  York,  Bart. 

"  This  monument  was  finished  by  her  son,  Sir  Richard 
Corbet,  Bart." 

What  is  the  meaning  of  this  word  finished  ?  The  reader 
will  no  doubt  have  observed,  that  the  inscription  to  Mrs. 
Corbet  is  complete  in  itself, — and  just  as  complete  without  as 
with  Pope's  verses.  It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  the  verses 
were  subsequently  added  by  her  brother,  Sir  Richard,  when  he 
"  finished  "  the  monument. 

If  it  can  be  shown  that  these  verses  were  inscribed  on  the 
monument  before  May  1728,  when  Mrs.  Cope  died,  it  will 
establish  the  claims  of  Mrs.  Corbet  as  against  Mrs.  Cope  ;  if 
it  cannot,  we  shall  still  suspect  that,  as  in  the  case  of  Trum- 
bull,  they  were  an  "  appropriation."  Hither  way,  as  we  said 
last  week,  the  sketch  of  the  life  and  sufferings  of  Mrs.  Cope — 
of  Pope's  respect  and  regard  for  her — and  of  his  own  noble 
conduct — will  lose  no  jot  of  its  interest  or  value. 


160  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 


From  the  Athenaeum,  April  14,  1855. 

Lires  of  the  most  Eminent  English  Poets.  By  Samuel  John- 
son ;  with  Notes  by  Peter  Cunningham,  F.S.A.  Vol.  III. 
Murray. 

The  Bristol  Bibliographer.     Bristol,  Kerslake. 

UNDER  ordinary  circumstances,  we  should  have  been  content 
to  announce  the  completion  of  this  edition  of  Johnson's  '  Lives 
of  the  Poets,'  with  an  acknowledgment  that  the  last  volume 
fully  justifies  the  promise  of  the  first,  and  our  commendation. 
As,  however,  Mr.  Cunningham  has  in  his  Notes  more  than 
once  referred  to  the  articles  on  Pope  which  appeared  some 
time  since  in  the  Athenceum  [Nos.  1393 — 1395], —  and  as  he  is 
announced  as  assistant  editor  of  the  long-promised  edition  of 
Pope's  works, — it  may  be  well  to  offer  a  few  words  of  explana- 
tion where  he  appears  to  have  mistaken  our  meaning. 

Mr.  Cunningham  considers  our  argument  and  evidence  re- 
specting "  the  Unfortunate  Lady  "  as  "  an  ingenious  attempt  to 
identify  the  Unfortunate  Lady  with  a  Mrs.  Weston"  ! — not  suc- 
cessful, because  "  the  verses  in  which  she  is  said  to  be  lamented 
as  dead  were  actually  published  seven  years  before  her  death." 

Now,  if  the  reader  will  be  pleased  to  refer  to  the  Athenceum 
[No.  1394],  he  will  see  how  far  the  facts  justify  Mr.  Cunning- 
ham's statement  and  comment.  He  will  there  find  that  the 
biographers  of  Pope,  after  a  century  of  research,  had  come  to 
the  conclusion  that  "the  Unfortunate  Lady"  was  a  Mrs. 
Winsbury,  or  Wainsbury, — "  the  Mrs.  W.  of  Pope's  letters  :  " 
— that  Pope  himself  had  ingenious!}'  contrived  to  help  them  to 
the  conclusion.  We  undertook  to  prove,  and  did  prove,  that 
the  "Mrs.  W.  of  Pope's  letters"  was  neither  "Mrs.  Wins- 
bury,  nor  Mrs.  Wainsbury,  nor  '  the  Unfortunate  Lady,'  " — but 
a  Mrs.  Weston,  of  Sutton  ;  and  that  Mrs.  Weston  lived  "  years 
after"  the  "visionary  sword  "  and  "bleeding-bosom  gored" 
had  sent  "  the  Unfortunate  "  to  "  the  pitying  sky  "  ! 

Whether  this  was  an  "  attempt  to  identify  '  the  Unfortunate 


I.]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  161 

Lady '  "  with  Mrs.  Western,  we  shall  leave  to  the  judgment  of 
the  reader. 

As  to  the  state  of  the  Fenton  MSS.  of  the  books  of  Homer 
which  Fenton  translated  for  Pope,  we  have  on  record  some 
strange  contradictions,  all  the  more  startling  when  it  is  known 
that  these  MSS.  are  daily  open  to  inspection  in  the  British 
Museum.  Johnson  says,  "  they  have  very  few  alterations  by 
the  hand  of  Pope."  Mr.  Cunningham  tells  us,  "  the  first  and 
fourth  are  crowded  with  Pope's  alterations."  Now  we  happen 
to  have  before  us  a  letter,  by  George  Steevens,  a  very  careful 
observer,  addressed  to  Dr.  Johnson,  on  this  very  subject,  and 
he  confirms  Johnson's  statement — indeed,  makes  the  fact  the 
ground  for  inference  and  argument : — 

"  HAMPSTEAD  HEATH,  Oct.  27th,  1780. 
"DEAR  SIR, 

"  You  have  taken  notice  of  a  disproportion  between 
the  prices  paid  by  Pope  to  Fenton  and  his  coadjutor.  I  was 
once  told  (by  Spence  or  Dr.  Ridley)  that  Pope  complained  he 
had  more  trouble  in  the  revisal  of  a  single  book  translated  by 
Broome  than  with  all  that  were  executed  by  Fenton.  Three 
of  Fenton's  books,  in  his  own  handwiiting,  are  preserved  in 
the  Museum,  and  countenance,  on  one  part,  the  observation  of 
Pope  ;  for  I  do  not  think  that  in  any  one  of  these  he  made  many 
more  than  a  dozen  corrections.  He  changed,  however,  the 
two  first  lines  of  the  first  book,  which  originally  stood  thus  : — 

The  man  for  wisdom  fam'd,  0  Muse  !  relate, 
Through  woes  and  wanderings  long  pursued  by  fate. 

Broome's  MSS.  are  not  in  the  Museum;  but,  if  the  complaint 
was  just,  his  assistance  proved  less  valuable  to  Pope  than 
Fenton's.  To  the  weary  translator  of  thirty-six  books  of 
Homer  a  laborious  revision  of  eight  more  was  as  unwelcome 
as  it  might  be  expected.  Excuse  the  hurry  in  which  this  is 
written,  and  do  me  the  honour  to  believe  me  your  ever  faithful, 
obliged  and  obedient, 

"G.  STEEVENS." 

The  date  of  the  year  is  doubtful  ;  but,  from  the  tone  of  the 


1(52  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

letter,  we  incline  to  the  opinion  that  Steevens  wrote  it  after  a 
perusal  of  the  life  of  Broome  in  manuscript. 

Mr.  Cunningham  accepts  as  true  and  repeats  the  story  that 
Pope  received  a  large  sum  of  money,  1,OOOL,  from  the  Duchess 
of  Marlborough  to  suppress  the  character  he  had  drawn  of  her 
under  the  name  of  Atossa.  We  utterly  disbelieve  it.  Mr. 
Cunningham  refers  to  the  well-known  passage  in  a  letter  from 
Bolingbroke  to  Marchmont  in  proof. — 

"  Our  friend  Pope,  it  seems,  corrected  and  prepared  for  the 
press,  just  before  his  death,  an  edition  of  the  four  Epistles 
that  follow  the  '  Essay  on  Man.'  I  am  sorry  for  it,  because,  if 
he  could  be  excused  for  writing  the  character  of  Atossa 
formerly,  there  is  no  excuse  for  his  design  of  publishing  it, 
after  he  had  received  the  favour  you  and  I  know ;  and  the 
character  of  Atossa  is  inserted." 

By  no  possible  ingenuity  can  we  deduce  from  this  para- 
graph proof  that  Pope  ever  received  a  thousand  pounds,  or 
a  thousand  pence,  or  a  single  sixpence  from  the  Duchess  ; 
"  the  favour  "  may  mean  anything  or  nothing — a  courtesy, 
a  compliment,  a  civility  of  any  sort ;  and  the  fact  that  he  did 
insert  the  character  of  '  Atossa,'*  while  the  Duchess  was 
living  is  proof  to  the  contrary, — for  no  man,  out  of  Bedlam, 
would  have  thus  idly  put  it  in  the  power  of  that  clever  and  un- 
scrupulous woman  utterly  to  ruin  his  character,  which  on  such 
points  was  absolutely  without  stain  and  without  suspicion.  But 
to  this  letter  when  found  was  appended  in  pencil  "  1,OOOZ.," 
and  the  Editor  of  the  Marchmont  Papers  conjectures  that  the 
pencil  note  was  in  the  handwriting  of  his  father,  Mr.  George 
Rose,  and  that  the  father  meant  thereby  to  intimate  that  a 
thousand  pounds  was  "the  favour"  to  which  Bolingbroke 
referred.  What !  and  is  this  conjectural  interpretation  by  one 
person  of  what  may  have  been  meant  by  another,  who  could 
know  nothing  of  the  facts,  to  shake  our  faith  in  the  character 
of  a  man  who  never  asked,  never  sought,  never  accepted 
favours,  who  more  than  once  declined  them — even  a  pension 
for  life  from  the  Crown  ? 

*  "  /  have  got  the  book,"  says  Bolingbroke  to  Marchmont. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  163 

Respecting  the  epitaph  "  On  Mrs.  Corbet,  who  died  of  a 
cancer  in  her  breast,"  Mr.  Cunningham  states  that  it  "was 
first  printed  in  D.  Lewis's  Miscellaneous  Poems,  1730,"  which 
we  doubt ;  and  he  describes  what  was  said  on  this  subject  in 
the  Athenaum  as  an  attempt  "to  show  that  it  was  really  written 
on  a  Mrs.  Cope."  We  have  no  objection  to  this  report  of 
what  we  said, — although  we  certainly  intended  rather  to  throw 
out  a  speculative  possibility  or  probability  for  the  consideration 
of  Mr.  Cunningham  or  Mr.  Croker  than  dogmatically  to  assert 
anything.  We  hoped  to  put  the  new  Editors  on  their  guard 
against  certain  mystifications  in  the  early  life  and  writings  of 
Pope,  which  have  misled  all  former  editors,  from  Warburton 
himself  to  Mr.  Carruthers.  We  proved  that  the  early  corres- 
pondence of  Pope  was  not  to  beTelied  on  ;  that  the  letters 
which  were  published  by  Pope,  and  have  for  more  than  a 
century  appeared  as  addressed  to  Trumbull,  Addison,  Craggs, 
and  others,  were  not  one-half  of  them  so  addressed ;  that  the 
famous  letter  to  Addison  of  the  20th  of  July,  1713,  "  dictated," 
we  were  told,  "  by  the  most  generous  principle  of  friendship," 
and  which  has  given  rise  to  so  much  comment,  was  a  mere 
manufacture  ;  that  the  epitaph  which  figures  in  his  works  and 
professes  to  have  been  written  on  King  William's  Secretary  of 
State,  Sir  W.  Trumbull,  was  ivritten  on  King  James's  Secretary 
of  State  John  Lord  Caryl ! — Seeing  these  things  and  number- 
less others  of  a  like  character,  we  thought  it  not  improbable 
that  the  epitaph  in  question  was  really  written  on  Pope's  friend, 
Mrs.  Cope,  who  did  die  of  a  cancer  in  her  breast  under  circum- 
stances that,  as  we  showed,  roused  all  that  was  noble  and 
generous  in  Pope's  nature  and  awakened  his  deepest  sympathy, 
rather  than  on  a  Mrs.  Corbet,  with  whom  it  is  not  known  that 
he  had  the  slightest  acquaintance  ;  whose  name,  or  the  name 
of  whose  family,  is  not,  we  believe,  mentioned  in  all  his 
voluminous  correspondence ;  and  whose  epitaph  states  only 
that  she  died  "  after  a  long  and  painful  sickness." 

Now  comes  a  critic  in  the  mocking  costume  of  a  '  Bristol 
Bibliographer.'  We  are  sorry  for  the  simple  bookseller  ;  still 
more  sorry  to  see  that  the  "  perverse  widow" — the  apology  for 
this  intermeddling — is  treated  as  one  of  his  "  commodities," 

M    2 


164  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

whom  he  is  resolved  to  turn  to  profitable  uses, — sorry  to  see 
one  with  whom  we  had  so  many  pleasant  associations  made  as 
familiar  as  Doll  Common,  or  as  "Alexander  Mackenzie,  my 
coachman,"  who  so  long  served  a  celebrated  quack  as  a  text 
on  which  to  write  advertisements.  Our  reply,  however,  so  far 
as  the  comment  on  the  Pope  articles  is  concerned,  will  be  very 
brief,  for  there  is  not  one  word  urged  against  our  speculation 
which  is  not  taken  from  our  own  pages ;  but  the  following  note, 
all  we  shall  notice,  goes  beyond  argument : — 

"  I  have  not  heard  that  the  autograph  of  the  Epitaph  on 
John  Lord  Caryl  has  been  exhibited,  of  which  a  copy  is  printed 
in  the  Athenaeum,  July  15,  '54,  p.  876." 

— What  is  there  strange  in  this  ?  How  should  a  bookseller  at 
Bristol  know  whether  an  autograph  had  or  had  not  been 
exhibited  in  London  ?  More  than  a  dozen  persons,  and  those 
most  interested  in  the  subject,  have  seen  the  "  autograph." 
The  Bibliographer  himself  shall  see  it  if  he  will  give  us  a  few 
hours'  notice,  any  time  before  the  23rd  of  this  month  or  after 
the  1st  of  August. 


From  the  Athenceum,  Nov.  15,  1856. 

The  Poetical  Works  of  Alexander  Pope.  With  Memoir,  Critical 
Dissertation,  and  Explanatory  Notes.  By  the  Rev.  George 
Gilfillan.  2  vols.  Edinburgh,  James  Nichol. 

WHEN,  by  the  laudation  of  the  Critics,  as  set  forth  in 
advertisements,  our  attention  was  especially  directed  to  the 
series  of  our  Poets  now  publishing  at  Edinburgh,  we  thought 
it  our  duty  to  look  carefully  over  the  work,  and  we  gave  the 
results  in  a  notice  of  the  edition  of  Collins  [ante,  p.  8] . 

This  edition  of  Pope  is  of  like  character — good  paper,  fair 
typography;  two  handsome  volumes — and  there  an  end  of 
commendation.  On  '  The  Dissertation'  vre  shall  not  hazard 
an  opinion:  it  may  be  a  flight  beyond  us — "caviare  to  the 


I.J  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  165 

general";  but  the  'Memoir  and  Notes'  come  within  the 
range  even  of  "  the  general."  Here  there  can  be  no  differences 
of  opinion  ;  because  the  questions  are  not  matters  of  opinion, 
but  of  fact. 

Mr.  Gilfillan  has  a  high  respect  for  Mr.  Carruthers,  and 
Mr.  Carruthers  has  told  us  that  "  it  is  no  extravagant 
arithmetic  to  say,  that  more  authentic  information,  regarding 
the  literary  and  personal  history  of  Pope,  has  transpired 
within  the  last  three  or  four  years,  than  had  accumulated 
during  the  previous  century."  Of  this  accumulation  not 
a  whisper  lias  reached  Mr.  (iilfillan.  In  his  Memoir,  pub- 
lished be  it  remembered  in  1856,  we  have  the  old  story 
over  again, — down  even  to  the  father  with  his  strong  box,  in 
which  he  stowed  away  his  money,  and  lived  on  the  principal. 
There,  too,  incredible  as  it  may  appear,  Pope  leaves  Binfield 
in  1715,  and  retires  to  Twickenham  "  along  with  his  parents," 
in  defiance  of  facts  and  parish  registers,  which  prove  that  they 
retired  to  Chiswick,  where  his  father  died,  and  was  buriecTon 
the  "26th  of  October,  1717.  There,  too,  '  The  Rape  of  the 
Lock'  introduces  us,  once  again,  to  the  venerabIe~rrsecfeTary 
to~Queen  Mary,  wife  of  James  the  Second,  whose  fortunes  he 
followed  into  France," — followed  into  France,  as  our  readers 
know,  the  very  year  that  Pope  was  born;  who  never  again  set 
foot  in  England ;  who  was  outlawed  in  1695  ;  and  with  whom, 
therefore,  it  would  have  been  treason  even  to  hold  a  corres- 
pondence. With  Mr.  Gilfillan,  '  The  Fourth  Pastoral '  was 
"produced  on  occasion  of  the  death  of  a  Mrs.  Tempest — a 
favourite  of  Mr.  Walsh,  the  poet's  friend ; "  in  contradiction  to 
Walsh's  own  letter,  published  with  Pope's  letters  for  more 
than  a  century,  wherein  Walsh  says,  "  Your  last  Eclogue  being 
upon  the  same  subject  as  that  of  mine  on  Mrs.  Tempest's  death, 
I  should  take  it  very  kindly  in  you  to  give  it  a  little  turn,  as  if 
it  were  to  the  memory  of  the  same  lady;"  and  accordingly 
Pope,  on  publication,  prefixed  '  To  the  Memory  of  Mrs. 
Tempest'* — a  lady  whom,  it  is  reasonably  certain,  Pope  had 

*  Or  rather,  on  first  publication  in  Lintot's  Mis.,  Pope  inscribed  it  'To  the 
Memory  of  .a  Fair  Young  Lady  " — subsequently  '  To  the  Memory  of  Mrs. 
Tempest.'  Mrs.  Tempest  was  killed  in  the  great  storm,  26  Nov.  1703. 


166  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

never  seen,  and  who  died  long  before  the  Pastoral  was 
written. 

Of  course,  with  Mr.  Gilfillan  '  The  Unfortunate  Lady '  is 
still  "  said  to  have  been  a  Mrs.  Wainsbury"  ;  the  quarrel  with 
Wycherley  is  explained  by  calling  the  author  of  '  The  Plain 
Dealer,'  which  Dryden  said  was  the  finest  satire  ever  presented 
on  the  English  stage,  "  old,  stupid,  and  excessively  vain " ; 
and,  following  the  arithmetical  fancies  of  Roscoe — copied, 
however,  second-hand  from  Carruthers,  with  some  original 
blundering — we  are  told  that  Pope  became  acquainted  with 
Michael  Blount,  of  "  Maple  Durham,  near  Reading,"  in 
1707  ;  whereas  both  Roscoe  and  Carruthers  use  the  figures  to 
prove  that  Pope  in  that  year  became  acquainted  with  the 
Misses  Blount.  Blount,  of  Mapledurham,  in  1707,  was  Lister 
Blount,  the  father  of  those  ladies.  As  to  Michael,  their 
brother,  he  was  at  that  time  a  schoolboy.  It  is  a  fact,  how- 
ever, that  would  have  been  significant  to  Bowles,  had  it  not 
fortunately  escaped  his  observation,  that  Pope,  though  so 
intimate  with  the  mother  and  daughters,  had  very  little,  if  any, 
acquaintance  with  Michael  Blount.  The  truth,  we  suspect  to 
have  been,  that  Michael  Blount  was  not  a  man  of  very  refined 
tastes  or  habits.  There  is  a  touching  letter  from  Teresa  to 
her  nephew  on  Michael  Blount's  death  ;  but  no  account  of  him 
is  given  by  the  biographers, — not  one  single  letter  published 
that  passed  between  him  and  Pope.  We  hear  little  of  him, 
and  that  little  is  not  creditable.  In  1725-26,  years  after  he 
had  been  married  and  had  a  family,  he  was  engaged  in  a  dis- 
graceful night-brawl,  in  which  a  Mr.  Gower  lost  his  life,  and 
for  which  Major  Oneby  was  sentenced  to  death,  and  would 
have  been  executed  but  that  he  destroyed  himself  the  night 
before  the  appointed  day.  The  parties  had  been  to  the 
theatre — thence  to  Will's  Coffee-house — then  to  the  Castle 
Tavern  in  Drury  Lane,  where  they  remained,  drinking  and 
gambling,  with  a  pepper-box  instead  of  a  dice-box,  until  two 
or  three  in  the  morning,  when  Gower  was  killed  and  Blount 
very  seriously  wounded. 

We  submit  that  there  ought  to  be  no  more  repetition  of  the 
idle  reports,  suspicions,  and  questionings  of  the  hour,  unless 


L]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  167 

some  proof  can  be  offered  of  their  truth, — for,  no  matter  how 
delicately  recorded  and  tenderly  discussed  by  the  biographers, 
they  are  sure  to  receive  from  the  hurried  and  uninformed 
public  a  hard  and  positive  construction.  Thus,  the  absurd 
story,  for  which  there  is  not  even  a  shadow  of  authority,  Chat 
Pope  took  a  bribe  of  1,OOOL  to  suppress  the  character  of 
Atossa  becomes  under  the  manipulation  of  Mr.  Gilfillan  some- 
thing like  a  fact.  Thus  he  writes  : — 

"  It  is  said — ice  fear  too  truly — that  these  lines  being  shown 
to  her  Grace  [of  Marlborough]  *  *  she  recognised  in  them  her 
own  likeness,  and  bribed  Pope  with  a  thousand  pounds  to 
suppress  it.  He  did  so  religiously — as  long  as  she  ivas  alive — 
and  then  published  it  !  " 

When  the  character  of  Atossa  was  first  published  was  not 
likely  to  be  known  to  Mr.  Gilfillan.  The  answer  to  his  state- 
ment is, — the  Duchess  outlived  Pope. 

SucE~stories  ought  not  even  to  be  put  on  record  without  a 
deliberate  marshalling  of  authorities,  and  then  no  biographer 
of  common  sense  would  march  through  Coventry  with  one 
half  of  these  old  libels.  So  of  that  older  libel,  that  Pope 
satirized  the  Duke  of  Chandos,  "  a  man  who  had  befriended 
him  and  lent  him  money."  Pope,  says  Mr.  Gilfillan,  denied 
the  charge  ;  which  is  true  ;  and  as  neither  the  Duke  nor  any 
other  man  ever  offered  to  prove  it,  the  malicious  untruth  ought 
to  have  been  dropped  a  century  since.  But  Pope  not  only 
denied  the  charge  of  borrowing,  but  of  befriending  7  he 
distinctly  stated  that  lie  had  never  seen  the  Duke  but  twice, 
and  had  never  received  any  present,  farther  than  the  sub- 
scription for  Homer,  from  him  or  from  any  great  man  what- 
ever. This  indignant  denial  was  natural,  but  not  required. 
A  charge  of  borrowing  money  from  the  Duke  or  from  any  man 
— like  the  charge  of  taking  a  bribe  from  the  Duchess — was  a 
mere  absurdity  to  all  to  whom  Pope,  his  fortunes,  and  his 
character  were  known.  Pope  was  a  lender,  not  a  borrower. 
A  giver  and  not  a  receiver.  A  free  giver,  too,  though  some- 
what over-careful  in  small  personal  matters — "  paper-sparing," 


168  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

as  Swift  described  him.  Mr.  Gilfillan,  however,  notwithstanding 
Pope's  denial,  has  some  doubts  on  the  subject,  which  we 
recommend  to  the  courteous  consideration  of  literary  men. — 

"  Pope  denied  the  charge,  although  it  is  very  possible,  both 
from  his  own  temperament,  and  from  the  frequent  occurrence  of 
similar  cases  of  baseness  in  literary  life,  that  it  may  have  been 
true" 

The  unhesitating  manner  with  which  Mr.  Gilfillan  pro- 
nounces judgment  on  questions  of  extremest  doubt  and  delicacy 
— where  the  well-informed  whisper  with  bated  breath — will  be 
duly  admired.  For  Pope's  errors  or  his  vices,  when  proved, 
let  Pope  be  condemned";  ana  He  had  enough  to  keep  the 
dullest'  of  mortals  in  countenance.  Of  all  the  current  and 
contemporary  slander  which  cannot  be  proved,  let  him  be 
acquitted.  Why  are  we  to  go  on  eternally  weighing  and 
balancing  ?  If  those  whom  his  genius  and  his  satire  had  made 
his  enemies  could  not  substantiate  their  own  charges,  why  are 
they  now  to  be  doubtingly  discussed  ?  Take,  in  illustration, 
the  attachment  between  Pope  and  Martha  Blount.  Mr.  Gilfillan 
thus  settles  this  "  delicate  question  "  after  his  own  off-hand 
fashion. — 

"Bowles  [he  tells  us]  has  strongly  and  plausibly  urged  that 
it  was  not  of  the  purest  or  most  creditable  order.  Others  have 
contended  that  it  did  not  go  further  than  the  manners  of  the 
age  sanctioned  ;  and  they  say,  '  a  much  greater  licence  in  con- 
versation and  in  epistolary  correspondence  was  permitted 
between  the  sexes  than  in  our  decorous  age ! '  We  are  not 
careful  to  try  and  settle  such  a  delicate  question, — only  we  are 
inclined  to  suspect,  that  when  common  decency  quits  the 
words  of  male  and  female  parties  in  their  mutual  commu- 
nications, it  is  a  very  simple  charity  that  can  suppose  it  to 

adhere  to  their  actions." 

^ 

Mr.  Gilfillan  evidently  rejoices  that  he  has  no  "  simple 
charity  "  to  mislead  his  judgment;  he  tries  all  things  and  all 
men  by  one  standard — himself,  the  illustration  of  the  nine- 
teenth century.  Under  his  general  law  all  are  condemned 


I.]  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  169 

from  Chaucer  to  Shakspeare,  including  the  Fathers  of  our 
Church  and  the  translators  of  our  Bihle.  That  we  do 
Mr.  Gilfillan  no  injustice  may  be  made  apparent  in  a  sentence, 
where,  after  recording  the  death  of  Pope,  he  thus  continues  : — 

"  His  favourite,  Martha  Blount,  behaved,  according  to  some 
accounts,  with  disgusting  unconcern  on  the  occasion.  So  True 
it  is,  'there  is  no  friendship  among  the  wicked.'  " 

This  is  very  base ;  and  yet,  as  the  reader  will  observe,  it  rests 
on  '•  some  accounts  "  circulated  by  somebody  whom  Mr.  Gil- 
fillan neither  knows,  nor  concerns  himself  to  know ;  and  this 
of  a  woman  who  lived  honoured  by  the  friendship  of  the 
virtuous  and  the  good  of  all  classes,  represented  by  Lord 
Lyttelton,  Judge  Fortescue,  the  Duchess  of  Queensberry,  Lady 
Gerard,  Lady  Cobham,  the  brilliant  daughter  of  Arbuthnot, 
and  a  dozen  others  who  might  be  named.  Even  Warburton, 
much  as  he  disliked^and  much  as  he_ misrepresented  her, 
declared  through  his  mouth-piece,  Kuffhead,  that  her  con- 
nexion with  Pope  was  pure  and  innocent.  The  somebody, 
however,  of  Mr.  Gilfillan  was  no  doubt  Bowles,  whose  "  strong 
and  plausible  "  was  founded  on  an  absurd  mistake.  ''  What- 
ever there  might  be  of  criminality  in  the  connexion,"  he 
observes,  "  it  did  not  take  place  till  the  *  hey-dey '  of  youth  was 
over, — that  is,  after  the  death  of  her  brother  (1726), — when  he 
was  thirty-eight,  and  she  thirty-six."  It  was  the  death  of  the 
brother,  it  appears,  which  released  them  from  all  moral 
restraint :  up  to  that  time  Bowles  himself  admits  there  had 
been  no  criminality.  The  answer  is  as  conclusive  against 
Bowles  as  other  answers  of  fact  have  been  to  Mr.  Gilfillan. 
The  brother  was  living  for  years  after  1726, — he  did  not  die 
till  1739.  Mr.  Bowles  found  all  the  temptations  to"  this 
immoraliiy  in  his  own  blundering,— in  having  mistaken  Blount 
of  Devonshire  for  Blount  of  Mapledurham  ! 

\Ye  take  leave  of  Mr.  Gilfillan  ;  but  the  character  of  his 
Memoir  suggests  to  us  the  necessity  there  is  for  a  recon- 
sideration of  all  that  has  hitherto  been  received  without 
question — as  to  the  early  acquaintance  and  intercourse  between 


170  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

Pope  and  the  Misses  Blount.  Mr.  Carruthers  is,  we  believe, 
the  only  living  literary  man  who  has  had  access  to  the  Maple- 
durham  MSS.,  and  he  acknowledges  himself  to  be  largely 
indebted  to  the  present  representative  of  the  family  for  infor- 
mation. All,  therefore,  that  Mr.  Carruthers  says  is  spoken 
seemingly  with  authority ;  what  he  repeats  from  others  is 
seemingly  confirmed,  and  even  his  silence  becomes  significant. 
Under  these  circumstances,  it  is  hazardous  to  question  any- 
thing he  has  stated  relating  to  the  Blounts ;  yet  we  feel  that 
there  is  a  great  deal  of  assumption  even  in  his  narrative — that 
he  falls  too  easily  into  the  humour  of  his  predecessors — and 
talks  too  confidently  about  Pope  dallying  with  the  sisters,  of 
the  supremacy  and  then  the  deposing  of  Teresa.  It  appears 
to  us  that  if  ever  Teresa  was  installed,  she  was  certainly 
deposed  before  the  letter  was  written  to  her  [Carr.  i.  49], 
during  Martha's  illness.  In  that  earnest  letter  there  is  not  a 
trace  of  flirtation  or  flattery.  He  speaks  of  Martha  as  one  to 
whom  he  was  sincerely  attached — as  brother  to  sister ;  not  a 
word  passes  the  bounds  of  virtuous  friendship.  But  tender 
and  affectionate  as  that  letter  is,  the  tenderness  is  for  Martha, 
the  compliments  to  Teresa. 

To  admit,  then,  of  the  dallying,  the  supremacy,  and  the 
deposing,  there  must  have  been  a  long  intimacy  before  that 
letter  was  written — before  1714  or  1715.  So  there  was,  says 
Mr.  Carruthers  :  it  began  in  1707.  This,  however,  is  not 
said  on  Mapledurham  authority,  but  on  that  of  Roscoe,  who 
arrives  at  the  conclusion  after  a  somewhat  curious  method. 
Pope,  in  a  published  letter  dated  "  Bath,  1714  " — Mr.  Car- 
ruthers, who  appears  to  have  seen  the  original,  does  not  say 
that  it  is  so  dated,  and  we  doubt — thus  writes  : — 

"  BATH,  1714. 

"  You  are  to  understand,  Madam,  that  my  passion  for  your 
fair  self  and  your  sister  has  been  divided  with  the  most 
wonderful  regularity  in  the  world.  Even  from  my  infancy, 
I  have  been  in  love  with  one  after  the  other  of  you,  week  by 
week,  and  my  journey  to  Bath  fell  out  in  the  three  hundred 
seventy  sixth  week  of  the  reign  of  my  sovereign  lady  Sylvia 


I.]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  171 

[Martha  in  the  original].  At  the  present  writing  hereof  it  is 
the  three  hundred  eighty  ninth  week  of  the  reign  of  your  most 
serene  Majesty,  in  whose  ser.vice  I  was  listed  some  weeks 
before  I  beheld  your  sister.  This  information  will  account 
for  my  writing  to  either  of  you  hereafter,  as  either  shall 
happen  to  be  Queen-Regent  at  that  time." 

Mr.  CaiTiithers,  assuming  the  date  to  be  correct,  follows  the 
example  of  Roscoe,  tests  the  fancy  of  the  Poet  by  the  touch- 
stone of  arithmetic,  and  thus  proves  that  the  intimacy  began 
in  1707.  If  it  be  right  to  interpret  after  this  literal  fashion, 
when,  we  would  ask,  was  Pope  out  of  his  "  infancy  "  ?  Does 
a  man  of  twenty-six  write  of  himself  seven  years  before  as  in 
his  infancy  ?  Infancy  at  nineteen !  We  suspect  that  this 
playful  nonsense  is  not  to  be  tried  by  mechanic  rules  ;  and  if 
there  be  other  circumstances  in  Mr.  Carruthers'  volumes  that 
tend  to  strengthen  his  conclusion  they  have  escaped  our 
observation.  Indeed,  in  our  view,  Mr.  Carruthers  contradicts 
himself.  Thus,  in  respect  to  the  quarrel  with  J.  Moore, 
afterwards  J.  M.  Smythe,  he  tells  us  that  "  throughout  the 
year  1713  "  Moore  wrote  sentimental  fopperies  to  these  ladies, 
but  "  his  influence  was  dispersed  by  the  real  Alexis,  who,  not- 
withstanding the  defects  of  his  personal  appearance,  soon  rose 
into  favour."  Is  not  the  plain  meaning  of  this,  that  in  1713 
Smythe  and  Pope  ran  a  race  for  the  good  opinion  of  these 
ladies,  that  Smythe  had  the  advantage  in  the  start,*  but  that 
Pope  "  soon  "  passed  him  and  won  the  race  ?  If  so,  we  have 
not  a  word  to  object ;  it  agrees  substantially  with  our  theory 
and  Martha  Blount's  statement.  But  what  becomes  of  Pope's 
intimacy  with  these  ladies  in  and  from  1707  ?  The  facts,  as 
they  appear  to  us,  are  clear  enough. 

As  Catholics,  residing  within  half-a-dozen  miles  of  each 
other,  it  is  probable  that  the  Popes  had,  from  the  time  of 
their  residence  at  Binfield,  some  general  knowledge  of,  or 
acquaintance  with,  the  Englefields  of  Whiteknights,  and 
through  the  Englefields  with  their  relations  the  Blounts,  who 

*  iii.  199,  that  J.  M.  S.  "had  stung  him  both  as  a  lover  and  a  poet  *  *  * 
had  stolen  both  his  mistress  and  his  verses." 


172  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

resided  a  few  miles  further  distant.  A  formal  knowledge, 
however,  of  the  Blounts,  father  and  mother,  does  not,  under 
circumstances,  necessarily  imply  a  knowledge  of  Teresa  and 
Martha  Blount.  These  ladies,  we  are  told  by  Mr.  Carruthers, 
were  educated  at  Hammersmith,*  and  were  then,  according  to 
the  usage  of  that  time  amongst  Catholic  families,  sent  to  Ptris, 
where  they  remained  long  enough  to  acquire  "  a  certain  polish 
and  vivacity  "  peculiar  to  French  manners.  Considering  the 
difference  in  their  age — Mr.  Bowles  says  three  and  Mr.  Car- 
ruthers two  years — if  they  returned  together  we  should  say,  as 
a  mere  speculative  opinion,  that  they  were  recalled  by  the 
illness  or  death  of  their  father  in  1710.  Martha  Blount,  when 
questioned  after  Pope's  death,  said  that  it  was  at  the  house  of 
her  grandfather  Englefield  that  she  used  first  to  see  Mr.  Pope. 
"  I  was  then,"  she  said,  "  a  very  little  girl.  *  *  It  was  after 
his  '  Essay  on  Criticism '  was  published."  Martha  Blount 
was  not  speaking  "  by  the  card,"  neither  did  Spence  record  by 
the  letter ;  indeed,  in  the  very  next  page  she  is  reported  to 
have  said  "  my  first  acquaintance  with  him  was  after  he  had 
begun  the  Iliad," — the  prospectus  for  which  was  issued  in 
1713.1 

It  seems  to  us  very  natural  that  a  woman,  then  probably 
between  fifty  and  sixty,  should  speak  of  herself  when  under 
twenty,  just  returned  from  a  convent,  and  first  entering  society, 
as,  at  that  time,  "  a  young  thing — incapable  of  appreciating 
such  a  man  or  his  works — a  childish  little  thing  ; "  and  this 
with  reference  not  so  much  to  her  years  as  her  inexperience. 
Mr.  Carruthers,  however,  putting  entire  faith  in  his  reduction 
of  fancy  to  fact,  sees  in  Martha's  statement  "an  amusing  touch 
of  feminine  weakness  and  vanity,"  and  assumes  that  she 
"  post-dates  the  acquaintance  several  years."  Now,  we  believe 
Martha's  statement  to  be  substantially  correct.  After  her 
return  from  Paris,  she  met  Pope  occasionally,  and  as  a  chance 

*  Croker,  a  good  authority,  says,  Martha,  and  probably  her  sister,  received 
first  rudiments  of  education  at  Mrs.  Cornwallis's  at  Hammersmith  ;  afterwards, 
under  Mrs.  Maynell  and  Miss  Lyster,  in  Paris. 

t  See  Kennett's  Anecdotes  of  Swift,  Nov.  1713.  Roscoe,  i.  93.  But  he  had 
begun  to  translate  sometime  before,  and  had  shown  his  translations  to  particular 
friends. 


I.]  POPE'S   WETTINGS.  173 

visitor  at  her  grandfather's,  and  there  she  first  learned  to 
appreciate  him.  This  opinion  is  strengthened  by  the  fact, 
that,  though  Mr.  Carruthers  has  hunted  over  the  Mapledurham 
MSS.,  as  Mr.  Chalmers  had  done  before  him,  the  first  of 
Pope's  letters  which  they  have  been  enabled  to  produce  is 
dated  the  25th  of  May,  1712 — is  addressed  to  Martha— begins 
"  Madam,"  and  accompanied  a  presentation  copy  of  Lintot's 
M  mcdlany,  which  contained  the  first  sketch  of  '  The  Rape  of 
the  Lock.'  There  is,  indeed,  another  letter,  placed  by 
Mr.  Carruthers  "  among  the  earliest,"  which  commences 
"  Dear  Madani."  This  latter  is  dated  "  Chiswick,  Tuesday, 
December  31st,"  and  Mr.  Carruthers  has  added,  between 
brackets,  [1712] — an  obvious  mistake  ;  1712  was  leap-year, 
and  the  31st  of  December  fell  on  Wednesday,  and  not  on 
Tuesday.  The  true  date  is  1717. 

Again,  Pope  at  that  time  refers,  in  his  published  letters, 
more  than  once  to  Whiteknights  and  the  Englefields :  both 
Cromwell  and  Wycherley  appear  to  have  known  the  family 
and  visited  at  the  house.  Pope  writes  to  Cromwell,  "  Mr. 
Englefield  always  inquires  of  you,  and  drinks  yours  and 
Mr.  Wycheiiey 's  health  with  true  country  affection."  Yet,  in 
no  one  of  his  letters  to  either  is  there  a  mention  of  the 
Blounts  or  of  Mapledurham,  unless,  indeed,  we  are  to  con- 
sider as  special  some  vague  words  about  two  pair  of  radiant 
eyes,  and  his  exclamation  "  what  have  I  to  do  with  Jane 
Grey  as  long  as  Miss  Molly,  Miss  Betty,  or  Miss  Patty  are  in 
this  world?"* — and  even  so,  the  date  21st  December,  1711, 
would  help  to  bear  out  our  conjecture  and  Martha's  state- 
ment. 

Thus  far  our  inferences  rest  on  known  and  published 
letters;  but  we  may  add,  that  our  private  authorities  agree 
with  them.  The  Blounts,  Englefields,  arid  Carylls  were  all 
related  and  in  the  closest  intimacy.  Martha  Blount  was  the 
god-daughter  of  the  Carylls.  Pope  was  acquainted  with  the 
Englefields  and  Carylls  as  early,  at  least,  as  1709, — he  resided 
in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  of  the  one  and  was  in  con- 

*  In  proof  that  they  are  vague  words,  there  is  no  Miss  Teresa. 


174  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

stant  correspondence  with  the  other  :  what  then  so  certain  as 
that  Pope's  letters  to  Caryll  would  be  full  of  information 
ahout  liis  friends  and  relations — about  his  god- daughter  or  her 
family,  if  Pope  had  met  her,  even  casually,  at  "VVhiteknights  ? 
— }ret  neither  her  name,  nor  the  name  of  her  family,  once 
occurs  until  July,  1711, — and  then  the  notice  is  merely  in- 
cidental— Pope  is  glad  that  some  venison  intended  for  him 
has  fallen  into  so  good  hands  as  "  Mrs.  Englefield  and  Mrs. 
Blount,"  a  fact  of  which  he  had  been  informed  by  his  corre- 
spondent. Whole  letters  are  filled  with  talk  about  the  Engle- 
fields,  but  there  is  not  one  mention  of  the  Blounts  from  which 
we  could  infer  intimacy  or  personal  acquaintance  until  the 
"  15th  of  December,"  1713,  as  we  believe.  Then  he  wrote,  I 
came  by  Reading  that  I  might  have  an  opportunity  of  seeing 
"  my  old  acquaintance  at  the  place  above  mentioned  and  at 
Whiteknights,"  and  Reading  may  stand  for  Mapledurham.* 
Afterwards,  it  is  probable  that  Pope  was  attracted  in  that 
direction  a  little  more  frequently  by  the  French  "  polish  and 
vivacity  "  of  the  young  ladies, — and  then,  according  to  Pope's 
nature,  he  became  deeply  interested,  not  in  Teresa  or 
Martha,  but  in  the  mother  and  daughters — "  the  widow  and 
the  fatherless,"  as  he  calls  them — when  they  were  under  the 
necessity,  on  Michael  Blount's  contemplated  marriage,  of 
leaving  Mapledurham,  and  living  as  best  they  might  on  a  small 
fortune. 

These  opinions  run  counter  to  received  authorities,  con- 
tradict dates  and  facts  in  the  published  correspondence  ;  but 
Mr.  Carruthers  is  a  man  of  good  sense,  who  desires  to  get  at 
the  truth  if  possible,  and  will  do  his  best  to  test  and  try  them 
and  determine  what  they  are  worth. 

*  Where  he  certainly  had  been,  as  he  says,  "  Mrs.  Blount  told  me  at  Maple- 
durham. " 


I.J  POPE'S   WETTINGS.  175 


POPE'S   FATHER-IIIS   FIRST   WIFE— AND   POPE'S   HALF-SISTER, 
MRS.    RACKETT. 

From  the  Atheneeum,  May  30,  1857. 

WE  stated  incidentally  a  short  time  since  that  Mrs.  Rackett, 
though  called  sister-in-law  by  Pope  in  his  will,  was  his  half- 
sister — the  daughter  of  his  father  by  a  first  wife,  and  not,  as 
assumed  b/Tiis  "Biographers,  the  daughteF"  of  his  mother  by 
a  first  husband.  We  adduced,  as  sufficient  for  our  immediate 
purpose,  the  account  published  at  the  time  of  Pope's  mother's 
death,  and  we  believe  written  by  Pope  himself,  wherein  he  is 
described  as  "  her  only  child." 

As  our  attention  is  again  called  to  the  subject  we  shall  offer 
evidence — conclusive  in  itself — and  suggest  a  few  circum- 
stances, which,  with  due  diligence  on  the  part  of  biographers, 
may  possibly  help  them  to  further  information. 

A  bookseller's  catalogue  is  we  know  by  experience  a  ticklish 
subject.  We  hope,  however,  that  Mr.  Hotten  is  a  modest 
man, — not  emulous  of  the  fame  of  Edmund  Curll — not  so 
easily  to  be  made  a  tool  of.  In  this  faith  we  shall  notice  a 
small  contribution  made  to  the  biography  of  Alexander  Pope 
in  the  Adversaria  attached  to  his  Catalogue  just  published. 
Trifling  as  it  may  appear,  it  is  worth  something. 

A  correspondent  of  Mr.  Hotten's  has  found  in  the  Man- 
chester Free  Library  an  old  London  Directory  *  of  1677,  and 
therein  appears 

"Alexand.  Pope,  Broad  street." 


*  "A  collection  of  the  names  of  the  merchants  living  in  and  about  the  city  of 
London  ;  very  usefull  and  necessary.  Carefully  collected  for  the  benefit  of  all 
dealers  that  shall  have  occasion  with  any  of  them  ;  directing  them  at  the  first 
sight  of  their  name,  to  the  place  of  their  abode.  LONDON,  printed  for  Sam.  Lee, 
and  are  to  be  sold  at  his  shop  in  Lumbard-street,  near  Pope 's-Tiead- Alley :  and 
Dan.  Major  at  the  Flying  Horse  in  Flcetstreet.  1677."  Very  small  octavo. 

I  have  now  (October,  1857)  seen  this  Directory.  The  copy  appears  at  one  time 
to  have  belonged  to  Hearne  the  Antiquary.  From  a  note  therein,  supposed  to 
be  in  the  handwriting  of  Heanie,  the  gentleman  who  showed  it  to  me,  the 
librarian,  I  presume,  seemed  to  be  of  opinion,  that  Hearne  had  the  intention  of 


176  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

Strange  that  while  the  biographers  of  Pope  were  agreed  that 
his  father  was  a  merchant  or  trader  in  the  City  of  London, 
and  were  wasting  pages  in  speculation  and  discussion  as  to 
where  he  resided,  not  one  of  them  thought  of  referring  to 
a  Directory.  We  trust  they  will  be  the  wiser  for  Mr.  Hotten's 
hint ;  for  if,  as  asserted,  the  elder  Pope  was  in  business  when 
the  son  was  born,  a  later  Directory  might  determine  the  poet's 
birthplace,  and  thus  set  another  of  the  vexed  questions  at  rest. 
Here,  however,  we  have  him  resident  in  Broad  Street  in  1677, 
and  the  strong  presumption  therefore  is  that  he  was  a  freeman 
of  one  or  other  of  the  City  Companies.*  Have  the  Registers 
been  searched?  They  might  tell  us  what  he  was, — another 
question  not  decided  to  our  satisfaction. 

Mr.  Hotten's  correspondent  admits  that  "  the  identity  of 
Alexander  Pope  is,  of  course,  conjectural,  but  the  conjecture  is 
a  probable  one."  That  identification  we  are  enabled  to  offer, 
and  at  the  same  time  to  determine  another  vexed  question  of 
some  interest.  Part  of  Broad  Street  is  in  the  parish  of  St. 
Bennet-Fink,  and  the  Register  records  : — 

"  1679,  12  Aug81.  Buried,  Magdelen,  the  wife  of  Allixander 
Pope." 

Here,  then,  we  have,  for  the  first  time,  evidence  that  the 
elder  Pope  resided  in  Broad  Street  in  1677-1679 ;  and  there  died 
and  was  buried,  in  1679,  "  Magdelen,"  the  wife  of  Alexander 
Pope  the  Elder.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  Magdalen 
Pope  was  the  wife  of  the  poet's  father,  and  the  mother  of 
Magdalen  Rackett,  who,  as  we  have  shown,  and  shall  hereafter 

issuing  a  new  edition— that  was,  I  think,  about  1720 — and.  hence  he  inferred  that 
there  had  been  no  edition  in  that  long  interval.  But  on  reflection,  it  strikes 
me  as  probable  that  the  MS.  note  really  appeared  with  the  original  publication  of 
1677,  and  that  Hearne,  finding  it  wanting,  copied  it.  This,  however,  is  merely 
an  after  thought,  and  only  to  be  determined  on  reperusal.  I  found  other  names 
that  I  thought  worth  noting  : — George  Marwood,  Lawr.  Fount.  Lane ;  James 
Pope,  Abchurch  Lane  ;  Alexander  Pope,  Broad  Street ;  Joseph  Pope,  Redriffs  ; 
John  Turner,  Suffolk  Lane. 

*  A  man  may  be  free  of  a  company  without  being  free  of  the  City.  There  is 
the  oath  of  a  freeman  and  the  oath  of  a  liveryman  See  Luttrell's  Diary,  i.  226, 
231. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  177 

prove,  on  the  evidence  of  the  poet  himself,  was  the  daughter  of 
Pope's  father  by  a  first  wife :  and  thus  the  question  of  rela- 
tionship between  Mrs.  Rackett  and  Pope  will  be  decided  after 
a  century  of  discussion,  and  against  the  recorded  judgment  of 
the  biographers.  We  learn  also  from  a  comparison  of  this 
Register  with  the  inscription  on  the  monument  at  Twicken- 
ham that  Pope's  father  was  about  or  above  forty  when  he 
married  his  second  wife.  Pope  believed  that  his  mother  was 
two  years  older  than  his  father ;  but  that  was  a  mistake,  for 
from  the  Register  of  her  baptism  at  Worsborough,  June  18, 
1642,  which  follows,  within  seven  months,  the  baptism  of  an 
elder  sister,  she  appears  to  have  been  ninety-one  instead  of 
ninety-three  at  the  time  of  her  death.  Mrs.  Rackett  was,  it 
now  appears,  at  least  nine  years  older  than  Pope. 

The  fact  being  established  that  Magdalen  Rackett  was  the 
daughter  of  Pope's  father,  it  materially~bears  on  the  question 
as  to  the  amount  of  his  property ;  for  as  he  left  her  and  her 
husband  but  6L  each  for  mourning,  it  must  be  inferred  that  he 
had  given  her  or  her  husband  her  entire  fortune  before  he 
made  his  will. 

It  is  curious  how  little  we  hear  of  the  Racketts,  although 
Mrs.  Rackett  was  personally  known  to  Spence  and  probably  to 
Warburton.*  We,  indeed,  cannot  but  believe  that  some  facts 
might  be  learnt  by  research  in  that  direction.  Charles  Rackett, 
who  married  Magdalen  Pope,  must  have  been  a  man  of  some 
property,  and  of  respectable  position,  lie  resided  at  Hall 
Grove,  near  Bagshot.  In  the  "  History  of  Surrey,"  f  we  have 
an  account  of  "  Windlesham.  with  Bagshot,"  from  which  we 
learn  that  there  is  a  manor  of  Foster  a  Windlesham  within  the 
manor.  We  are  also  told^at  least  so  we  understand  the 
somewhat  obscure  passage — that,  in  the  seventeenth  century, 
Field  or  Alfield  sold  a  moiety  of  the  manor  to  Mr.  Montague, 
who  sold  it  to  '  Mr.  Ragette.'  Further,  that  in  1694,  a  court 
was  held  in  the  names  of  Jas  Field,  lord  of  one  moiety,  and  of 
John  Hart  and  Edwd  Greentree,  lords  of  the  other  moiety, — 

*  We  have  not  found  any  trace  of  the  Rackett  family  after  Pope's  decease.  In 
the  poet's  Correspondence,  &c.,  allusion  is  made  to  a  Chancery  suit  in  which 
Mrs.  Rackett  was  engaged,  &c.  Carr.  i.  3'27.  t  i.  460. 

VOL.  i.  N 


178  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I, 

from  which  we  infer  that  the  property  was  then  held  in  trust 
for  Charles  Rackett.  In  describing  the  present  state  of 
Windlesham,  the  writer  says,  besides  Bagshot  Park,  there  are 
several  elegant  seats  and  ornamental  villas,  "  the  most  con- 
spicuous of  which  are  Hall  Grove,"  &c. 

Pope  was  at  Hall  Grove  when  Mr.  Weston — husband  of  the 
mysterious  "Mrs.  \V."  of  his  letters — announced  his  intention 
of  dining  there.  Pope,  with  a  chivalry  which  had  drawn  some 
scandal  upon  him,  had  not  only  quarrelled  with  Mr.  Weston 
about  his  conduct  towards  his  wife,  but  with  the  Racketts  for 
countenancing  him ;  and  it  is  probable  that  Weston's  letter 
was  given  to  him,  in  proof  that  the  Racketts  had  no  fore- 
knowledge of  Weston's  visit.  By  strange  accident  this  letter 
has  been  preserved. — 

"  Sep.  ye  9th,  1717. 

"  Sr, 

"  Our  Lad}Ts  doe  Designe  to  waight  on  you  and  Mrs. 
Raket  tomorrow  att  Dinner,  if  not  Inconvenient  to  you,  we  all 
Desire  that  you  would  make  noe  Strangers  of  us  In  which  you 
will  Adde  much  to  the  Obligations  of 

"  Your  Real  friend, 

"  JOHN  WESTON. 

"  Pray  All  our  Respects  to  Mrs.  Raket  and  my  Cosin 
Manuke." 

Pope  alludes  to  this  visit  of  Weston's  in  one  of  his  pub- 
lished letters ;  but  what  with  mutilations,  additions,  and  the 

obtrusion  of  "  Moses  B ,"  the  reference  is  unintelligible. 

We  are,  however,  indebted  to  Mr.  Carruthers  (vol.  i.  p.  47) 
for  an  extract  from  the  original  letter  addressed  to  Martha 
Blount,  and  dated  the  13th  of  September.  Weston's  letter  is 
dated  the  9th  of  September,  which  was  Monday,  and  Pope 
wrote — 

"I  *  *  galloped  to  Staines  ;  kept  Miss  Griffin  from  Church 
all  the  Sunday,  and  lay  at  my  brother's  near  Bagshot  that 
night  [Sunday  night].  *  *  I  arrived  at  Mr.  Doncastle's  by 
Tuesday  noon,  having  fled  from  the  face  (I  wish  I  could  say 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  179 

the  horned  face)  of  Mr.  Western,  who  dined  that  day  at  my 
brother's." 

No  doubt  these  country  gentlemen  rose  early,  dined  earty, 
and  therefore  Pope  started  early  to  avoid  the  meeting. 

We  infer  from  Pope's  letters  to  Fortescue  and  other  circum- 
stances that  Charles  Rackett  was  engaged  in  some  lawsuit 
which  was  not  concluded  when  he  died.  Administration  was 
granted  to  his  Widow  Magdalen,  on  the  7th  of  November,  1728, 
in  which  he  is  described  as  late  of  Windlesham.  In  1749, 
administration  for  goods  left  unadmiuistered  to  by  Magdalen 
was  granted  to  Henry  Rackett,  the  son. 

We  presume  that  Mrs.  Rackett  had  property  of  her  own,  or 
property  settled  to  her  own  use,  probably  received  from  her 
father;*  for  we  find  from  MS.  accounts  in  our  possession  relating 
to  the  estate  of  a  Catholic  Lady  Carrington,t  that  551.  a  year, 
as  interest  on  1,1001. ,  is  regularly  charged  as  paid  to  Mrs. 
Rackett  from  October,  1723,  to  June,  1730 ;  and  in  her  Will, 
dated  so  long  after  as  1746,  Magdalen  Rackett  refers  to  money 
due  to  her  and  received  on,  or  arising  from,  the  estate  of  Lady 
Carrington.  In  1731  Pope  was  anxious  about  one  of  his 
nephews,  and  thus  wrote  to  his  friend  Caryll — we  quote  from 
unpublished  letters  : — 

"  6  D<*.  1730. 

"  One  of  my  troubles  is  about  a  nephew  of  mine,  a  very 
honest,  reasonable  and  religious  young  man,  who  having 
nothing  (or  very  little  more  than  nothing)  to  depend  on  but 
his  practice  as  an  attorney,  and  just  come  to  be  qualified  in  it 
by  fourteen  years'  application,  is  deprived  all  at  once  of  the 
means  of  his  subsistence  by  the  late  Act  of  Parliament  dis- 
qualifying any  from  practising  as  such  without  taking  the  oaths. 
After  having  tried  all  methods  to  find  favour  by  personal 
interest  made  to  the  Judges,  I  am  convinced  no  way  is  left 
him  to  live,  unless  I  can  procure  some  nobleman  to  employ 

*  I  have  also  an  account  of  the  debts  due  by  Lord  Petre  when  he  died,  in 
March,  1713,  and  amongst  them  is  "On  Morgage,"  Mrs  Kackett  20007.  Of 
course  there  is  no  proof  that  it  is  Pope's  sister. 

t  See  what  1  believe  to  be  Child  the  banker's  account  with  Lady  Oarrington 
"p  to  1730,  amongst  the  Pope  Papers. 

N  2 


180  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

him  as  a  steward,  or  keeper  of  his  Courts  on  some  part  of  their 
estates.  My  own  acquaintance  (as  you  know)  has  happened 
not  to  run  much  in  a  Catholic  channel ;  and  of  all  the  rest  I 
despair.  I  know  if  tis  possible  for  you  to  help  me  }rou  will. 
Mr.  Fortescue  now  a  great  man  and  the  Prince's  Attorney- 
General  assured  me  there  can  nothing  else  be  done,  and  sug- 
gested to  me  the  thought  if  he  could  be  employed  in  this 
capacity,  by  the  L"1  Petre,  offering  me  to  speak  to  Sir  Rob1 
Abdey  for  him  with  whom  he  has  a  particular  intimacy.  I 
naturally  thought  of  applying  to  you  on  my  part,  and  could 
such  a  thing  be  brought  about,  I  should  be  very  happy.  The 
young  man's  character  is  every  way  unexceptionable  as  well  as 
his  capacity  or  (I  believe  you  know)  I  would  not  propose  the 
nearest  relation  I  had  to  this  or  any  other  worthy  family,  or 
through  your  mediation." 

Caryll  and  Sir  Robert  Abdey  were,  we  believe,  two  of  Lord 
Petrie's  executors,  who  had  control  over  the  estate  during  the 
minority  of  his  son.*  Carj'll  replied,  and  Pope  thus  thanked 
him : — 

"  6  Feb.  1730-1. 

"  I  thank  you  for  your  kind  promise  in  relation  to  my 
nephew  in  case  of  any  future  opportunity  in  Lord  Petre's 
family,  and  I  doubted  not  your  long-experienced  friendship 
would  have  assisted  me,  in  him,  had  the  occasion  presented. 
Mr.  Pigot,  you  know,  has  lost  his  son,  which  I  am  concerned 
for,  but  he  told  me  there  was  no  way  for  our  poor  conscientious 
Papists  to  take  but  to  pass  for  clerks  to  some  Protestants,  and 
get  into  business  thereby  laying  hold  of  their  cloaks,  as  they 
used  to  try  to  get  to  Heaven  by  laying  hold  of  a  Franciscan's 
habit.  *  *  I'll  now  answer  all  your  Quseries  as  they  lie.  *  * 
]\fy  sister  Racket  ivas  my  own  father's  daughter  by  a  former 
wife.  *  *  I'm  taken  up  very  unpleasantly  in  a  law  suit  of  my 
sister's,  which  carries  me  too  often  to  London,  which  neither 
agrees  with  my  health  nor  my  humour." 

*  This  is  not  correct.  By  Eyre's  letter,  without  date  (say  171 S),  it  appears 
that  Sir  Edwd.  Southwell  and  J.  C.  were  left  trustees  and  guardians  to  the 
children,  and  Lady  Petre  executrix.  I  suspect  from  Lady  Petre's  letter,  31  Jan. 
1715-16,  that  Sir  Robert  Abdy  and  J.  C.,  Junr.,  were  trustees,  perhaps  under 
the  marriage  settlement. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  181 

The  last  reference  we  remember  to  this  nephew  is  in  another 
unpublished  letter  to  Caryll. — 

"TWITTENHAM,  31  Jan.  173|. 

"  I  formerly  mentioned  to  you  a  nephew  of  mine,*  bred  an 
Attorney,  but  by  nature  and  Grace  both,  an  honest  man,  which 
even  that  education  hath  not  overcome.  I  am  told  there  is  a 

reform  in  the  D.  of  N k's  stewards  or  bailiffs ;  and  if  you 

[have]  any  means  to  recommend  him  to  keep  Courts,  &c.,  as 
one  of  our  Religion,  perhaps  they  might  use  him.  I'm  told 
IA  Stafford  has  a  particular  influence  there  ;  but  I  have  little 
or  no  acquaintance  either  with  ye  son  (as  he  is)  of  my  friend 
Mr.  Stafford  or  the  Daughter  (as  the  Duchess  is)  of  my  parti- 
cular friend,  Ned  Blunt.  Yet,  perhaps  his  being  my  nephew 
would  not  be  a  circumstance  to  either  to  reject  him,  if  they 
were  applied  to,  which  I  have  more  modesty  than  to  do." 

Magdalen  Rackett  died  in  1747  or  1748.  Her  Will  is  dated 
the  16th  of  May,  1746,  and  was  proved,  with  three  codicils, 
1748.  She  is  therein  described  as  widow,  of  the  parish  of  St. 
George  the  Martyr,  in  the  county  of  Middlesex.  The  executors 
are,  Henry  Rackett,  George  Rackett,  and  George  Wilmot. 
So  far  as  our  memory  and  notes  made  long  since  can  be  relied 
on,  she  bequeaths  to  her  eldest  son,  Michael,  an  annuity  of 
50/.  per  annum,  secured  on  certain  messuages  and  tenements 
at  Windlesham — leaves  small  sums — by  codicil,  we  think,  200?. 
and  300Z.  each — to  her  sons  Bernard,  Henry  and  John, — and 
bequeaths  the  whole  of  the  residue  to  her  son  Robert,  assigning 
as  her  reason  for  this  preference,  that  she  had  not  done  so 
much  for  him  as  for  her  other  children,  on  whom  she  had 
already  spent  considerable  sums  in  settling  them  in  life. 

*  Oct.  6,  1729,  he  says,  in  letter  to  Lord  Oxford  (MS.),  &c.,  "Lord  Duplin 
who  has  lately  much  obliged  me  in  a  piece  of  service  to  a  nephew  of  mine." 

On  Nov.  16,  1730,  Pope  wrote  to  Lord  Oxford  (MS.),  that  a  nephew  after  nine 
or  ten  years'  service  under  an  attorney,  is  just  coming  to  practice  :  all  is  frus- 
trated by  a  late  opinion  of  the  judges — an  attempt  to  enforce  an  Act  of  last 
session  bnt  one,  who  will  not  admit  without  oaths  of  allegiance  and  supremacy. 
Judge  Price,  however,  is  friendly  disposed,  and  he  asks  Ixml  Oxford  to  aid  if 
possible.  It  appears  that  Lord  Oxford  recommended  the  nephew  to  Haron  C., 
but  it  could  not  be  done. 


182  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

Certain  legacies  she  directs  "to  be  paid  out  of  my  late 
brother's  personal  estate  at  the  death  of  Mrs.  Martha  Blount;" 
and  she  mentions  money  belonging  to  her  secured  upon  the 
estate  of  Lady  Carrington.  She  bequeaths  some  pictures  to 
her  "  good  friend  William  Mannock,"  if  her  son  Robert  be 
willing  to  part  with  them.*  This  was  probably  Spence's  in- 
formant, "  Mr,  Mannick," — the  "  cosin  Manuke  "  of  Weston. 
By  a  codicil  dated  the  30th  of  June,  1746,  she  bequeaths,  in 
the  event  of  the  death  of  her  son  Robert,  the  residue  to  George 
Lamontjt  of  Green  Street,  Leicester  Fields,  Doctor  of  Physic, 
and  to  John  By  field,  of  the  parish  of  St.  George  the  Martyr, 
organ-builder,  in  trust  for  the  issue  of  Robert  ;  and  in  another 
document,  she  mentions  Alexander,  the  son,  and  Charles,  the 
eldest  son  of  her  son  Bernard.  She  twice  mentions  her  white 
parchment  Account-Book,  and  names  George  Wilmot  as  the 
executor  who  is  to  have  possession  of  it. 

Amongst  deaths  announced  in  the  Gentleman's  Magazine 
for  January,  1780,  is  that  of  (<  Robert  Rackett,  Esq.,  the  last 
surviving  nephew  of  Alexander  Pope."  In  his  Will  he  is  de- 
scribed as  of  Devonshire  Street,  Queen  Square,  gentleman. 
It  is  dated  the  20th  of  October,  1775,  with  a  codicil  dated  the 
15th  of  October,  1778,  and  was  proved  the  29th  of  December, 
1779.  He  therein  sets  forth  the  Will  of  his  brother,  Henry 
Rackett,  of  East  Street,  near  Red  Lyon  Square  ;  from  which  it 
appears  that  Henry  had  left  personal  property  to  the  value  of 
about  4,OOOL  to  his  brother  Robert,  subject  to  the  payment  of 
an  annuity  of  SQL  a  year  to  his  own  widow,  Mary  Rackett,  and 
of  500L  due  to  her  under  their  marriage  settlement.  Robert 
directs  his  executors  to  fulfil  the  trusts  of  his  brother's  Will. 
He  gives  all  the  furniture,  &c.,  in  his  house  to  his  servant, 
Mrs.  M'Carty,  and,  by  codicil,  an  annuity  of  20L, — 100  guineas 

*  Pope  bequeathed  to  Mrs.  Eackett  "the  family  pictures  of  my  father,  mother, 
and  aunts." 

+  A  Dr.  Laraont,  the  same  I  presume,  was  twice  called  before  the  House  of 
Commons  in  1751  to  report  on  the  state  of  health  of  Murray,  committed  by  the 
House  to  Newgate.  See  Walpole,  Hist,  of  Geo.  II.,  i.  49,  85. 

George  Lamont,  a  Doctor  of  Medicine,  of  Aberdeen,  of  11  July,  1727 :  was 
admitted  a  Licentiate  of  the  Coll.  of  Phy.,  London,  25  June,  1751.  Members 
Roll  of  Coll.  of  Phy.  ii.,  154. 


I.]  POPE'S   WETTINGS.  183 

to  each  of  his  executors, — and  all  the  residue  to  his  executors 
in  trust  for  his  grand-nephews,  Robert  Rackett  and  George 
Rackett,  sons  of  his  late  nephew  Alexander  ;  and  in  default  to 
his  nephew  Charles  Rackett,  of  the  city  of  Chester,  or  his 
children,  if  any  living.  The  witnesses  to  the  will  sign  as 
"  clerks  to  Mr.  Robert  Rackett." 

It  appears  from  this  Will  that  the  last  of  the  sons  of  Mag- 
dalen Rackett  died  in  1779 ;  and  the  probabilities  are,  that  at 
that  time  she  had  a  grandson  living  at  Chester,  and  two  great- 
grandchildren, Robert  and  George,  probably  youths,  also 
living.  .  We  have  set  forth  the  names  of  executors  and  others, 
because  it  may  help  the  curious  to  further  information  : — even 
the  white  parchment  Account-Book,  with  its  possible  revela- 
tions, may  yet  be  in  unhonoured  existence. 


From  Notes  and  Queries  (1857). 
ALEXANDER  POPE,   BROAD  STREET. 

IT  is  stated  in  the  Illustrated  Neivs  that  the  fact  lately,  as  I 
supposed,  first  made  public  that  "  Pope's  father  was  a  mer- 
chant in  Broad  Street,  in  1677,  has  been  a  patent  fact  for 
many  years,"  and  that  Mr.  Bolton  Corney  has  the  volume 
"  containing  the  fact."  That  Mr.  Bolton  Corney  had  the 
volume  was  already  known  to  the  readers  of  Notes  and  Queries, 
from  that  gentleman's  own  mention  of  the  circumstance  and 
reference  to  the  work  ;  and  we  now  know  that  there  is  another 
copy  in  the  Free  Library  at  Manchester ;  and  that  both,  and 
probably  other  copies,  have  been  in  somebody's  possession 
these  180  years  ;  but  until  Mr.  Hotten's  correspondent  drew 
attention  to  the  circumstance,  it  was  not  known  to  me  that 
therein  was  recorded,  amongst  the  residents  in  the  City, 
"  Alexand.  Pope,  Broad  Street."  But  even  if  known,  this  was 
a  fact  of  no  significance  or  interest  until  the  said  Alexander 
Pope  of  Broad  Street  was  identified  as  the  father  of  the  poet. 
There  were  other  Alexander  Popes  living  at  or  about  that  time 
— one  a  tailor  at  Stepney.  This  identification  was  first  shown 
in  the  Atheiueum  by,  amongst  other  evidence,  a  copy  from 


184  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

St.  Bennet-Fink,  of  the  burial  register  of  Magdalen  Pope,  the 
first  wife  of  the  poet's  father.  I,  however,  who  love  to  trace 
such  discoveries  to  their  source,  am  curious  to  know  when  this 
"patent  fact"  was  first  made  public,  It  was  certainly  not 
known  to  Mr.  Carruthers,  the  last  of  Pope's  biographers ;  it 
was  not  known,  at  least  I  must  believe  so,  to  Mr.  Cunning- 
ham, for,  fond  as  he  is  of  recording  all  such  matters,  there  is 
no  mention  of  it  in  his  •  Handbook '  under  the  head  pf  Broad 
Street.  In  further  proof  that  books  may  be  in  possession,  and 
books  examined,  and  yet  facts  of  interest  overlooked,  I  will 
mention  that  Mr.  Cunningham  gives  an  account  of  celebrated 
persons  married,  christened,  and  buried  at  St.  I>ennet-Fink, 
and  yet  makes  no  mention  of  Magdalen  Pope,  It  is  not 
likely,  under  these  circumstances,  that  the  ' '  patent  fact " 
about  Pope's  father's  residence  in  Broad  Street  was  known  to 
him  at  the  time  that  he  compiled  his  "  Handbook." — D. 


From  Notes  and  Queries,  November  21,  1857- 
POPIANA. 


A  Patent  .Fac*.—  From  ^Ln.  BOLTON  CORNEY'S  letter  it 
might  be  inferred  that  I  (2lld  S,  iii.  462)  had  done  him  and 
his  "  friend,  Mr,  Peter  Cunningham,"  some  injustice,  Mr. 
CORNEY,  however,  admits  that  he  is  not  acquainted  with  all 
the  circumstances^-rthat  he  has  not  read  the  Illustrated  Neius 
on  which  I  commented.  Allow  me,  therefore,  to  state  the 
facts. 

A  correspondent  of  Mr,  Hotten's,  Mr.  Edward  Edwards  as 
it  now  appears,  announced,  in  the  "Adversaria"  attached  to 
Mr.  Hotten's  Catalogue,  that  in  an  old  London  Directory  of 
1677  appeared  the  name  of  "  Alexand.  Pope,  Broad  Street." 
The  fact  was  in  itself  barren,  as  Mr.  Hotten's  correspondent 
admitted,  except  so  far  as  it  suggested  the  probability  that  this 
A.  P.  might  have  been  the  poet's  father,  The  Aihenaum  im- 
mediately offered  proof  that  Mr.  Edwards's  conjecture  was 
something  more  than  a  probability  ;  confirmed  it,  indeed,  by 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  185 

showing  that,  while  resident  in  Broad  Street,  Pope's  father 
lost  his  first  wife  Magdalen,  the  mother  of  Magdalen  Rackett, 
who,  as  the  parish  register  certifies,  was  there  buried  in  1679  ; 
— another  first  proof — proof  that  Mrs.  Rackett  was  Mr.  Pope's 
daughter  by  a  first  wife,  and  not,  as  assumed  by  the  biogra- 
phers, Mrs.  Pope's  daughter  by  a  first  husband. 

A  writer  in  the  Illustrated  News  asserted  that  Mr,  Edwards's 
discovery  was  no  discovery  at  all ;  that  the  fact  had  "  been  a 
patent  fact  for  many  years ;  "  and  that  MR,  CORNEY  possessed 
the  volume  "containing  the  fact."  Of  course  MR,  CORNEY'S 
possession  of  the  volume  was  no  proof  that  the  fact  was  known 
even  to  MR,  CORNEY,  still  less  that  it  had  been  "patent  for 
many  years."  The  volume — and  we  now  know  that  there  are 
at  least  three  copies  in  existence — must  have  been  in  the 
possession  of  some  one  for  a  hundred  and  eighty  years.  Yet 
the  fact  that  an  "  Alexand.  Pope  "  ever  resided  in  M  Broad 
Street "  was  not  known  even  to  the  last  and  best  of  Pope's 
biographers,  Mr.  Carruthers  •  neither  was  it  known  to  MR. 
CORNEY  that  this  A.  P.  was  the  poet's  father,  as  appears  from 
his  own  letter.  MR.  CORNEY,  indeed,  says  he  was  "quite 
satisfied  that  the  merchant  of  Broad  Street  was  the  father  of 
the  poet."  But  this  was  no  proof;  indeed,  such  certainties 
are  merely  temperamental;  and  the  "quite  satisfied"  of  MR. 
CORNEY  and  the  "probable  "  of  Mr.  Edwards  are  of  precisely 
the  same  value.  But  MR.  CORNEY  tells  us  farther  that  the 
simple  record  suggested  many  "  queries."  Very  likely  ;  and 
the  first  would  be,  naturally  and  necessarily,  whether  the  A.  P. 
of  the  Directory  was  the  poet's  father;  and  until  that  was 
decided,  the  record  could  bear  no  other  query  worth  a  mo- 
ment's consideration.  However,  this  is  quite  certain  from 
MR.  CORNEY'S  own  letter :  whatever  the  number  of  queries 
suggested,  MR.  CORNEY  did  not  solve  one  of  them ;  and  there- 
fore, so  far  as  MR.  CORNEY  is  concerned,  the  record  remained 
as  barren  as  it  had  been  for  the  one  hundred  and  eighty  pre- 
ceding years.  But  MR.  CORNEY  would  lead  us  to  infer  that 
the  Directory  may  have  been  more  fruitful  under  Mr.  Cun- 
ningham's tillage  ;  that  he,  Mr.  Cunningham,  may  have  known 
more  than  he  told  the  public;  and  that  the  no-notice  in  his 


186  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

Handbook  of  the  elder  Pope  amongst  the  former  residents  in 
Broad  Street,  to  which  I  referred,  and  the  no-notice  of  the 
burial  of  Magdalen  Pope,  are  not  proofs  to  the  contrar}7.  This 
assumed  knowledge  and  silence  is  of  course  to  be  explained  by 
the  fact,  that  Mr.  Cunningham  was  engaged  as  "  assistant "  to 
Mr.  Croker  in  preparing  a  new  edition  of  Pope's  Works.  Now, 
I  doubt  whether  Mr.  Cunningham  was  so  engaged  when  the 
Handbook  was  published.  Be  that  as  it  may,  I  cannot  believe 
that  Mr.  Cunningham,  or  any  other  man,  would  conceal  his 
own  knowledge  that  the  knowledge  of  another  might  appear 
with  the  greater  lustre ;  and  certainly  cannot  believe,  on  a  mere 
conjectural  speculation,  that  he  suppressed  these  facts  in  1854, 
when  he  actually  edited,  annotated,  and  published  Johnson's 
Life  of  Pope.  But  assume  all  or  any  of  these  improbabilities, 
— all  this  self-devotion  and  self-sacrifice, — what  end,  I  ask 
MR.  CORNET,  could  be  answered  by  suppressing,  in  1854,  facts 
which,  in  1857,  were  declared  to  have  been  "patent  many 
years  " — that  is,  known  for  many  years  to  at  least  all  intelligent 
persons. 

It  was  the  habitual  depreciation  in  the  Illustrated  London  News 
of  all  discoveries  in  relation  to  Pope  made  by  others,  and  the 
trumpetings  about  the  discoveries  of  Mr.  Croker  and  Mr.  Cun- 
ningham, which  induced  me  to  bring  this  "  patent  "  fact  to  the 
test.  In  these  Pope  inquiries  the  shrewdest  and  the  most  diligent 
are  but  guessing  and  groping  their  way,  and  we  should  welcome 
the  smallest  contribution  of  fact,  even  a  name  from  an  old 
Directory,  knowing  and  seeing  proof  in  the  instance  before  us 
how  pregnant  it  may  be.  I  was  weary  of  hearing  of  such 
patent  facts.  It  was  not  very  long  before  that  the  Athenteum 
adduced  proofs  that  the  biographers  were  all  wrong  about 
Pope's  removal  from  Binfield  to  Twickenham,  and  of  the  death 
and  burial  of  the  elder  Pope  at  Twickenham, — established,  for 
the  first  time,  that  the  Popes  removed  from  Binfield  to  Chis- 
wick,  lived  there,  and  that  the  father  died,  and  was  there 
buried  in  October,  1717,  This,  we  were  told  in  the  same 
journal,  was  a  patent  fact,  or  at  least  a  fact  known  to  all  who 
had  examined  the  Homer  MSS.  in  the  British  Museum, 
although  it  did  happen  that  every  one  of  the  biographers,  from 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  187 

Ruff  head  to  Camithers,  had  quoted  from  those  Manuscripts, 
and  all  without  discovering  it.  This  patent  objection,  how- 
ever, was  soon  and  satisfactorily  disposed  of.  The  Illustrated 
News  subsequently  published,  and  for  the  first  time,  as  be- 
lieved, "  a  highly  interesting  and  characteristic  "  letter  from 
Bolingbroke  to  Pope,  which  letter  the  Athenceitm  showed,  as 
in  duty  bound,  was  a  forgery,  and  which,  as  subsequently 
appeared,  had  been  copied,  by  some  unknown  person,  from 
that  rare  and  recondite  work  Dodsley's  Annual  Register.  The 
reply  settled  the  patent.  "  Is  it  possible,"  said  the  Illustrated 
Neics,  "  a  censor  so  authoritative  can  be  ignorant  of,  or  can 
have  forgotten,  the  death  of  the  poet's  father  at  Twickenham 
in  1717?" 

MR.  CORNKY  says  that  it  is  not  for  him  to  explain  "  how  far 
the  fact  in  question  has  become  patent,"  Certainly  not ;  but 
until  MR.  CORNEY  or  some  other  person  shall  have  shown  that 
the  fact  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Edwards  had  been  published 
before — that  there  was  at  least  a  possibility  of  its  having  be- 
come patent — my  question  will  not  have  been  answered. 
Concede  all  that  Mr.  CORNEY  asks,  and  he  only  proves  that 
the  fact  was  latent,  not  patent. — D. 


From  the  Atheiuzum,  July  18,  1857. 
POPE  AND    HIS  AUNT-GODMOTHER,   CHRISTIANA  COOPER. 

A  CONTEMPORARY  is  of  opinion  that  we  have  heard  "  perhaps 
too  much  of  late  "  about  Pope's  mother.*  Unfortunately,  we 
live  without  the  charmed  circle,  and  have  not  heard  anything. 
Weary  of  the  "  too  much  "  about  the  mother,  our  contem- 
porary proceeds  to  tell  us  something  about  the  grandmother. 
"Pope's  grandmother,"  he  says,  was  Mrs.  Cooper,  "the  far- 
famed  miniature-painter's  widow."  Goodman  Dull  might  here 

*  The  late  Mr.  Peter  Cunningham  was  the  author  of  the  notice  in  the  Illut* 
tratcd  N-  ws. 


188  PAPERS  OF   A   CRITIC.  [L 

indulge  in  a  joke.     We,  however,  shall  be  content  to  correct 
a  misprint,  and  to  read  godmother  for  "  grandmother." 

That  Samuel  Cooper's  wife  was  the  sister  of  Pope's  mother 
has  long  been  asserted  and  believed  on  the  authority  of 
Vertue's  MSS.  If,  however,  it  were  a  fact,  it  remained 
barren.  No  one  of  the  biographers,  or  memoir  writers, 
thought  to  test  it,  or  to  make  it  fruitful,  by  hunting  in  the 
direction  we  some  time  since  suggested.  Research  has  at  last 
begun,  and  the  Athenceum  has  had  the  satisfaction,  from  time 
to  time,  to  publish  the  results.  The  circumstances  of  the 
father — the  simple  proof  of  his  residence  and  death  and  burial 
at  C  his  wick  in  1717 — must  materially  influence  and  colour  any 
account  hereafter  to  be  written  of  the  early  life  of  the  poet — 
to  what  extent  those  best  know  who  are  best  informed.  The 
fact  that  Mrs.  Rackett  was  the  daughter  of  Pope's  father  by  a 
first  wife — determined  after  a  century  of  discussion,  and  against 
the  opinions  of  the  biographers,  by  reference,  also,  to  a  parish 
register  ; — the  position  and  fortune  of  the  Racketts — of  father, 
sons,  and  grandchildren — are  all  circumstances  worthy  of  con- 
sideration ;  and  the  Will  of  his  aunt-godmother — the  widow  of 
Samuel  Cooper,  a  man  of  European  celebrity — which  we  are 
now  about  to  publish — with  its  bequest  to  Pope  the  father — 
to  her  sister,  Pope's  mother — to  Pope  himself — and  to  so 
many  aunts  and  cousins,  never  before  heard  of,  is  full  of 
interest.  Instead  of  a  solitary  isolated  childhood,  this  Will 
alone  seems  to  carry  us  back  to  days  when  a  large,  loving 
family  were  crowding  around  the  hospitable  table  of  Aunt 
Cooper,  in  her  pleasant  suburban  retreat — the  child  Pope 
crowing  or  laughing,  with  his  sweet  musical  voice,  as  aunts 
and  cousins  smothered  him  with  kisses. 

Almost  the  only  relation  mentioned  by  the  biographers,  is  a 
dim  shadowy  Mr.  Pottinger,  who  smiled  at  the  fine  pedigree 
which  "  his  cousin  the  poet  "  had  made  out  for  himself.  It  is 
curious  that  amongst  the  numberless  nephews,  nieces,  cousins, 
and  friends,  mentioned  in  Mrs.  Cooper's  will,  there  is  not  one 
of  the  name  of  Pottinger — though  there  are  many  branches  of 
the  fruitful  tree  of  the  Turners,  through  which  the  Pottingers 
might  claim  kindred.  Pottiuger  also  mentioned  their  maiden 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  189 

aunt,  a  "great  genealogist" — this  may  have  been  the  "old 
aunt"  who,  as  Pope  said,  taught  him  his  letters — the  aunt 
Elizabeth  or  aunt  Mary  of  the  "Will. 

Samuel  Cooper*  died  in  1672,  and  bequeathed  all  his  property 
— the  real  property  consisting  principally  of  houses  nnd  lands 
in  or  about  Coventry — to  his  wife,  and  appointed  her  sole 
executrix.  It  is  a  fact  just  worth  noting  that  one  of  the 
witnesses  to  his  "Will  was  Thomasin  Turner — probably  his 
mother-in-law  or  sister-in-law — the  grandmother  or  aunt  of  the 
Poet — dead,  we  may  conclude,  before  Christiana  Cooper  made 
her  Will. 

Christiana  Cooper  survived  her  husband  more  than  twenty 
years.  Her  Will  is  dated  16  May,  1693,  and  was  proved  on 
the  8  August,  1693.  We  shall  give  it  entire — there  is  scarcely 
a  word  in  it  that  is  not  either  of  interest  or  full  of  suggestion. — 

"  In  the  name  of  God,  Amen.  I,  Christiana  Cooper,  of  the 
parish  of  St.  Giles  in  the  Feilds,  in  the  countye  of  Middlesex, 
widdow,  being  sick  and  weake  in  bodye,  but  of  sound  and 
perfecte  mind  and  memory,  thankes  be  to  God  for  the  same, 
doe  make  and  ordaine  this  my  last  Will  and  Testament, 
hereby  revokeing  all  former  wills  by  me  at  any  time  heretofore 
made.  And,  first,  I  bequeathe  my  soule  to  Almighty  God, 
hopeing  to  be  saved  by  the  merritts  of  my  blessed  Lord  and 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  my  bodye  to  the  earth,  to  be  decently 
buried  in  the  parish  church  of  St.  Pancras,  in  the  saide  county 
of  Middlesex,  as  neare  my  deare  husband  as  may  be.  And 
whereas  I  am  possessed  of  or  interested  in  one  messuage  or 
tenement,  with  the  appurtenances,  in  the  parish  of  St. 
Leonardes,  in  Pouchmaker's  Court,  in  the  precincte  of  St. 
Martin's-le-Grand,  in  the  citty  of  London,  for  the  remainder 
of  a  terme  of  fifty  yeares,  and  of  and  in  foure  messuages  or 

*  S.  C.'s  will  is  dated  1  May,  1672.  He  is  therein  described  as  of  St.  Paul's, 
Covent  Garden.  The  witnesses  are— 

WM.  GAWIN. 

EDWARD  BOSTOCK  FULLER. 

THOMASIN  TURNKR. 

LEWIS    PllOTHEaOE. 

The  will  was  proved  22  May,  1672. 


190  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I 

temiements  scituate  iu  or  neare  Mitcham  Green,  in  Mitchani, 
in  the  countye  of  Surrey,  and  a  parcell  of  ground  to  the  said 
messuages  adjoyning  for  the  remainder  of  a  terme  for  ninetie 
nine  years,  of  and  in  one  other  tennement  scituate  in  the 
parish  of  St.  Leonard  and  precinct  of  St.  Martin's-le- Grand 
aforesaide,  adjoyning  to  the  first  above-mentioned  messuage 
or  tennement,  for  the  remainder  of  a  terme  of  fortye  yeares, 
assigned  unto  me  by  Charles  Morgan,  of  the  parish  of  St.  Paul, 
Covent  Garden,  in  the  countie  of  Middlesex,  grocer,  by  inden- 
ture, bearing  date  the  twentieth  day  of  February,  in  the  five- 
and-twentiethe  yeare  of  the  raigne  of  his  late  Majestic  King 
Charles  the  Second,  as  in  and  by  the  saide  recited  indenture 
relation  thereunto  being  had  may  more  fully  appeare.  And 
whereas,  alsoe,  Edward  Gresham,  of  Lymsfield,  in  the  county 
of  Surrey,  Esquire,  and  Richard  Campion,  of  Newton,  in  the 
countye  of  Southampton,  gentlemen,  by  their  bond  or  writing 
obligatory  became  bound  unto  me  in  the  penall  summe  of  foure 
hundred  pounds,  conditioned  for  the  true  payment  of  two 
hundred  and  eight  pounds,  with  interest,  within  fifteene  dares 
next  after  the  death  of  Sir  Marmaduke  Gresham,  of  Tilsey,  in 
the  said  countye  of  Surrey,  Barronett,  as  by  the  same  obli- 
gation or  writing  obligatorie,  relation  being  thereunto  alsoe  had, 
may  more  fully  appeare.  And  whereas  I  am  likewise  possessed 
of  a  further  personall  estate,  consisting  in  monies,  goods,  and 
chattels,  I  give  and  dispose  thereof  in  manner  following  (viz.) : 
— Imprimis,  I  give  and  bequeathe  unto  my  sister,  Alice  Maw- 
hood,  the  summe  of  five  pounds — to  my  sister,  Elizabeth 
Turner,  one  of  my  broad  pieces  of  gold,  and  the  use  of  all  my 
bookes,  pictures,  medalls  sett  in  gold  and  others,  for  the  terme 
of  her  natural  life — to  my  sister,  Mary  Turner,  ten  pounds — 
to  my  sister  Pope,  my  necklace  of  pearle,  and  a  grinding-stone 
and  mutter,  and  my  mother's  picture  in  limning — to  my  sister 
Mace  five  pounds, — to  my  sister,  Jane  Smith,  one  hundred 
pounds,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  summe  of  two  hundred  pounds 
before  mentioned,  to  be  payable  within  fifteene  days  next  after 
the  death  of  Sir  Marmaduke  Gresham,  in  case  my  said  sister 
shall  be  living  at  the  time  of  the  decease  of  the  saide  Sir 
Marmaduke,  and  the  saide  monies  shall  be  recovered  and  got 
in  by  my  executor,  item,  I  give  unto  my  saide  sister  Smith  my 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  191 

best  suite  of  damaske,  conteyning  three  table-clothes  and  one 
dozen  of  napkins — to  my  brother  Pope  a  broad  piece  of  gold — 
to  my  brother  Mace  a  broad  piece  of  gold — to  my  brother 
Calvert  a  broad  piece  of  gold — to  my  brother  Smith  a  broad 
piece  of  gold — to  my  nephew,  Samuell  Mawhood,  a  broad  piece 
of  gold — to  my  nephew  William  Mawhood  five  pounds — to  my 
nephew  John  Mawhood  five  pounds — to  my  nephew  Richard 
Mawhood  five  pounds — to  my  nephew  George  Mawhood  five 
pounds — to  my  nephew  Charles  Mawhood  five  pounds  — to  my 
nephew  Thomas  Mawhood  five  pounds,  to  my  neece  Frances 
Broughton  five  pounds — to  my  nephew  and  godson  Allexander 
Pope  my  painted  china  dish  with  a  silver  foote  and  a  dish  to  sett 
it  in,  and  after  my  sister  Elizabeth  Turner' 8  decease,  I  give  him  all 
my  bookes,  pictures  and  meddalls  sett  in  gold  or  otherwise — to 
my  nephew  Bartholomew  Calvert  five  pounds — to  my  nephew 
and  godson  James  Calvert  five  pounds — to  my  neece  Jane 
Mawhood,  daughter  of  Samuell  Mawhood,  five  pounds — to  my 
nephew  Charles  Mace  five  pounds — to  my  nephew  Francis 
Durant  junior  five  pounds,  to  be  paid  him  when  he  shall  attaine 
his  age  of  one  and  twentye  yeares — to  my  cozen  Mr.  Edward 
Bostock  Fuller  and  his  wife  five  pounds  apeece — to  my  cousen 
Mr.  John  Hoskins  and  his  wife  fifty  pounds  apeece,  and  to  and 
amongst  their  children  fifty  pounds. — Item.  I  give  to  my 
saide  cozen  John  Hoskins  my  husband's  picture  in  crayons  with 
all  my  saide  husband's  pictures  in  limning  which  I  shall  have 
by  me  at  the  time  of  my  decease,  and  also  Sir  Peter  Lilly's 
picture  in  oyle,  and  to  my  cosin  Hoskins,  his  wife,  my  large 
lookinge -glass  and  dressing-box  quilted  with  silke — to  Madam 
Claveram  one  of  my  brode  pieces  of  gold — to  my  Lady  Ingle  by 
a  silver  carving-spoone  and  a  long  silver  forke — to  Madam 
Elliston  one  of  my  broade  pieces  of  gold  and  my  velvitt  hood  — 
to  Mrs.  Higginson  one  of  my  broade  pieces — to  my  godson 
Richard  Higginson  a  silver  cup  and  spoone — to  Mrs.  Medcalfe 
one  of  my  broade  pieces — to  Mrs.  Moone  one  of  my  broade 
pieces — to  Madam  Hastings  a  French  pistoll — and  to  her 
daughters  my  silver  box  and  counters  and  bras  counters,  my 
Spanish  imbroidered  purse  and  my  best  greene  silke  carpet 
and  two  bookes  for  the  Holy  Weeke — to  Madame  Calfe  my 
greate  china  bason  and  bottle — to  Madam  Newport  the  next 


192  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

large  china  bason,  and  two  of  a  less  size,  and  a  broad  china 
dish,    and   my   sett    of  French  ware    in  the    chimney  in  my 
chamber,  being  seaven  peeces — to  Mr.  William  Gowen  *  five 
pounds — to  Doctor  Andrew  Popham  five  pounds — to  Mr.  Ben- 
jamin Aprice  five  pounds — to  Mrs.  Elizabeth  Grant,  widdow, 
five  pounds — to  Mrs.  Anne  Brugis  five  pounds — to  Mrs.  Han- 
mer  three  pounds — to  Mr.  Edward  Wyvell  forty  shillings — to 
my  cozen  Katherine  Price   five   pounds. — Item.  I   give   and 
bequeath  unto  my  servant  Ursula  Lasselles,  if  she  shall  live 
with  me  at  the  time  of  my  decease,  twentye  pounds  in  money, 
togeather  with  all  my  wearing  linnen  and  clothes,  and  all  my 
table  linnen  (except  the  suite  of  damaske  before  given  to  my 
sister    Smith),   and   all  my  hoods,    scarfs,    laced-tippetts,  all 
my  eheetes,  pillows,  towells,  my  feather  bed,  two   bolsters, 
three  pillowlers   (two  little  one  greate),   four  blanketts,  two 
Indian  quilts,  a  fire-stove,  fender,  fire  shovell,  forke  and  tongs, 
a  cane-chaire  with  armes,  three  brass  candlesticks,  one  paire 
of  brass  snuffers,  four  stone  fruit  dishes,  a  walnut-tree  table 
and  three  trunkes,  and  my  Spanish  peece  of  gold  and  silver 
drinking-cup  and  spoone,  and  my  walnutt-tree  chest  of  drawers. 
And  my  mind  and  will  is  that  my  executor,  hereafter  named, 
shall  pay  the  respective  legacies  before  mentioned,  for  which 
noe  time  is  already  appointed,  as  soone  after  my  decease  as 
moneys  shall  arise  and  come  unto  his  hands  out  of  my  estate 
except  onely  the  three  severall  legacies  and  summes  of  fifty 
pounds  given  to  my  cousen  Hoskins  and  wife  and  children, 
which  I  will  shall  be  payd  unto  them  by  my  executor  when  and 
soe  soone  as  he  shall  receave  the  severall  debts  due  to  me  from 
Mr.  Staley,  Mr.  Crofts  and  Mr.  Arther,  and  not  before.     All 
the  rest,  residue  and  remainder  of  my  estate,  of  what  kind 
soever,  as  well  the  said  messuages  as  also  all  other  my  goods, 
chattels,  bonds,  mortgages  and  readie  moneys,  I  wholly  give 
and  bequeath  unto  my  nephew  Samuell  Mawhood,  citizen  and 
fishmonger  of  London,  whom  I  make,  constitute  and  appoint 
sole  executor  of  this  my  last  will  and  testament,  he  paying  the 
legacies   above   mentioned.     And    I    desire    that  my   funerall 
expences  and  the  charge  of  a  monument  to  be  erected  over  my 
grave  may  not  exceede  in  the  whole  the  summe  of  fifty  pounds. 

*  Admiiiistration  granted  Jan.,  1684,  to  effects  of  Gawen  Turner. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  193 

In  witness  whereof  I,  the  said  Christiana  Cooper,  have  here- 
unto sett  my  hand  and  scale,  the  sixteenthe  day  of  May  in  the 
yeare  of  our  Lord  Christ,  one  thousand  six  hundred  ninetie 
and  three.. 

"  CHR.  COOPER. 

"  Signed,  sealed,  published  and  declared  by  the  testatrix 
above  mentioned  for,  and  as  her  last  will  and  testament,  in  the 
presence  of  us, 

"  ROGER  HIGGINSON. 

"  MARY  RUDD. 

"JOSEPH  STRATTON,  Scr." 

An  Edmund  Bostock  Fuller  was  one  of  the  witnesses  to  the 
Will  of  Samuel  Cooper,  in  1672 ;  and  a  Henry  Bostock*  was 
one  of  the  executors  of  Robert  Rackett  in  1775.  We  have  also 
a  Wm.  Gawen  amongst  the  legatees,  and  a  Win.  Gawen  or 
Gowen  was  a  witness  to  Cooper's  will.  The  John  Hoskins 
was  probably  the  painter,  son  of  Cooper's  uncle,  by  whom 
Cooper  had  been  instructed  in  his  a'rt.  The  Directories  and 
the  Registers  of  the  Fishmongers'  Company  will,  no  doubt, 
help  the  curious  to  some  further  information  about  the  favoured 
nephew  Mawhood. 

It  is  impossible  to  read  this  will  without  speculating  on  the 
influences  which  circumstances,  till  now  unknown,  may  have 
had  on  the  plastic  mind  and  imagination  of  the  dreaming  boy. 
Relationship  alone  to  so  eminent  an  artist — one  so  honoured 
by  the  world  and  so  beloved  by  his  family ;  the  ever-present 
portrait  of  his  grandmother,  painted  probably  by  Cooper  him- 
self; the  special  bequest  of  the  treasured  relics  of  his  studious 
life  and  labours,  the  "  grinding-stone  and  muller,"  probably 
made  Pope  a  painter  quite  as  early  as  nature  developed  the 
poet.  It  is  certain  that  he  was  a  painter  long  before  he  went 
to  Jervas.  It  appears  from  an  unpublished  paragraph  in  a 
letter  to  his  friend  Caryll,  thanking  him  for  a  present  of 
oysters  received  just  before  Lent  in  1710-11,  that  Pope  had 

*  In  list  of  judgments  entered  in  King's  Bench   against  J.  Caryll  is  one, 
"  Middlesex.  Henry  Bostock  (Mercer),  240Z.,  paid  off  by  myself,  J.  C." 
VOL.  I.  o 


194  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

presented  Mrs.   Caryll  with  a  picture  of  the  Madonna   and 
Child  of  his  own  "  limning." — 

"  You  have  taken  care  I  should  not  have  this  at  least  to 
complain  of  by  the  kind  present  you  sent  me,  without  which, 
had  I  kept  Lent  here,  I  must  have  submitted  to  the  common 
fate  of  my  brethren,  and  have  starved.  Yet  I  should,  I  think, 
have  been  the  first  poet  that  ever  starved  for  the  sake  of 
religion.  Now,  as  }Tour  lady  is  pleased  to  say  of  my  present, 
that  St".  Luke  himself  never  drew  such  a  Madonna,  so  I  may 
say  of  yours,  that  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  himself,  though 
he  was  a  fisherman  all  his  life,  never  eat  so  good  o}rsters. 
And  as  she  tells  me  that  I  did  a  thing  I  never  thought  of  and 
excelled  a  saint,  I  may  tell  you  you  have  done  a  thing  you 
was  not  aware  of  and  reclaimed  a  sinner;  for  you'll  be  the 
cause  that  I  shall  obey  a  precept  of  the  Church  and  fast  this 
Lent,  which  I  have  not  done  many  years  before,  which  (with 
my  hearty  thanks,)  is  all  I  can  say  on  this  subject,  for  I  find 
upon  scratching  my  head  three  times  that  'tis  not  so  hard  to 
get  pearls  out  of  oysters  as  wit." 

Is  there  not  something  which  tends  to  confirm  all  the 
wondrous  tales  of  Pope's  precocity,  in  the  fact,  that  though 
Mrs.  Cooper  had  other  nephews — and  so  far  as  property  was 
concerned,  favoured  nephews — yet  she  selected  this  child  of 
only  five  years  of  age,  as  legatee  in  remainder  of  her  "  books." 

We  are  naturally  curious  to  know  what  became  of  the 
treasures  left  to  John  Hoskins  —  "all  my  said  husband's 
pictures  in  limning  " — and  his  "  picture  in  crayons  "  ?  It  is 
not  improbable  that  the  inquiry  may  be  answered.  "  My 
mother's  picture,"  bequeathed  to  Mrs.  Pope,  probably  passed, 
under  the  general  words  of  Pope's  "Will  to  his  half-sister, 
Mrs.  Rackett, — "  I  also  give  her  the  family  pictures  of  my 
father,  mother  and  aunts,  and  the  diamond  ring  my  mother 
wore,  and  her  golden  watch."  (D.) 


I.J  POPE'ti 


From  the  Athcnaum,  June  28,  1856. 

MR.   CARRUTHERS  AND  THE  POPE  MANUSCRIPTS   AT  MAPLE- 
DURHAM. 

A  NEW  edition  of  Mr.  Carruther's  '  Life  and  Poems  of 
Pope  '  is  said  to  be  in  preparation.  I  am  glad  of  it.  The 
Poems  are  a  neat  and  cheap  edition,  and  the  Life  a  pleasant 
biography  ;  both  somewhat  the  worse  for  many  hideous  wood- 
cuts. Here,  however,  commendation  must  end.  The  Life 
has  been  made  pleasant  at  great  cost;  no  less  than  four 
octavo  volumes  of  Letters  having  been  cut  up  and  studded  like 
little  stars  over  the  narrative,  by  way  of  adornment.  To  this, 
in  a  mere  popular  narrative,  I  should  not  object ;  but  Mr. 
Carruthers  has  adopted  the  letters  for  facts,  argument,  and 
quotation,  without  consideration  as  to  authenticity  or  dates, — 
most  important  questions  as  bearing  on  the  feelings  of  the 
man.  Here,  however,  Mr.  Carrutliers  is  only  open  to  such 
censure  as  applies  to  all  previous  biographers ;  but  Mr. 
Carruthers  had  some  special  facilities  which  others  had  not, 
— and  to  that  extent,  at  least,  his  obligations  are  personal  and 
special. 

I  know  of  but  two  of  Pope's  many  annotators — the  late 
Mr.  Chalmers  and  Mr.  Carruthers — who  have  been  permitted 
to  examine  the  Maple-Durham  Manuscripts.  In  respect, 
therefore,  to  those  Manuscripts,  it  became  a  point  of  honour 
to  speak  by  the  card, — to  weigh  ^every  word, — to  quote  with 
literal  accuracy  ;  yet,  strange  as  it  must  appear,  the  quotations 
of  Mr.  Carruthers  do  not  always  agree  with  the  assertions  of 
Mr.  Chalmers,  and  Mr.  Carruthers  himself  makes  assertions 
the  natural  inference  from  which  must  be,  that  if  he  has  seen 
those  Manuscripts  he  certainly  has  not  examined  them. 

Thus,  in  respect  to  the  well-known  '  Verses  addressed  to 
Martha  Blount  on  her  Birthday,'  Mr.  Carruthers  tell  us  : — 

"  The  original  copy  of  the  verses  is  preserved  at  Maple- 
Durham,  addressed  to  Martha,  and  entitled,  '  Written  June  15, 
on  your  Birthday,  1723.'  " 

o  2 


196  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

That  verses  were  addressed  to  Martha  on  her  birthday, 
1723,  has  long  been  known ;  and  all,  therefore,  that  we  leam 
from  this  examination  of  the  original  manuscript  is  simply  that 
these  known  facts  are  specifically  noted  thereon.  In  further 
proof,  however,  as  might  be  supposed,  of  personal  examina- 
tion, Mr.  Carruthers  directs  attention,  in  a  note,  to  certain 
variations.  The  last  lines,  he  said,  stood  "  originally  thus  in 
the  manuscript,"  and  he  quotes  four  lines,  as  the  reader  will 
infer,  from  the  original  manuscript.  As  the  poem  consists  of 
but  twenty  lines,  it  would  be  fair  to  assume  that,  with  the 
exception  of  these  four  lines,  the  printed  copy  agrees  exactly 
with  the  original  manuscript  preserved  at  Maple-Durham. 

It  is  a  fact,  however,  that  these  same  four  lines,  with  the 
exact  same  five  words  of  introduction, — "  originally  thus  in 
the  manuscript," — have  appeared  in  every  important  edition  of 
Pope's  works,  from  Warburton's,  in  1751,  down  to  Roscoe's,  in 
1847  ;  and  why  Warburton  affected  to  speak  on  the  authority 
of  the  manuscript,  and  to  quote  from  it,  I  know  not,  seeing 
that  the  poem,  as  originally  published,  contained  those  same 
four  lines,  and  that  it  had  been  published  in  Pope's  lifetime, 
and  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  before  Warburton's 
edition  appeared.  Warburton,  indeed,  may  have  seen  a  manu- 
script copy  of  the  verses,  for  there  were  many  ;  but,  consider- 
ing the  antagonistic  position  in  which  he  stood  towards 
Martha  Blount  some  time  before  Pope  died,  it  is  not  likely,  I 
think,  that  he  had  seen  "  the  original  manuscript."  It  is 
more  strange  that  Mr.  Carruthers  follows  Warburton  so  exactly 
that  he  affixes  the  reference  to  the  15th  line  instead  of  the 
17th,  thus  leading  the  reader  to  infer — as  Warburton  had 
done — that  the  four  lines  quoted  stood  originally  for  the  sir 
concluding  lines, — which  is  a  mistake. 

The  earliest  copy  of  the  "  Verses,"  so  far  as  I  know,  was 
sent  to  the  unknown  lady  to  whom  Pope  addressed  the  Letters, 
published  by  Dodsley,  in  ]  769.  In  the  letter  which  accom- 
panied them,  Pope  thus  wrote  : 

"  I  was  the  other  day  forming  a  wish  for  a  lady's  happiness 
upon  her  birthday  ;  and  thinking  of  the  great  climax  of  felicity 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  197 

I  could  raise,  step  by  step,  to  end  in  this — a  Friend.  I  fancy 
I  have  succeeded  in  the  gradation,  and  send  you  the  whole 
copy.  *  *  Mrs.  H —  made  me  promise  her  a  copy  ;  and  to  the 
end  she  may  value  it,  I  beg  it  may  be  transcribed  and  sent  her 
by  you." 

Then  follow  the  verses  inscribed — 

"  To  a  Lady  on  her  Birthday, 
1723." 

These  verses — "  the  whole  copy" — consisted  of  only  fourteen 
lines,  and  conclude  with  the  four  lines,  slightly  varied,  quoted 
by  Warburton  as  from  the  original  manuscript.  As,  however, 
this  copy  was  not  published  until  1769,  Warburton  may  not, 
though  Mr.  Carruthers  must,  or  ought  to,  have  known  of  its 
existence. 

The  next  time  we  meet  with  these  Verses  is  in  a  blank  leaf 
at  the  end  of  a  volume  presented  by  Pope  to  Mrs.  Newsham  in 
1725.  According  to  the  Stowe  Catalogue,  in  which  they  are 
printed,  they  are  there  entitled — 

"A  WISH,  to  Mrs.  M.  B.  on  her  Birthday,  June  loth." 

Next  year — 1726 — these  Verses  were  published  by  Lintot  in 
Pope's  '  Miscellany  Poems,'  as — 

"  THE  WISH.     Sent  to  Mrs.  M.  B.  on  her  Birthday,  June  15th." 

They  appear  also  in  an  edition  of  the  same  work,  with  1727  on 
the  title  page. 

There  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  these  several  copies 
— manuscript,  and  printed,  and  contemporary — are  copies  of 
the  original  Verses  sent  to  Martha  Blount.  With  very  slight 
variations,  they  agree  : — all  consist  of  fourteen  lines,  and  con- 
clude with  the  four  lines  preserved  by  Mr.  Carruthers  in  his 
century-old  note.  All,  therefore,  that  we  have  gained  by  Mr. 
Carruthers's  examination  of  the  Maple-Durham  Manuscripts 
is  the  inference — unavoidable — that  there  are  no  other  varia- 
tions between  the  manuscript  and  the  printed  copy  than  are  to 


198  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  I. 

be  found  in  those  last  four  lines.  Strange  this  ; — strange  that 
Mr.  Carruthers  was  not  startled  into  examination  and  ex- 
planation by  observing  that  the  original — so  far  as  we  are 
informed,  and  as  I  believe  —  consisted  of  fourteen  lines, 
whereas  the  copy  printed  by  Mr.  Carruthers  extends  to  twenty 
lines. 

It  appears  that  the  very  year  after  Lintot  had  published 
Pope's  '  Miscellany  Poems,'  Motte— 1727— published  "  the 
last  volume  "  of  Swift  and  Pope's  '  Miscellanies  ;  '  and  in  the 
latter  we  find  the  '  Verses  to  M.  B.'  with  considerable  varia- 
tions. Not  only  are  the  four  concluding  lines  altered,  as 
noticed  by  the  commentators  from  Warburton  to  Carruthers, 
but  the  following  six  lines  are  introduced  after  the  fourth 
line : — 

Not  as  the  World  its  pretty  Slaves  rewards, 

4-  Yo^th  of  Frolicks,  an  Old- Age  of  Cards  ; 

Fair  to  no  Purpose,  artful  to  no  End, 

Young  without  Lovers,  old  without  a  Friend  ; 

A  Fop  their  Passion,  but  their  Prize  a  Sot ; 

Alive,  ridiculous  ;  and  dead,  forgot ! 

Four  lines  substituted,  and  six  added,  to  a  Poem  of  only 
fourteen — a  Poem  which  the  reader  naturally  assumes  to  have 
been  struck  off  in  the  heat  of  the  moment — improvised  on 
occasion  of  a  birthday — seem  to.  me  such  a  departure  from  the 
"  original  "  as  to  deserve  a  comment. 

But  these  six  lines  are  of  especial  interest,  for  the  appro- 
priation of  them  was  the  professed  ground  of  Pope's  quarrel 
with  James  Moore  Smith.  In  the  little  dramatic  note  pre- 
fixed to  the  Dunciad — 1729 — a  gentleman  is  made  to  accuse 
Pope  of  having  stolen  them  from  '  The  Rival  Modes.'  This, 
of  course,  was  only  to  prepare  the  way  for  Pope's  crushing 
rejoinder,  which  concludes  with  references  to  Bethel,  Boling- 
broke,  and  "  the  lady  to  u'hom  the  said  Verses  were  originally 
addressed,  *  *  who  knew  them  as  our  author's  long  before  the 
said  gentleman  composed  his  play."  No  one  reading  this  note 
in  the  Dunciad,  1729,  and  having  read  the  Verses  "To  M.  B.," 
sent  "  on  her  Birthday,"  in  Motte's  '  Miscellanies,'  1727, 
could  doubt  that  Martha  Blount  was  "the  lady  "  referred  to, 


I.J  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  199 

and  that  the  Verses  were  part  of  those  "  addressed  "  to  her  in 
1723.  Yet  such  is  not  the  fact,  as  proved  by  two  contempo- 
rary manuscripts  and  by  a  copy  printed  and  published  in  1726. 
That  the  Verses  were  Pope's  will  not  be  questioned, — Mr. 
Smith  never  denied  it,  and  seemingly  gave  them  as  a  quotation 
in  his  play  ;  but,  so  far  as  appears,  this  insertion  of  them  in 
the  "  Verses  "  addressed  to  M.  B.,  and  their  publication  in 
Motte's  'Miscellany,'  was  a  deliberate  attempt  to  establish  the 
fact  by  false  evidence.  I  cannot  but  believe  that  Pope  had 
some  misgivings  on  this  subject, — for  he  did  not  republish  the 
Verses  in  the  collected  edition  of  his  Poems  in  1735 ;  and  the 
Moore  Smith  Verses  were  omitted  from  the  Dunciad  in  1736, 
and  struck  out  of  the  "  Verses  to  M.  B."  when  published  by 
Dodsley  in  1738. 

We  have  not  yet  got  at  a  complete  history  of  the  Verses 
published  by  Mr.  Carruthers,  and  in  pursuit  of  it  we  must 
hunt  in  another  direction. 

In  1776,  a  work  was  published,  called  '  Additions  to  the 
Works  of  Alexander  Pope,' — a  work  of  some  interest  in  relation 
to  the  man,  though  not  perhaps  of  much  as  concerns  the  Poet. 
This  work  has  been  attiibuted  to  George  Steevens,  a  name  of 
authority  in  such  matters ;  and,  in  the  Preface,  we  are  told 
that  "  many  of  the  Letters  and  Poems  were  transcribed  with 
accuracy  from  the  originals  in  the  collections  of  the  late  Lords 
Oxford  and  Bolingbroke."  In  this  work  appears  a  poem 
"  To  Mrs.  Martha  Blount  on  her  Birthday,  1724.  By  Mr. 
Pope."  It  is  obvious  that  this  inscription — with  its  "by 
Mr.  Pope " — was  not  written  by  Pope.  By  whomsoever 
written,  it  is  an  error.  The  evidence  is  clear  and  conclusive 
that  '  The  Wish,'  if  I  may  so  call  it,  was  written  in  1723  ;  and 
Pope,  in  a  letter  to  Martha  Blount,  beginning  "  This  is  a  daj 
of  wishes,"  refers  distinctly  to  those  Verses  as  written  on  her- 
preceding  birthday  : — 

"  Were  I  to  tell  you  what  I  wish  for  you  in  particular,  it 
would  be  only  to  repeat  in  prose  what  I  told  you  last  year  in 
rhyme  (so  sincere  is  my  poetry)." 

— Pope,  therefore,  did  not  send  Verses  to  Martha  Blount  on 


2(R)  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

her  birthday  in  1724 ;  and  it  is  in  the  highest  degree  im- 
probable, from  internal  evidence,  that  these  particular  Verses 
were  addressed  to  her  or  to  any  other  person.  They  are 
melancholy  reflections,  arising  out  of  personal  feeling,  conse- 
quent on  the  self-murder  of  Mordaunt,*  the  brother  of  his  friend 
the  Earl  of  Peterborough,  who  shot  himself  on  the  7th  of 
May,  1724. 

As  these  Verses  have  not  even  been  published  by  Mr.  Car- 
ruthers,  they  may,  as  a  curiosity,  be  welcome. — 

If  added  days  of  life  bring  iiothing  new, 

But,  like  a  sieve,  let  every  pleasure  through  ; 

Some  joy  still  lost,  as  each  vain  year  runs  o'er, 

And  all  we  gain,  some  pensive  notion  more  ; 

Is  this  a  birth-day  ?  ah  !  'tis  sadly  clear, 

"Tis  but  the  fun'ral  of  the  former  year. 

If  there's  no  hope  with  kind,  tho'  fainter  ray, 

To  gild  the  evening  of  our  future  day  ; 

If  every  page  of  life's  long  volume  tell 

The  same  dull  story — Mordaunt  !  thou  didst  well.f 

That  these  Verses  were  written  by  Pope  there  can  be  110 
doubt ;  that  they  were  written  in  1724  is  more  than  probable  ; 
and  Pope,  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Gay,  says  they  were  written 
on  his  own  birthday,  which  seems  natural.  The  letter  to  Gay 
is,  indeed,  an  obvious  manufacture ;  but  manufacture  or  not 
makes  no  difference  to  my  argument,  for  it  was  published  in 
1735,  and  thus  concludes  : — 

Adieu  !     This  is  my  birthday,  and  this  is  my  reflection  upon  it, — 
If  added  days  of  Life  give  nothing  new, 
But,  like  a  Sieve,  let  ev'ry  Pleasure  thro' ; 
Some  Joy  still  lost,  as  each  vain  year  runs  o'er, 
And  all  we  gain,  some  sad  Eeflection  more  ! 
Is  this  a  Birth-day  ? — 'Tis,  alas,  too  clear, 
'Tis  but  the  Fun'ral  of  the  former  Year. 

The  first  publication  after  the  '  Letters  '  was  '  The  Works  of 
Alexander  Pope,'  by  Dodsley,  in  1738,  and  therein  the  Verses 
to  Martha  Blount  are  reproduced  from  Motte's  '  Miscellanies ; ' 

*  Qy.  Harry  the  nephew  of  Peterborough. 

t  The  first  six  line*  are  in  the  Verses  to  M.  B.,  &c. 


I.J  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  201 

except  that,  in  place  of  the  six  lines  introduced  and  quoted 
above — the  Moore  Smith  lines, — we  have  six  other  lines  sub- 
stituted ;  and  these,  with  slight  variations,  are  taken  from  the 
Verses  suggested  by  the  death  of  Mordaunt — the  very  six  lines 
published  in  1735,  and  republished  in  1737,  and  on  both  occa- 
sions said  to  have  been  written  on  his  own  birthday. 

This,  then,  is  the  curious  history  of  these  twent}'  lines, 
which  Mr.  Carruthers,  with  his  century-old  unacknowledged 
note  from  Warburton  and  his  reference  to  "  the  original  copy 
of  the  Verses,"  preserved  at  Maple-Durham,  would  lead  the 
public  to  believe  are  now  published,  with  the  exception  of  the 
last  four  lines,  as  originally  written.  M.  C.  A.  (C.  W.  D.)  * 

POPE'S   VERSES   TO   MARTHA  BLOUNT. 

INVERNESS,  June  30. 

In  reply  to  "M.  C.  A."  I  beg  to  offer  a  few  words  of  explanation.  His  sug- 
gestions I  shall  gladly  avail  myself  of, — for  Mr.  Bonn  having  purchased  from 
Messrs.  Ingram  &  Co.  the  copyright  of  my  edition  of  Pope,  it  would  be  unpardon- 
able to  allow  it  to  go  to  press  without  revision.  It  is  no  extravagant  arithmetic 
to  say,  that  more  authentic  information  regarding  the  personal  and  literary  history 
of  Pope  has  transpired  within  the  last  three  or  four  years  than  had  accumulated 
during  the  previous  century.  In  fact,  Pope,  like  Johnson,  is  now  better  known 
to  posterity  than  he  was  to  his  contemporaries, — and  Twickenham  more  than 
rivals  Bolt  Court  in  interest  and  popularity.  First,  with  respect  to  the  charge  of 
having,  like  all  the  previous  editors,  adopted  Pope's  letters  "  without  considera- 
tion as  to  authenticity  and  dates. "  I  would  remark  that  the  edition  in  question 
was  only  an  edition  of  the  Poetical  Works.  Had  I  undertaken  to  edit  the  cor- 
respondence a  more  minute  investigation  would  have  been  required  and  demanded. 
But  at  that  time  no  suspicion  existed  as  to  the  authenticity  of  Pope's  letters.  That 
he  altered,  omitted,  added,  and  compounded  actual  letters  and  parts  of  letters  for 
publication  was  known  from  the  existing  originals  addressed  to  Lady  Mary  Wortley 
Montagu  and  the  Miss  Blounts.  I  was  able  to  give  some  fresh  illustration  of  this 
from  the  Maple-Durham  MSS., — but  it  was  not  until  the  writer  in  the  Athenceu m, 
July,  1854,  communicated  the  results  of  a  critical  examination  of  the  large  un- 
published Caryll  Correspondence  that  Pope's  Fabrication  of  letters,  so  called,  and 
his  false  ascription  of  others,  became  known.  That  discovery,  well  supported  by 
proofs,  constitutes  an  era  in  the  Pope  history,  and  furnishes  a  key  to  many 
seeming  mysteries  and  contradictions.  But  it  is  scarcely  fair  to  judge  the 
editors  of  Pope  by  this  new  and  certain  light,  — to  measure  them  by  a  standard 
which  was  unknown  or  unrecognised  when  they  wrote.  The  poet  loved  to  sport 
with  the  curiosity  and  credulity  of  the  public.  He  was  as  potent  and  mis" 
chievous  as  Puck  in  leading  his  followers 

Through  bog,  through  bush,  through  brake,  through  briar. 
His  editors  were,  perhaps,  too  careless  as  well  as  too  confiding  ;    but  they  cer- 


202  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  I. 

tainly  had  an  excuse  which  is  no  longer  available.     For  myself,  I  had  no  higher 
aim  than  to  condense,  for  a  popular  edition  of  Pope,  the  information  scattered 
over  large  and  expensive  works.     The  voluminous  correspondence  offered  choice 
morsels  of  description  and  sentiment,  and  felicities  of  expression  not  excelled  by 
the  poetry,  and  these  I  unhesitatingly  transplanted  "  by  way  of  adornment,"  as 
"  M.  C.  A."  says — and  such  adornments  are  both  rich  and  rare — to  the  narrative. 
But  meeting  with  many  discrepancies  in  Bowles  and  Eoscoe,  1  was  forced  into 
what  may  be  called  original  inquiry.     In  order  to  clear  up  the  confusion  as  to 
the  Blount  pedigree,  which  had  occasioned  serious  errors  in  all  the  memoirs  of 
Pope,  I  obtained  access  to  the  Maple-Durham  MSS.,  and  there  among  the  letters 
I  found  a  copy  of  the  verses  addressed  to  Martha  Blount  on  her  birth-day.     I 
took  a  note  of  the  fact,  but  being  then  intent  on  the  biographical  inquiry,  I 
omitted  to  compare  the   manuscript   of  the  poem  with  the   printed   version, 
believing  that  Warburton  had  done  it  correctly.     Warburton  was  probably  mis- 
led by  Pope,  or  had  another  copy  of  the  piece.     On  a  subsequent  visit  to  Oxford- 
shire, I  copied  the   lines  and  traced  the  variations,   but  this  was  too  late  for 
the  first  edition.     Certain  it  is,  that  the  poem  in  Pope's  handwriting  is  exactly 
the  same  fourteen  lines  published  by  Dodsley.     It  is  written  on  a  half-sheet  of 
post-paper,  entitled  "  Written  June  ye  \  5th,  on    Your  Birthday,  1723."    This 
original  version,  therefore,  does  not  contain  the  six  lines  appropriated  by  James 
Moore   Smyth,   in  his  play  of  'The   Rival  Modes.'      But  Pope's   note  in  the 
Dunciad,  though  disingenuous  and  ludicrously  fierce,   may  not   be   altogether 
based  on  "false  evidence."     The  lines  were  at  least  Pope's:  Smyth  had  seen 
them  (most  probably  with  his  friends,  the  Miss  Blounts),  and  he  asked  leave  of 
the  poet  to  put  them  into  his  comedy.     Pope  seems  to  have  acquiesced  ;  but  a 
month  before  the  play  was  acted,  January  27th  172f,  he  informed  Smyth  that 
the  lines  would  be  known  to  be  his  (Pope's),  as  several  copies  had  got  abroad.     In 
his  note  in  the  Dunciad  he  refers  to  Bolingbroke,  to  the  lady  to  whom  the  lines 
were  originally  addressed,  to  Hugh  Bethel,  and  others,  "who  knew  them  as  our 
author's   long  before  the  said  gentleman  composed  his  play."     The  would-be 
dramatist,  however,  conscious  that  the  six  lines  of  Pope  were  superior  to  any  of 
his  own  in  the  play,  if  not  worth  the  whole  five  acts,  wrote  to  Pope  desiring  that, 
"since  the  lines  had  been  read  in  his  comedy  to  several,  Mr.  P.  would  not  de- 
prive it  of  them,   &c."     "Mr.   P."  probably   made   no  rejoinder.      The   lines 
formed  part  of  the  condemned  play,  and  they  appeared  in  it  when  printed.     If  we 
may  believe  Curll,  Lintot  gave  a  hundred  guineas  for  the  copyright  of  the  play — 
a  sum  due  not  to  the  merits  of  the  piece,  but  to  Smyth's  personal  connexions  and 
family  influence.     Pope  was  now  in  high  wrath,  and,  being  then  engaged  in  pre- 
paring the  Miscellany,  published  by  Motte  the  same  year,  he  vindicated  his  right 
to  the  appropriated  lines  by  introducing  them  into  the  'Verses  to  M.  B.,'  though 
he  may  have  intended  them  for  the  Epistle  on  Women,  addressed  to  "A  Lady," 
i.e.,  Martha  Blount,  to  which  he  afterwards  transferred  them.     "The  Verses  on 
Mrs.  Patty  had  not  been  printed  ;  but  that  one  Puppy  of  our  sex  took  'em  to 
himself  as  author,  and  another  Simpleton  of  her  sex,  pretended  they  were  addrest 
to  herself."    (Pope  Papers  in  Athenceum,  July,  1854).     There  was,   no  doubt, 
other  cause  of  quarrel  with  James  Moore  Smyth  than  these  unfortunate  six  lines. 
He  was  the  favoured  friend  and  correspondent  of  Teresa  Blount,  and  was  sus- 
pected by  Pope  to  be  engaged  in  circulating  scandals  as  to  Pope's  intimacy  with 
Martha.     It  is  the  misfortune  of  these  researches  into  the  private  feelings  and 
motives  of  Pope  that  they  represent  him  as  almost  always  involved  in  petty 


I.J  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  203 


From  Notes  and  Queries,  2  S.  iii.  403. 

The  MSS.  at  Mapledurliam. — Some  time  since  (1st  S.  xii. 
377)  a  curious  contradiction  was  pointed  out  between  Mr. 
Chalmers  and  MR.  CARRUTHERS,  both  parties  referring,  as 
authority  for  their  contradictory  assertions,  to  these  MSS. 
Mr.  Chalmers  had  stated  that  the  "Mrs.  T."  of  Pope's  printed 
letters  was  "  Mrs.  Thomas  "  in  the  original,  whereas  MR.  CAR- 
RUTHERS quoted  that  original  as  "  Mrs.  Teresa."  A  like  con- 
tradiction presents  itself  in  respect  to  the  Verses  to  Martha 
Blount  on  her  Birth-day.  It  was  shown  some  time  since,  in 
the  Athe-meum,  that  the  poet  had  tampered  a  good  deal,  and 
not  very  honourably,  with  these  verses ;  and  further,  by  cir- 
cumstances and  contemporary  copies,  that  a  note  to  MR.  CAR- 
RUTHERS' edition,  from  which  the  reader  would  infer  that  he 
had  examined  the  MS.,  was,  in  truth,  copied  from  Warburton, 
and  was,  according  to  all  probability,  an  error.  MR.  CARRUTHERS 
immediately  acknowledged  the  truth  of  what  had  been  con- 
jectured :  admitted  that  he  had  not,  at  the  time  his  edition  was 
published,  compared  the  MS.  with  the  printed  copy ;  but  he 
added — 

"  On  a  subsequent  visit  to  Oxfordshire  I  copied  the  lines, 
and  traced  the  variations  .  .  certain  it  is  that  the  Poem  in 
Pope's  handwriting  is  exactly  the  same  fourteen  lines  published 
l)y  Dodsley  " 

Now  the  fourteen  lines  published  by  Dodsley  do  not  con- 
tain, as  had  been  shown  by  the  writer  in  the  Athentenm,  either 
the  six  lines  published  in  the  '  Miscellany,'  1727  (the  six  Moore- 
Smith  lines),  nor  the  six  lines  subsequently  substituted  [with 
added  days,  £c.] ;  and  which  were  written  on  Pope's  own 
birth-day  in  1724.  How,  then,  are  we  to  reconcile  MR.  CAR- 

artifices  and  unworthy  resentments,  though  we  do  sometimes  get  a  glimpse  of 
him  as  the  active  and  generous  supporter  of  the  injured  and  oppressed. 

I  am,  &c.,  R.  CAKRVTHEKS. 


204  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

RUTHERS'  statement  with  Bowles's  statement  in  note  on  Gay's 
letter  (viii.  202)  ?— 

"  These  lines  [with  added  days,  &c.]  were  originally  added 
to  the  lines  on  the  Birth-day  of  M.  Blount,  '  Oh,  he  thou 
blest!'  These  appear  in  the  MS.  in  his  own  handwriting,  sent 
to  her." 

Bowles  adds  the  lines  "  are  properly  left  out  in  his  works  ;  " 
by  which  I  suppose  he  must  have  meant  the  four  following 
lines  quoted  by  him  in  note  on  the  poem  (ii.  371)  ;  for  the 
lines  "  with  added  years,"  are  published  in  his  own  edition. — 

T.  M.  S.  [Mr.  Dilke.] 


From  the  Athenaswm,  September  26,  1857. 

The  Life  of  Alexander  Pope.  Including  Extracts  from  his 
Correspondence.  By  Robert  Carruthers.  Second  Edition, 
revised  and  considerably  enlarged.  With  numerous 
Engravings  on  Wood.  (Bohn.) 

MR.  CARRUTHERS'S  '  Life  of  Pope '  appeared  opportunely 
and  inopportunely — opportunely  to  gratify  a  revived  taste,  in- 
opportunely inasmuch  as,  from  the  literary  research  then  active, 
it  was  certain,  in  a  short  time,  to  be  superseded.  It  was  the 
embodiment  of  an  old  tradition — a  pleasant  popular  narrative, 
nothing  more.  It  is  already  superseded  :  for  this  second 
edition  differs  so  materially  from  the  former  that  it  must  be 
considered  as  a  new  work. 

Mr.  Carruthers  is  a  sensible  man,  who  makes  no  pretensions 
to  infallibility.  When  some  of  his  statements  were  questioned 
in  this  journal,  he  replied  modestly  that  he  was  in  error; 
adding  truly,  by  way  of  apology,  that  more  authentic  informa- 
tion regarding  the  literary  and  personal  history  of  Pope  had 
transpired  within  the  last  few  years  than  had  been  accumu- 
lated during  the  previous  century ;  and  he  is  now  pleased  to 
add"-—"  the  Atheiueum  has  proved  a  perfect  mine  of  imprinted 


I]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  205 

materials  for  illustrating  the  biography  of  Pope."  This  infor- 
mation, and  these  materials,  so  far  as  required,  Mr.  Carruthers 
has  introduced  into  this  new  edition  ;  with  additions  of  his 

own. 

***** 

Our  acknowledgments  are  due  to  Mr.  Carruthers  for  the  new 
history  of  Pope's  intercourse  with  the  Misses  Blount — our 
especial  acknowledgments  7™for~liere  he  had  his  critics  at  an 
advantage.  He  is,  so  far  as  we  know,  the  only  man  living 
who  has  been  permitted  to  examine  the  MapTeclurnaiii  ~MSS. ; 
— an  equivocal  word  therefore  might  have  covered  a  retreat — 
even  silence  would  have  looked  like  a  triumph.  Mr.  Carruthers 
has  no  such  evasions  ;  when  he  has  been  in  error  he  acknow- 
ledges it — acknowledges,  not  unfrequently,  that  he  had  too 
confidently  relied  on  others — and  the  result  is  that  one  half  of 
the  century-old  slanders  are  clean  gone,  and  other  slanderous 
inferences  are  disproved  by  facts.  Pioseoe's  arithmetical 
touchstone,  which,  though  not  intended,  was  a  rock  on  which 
they  might  seemingly  rest  secure,  is  gone — even  the  letter 
itself  is  gone  as  authority  ;  for  it  does  not  exist  amongst  the 
Mapledurham  MSS.,  and  Mr.  Carruthers  thinks  it  probable, 
and  we  agree  with  him,  that  it  never  did  exist,  but  was  a  mere 
fanciful  display  of  gallantry,  written  for  publication.  The 
story  about  Pope's  "  frequent  resolution  to  separate  himself 
from  the  society  of  those  ladies  "  is  also  gone — the  dallying 
with,  the  supremacy  and  the  deposing  of  Teresa  is  gone— the 
rivalry  with,  and  the  consequent  implacable  hatred  of  James 
Moore  is  gone ;  and  we  learn  from  Mr.  Carruthers,  as  the 
result  of  an  examination  of  the  letters  which  passed  between 
James  Moore  and  the  Misses  Blount,  that  there  is  "no  indi- 
cation "  in  them  "  of  jealousy  or  hostile  feeling  " — the  early 
rejection  by  or  of  Teresa  is  gone,  for  Mr.  Carruthers  has  found 
proof,  as  we  conjectured,  that  they  were  friends  up  to  1722. 
The  result  is,  that  the  history  of  the  acquaintance  of  the  Popes 
and  the  Blounts —  of  the  intimacy  of  the  young  people — the 
most  interesting  event  in  Pope's  life — developes  itself  as 
naturally  as,  under  like  circumstances,  it  has  done  in  thousands 
of  famiHes  before  and  since. 


206  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

Mr.  Carruthers,  however,  though  he  abandons  man}7  of  the 
old  stories  of  the  biographers,  and  of  his  own  first  edition,  is, 
unconsciously,  not  free,  we  think,  from  their  influence.  Thus, 
he  tells  us, — 

"Although  the  earliest  of  the  existing  letters  bearing  a  date 
belongs  to  1712,  it  is  evident  that  the  Poet  had  frequently  met 
his  fair  correspondent  and  her  sister ;  and  judging  from  the 
handwriting,  at  least  two  other  communications  are  of  an  earlier 
date." 

We  were  of  opinion  that  Pope  had  met  the  ladies  before  1712 
— probably  recalled  from  Paris  b}r  their  father's  illness  in  1710 
— but  that  they  had  "frequently  "  met — from  which  great 
personal  intimacy  might  be  inferred — is  not,  we  think,  justified 
by  the  evidence.  Lister  Blount,  the  father,  died  in  June  1710,* 
an  event  which,  according  to  the  usage  of  the  day,  would  con- 
fine those  ladies  to  the  seclusion  of  their  homes  for  a  much 
longer  period  than  it  would  do  now;  and  in  1712  and  1713 
Pope  was  for  a  time  at  variance  with  the  Englefields,  as 
we  have  shown  [Athen.  1854].  That  there  were  no  fre- 
quent meetings — no  great  intimacy,  up  to  1712,  1713,  is  to 
be  inferred  from  the  first  letter,  the  date  of  which  can  be 
proved,  1712,  and  which  begins  "  Madam ;  "  strengthened  by 
the  letter  from  James  Moore  to  the  Misses  Blouut,  dated  July 
1713,  now  first  published  by  Mr.  Carruthers,  wherein  he 
writes  :  "I  was  some  hours  with  Mr.  Pope  yesterday,  who  has, 
to  use  his  own  words,  a  mighty  respect  for  the  two  Miss  Blounts." 
Now  we  may  be  reasonably  certain  that  had  Pope  been  long  or 
intimately  acquainted  with  those  ladies,  James  Moore  would 
not  have  thought  such  formal  civility  worth  recording  and 
transmitting,  for  Pope,  with  his  habitual  passion  of  words, 
would  have  told  them  so  himself  dozens  of  times,  and  in  a  far 
more  gallant  spirit.  As  to  the  inference  from  the  handwriting, 
it  is  a  question  on  which  we  would  not  willingly  offer  an 
opinion,  even  if  the  MSS.  were  before  us.  Fortunately  the 
letters  have  been  published,  and  what,  we  would  ask,  was  "  the 

*  Qy.  16  Jan.  1711  (qy.  &),  died,  says  Croker,  A.  Euglefield,  father  of 
Mrs.  B.  of  Mapledurham. 


I.]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  207 

piece  of  humanity  "  on  the  part  of  the  ladies  referred  to  in  the 
first  of  them  ?  What  the  "  calumny "  from  which  Pope 
suffered  ?  These  expressions  recall  to  us  the  scandal  gossip 
at  Whiteknights,  about  Mrs.  Weston  in  1713  [A then,, 
1854],  the  year,  and  probably  the  occasion  of,  the  "mighty 
respect ;  "  and  as  to  the  second  letter,  Mr.  Carruthers  was  of 
opinion  when  he  published  his  first  edition  that  it  belonged 
to  a  later  period,  and  we  see  no  sufficient  reason  for  the 
change. 

The  influence  to  which  we  have  referred  is  still  more  manifest 
in  the  following,  where,  to  the  flourishings  about  his  intimacy 
with  the  maids  of  honour  at  Hampton  Court,  Mr.  Carruthers 
tells  us,  Pope  adds, — 

"  No  lone  house  in  Wales  with  a  mountain  and  a  rookery  is 
more  contemplative  than  this  court,"  and  with  a  touch  of  pride 
to  make  Teresa  jealous,  "  Mrs.  Lepell  walked  with  me  three  or 
four  hours  by  moonlight,  and  we  met  no  creature  of  any  quality 
but  the  king,  who  gave  audience  to  the  Vice- Chamberlain,  all 
alone  under  the  garden  Avail." 

Why  here  are  all  the  insinuations  of  the  old  story  con- 
centrated into  a  paragraph !  and  we  have  in  illustration  a 
pretty  picture  of  "  Pope  and  Mary  Lepell "  by  moonlight 
under  the  garden  wall. 

Now  the  passage  here  quoted,  so  far  as  we  know  or  can 
know,  is  from  one  of  Pope's  letters  published  in  1735.  But 
Mr.  Carruthers  leads  us  to  believe  that  the  original  of  that 
letter  is  amongst  the  Mapledurham  MSS.,  and  dated  13th 
Sept.,  1717.  He  early  (p.  84)  quotes  from  that  original  in 
proof  of  the  manner  in  which  Pope  altered  some  letters  for 
publication,  and  he  here  again  appears  to  correct  the  text  by 
it,  pronouncing  parenthetically  in  the  first  edition  (sic  orig.) 
and  now  (sic), — a  difference  we  do  not  understand;  and  yet  by 
the  very  change  implying  difference.  Did  Mr.  Carruthers  find 
in  that  original,  dated  13th  Sept.,  1717,  the  "  touch  of  pride 
to  make  Teresa  jealous  ?  "  We  are  fully  aware  of  the  dis- 
advantage under  which  we  labour  when  we  raise  a  question 


208  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

about  the  Mapledurham  MSS.,  and  yet  we  must  hazard  the 
opinion  that  he  did  not.*  The  published  letter,  like  so  many 
of  the  letters  published  by  Pope,  is  a  piece  of  literary  mosaic ; 
and  this  "touch  of  pride "  .was,  we  suspect,  a  "touch  of 
poison  "  inserted  on  publication.  Mary  Lepell,  in  1735,  was 
the  wife  of  Lord  Hervey ;  and  if  there  were  anything  equivocal 
in  tEese  moonlight  "meetings — so  equivocal  as  to  make  Teresa 
jealous — was  it  less  likely  to  make  a  husband  jealous,  or  to 
cast  a  shadow  over  the  maiden  reputation  of  the  mother  of  his 
children  ?  \Ve  believe  that  the  only  original  of  that  passage  is 
to  be  found  in  a  letter  addressed  to  Lady  M.  W.  Montagu, 
another  of  Pope's  enemies  in  1735,  whose  name  was  every- 
where suppressed — 

"  Our  gallantry  and  gaiety  have  been  great  sufferers  by  the 
rupture  of  the  two  Courts  here.  Scarce  any  ball,  assembly, 
basset  table,  or  any  place  where  two  or  three  are  gathered 
together.  No  lone  house  in  Wales  with  a  rookery  is  more 
contemplative  than  Hampton  Court.  I  walked  the  other  day 
by  the  moon,  and  met  no  creature  of  any  quality  but  the 
King,  who  was  giving  audience  all  alone  to  the  birds  under  the 
wall." 

Not  a  word  in  this  genuine  letter  about  the  moonlight  meet- 
ings with  Mary  Lepell ;  and  no  account  of  the  dulness  of 
Hampton  Court,  consequent  on  the  rupture  of  the  two  Courts, 
could  have  been  written  on  the  13th  of  September,  1717,  for 
the  rupture  did  not  take  place  until  November :  but  might 
naturally  to  Lady  Mary ;  for  though  the  letter  to  her  is  without 
date,  it  was  written  after  the  death  of  his  father,  therefore  after 
October,  and  probably  in  the  spring  of  1718. 

The  whole  chapter,  indeed,  in  which  we  find  this  "  touch  of 
pride  "  should,  we  think,  be  reconsidered, — 

The  year  1714  may  be  considered  as  marking  the  com- 

*  Mr.  Carruthers  has  obligingly  forwarded  a  copy  of  the  Mapledurham  letter, 
and  it  does  contain  the  paragraph  here  quoted  !  At  the  same  time  the  published 
letter  is  a  piece  of  literary  mosaic— for,  of  course,  the  Mapledurham  MS.  does  not 
contain  the  paragraph  about  the  death  of  Dr.  Radcliffe. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  209 

mencement  of  the  gayest  period  of  Pope's  life.  *  *  His  good 
fortune  seems  to  have  transported  him  into  excesses  foreign  to 
his  real  character.  He  set  up  for  a  bon-vivant  and  rake — 
frequented  the  October  Club  and  gaming-houses — boasted  of 
sitting  till  two  in  the  morning  over  burgundy  and  champagne 
— and  grew  ashamed  of  business.  Poor  authors,  of  course, 
were  his  special  aversion.  He  sketched  plans  and  architectural 
designs  with  Lord  Burlington ;  lounged  in  the  library  of  Lord 
Oxford ;  breakfasted  with  Craggs  ;  drove  about  Bushy  Park 
with  Lord  Halifax  ;  talked  of  the  Spanish  war  with  the  chival- 
rous Mordaunt,  Lord  Peterborough,  the  English  Aniadis  ;  or, 
in  the  evening,  joined  in  the  learned  raillery  of  Arbuthnot. 
With  young  Lord  Warwick  and  other  beaux  esprits  he  had 
delicious  lobster-nights  and  tavern  gaieties.  How  different 
from  life  in  Windsor  Forest !  At  the  country  seats  of  Lords 
Harcourt,  Bathurst,  and  Cobham  he  was  a  frequent  visitor."  v, 

4 

We  know  that  Mr.  Carruthers  has  warrant  for  much  of  this 
in  Pope's  prose  or  verse — in  the  report  of  his  friends  or 
enemies — but  neither  are  to  be  trusted  implicitly  nor  inter- 
preted literall}'.  Think  of  any  man,  and  above  all  of  Pope, 
entering  on  this  rollicking,  roystering  life — like  the  Heir  of 
Linne, 

Drink  and  revel  every  night, 
Cards  and  dice  from  eve  to  mom 

— -just  when  he  entered  on  a  life's  labour — the  translation  of 
Homer ;  when,  as  he  himself  has  told  us  in  a  more  serious 
humour  than  when  writing  his  *  Farewell  to  London,'  he  could 
not  sleep  for  thinking  of  his  labours,  or  if  he  slept  he  dreamt 
of  them — had  such  "terrible  moments"  that  "he  wished  a 
hundred  times  that  somebody  would  hang  him."  Pope  rattled 
away  to  amuse  himself  and  his  friends — exaggerated,  as  most 
men  do,  an  occasional  excess  or  any  accidental  circumstance, 
precisely  because  it  was  accidental  and  exceptional  and  ran 
counter  to  his  nature  and  habits.  It  is  possible,  of  course,  and 
even  probable,  that  Pope  may  have  looked  in,  for  a  glimpse  of 
life,  at  a  gaming  table,  but  if  he  were  "  never  known  to  bet," 
as  acknowledged  by  Mr.  Carruthers  in  the  first  edition,  he 

VOL.   I.  I» 


210  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

cannot  surety  be  said  to  have  "  frequented  gaming  houses."  We 
doubt  even  his  having  "  frequented"  the  October  Club.  Of  course 
he  may  have  been  there,  as  he  may  have  been  at  the  gaming 
table,  but  he  did  not  frequent  it,  though  men  of  higher  rank 
did  so  to  serve  a  political  purpose.  Pope  had  no  political 
purpose  to  serve  ;  and  the  manners,  and  even  the  morals,  of 
the  club  were  too  coarse  for  Pope's  sensitive  nature  and  delicate 
tastes ;  and  the  club  was  so  rampant  in  its  Toryism  as  to 
trouble  even  the  Tory  ministry,  and  not  likely,  therefore,  to 
have  been  joined  by  the  young  Catholic  poet,  who,  as  a 
Catholic,  lived,  as  he  said  playfully  but  painfully,  in  fear  of  a 
constable,  just  when  the  protecting  Tory  Government  was 
overthrown.  We  doubt,  too,  whether  some  of  the  persons  at 
whose  country  seats  he  is  here  said  to  have  been  "  a  frequent 
visitor  " — Cobham  for  one — were  even  known  to  him  for  years 
after,  and  in  1714  Lord  Warwick  was  a  boy  of  seventeen. 
Here,  again,  it  is  probable  that  Pope  may  have  met  the  youth 
at  supper,  but  we  should  say,  in  face  of  Gibber's  anecdote,  and 
of  Pope's — 

Earl  Warwick,  make  your  moan 

— that  if  Pope  really  indulged  in  tavern  gaieties  and  delicious 
lobster-nights — Pope's  phrase,  by-the-bye,  is  "laborio us  lobster- 
nights,"  much  more  expressive,  we  suspect,  of  his  feeling — 
with  such  a  boy,  Addison  had  good  ground  for  quarrel  never 
yet  alluded  to.* 

In  respect  to  that  perplexing  difficulty,  the  annuity  to 
Teresa,  we  are  under  obligations  to  Mr.  Carruthers  for  inquiry 
and  confession.  The  statement,  it  appears,  does  not  rest  on 

*  When  Lady  Mary  Wortley  Montagu  first  knew  Pope  I  cannot  discover  : 
when  she  wrote  the  first  of  her  "Unfinished  Sketches"  is  to  me  equally 
undecided.  It  appears  to  have  been  written  while  Bolingbroke  was  in  office, 
therefore  in  1714.  "Whenever  written,  she,  at  that  time,  hated  and  despised 
Pope,  and  charges  him  with  offences  no  other  person  has  hinted  at,  and  such 
offences  as  Addison  might  have  urged  from  the  association  with  Lord  Warwick. 
— And  she  heard  from  Addison — 

in  puns  he  shows  his  fire, 
And  skilfd  in  pimping  to  your  heart's  desire. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  211 

evidence,  but  assertion.  The  sole  authority  for  it  is  a  MS. 
note  by  Mr.  Lefebvre,  the  family  chaplain,  whose  words 
are — 

"  That  Teresa,  not  Martha,  *  *  was  his  favourite,  and  the 
principal  object  of  his  affection,  is  evident  from  a  deed  of  the 
10th  March,  1717,  by  which  he  binds  himself  in  an  annuity  of 
Forty  Pounds,  during  the  term  of  six  years,  *  *  on  condition 
that  the  said  Teresa  should  not  have  married  during  the  said 
six  years,  which  condition  she  agreed  to.  There  is  a  great 
probability  that  this  agreement  was  with  a  view  to  a  connubial 
settlement."* 

This,  then,  is  all  the  information  we  have  on  the  subject ; 
and,  though  more  than  we  ever  had  before,  it  is  wholly  unsatis- 
factory. Assume  the  existence  of  the  Deed — a  Deed — it  could 
not,  as  it  appears  to  us,  have  been  the  grant  of  an  annuity,  for 
the  "  condition  "  would  not  be  determined  until  the  expiration 
of  the  whole  term.  There  must,  therefore,  we  think,  be  some 
error  in  Mr.  Lefebvfe's  statement. 

Mr.  Carruthers  assumes  the  existence  of  the  Deed ;  but  as 
to  the  "  unnatural  restriction,"  as  it  was  called  in  the  first 
edition,  he  has  changed  his  opinion.  He  now  thinks  it  pro- 
bable that  the  Deed  was  "  only  a  delicate  mode  of  assisting 
Teresa  in  her  altered  and  limited  fortune."  It  was  certainly 
like  Pope  to  offer  pecuniary  aid  under  the  assumed  circum- 
stances ;  but  the  circumstances  are  assumed.  It  is  true  that 
on  the  marriage  of  Michael  Blount,  Mrs.  Blount  and  her 
daughters  were  under  the  necessity  of  leaving  Mapledurham  ; 
but  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that,  at  that  time,  their  income 
was  insufficient  to  maintain  them  in  a  respectable  position. 
The  young  ladies  lived  with  their  mother,  who  had,  no  doubt, 
a  sufficient  jointure  ;  their  father  had  bequeathed  to  them 
1 ,500L  apiece  ;  and  further,  in  contemplation,  we  suppose  of 
their  leaving  Mapledurham,  an  additional  1,000£.  to  be  paid  by 

*  Family  chaplain,  when  ?  We  naturally  assume  the  Mr.  Lefebvro  to  have 
been  a  contemporary,  or  contemporary  at  least  with  the  Misses  Blount.  It 
appears,  however,  from  Croker's  history  of  the  Le  Blounts,  ii.  907-8,  that  he  was 
living  in  1823  !  had  continued  the  Heralds'  Pedigree,  published  in  1792. 

r  2 


212  PAPEES  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

their  brother  on  his  marriage.  Subsequently,  indeed,  after 
the  South  Sea  project,  they,  like  most  other  people,  were 
hampered  for  ready  money ;  but  it  was  still  later  before  they 
were  in  difficulties.  There  are  reasons  which  lead  us  to  believe 
that  about  1717  the  Misses  Blount  had  money  lying  idle  which 
Pope  sought  to  invest  for  them.  After  all,  and  assuming  all — 
the  Deed,  the  "unnatural  restriction,"  and  the'  pecuniary 
difficulties, — Mr.  Carruthers's  new  version  does  not,  in  the 
slightest  degree,  help  us  over  the  old  difficulty.  No  matter 
what  were  Pope's  motives  for  granting  the  annuity :  what  we 
want  is,  an  explanation  as  to  the  "  restriction." 

We  admit  the  difficulty,  but  are  not,  therefore,  of  necessity 
to  jump  to  some  "  unnatural "  or  immoral  conclusion.  If,  as 
we  are  told,  Pope  was  at  that  very  time  writing  in  language  of 
most  ardent  affection  to  Lady  Mary  W.  Montagu — if  within 
eight  months  he  announced  the  death  of  his  father  in  a  note  to 
Martha,  "  in  words  which  seem  to  breathe  the  quintessence  of 
grief  and  love  " — why  are  we,  in  ignorance  of  facts,  so  to 
interpret  this  restriction  as  to  assume  that  it  had  to  do  with 
"  a  connubial  settlement  "  on  Teresa  ?  It  seems  to  us  more 
probable  that  the  annuity  itself  may  have  been  granted  and  the 
restriction  introduced  for  Pope's  own  protection  and  benefit. 

It  should  never  be  forgotten,  in  considering  all  questions 
I  that  affect  Pope,  that  he  was  a  Catholic — one  of  a  persecuted 
i  race,  driven  at  that  time  to  all  sorts  of  double  dealing  for 
I  protection  and  security.  Pope,  in  1717,  was  that,  and  worse : 
he  had  united  himself  with  a  fallen  political  party,  some  of 
whom  were  in  prison,  others  in  exile,  and  all  seeking  safety  in 
seclusion.  Catholics  at  that  time  lived  in  the  fear  of  the  law 
and^l&Tconfiscations, — property  was  transferred — settlements 
were  made — bonds  given — fictitious  debts  created  to  evade  the 
law  and  its  consequences ;  and  the  incomes  secured  to  many 
of  the  families  of  those  who  suffered  imprisonment  or  death 
were  the  consequences  of  these  fictions.  Pope  had  neither 
wife  nor  child  who  could  be  interposed — his  father  and  mother 
were  too  old  and  too  nervous  and  fearful  ;  but  the  Blounts 
might ;  and  if  such  a  Bond  were  given  to  the  one,  we  think  it 
probable  that  Bonds  were  given  to  both  the  ladies.  An 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  213 

annuity  was  as  good  as  a  settlement — both  equally  protected 
by  law.  A  Catholic  in  Pope's  situation  must  trust  some  one  ; 
and  the  extent  to  which  they  did  trust  one  another  is  quite 
startling.  We  have  seen  an  opinion,  as  it  is  called,  given  by  a 
Catholic  lawyer  to  a  friend  in  1715-16,  which  seems  to  us  to 
suggest  this  very  resource  : — 

"  The  only  way  to  secure  our  estates  is  to  make  it  liable  to 
the  payment  of  just  debts,  and  that  being  real,  and  a  precedent 
and  prior  charge,  no  subsequent  forfeiture  can  take  place 
of  it." 

If  Pope  had  any  fear  of  persecution,  why  should  he  not  take 
"the  only  way"  to  secure  something?  Such  an  annuity 
would  be  "a  precedent  and  prior  charge  "  ;  and  the  " un- 
natural condition  "  was  required  for  his  protection  and  her 
honour  ;  for  had  she  married,  the  annuity  would  have  become 
a  realit}'  which  might  have  been  enforced  by  her  husband. 
That  Pope  did  not  at  that  time  feel  himself  safe  we  have  proof, 
for  he  thus  wrote  to  Martha  Blount : — 

"  I  have  lately  been  told  that  my  person  is  in  some  danger  : 
and  (in  any  such  case)  the  sum  of  1,1217.  will  be  left  for  you 
in  Mr.  Gay's  hands.  I  have  made  that  matter  secure  against 
accidents." 

— And  when  his  friend  Edward  Blount  went  abroad,  he 
exhorted  the  Poet  to  go  with  him — "  our  homes,"  he  said, 
"  must  either  be  left,  or  be  made  too  narrow  for  us  to  turn  in." 

In  brief,  we  submit  for  consideration  that  there  is  no  proof 
that  such  a  Deed  was  ever  in  existence —  no  proof  that  if  in 
existence  it  contained  the  "  unnatural  restriction  " — and  that 
if  both  assumptions  be  received  as  true,  the  restrictive  clause 
may  be  interpreted  more  easily  by  reference  to  the  natural  than 
the  unnatural. 

As  to  Pope's  sudden  aversion  to  poor  authors,  we  do  not  see 
that  his  dearest  friend — the  one  exceptional  man  from  whom 
he  would  not  part — was  particularly  rich — 


214  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

Adieu  to  all  but  Gay  alone, 

Whose  soul,  sincere  and  free, 
Loves  all  mankind  :  but  flatters  none, 

And  so  may  starve  with  me. 

The  inference  agrees  better  with  the  old  story  than  the  new 
— the  father's  money-box  and  Pope's  consequent  early  poverty, 
rather  than  the  freeholds,  the  annuities,  the  bonds,  and  the 
rents  on  the  Hotel  de  Ville. 

Considering  how  strangely  he  and  his  predecessors  have 
been  mystified  and  misled,  Mr.  Czfrruthers  ought,  we  think,  to 
have  been  a  little  more  sceptical  or  critical.  Let  us  take  the 
starting-point  of  his  Memoir — the  birth-place  of  the  Poet,  in 
illustration.  This  is  an  old  and  vexed  question ;  and  Mr.  Car- 
ruthers  proceeds  with  all  due  formality ;  —  marshals  the 
evidence,  calls  witnesses,  deduces  conclusions ;  but,  unfortu- 
nately, it  is  the  old  evidence,  and  necessarily  therefore  leads  to 
the  old  conclusions.  Did  it  never  suggest  itself  to  him  that 
the  witnesses  ought  to  be  subjected  to  cross-examination?  Is 
he  quite  sure  that  under  such  a  process  his  "  Contemporary  " 
might  not  say  it  was  "near"  and  not  "in"  Cheapside  that 
Pope  was  born  ?  Is  he  quite  sure  that  Ruffhead  and  Spence 
would  give  "  the  same  date  and  place  "  ?  "  Lombard  Street, 
on  the  21st  of  May," — quite  sure  that  Ruffhead  does  not  say 
"  born  in  London,"  which  agrees  with  the  statement  in  Jacob's 
Register,  said  to  have  been  sanctioned  by  Pope — with  our 
"  Contemporary,"  who  gives  reasons  for  his  "  near,"  which 
may  explain  why  Pope  only  alluded  to  the  place  vaguely,  and 
why  neither  his  mother  nor  sister  ever  named  it  ?  Mr.  Carru- 
thers  then  refers  to  the  clear  and  circumstantial  assertion  of 
Spence,  that  Pope  was  born  "  in  Lombard  Street,  at  the  house 
which  is  now  one  Mr.  Morgan's,  an  apothecary."  *  Did  not 
Mr.  Carruthers  observe  that  Spence  refers  as  authority  for  this 
to  "P.  and  Hooke,"  which  must  mean,  that  he  was  writing 
from  memory,  and  had  been  told  so  by  Pope  or  Hooke — one 
or  the  other,  not  both,  for  Pope's  authority  on  such  a  point 

*  It  may  be  just  worth  notice  that  Christiana  Cooper,  in  her  will  dated  1693, 
speaks  of  a  tenement,  &c.,  assigned  to  her  by  Charles  Morgan  of  St.  Paul's, 
Cov*  Garden,  grocer. 


I]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  215 

required  no  confirmation.  Does  Mr.  Carruthers  know — in 
fact  he  does  not — that  assuming  Spence's  note  to  have  been 
written  in  1739,  as  he  states,  or  anytime  between  1720  and 
1740,  there  was  no  Morgan  an  apothecary  residing  in  Lombard 
Street  ?  Between  those  dates  there  was  but  one  Morgan  an 
apothecary  in  London  : — "  William  Morgan,  son  of  William 
Morgan,  of  St.  Martin-in-the-Fields,"  gentleman,  deceased, 
bound  apprentice  to  Thomas  Bruce,  of  Bow  Street,  Covent 
Garden,  on  the  3rd  of  June  1707,  and  sworn  and  admitted  a 
member  of  the  Apothecaries  Company  on  the  3rd  of  March 
17-Hr-  This  William  Morgan  appears  to  have  lived  and  died 
in  the  neighbourhood  where  he  was  born,  and  where  he  served 
his  apprenticeship, — at  any  rate,  and  enough  for  our  present 
purpose,  we  find  him  residing  in  Exeter  Street,  in  the  Strand, 
in  1737,  and  there  he  continued  until,  as  we  believe,  he  died, 
in  1741.  Here  then,  on  the  slightest  cross-questioning,  the 
old  evidence  breaks  down.  We,  however,  are  by  no  means 
inclined  to  deny  Mr.  Carruthers's  conclusions.  What  we  want 
is  such  a  searching  examination  that  we  may  rest  with  some 
confidence  in  the  Biographer's  statement,  and  this  is  precisely 
the  point  on  which  Mr.  Carruthers  disappoints  us.  Thus, 
though  Spence's  note  figures  in  the  text,  the  Bevan  tradition 
has  dropped  into  a  note,  and  the  reader  is  left  without  aid,  or 
help,  or  suggestion,  or  fact  to  determine  its  value,  which  how- 
ever Mr.  Carruthers  assumes.  That  a  tradition  should  tell  its 
story  imperfectly  is  of  its  very  nature  and  character ;  but  it  is 
not  therefore  to  be  dismissed  without  examination.  The 
house  occupied  by  Morgan,  the  apothecary,  Mr.  Carruthers 
tells  us, — 

— "  would  seem  to  have  continued  as  an  apothecary's  or 
druggist's  shop  * ,  *  it  belonged  to  the  well-known  William 
Allen,  and  he  succeeded  a  Mr.  Bevan,  *  *  Mr,  Bevan  used  to 
relate  that  in  his  childhood  the  house  was  often  visited  by 
persons  who  came  there  out  of  curiosity  to  see  the  birthplace 
of  the  great  poet.  Mr.  Bevan's  memory,  were  he  living,  would 
reach  back  above  a  hundred  years." 

Mr.  Bevan's  memory,  then,  were  he  living,  would  not  have 


216  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [T. 

reached  back  within  three  quarters  of  a  centuiy  of  the  fact 
wh'ch  it  was  to  illustrate  ;  and  no  matter  to  what  time  it  had 
extended,  it  would  not,  as  we  have  shown  from  authentic 
records,  have  reached  to  Morgan,  an  apothecary,  residing  in 
Lombard  Street.  But  though  "  memory "  Bevan  halted 
lamentably,  his  father  and  his  grandfather  might  have  spoken 
more  intelligibly ;  and  it  does  happen,  as  also  appears  from 
the  books  of  the  Apothecaries  Company,  that  so  early  as  1719 
there  was  a  Sylvanus  Bevan  an  apothecaiy,  and  in  1733  a 
Timothy  Bevan  an  apothecary,  and  from  a  list  of  residences 
we  learn  that  in  1739  they  both  lived  in  Lombard  Street. 
Now  we  submit,  as  worth  consideration  and  inquiry,  whether 
Spence,  writing  from  memory,  may  not  have  written  Morgan 
instead  of  Bevan — or  whether  there  may  not  have  been  an 
error  in  the  transcription  of  Spence's  MS.  Sylvanus  Bevan, 
it  appears,  was  a  remarkable  man,  and  remarkable*  in  a  way 
that  makes  him  of  especial  interest  to  us.  Franklin,  writing 
to  Lord  Kaines  in  1760  about  a  bust  of  William  Penn,  says 
that  when  Lord  Cobham  (Pope's  friend)  was  adorning  his 
garden  at  Stowe,  "  Sylvanus  Bevan,  an  old  Quaker  apothecary, 
remarkable  for  the  notice  he  takes  of  countenances,  and  a 
knack  he  has  of  cutting  in  ivory,  *  *  set  himself  to  recollect 
Penn's  face,  with  which  he  had  been  well  acquainted,  and  cut  a 
little  bust  of  him."  *  Now  Penn  was  struck  with  paralysis  in 
1712 ;  and,  though  he  partially  recovered,  we  doubt  whether 
he  ever  after  visited  London.  If  this  be  the  fact,  or  anything 
like  the  fact,  then  Sylvanus  Bevan  the  apothecary  of  Lombard 
Street  was  a  contemporary  of  Pope's,  ami  he  would  be  a  high 
authority  for  a  tradition,  or  rather  for  a  circumstance  certain 
to  be  known  to  him. 


*  Franklin  says  that  S.  Bevan  was  then  alive — that  is  in  1760.  This  story  is 
also  referred  to  in  Life  of  Penn,  p.  564,  where  it  is  said  that  a  copy  of  S.  B. 's 
bust  was  sent  to  Jas.  Lugan,  and  is  now  in  the  Lygonian  Library,  Philadelphia.' 

So  Mrs.  Delany,  writing  to  her  sister  from  London,  March  22,  1743-4,  says 
(Life,  ii.  285)— 

"Did  I  tell  you  how  I  was  pleased  with  Mr.  Bevan,  the  Quaker,  who  dined 
with  us  about  a  fortnight  ago  ?  He  is  a  most  extraordinary  man,  very  sensible, 
smart,  and  polite  in  his  manner  :  he  has  taken  to  carving  in  ivory  for  his  amuse- 
ment, and  cuts  likenesses  of  people  that  he  has  not  seen  for  many  years." 


l.J  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  217 

We  could  proceed  in  this  questioning  and  cross-questioning 
fashion,  page  after  page,  through  Mr.  Carruthers's  volume  ; 
where  old  stories  are  recorded,  and  even  illustrated,  which 
seem  to  us  open  to  reasonable  doubt.  Thus,  there  are  half-a- 
dozen  different  versions  about  Pope's  interview  with  Dryden, 
told  by  half-a-dozen  different  persons,  some  of  which  are 
dropped  out  of  sight  by  Mr.  Carruthers ;  others  disproved,  as 
in  the  Wogan  story.  But  there  remains  the  interview  itself, 
thus  recorded.  Pope,  on  leaving  school, 

"  was  better  acquainted  with  Dryden  than  with  Cicero  ;  and 
his  boyish  admiration  and  curiosity  led  him  to  obtain  a  sight 
of  the  living  poet.  He  prevailed  upon  a  friend,  according  to 
Warburton,  to  accompany  him  to  town,  and  introduce  him  to 

Will's  Coffee-house 'I  saw  Mr.  Dryden,'  Pope  said 

to  Spence,  '  when  I  was  about  twelve  years  of  age  :  I  remember 
his  face  well,  for  I  looked  upon  him  even  then  with  veneration, 
and  observed  him  very  particularly.'  He  barely  saw  him,  as 
he  said  to  Wycherley,  '  Virgiliuin  tantum  vidi;'  but  he  re- 
membered that  he  was  plump,  of  a  fresh  colour,  with  a  down 
look,  and  not  very  convertible." 

We  are  not  prepared  to  accept  with  unquestioning  faith,  the 
statements  of  Warburton,  or  Ruffhead,  or  Spence,  or  Harte, 
or  any  other  who  reports  from  memory, — no,  nor  Pope's 
letters,  nor  Pope  himself,  unless  his  meaning  be  clear~and 
without  possible  equivocation, — the  less  so  when  the  anecctotes 
are  irreconcilable  one  with  another,  and  all  with  common  sense. 
It  is  possible,  of  course, — even  probable,  we  think, — that  Pope 
did  see  Dryden.  Dryden,  and  the  Popes,  and  Pope's  school- 
master, were  Catholics  ;  the  shop  of  the  Catholic  bookseller, 
Lewis,  Pope's  first  publisher,  was  on  the  ground-floor  of  Will's 
Coffee-house,  which  Dryden  daily  frequented,  and  no  doubt 
Dryden  occasionally  looked  in  on  Lewis,  and  had  a  gossip  with 
such  of  his  fellow- sufferers  as  he  might  chance  to  meet  there  ; 
and  amongst  others,  probably  with  Pope's  schoolmaster — the 
idle,  active,  careless,  thoughtful  and  thoughtless  Deane,  a  con- 
vert like  himself — the  non-socius  of  University  College,  who 


218  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [L 

may  have  been  on  some  occasion  accompanied  by  the  boy 
Pope  ;  but  that  the  boy  Pope  ever  went  literally  to  the  Coffee- 
house, as  here  set  forth,  and  was  formally  introduced  to  the 
poet,  and  presumed  on  the  strength  of  such  interview  to  pro- 
nounce judgment  on  the  venerable  man  as  "  not  very  conver- 
sible,"  is  beyond  all  belief.  Fortunately,  it  is  not  with  us  a 
question  of  belief  at  all.  The  "  Virgiliiim  tantum  vidi  "  must 
be  interpreted  by  what  goes  before  and  after, — "  I  was  not  so 
happy  as  to  know  him  [Dryden]  :  *  *  had  I  been  born  early 
enough,  I  must  have  known  and  lov'd  him."  Further,  Dryden 
was  attacked  with  erysipelas  in  December,  1699  ;  and  though 
he  partially  recovered,  it  is  doubtful  whether  he  was  ever  after 
well  enough  to  leave  his  house,  to  which  he  was  certainly  con- 
fined in  March  and  April,  and  he  died  on  the  1st  of  May,  1700. 
Pope  then  was  about  eleven  years  and  six  months  old,  when, 
probably,  for  the  last  time,  Dryden  was  outside  his  own  door. 
Now,  Ruff  head,  who  enlarged  on  Warburton's  brief  note,  under 
Warburton's  supervision,  tells  us  that  Pope  went,  "  at  the  age 
of  twelve,"  to  reside  at  Binfield ;  "  in  that  retreat  he  first  be- 
came acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Waller,  Spenser,  and 
Dryden.  .  .  From  this  time  he  became  so  enamoured  of  Dryden's 
works,  he  grew  impatient  to  see  the  author,  and  at  length  pro- 
cured a  friend  to  introduce  him  to  a  coffee-house  which  Dryden 
frequented"  &c. 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  quote  more, — not  even  Johnson's 
pleasant  speculation  on  the  subject.  Here  we  have  the  story 
in  detail,  with  dates ;  and  it  appears  from  it,  that  Pope  did  not 
retire  to  Binfield  until  he  was  twelve  years  old  ;  and  that  he 
first  read  Dryden  after  he  had  retired  to  Binfield.  No  wonder, 
if  his  introduction  were  consequent  on  his  admiration,  that  he 
found  the  dead  man  "  not  very  conversible." 

Here,  for  the  present,  we  shall  conclude,  as  we  began,  with 
an  acknowledgment  that,  no  matter  what  may  be  our  critical 
objections,  Mr.  Carruthers's  '  Life  of  Pope  '  is  a  great  improve- 
ment on  all  preceding  memoirs,  his  own  included  ;  and  will  be 
most  welcomed  by  those  who  are  best  informed, 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  219 


[Second  Police.] 

THE  incidental  reference  to  the  Wycherley  letters  reminds 
us  that  when  questioned  in  this  journal,  Mr.  Carruthers  replied 
that  he  had  only  undertaken  an  edition  of  Pope's  poetical 
works, — "  Had  I,"  he  continued,  "  undertaken  to  edit  the 
Correspondence,  a  more  minute  investigation  would  have  been 
required  and  demanded."  This  surely  was  a  mistake.  Mr. 
Carruthers  undertook  not  only  to  edit  the  Poems,  but  to  write 
a  Life  of  the  Poet ;  and  this  life  he  has  illustrated  with  ex- 
tracts from  the  Correspondence.  How  can  this  be  done  with- 
out editing  the  Letters,  so  far,  at  least,  as  they  are  used  for 
illustration  ?  For  example,  Mr.  Carruthers  quotes  from  the 
Wvcherley  letters  in  support  of  his  Dryden  story.  Now,  we 
have  little  faith,  as  evidence,  in  the  Wycherley  letters — little 
faith  irTany  letters  published  by  Pope.  We  believe  that  the 
^VycherleyTetter  referred  to,  Dec.  1704,  was  another  of  what 
Mr.  Carruthers  calls  the  "  fanciful  displays,"  written  years 
after,  for  effect.  Johnson  remarked  on  it,  "How  soon  Pope 
learned  the  cant  of  an  author."  Yes,  and  long  before  he  was 
an  author.  Think  of  a  boy  of  sixteen — five  years  before  he 
had  published  a  line,  even  in  a  Miscellany — writing  after  this 
fashion  : — 

"  I  may  not  be  so  humble  as  to  think  myself  below  their 
[the  Critics]  notice.  For  critics,  as  they  are  birds  of  prey, 
have  ever  a  natural  inclination  to  carrion  ;  and  although  such 
poor  writers  as  I  are  but  beggars,  no  beggar  is  so  poor  but  he 
can  keep  a  cur,  and  no  author  so  beggarly  but  he  can  keep  a 
critic." 

Subsequently,  the  whole  story  about  the  intercourse  between 
Wycherley  and  Walsh  and  Pope — the  early  literary  life  of  Pope 
— is  made  out  from  Pope's  reported  talk  and  these  letters, 
Wycherley,  we  are  told,  anxious  to  reap  a  fresh  harvest  of 
poetical  honours,  submitted  his  poems  to  Pope  :  Pope  pro- 


220  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [T. 

ceedecl  to  correct,  alter,  condense,  until,  at  length,  he  "  sug- 
gested that  with  regard  to  some  pieces,  it  would  be  better  to 
destroy  the  whole  framework,  and  reduce  them  into  prose,  in 
the  manner  of  Rochefoucault.  This  staggered  Wycherley,  and 
brought  the  farce  of  poet  and  critic  to  an  end."  Very  naturally. 
But  this,  be  it  remembered,  is  Pope's  story.  After  all,  the 
farce  does  not  end  consistently  :  for  we  are  told,  in  the  same 
page,  that  Wycherley  "  recalled "  his  MSS.  ;  and  then  that 
Pope  requested  Wycherley  to  "  take  the  papers  out  of  his 
hands."  Further,  if  Wycherley  were  staggered  by  the  Roche- 
foucault suggestion,  is  it  not  strange  that  he  should  have 
adopted  it,  which  the  posthumous  volume  proves  that  he 
did? 

The  correctness  of  Pope's  judgment,  says  Mr.  Carruthers, 
was  fully  verified  by  this  posthumous  publication.  Why,  of 
course  it  was.  No  matter  when  the  letters  were — in  whole  or 
in  part — written,  they  were  not  published  until  after  Wycher- 
ley's  posthumous  volume,  and  were  then  published  by  Pope, 
who  said  in  them — and  made  Wycherley  say — just  what  he 
pleased ;  and  how  a  paragraph  can  mystify  and  mislead,  we 
have  abundant  proof.  Pope  had  no  scruple  in  such  small 
matters;  no,  nor  in  greater,  as  shown  [Athen.  No.  1393]  in  the 
more  dangerous  case  of  Addison. 

Pope  professed  to  publish  the  Wycherley  letters  in  justice  to 
Wycherley, — "to  show  the  world  his  better  judgment;  and 
that  it  was  his  last  resolution  to  have  suppressed  those  Poems." 
There  is  not  one  word  in  the  letters  to  show  that  Wycherley 
had  any  such  intention.  The  only  result  of  such  publication 
was  to  prove  the  vast  superiority  of  the  precocious  boy, — to 
show  that  Wycherley's  Poems  were  revised,  reconstructed, 
condensed,  enlarged  by  Pope ;  that  the  poetry,  here  and  there 
to  be  met  with,  was  contributed  by  Pope.  How  could  such 
facts  do  honour  to  Wycherley's  memory  ?  If  Mr.  Carruthers 
will  look  attentively  to  Pope's  letter  of  the  20th  of  November, 
1707,  he  will  find  such  elaborate  details — such  divisions,  and 
subdivisions,  and  transpositions  of  the  '  Poem  on  Dullness,' 
that  if  he  puts  faith  in  the  criticism,  the  poem  ought  to  be 
transferred  to  Pope's  works; — "the  similitude  of  the  bias  of 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  221 

the  bowle,  and  the  weight  of  the  clock,"  alone  fill  one-fifth  of 
the  whole  poem  !  Be  it  remembered,  however,  that  when 
Wycherley's  posthumous  volume  was  published,  these  "  simili- 
tudes "  had  already  appeared  in  Pope's  works.  Pope,  there- 
fore, was  apparently  a  plagiarist ;  and  no  assertion  to  the 
contrary  could  so  well  clear  him  as  the  publication  of  these 
letters.  It  did  so  effectually ;  everybody  concluding  with 
Bowles,  that  "  Pope  had  used  the  same  simile  before,  in  his 
correction  of  some  of  Wycherley's  Poems."  This  may  be 
true :  we  are  not  disputing  the  fact,  but  examining  the 
evidence. 

Again, — and  here  we  request  Mr.  Carruthers  to  try  his 
"  touchstone  of  arithmetic," — Pope  in  his  criticism,  divides 
Wycherley's  poem,  which  consists  of  but  seventy-one  lines, 
into  four  parts.  The  first  part,  he  says,  contains  1st,  Religion; 
2nd,  Philosophy ;  3rd,  Example ;  4th,  Wit ;  and  5th,  The 
Cause  of  Wit,  and  the  end  of  it.  Each  part,  therefore,  pre- 
suming an  average,  consists  of  18  lines ;  and  as  the  first  part 
has  five  divisions,  we  have  3^  lines  for  religion,  3^  for  phi- 
losophy, and  so  on, — so  that  Pope's  "  similitude  "  alone  is 
equal  to  all  the  religion,  all  the  philosophy,  all  the  example, 
and  all  the  wit  together.  What  could  be  the  meaning  of  such 
elaborate  trifling  ?  We  submit,  as  just  worth  consideration, 
whether  the  '  Panegyrick  on  Dullness '  be  not  itself  a  poetical 
version  of  Dennis's  letter  '  In  Praise  of  a  Blockhead,' — whether 
Pope's  criticism,  allowing  for  needful  alterations  on  publica- 
tion, does  not  better  apply  to  Dennis's  treatment  of  the  subject 
than  to  Wycherley's  ?  Further,  was  Wycherley's  reply  a 
comment  on  his  own  poem, — a  contrast  between  it  and  some 
other  work  on  a  like  subject, — or  a  sharp  rebuke  to  Pope, 
which  Pope  had  not  the  wit  to  see,  and  therefore  published ; — 
"  true  and  natural  dullness  is  shown  more  by  its  pretence  to 
form  and  method,  as  the  sprightliness  of  wit,  by  its  despising 
both." 

Mr.  Carruthers  knows— few  men  better— that  nearly  every 
act  of  Pope's  literary  life  was  coloured  by  equivocation,— every 
assertion  by  mental  reservation.  So  in  respect  to  these  very 
letters,  of  the  20tE~and  '22nd  of  November,  1707,  Pope  pub- 


222  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

lished  them  in  what  he  called  the  surreptitious  edition  ;  they 
were  republished  in  an  edition  by  Cooper,  which  we  now 
know  he  sanctioned  ;  they  have  been  published  in  every  sub- 
sequent edition ;  but  they  were  not  published  in  the  Quarto  of 
1737. 

We  are  told  also  that  Wycherley  submitted  Pope's  Pastorals 
to  Walsh,  and  from  admiration  of  the  pastoral  poet,  Walsh 
invited  him  to  the  country ;  and  Pope  passed  part  of  the 
summer  of  1705  at  Abberley.  Mr.  Carruthers  has  warrant  for 
this,  and  would,  no  doubt,  refer  to  Pope  himself,  as  reported 
by  Spence. — 

"  About  fifteen  I  got  acquainted  with  Walsh." — (Spence, 
p.  180.) 

—That  is,  about  1703. 

"  I  was  with  him  [Walsh]  at  his  seat  in  Worcestershire  for 
a  good  part  of  the  summer  of  1705,  and  showed  him  my 
'  Essay  on  Criticism '  in  1706.  Walsh  died  the  year  after." — 
(Spence,  p.  194.) 

But  Pope,  also  according  to  Spence,  gave  other  versions  of 
this  story,  which  we  think  a  biographer  is  bound  to  notice — 
and  to  reconcile  if  he  can.  Thus  Pope  said  : — 

"  My  '  Essay  on  Criticism '  was  written  in  1709,  and  pub- 
lished in  nil."— (Spence,  p.  170.) 

This  agrees  with  the  statement  formally  put  forth  in  the 
title-page  of  the  Folio. — "  Written  in  the  year  1709  ;  "  and  we 
know  the  work  was  published  in  1711.  But  in  a  note  to  the 
'  Letters,'  1735,  which  it  would  be  mere  folly  not  to  assume 
was  written  by  Pope,  we  are  told  : — 

"  Mr.  Walsh  died  in  the  year  1708,  the  year  after  Mr.  Pope 
writ  the  '  Essay  on  Criticism.' ' 

This  in  the  Quarto  is  somewhat  varied. — 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  223 

"  Mr.  Walsh  died  *  *  in  the  year  1708,  the  year  before  the 
'Essay  on  Criticism'  was  printed." 

Here,  then,  a  biographer  may  assert,  on  equal  authority, 
that  the  Essay  was  written  in  1706,  or  1707,  or  1709, — that 
Pope  kept  it  by  him  in  MS.  for  one  or  two  or  more  years, — 
that  it  was  written  off  hand,  and  printed  when  written,  in  1709, 
— that  it  was  shown  to  Walsh  in  1706,  or  1707, — or  not  shown 
to  him  at  all,  and  not  written  till  after  his  death. 

As  all  these  stories  cannot  be  true,  it  can  be  no  offence  to 
express  a  doubt  whether  Pope  did  become  acquainted  with 
Walsh  about  1703  and  did  spend  a  good  part  of  the  summer  of 
1705  with  him  at  Abberley. 

In  the  edition  of  Pope's  Letters,  1735,  and  reproduced  by 
Cooper  and  Roberts,  though  omitted  in  the  Quarto,  is  a  letter 
highly  complimentary  to  the  young  poet,  from  Walsh  to 
Wycherley,  dated  April  20,  1705,  wherein  Walsh  returns  to 
Wycherley  the  MS.  of  some  of  the  '  Pastorals/  and  requests 
Wycherley  to  introduce  him  to  the  author.  Here,  then,  we 
have  proof  that  when  that  letter  was  written  Pope  was  not  even 
personally  known  to  Walsh.  Yet  that  letter,  we  suspect,  was 
ante- dated  on  publication ;  for  in  the  British  Museum  is  one 
from  Tonson  to  Pope,  dated  April  20,  1706,  wherein  Tonson 
says — 

"  I  have  lately  seen  a  Pastoral  of  yours  in  Mr.  Walslis  and 
Congreve's  hands.  *  *  If  you  design  your  poem  for  the 
press,"  &c. 

Assume  that  Walsh's  letter  was  written  in  April,  1706,  and 
all  is  consistent.  Further,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  young 
Pope,  flattered  by  the  commendation  in  the  letter  to  Wycherley 
and  the  serviceable  mention  of  him  to  Tonson, — in  complying 
with  Walsh's  request,  "  give  himself  the  trouble  any  morning 
to  call  at  my  house  " — lost  no  time  in  calling  on  Walsh,  who, 
as  the  session  was  over,  was  probably  about  to  start  for  Wor- 
cestershire. Pope  then  wrote  to  him  and  inclosed  more  poetry, 
and  Walsh's  reply  is  dated  June  20,  1706.  This  is  the  first 
published  letter  from  Walsh  to  Pope ;  and  there  is  good  in- 


224  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

ternal  evidence,  we  think,  that  it  was  the  first  he  wrote  to  Pope, 
and  was  in  reply  to  the  first  he  had  received  from  Pope.  Walsh 
therein  speaks  of  what  passed  when  he  and  Pope  were  in 
London,  of  his  hopes  when  they  shall  meet  "again  in  London," 
but  there  is  not  one  word  in  it,  nor  in  the  subsequent  corre- 
spondence, from  which  it  can  be  inferred  that  Pope  had  ever 
paid  him  a  visit  at  Abberley, — not  one  word  of  pleasant  recol- 
lection, nor  of  recognition  or  compliment  to  or  from  any  one 
person  in  the  family  or  neighbourhood. 

We  have,  thus  far,  only  expressed  a  doubt  as  to  the  date  of 
Walsh's  letter  to  Wycherley,  and  as  to  Pope  having  spent  a 
good  part  of  the  summer  of  1705  at  Abberley.  The  published 
letters  between  Pope  and  Walsh  conclude  in  October,  1706  ; 
but  we  know  that  a  correspondence  was  certainly  carried  on 
between  them  in  1707,  and  that  Pope  was  expected  at  Ab- 
berley in  July  of  that  year.  If  the  rhyming  letter  to  Cromwell 
was  written,  as  stated,  on  "  the  twelfth  or  thirteenth  day  of 
July,"  "  the  author's  age  19  " — 1707— there  is  no  mention  in 
it  of  any  such  intention ;  and  the  reasons  given  against  a  visit 
to  London  are  of  greater,  if  of  any,  force  against  a  much  more 
expensive  journey — 

I  had  to  see  you  some  intent, 
But  for  a  curst  impediment, 
Which  spoils  full  many  a  good  design, 
That  is  to  say,  the  want  of  coin  ; — 

and  there  is  no  reference  to  any  such  visit — no  mention  of 
Abberley — no  friendly  word  about  Walsh,  in  the  letter  of  No- 
vember, 1707,  to  their  mutual  friend  Wycherley — the  very  man 
who  introduced  Pope  to  Walsh.* 

We  shall  now  submit,  for  the  consideration  of  Mr.  Carru- 
thers,  whether  the  published  correspondence  between  Walsh 
and  Pope  was  not  made  up  for  show,  and  is  not,  so  for  as  Pope 
is  concerned,  pure  fiction.  Roscoe  tells  us  that  one  of  Pope's 

*  Pope  did  pay  the  visit  in  1707.  Trumbull  says,  he  was  gone  there  5  Aug., 
and  on  18  Sept.  that  Pope  had  returned.  The  truth  is,  all  facts  and  dates  are 
taken  out  of  P.'s  published  letters,  and  so  many  that  are  not  true  thrust  in 
that  we  know  not  what  or  when  to  trust. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  225 

letters  "  is  a  masterpiece  of  just  criticism."  Why,  of  course  it 
is,  or  why  sho~uld  Pope  have  published  it  ?  Xay,  it  is  more 
than  that,  if  we  add,  Pope  fashion,  "the  author's  age,"  18! 
These  letters  were  first  published  five-and-twenty  or  more  years 
after  Walsh's  death  ;  and  it  would,  we  suspect,  have  puzzled 
Roscoe  to  explain  how  two  Tetters  addressed  to  Walsh  uTlTOG 
got  back  into  Pope's  possession  in  1735,  and  why,  being  once 
in  his  possession,  the  originals  were  destroyed.  Some  circum- 
stances, however,  explain  themselves : — thus,  one  of  the  two 
letters — not  the  masterpiece — was  made  up  from  beginning  to 
end  out  of  passages  and  letters  addressed  to  Cromwell,  and  in 
great  part  omitted  in  edit.  1735.  There  is  no  doubt  about 
this,  for  they  may  be  found  in  the  _  copy  printed  by  Curll 
in  1727,  and  in  theoriginals,  which  are  preserved  in  the 
Bodleian.* 

Even  the  Cromwell  letters  are  not  to  be  implicitly  trusted — 
not  because  they  passed  through  the  hands  of  the  much-abused 
Edmund  Curll,  but  through  the  hands  of  Alexander  Pope. 
The  letters  received  by  Cromwell  from  Pope  were  given,  as 
our  readers  know,  by  Cromwell  to  Mrs.  Thomas,  who,  many 
years  after,  sold  them  to  Curll,  who  published  them  with  more 
than  the  usual  accuracy  of  the  period.  When  they  were  sub- 
sequently re-published  by  Pope,  many  passages  were  very 
naturally  omitted ;  but  the  collection  was  increased  in  number 
more  than  one-third.  These  additions  are,  of  course,  the  very 
best  letters — "  fanciful  displays,"  we  suspect,  written  for  the 
occasion  and  for  effect.  Mr.  Carruthers  should  have  given 
notice  of  this.  On  the  contrary,  the  course  pursued  is  likely 
to  mislead  the  reader.  Mr.  Carruthers  quotes  from  half-a- 
dozen  of  these  letters,  and  informs  us,  in  a  note  to  the  first, 
that  it  has  been  "  collated  with  the  original."  This  is  true  ; 
but  the  reader,  who  is  aware  that  the  originals  which  Curll 
bought  of  Mrs.  Thomas,  are  still  preserved  with  the  '  original ' 
referred  to  in  the  Bodleian,  will  naturally  come  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  he  has  a  like  warrant  for  the  accuracy  of  all.  If  we 

*  Pope  himself  (note,  Pastorals — Spring,  note  1)  refers  to  this  letter  as 
addressed  to  Walsh — but  not,  I  think,  before  the  publication  (and  manufacture) 
in  1735. 


226  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

were  to  judge  by  small  differences,  and  even  errors,  we  should 
doubt  this  ;  but  we  have  no  doubt  that  the  letter  of  the  10th  oi 
May,  1710,  has  not  been  collated,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it 
is  not  in  the  collection,  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  is  not,  and  we 
suspect  never  was,  in  existence.  The  non-existence  of  this 
and  so  many  of  the  Cromwell  letters,  published  in  the  edition 
of  1735,  is  a  significant  fact,  of  which  the  reader  should  have 
been  warned.  Such  letters  may  be  good  letters — clever  essays 
— but  they  are  of  litne~value~1rcrthe  biograplief; 

The  account  of  the  quarrel  between  Pope  and  Addison  is 
written  with  a  manifest  desire  to  be  scrupulously  just — to 
hold  the  balance  even.  There  is,  indeed,  so  much  of  delicate 
handling  in  the  praise  and  censure,  that  we  doubt  whether  the 
reader  will  be  able  to  come  to  any  conclusion  on  the  subject;  and 
there  are,  we  think,  too  many  assumptions.  But  we  cannot, 

Iat  present,  enter  on  the  matter.  We  may,  however,  should 
the  lull  in  the  publishing  world  continue,  devote  a  separate  paper 
to  its  consideration. 

We  can  onty  permit  ourselves  a  few  more  words  on  a  sub- 
ject respecting  which,  we  think,  the  poet  has  been   unjustly 
treated  bj7  the  biographer,  although  to  reach  it  we  must  over- 
leap many  of  great  interest,  that  deserve,  and  would  repay, 
careful  winnowing — Pope's  quarrels  amongst  others. 
,       Respecting  the  bribe  of  1,000/.,  said  to  have  been  given  by 
I  the   Duchess   of  Marlborough   to   suppress  the  character  of 
I  Atossa,  Mr.  Carruthers  comes  to  the  conclusion  that  the  poet 
I  yielded  to  temptation  and  took  the  money.*     The  evidence  is, 

I  of  course,  the  old  evidence,  with  one  additional  witness,  the 
sister  of  Pope's  especial  friend,  Edward  Earl  of  Oxford. 
"  Warton,"  says  Mr.  Carruthers,  "  advanced  this  charge  against 
Pope  on  the  authority  of  the  Duchess  of  Portland  !  "  This  is 
indeed  a  startling  fact — or  error.  Warton,  in  his  'Essay  on 
the  Genius  of  Pope,'  thus  wrote  : — 

I"  In  the  last  illness  of  the  great  Duke,  her  husband,  when 
Dr.  Mead  left  his  chamber,  the  Duchess,  disliking  his  advice, 

*  See  Carr.,  i.  301  to  303.     See  2nd  edit.     See  p.  215. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  227 

followed  huu  down  stairs,  swore  at  him  bitterly,  and  was  going 
to  tear  oft'  his  periwig.  Her  friend,  Dr.  Hoadly,  Bishop  of 
Winchester,  was  present  at  this  scene.  These  lines  were 
shown  to  her  grace  as  if  they  were  intended  for  the  portrait  of 
the  Duchess  of  Buckingham ;  but  she  soon  stopped  the  person 
that  was  reading  them  to  her,  and  called  out  aloud,  '  I  cannot 
be  so  imposed  upon — I  see  plainly  enough  for  whom  they  are 
designed,'  and  abused  Pope  most  plentifully  on  the  subject, 
though  she  was  afterwards  reconciled  to,  and  courted  him." 

There  is  not  one  word  here  about  the  bribe  ;  and  yet,  as  will 
appear,  it  contains  all  for  which  "Warton  had  the  authority  of 
the  Duchess.  Some  years  later  Warton  published  an  edition 
of  Pope's  works,  to  which  he  transferred,  as  notes,  passages 
from  the  Essay,  amongst  others  the  above,  for  which,  the 
Duchess  having  been  long  dead,  he  felt  himself  at  liberty  to 
name  his  authority — * 

*  Mr.  Ehvin,  I  understand  from  Mr.  Forster,  dissents  from  my  conclusions 
about  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough,  and  the  thousand  pounds  bribe,  and  considers 
that  he  has  discovered  additional  evidence  in  a  note  in  the  handwriting  of  the 
Duchess  of  Portland.  But  this  MS.  note,  so  far  as  I  understand,  is  but  a  repeti- 
tion of  the  story  which  she  told  Warton,  and  which  Warton  published.  Let  us 
consider  the  value  of  her  evidence. 

The  duchess  avowedly  disliked  Pope,  and  so  did  her  mother.  In  reference 
to  the  qtnrrret  between  Lady  M.  W.  Montagu  and  Pope  and  the  asserted 
meeting  at  Lady  Oxford's,  the  duchess  said  such  a  meeting  was  impossible,  for 
"  my  mother  adored  Lady  Mary  and  hated  Pope"  (Works  of  Lady  Mary  Wortley 
Montagu,  i.  94).  Here,  then,  is  proof  that  the  duchess  and  her  mother  were 
predisposed  to  believe  anything  against  Pope. 

But  there  was  even  more  than  ill-will  to  influence  the  duchess. 

Bolingbroke  first  hinted  at  some  disgraceful  conduct  of  Pope's  in  regard  to  the 
publication  of  the  character  of  Atossa  within  a  few  days  of  Pope's  death.  (Letter 
to  Marchmont.)  Soon  affer  Pope's  death  BoHnghroke  had,  or  believed  that  he 
had,  personal  groundsTor  censure  of  Pope's  conduct,  and  he  subsequently  employed 
Mallet  to  avenge  him,  and  damage  the  dead  man's  memory.  Tfow  Bolingbroke 
admits  that  he  had  seen  an  edition  of  the  Essay  on  Woman  containing  the  cha- 
racter of  Atossa  ;  and  as  no  copy  is  now  known  to  be  in  existence,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  under  the  authority  given  him  in  Pope's  will,  or  by  consent,  that 
whole  edition  was  destroyed.  (See  note,  p.  165.)  Notwithstanding  tfw  character 
ofAtossavras  soon  after  published,  with  the  "  it  is  said  "  note  about  the  thousand 
poundlTbriEe—  the  animus  of  the  publication  being  shown  by  the  note.  The  pub- 
lisher'Knew  that  evwybMy "wnfl  "Hated"  Pope  would  believe  even  an  "it  is 
said."  But  there  were  other  persons  and  circumstances  that  may  have  influenced 
the  duchess.  Mallet,  Bolingbroke's  agent  in  attacking  the  memory  of  Pope. 

Q  2 


228  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

"  In  the  last  illness  of  the  great  Duke,  her  husband,  when 
Dr.  Mead  left  his  chamber,  the  Duchess,  disliking  his  advice, 
followed  him  down  stairs,  swore  at  him  bitterly,  and  was  going 
to  tear  off  his  periwig.  Her  friend,  Dr.  Hoadley,  Bishop  of 
Winchester,  was  present  at  this  scene.  These  lines  were  shown 
to  her  grace  as  if  they  were  intended  for  the  portrait  of  the 
Duchess  of  Buckingham ;  but  she  soon  stopped  the  person 
who  was  reading  them  to  her,  as  the  Duchess  of  Portland 
informed  me,  and  called  out  aloud,  *  I  cannot  be  so  imposed 
upon — I  see  plainly  enough  for  whom  the\r  are  designed,'  and 
abused  Pope  most  plentifully  on  the  subject,  though  she  was 
afterwards  reconciled  to  him,  and  courted  him,  and  gave  him 
1,0002.  to  suppress  this  portrait,  which  he  accepted,  it  is  said, 
by  the  persuasion  of  Mrs.  M.  Blount ;  and,"  &c. 

The  reader  cannot  fail,  we  think,  to  see  that  all  for  which 
the  Duchess  was  authority  was  given  in  the  Essay.  The  story 
about  the  bribe  was  subsequently  picked  up  by  Warton,  as  it 
had  been  picked  by  Walpole  and  others. 

How  far  this  mistake  may  have  influenced  the  judgment  of 
the  biographer  we  cannot  say  ;  but  there  remains  nothing  for 
us  to  test  and  value  but  the  old  evidence,  which,  though  long 
since  incidentally  questioned  in  the  Athenaum,  we  hope  now  to 
dispose  of  for  ever. 

In  a  letter  written  soon  after  Pope's  death,  and  when 
Bolingbroke  affected  to  be  indignant  with  his  dead  friend  for 
having,  with  what  Warburton  calls  superstitious  zeal,  done 
for  him  what  Bolingbroke  soon  after  did  for  himself  through 
the  agency  of  another  friend,  he  thus  wrote  to  Lord  March- 
mont — 

"  Our  friend  Pope,  it  seems,  corrected  and  prepared  for  the 
press  just  before  his  death  an  edition  of  the  four  Epistles,  that 
follow  the  Essay  on  Man.  They  were  then  printed  off,  and 
are  now  ready  for  publication.  I  am  sorry  for  it,  because  if  he 
could  be  excused  for  writing  the  character  of  Atossa  formerly, 

and  whose  character  therefore  required  proof  of  Pope's  rascality,  married  Lucy 
Elstob,  the  niece  of  the  famous  Saxon  scholars,  Mr.  and  Mrs.  Elstob,  and  Mrs. 
Elstob  latterly  lived  with  the  duchess,  where  she  was  constantly  visited  by  Mrs. 
Mallet.  (See"  Memoir  of  Mrs.  Delany,  ill  429.) 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  229 

there  is  no  excuse  for  his  design  of  publishing  it,  after  lie  had 
received  the  favour  you  and  I  know ;  and  the  character  of 
Atossa  is  inserted.  I  have  a  copy  of  the  book." 

The  Marchniont  letters  and  papers  were  bequeathed  to 
Mr.  Rose,  whose  son,  Sir  George,  published  a  selection  from 
them,  including  this  letter.  It  appears  Sir  George  found  on 
this  letter  in  pencil,  and  in  figures,  "  1,OOOZ.,"  which  he 
assumed  to  have  been  written  by  his  lather,  and  he  then 
further  assumed,  not  that  his  father  put  it  down  conjecturally 
as  referring  to  the  current  story,  but  positively  as  the  "  sum  " 
— the  bribe — which  "  Lord  Marchniont  stated  to  be  the  favour 
received  by  Pope  from  the  hands  of  the  Duchess  of  Marl- 
borough."  It  would  be  incredible — if  anything  could  be  in- 
credible that  relates  either  to  Pope  or  his  annotators — that  Sir 
George  Rose  did  not  see  that  to  disprove  the  story  of  the 
biibe,  it  was  only  necessary  to  refer  to  Bolingbroke's  letter. 
Pope,  says  Sir  George — and  by  no  ingenuity  can  we  get 
through  his  four  naked  figures  at  any  higher  authority — took  a 
bribe  of  "1,000/."  to  suppress  the  character  of  Atossa,  and 
Bolingbroke  proves  that  he  did  not  suppress  it.  Take  a  bribe 
of  1,OOOL  to  suppress,  and  publish  whilst  the  Duchess  was 
living,  and  whilst,  therefore,  his  infamy  could  have  been,  and 
in  her  own  defence  must  have  been,  proclaimed  to  the  whole 
world ! 

It  is  obvious  to  common  sense  that  when  it  became  known 
that  Pope  had  written  the  character  of  Atossa,  the  friends  of 
the  Duchess*  and  of  Pope — Chesterfield,  Marchniont,  Boling- 
broke, and  others,  possibly  Hooke,  and  not  the  least  influential 
— persuaded  him  not  to  publish  it,  Pope  yielded  for  a  time  ; 
but  having  resolved  with  the  aid  of  Warburton  to  issue  a 
"  complete,  correct,  and  annotated  edition  of  his  works,"  he 

*  Pope  it  is  well  known^  didjiot  like^Jthe^Marlboroughs,  and  made  his  ill-will 
public  as  early,  r think,  as  1734,  but  certainly  in  his  Quarto  1735,  where,  in  2nd 
Sat.  2nd  Bk.  of  Horace,  lie  tlms  \vro"le— 

— to  thy  country  let  that  heap  be  lent 
As  M — o's  was,  but  not  at  five  per  cent. 
[M— o-Marlbro]. 


230  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

resolved  that  it  should  be  complete,  and  that  he  would  insert 
in  the  '  Essay  on  Woman '  the  character  of  Atossa  and  of 
others  in  the  places  designed  for  them,  and  he  did  so.  Pope, 
indeed,  was  feverishly  anxious  to  push  forward  this  edition  of 
his  works— Ii is"  letters  to  WarTmiibn  are  Frequent  and  urgent 
on  the  subject — the  '  Duncmd/'  the"rEssay  on  Man,1  and  the 
•  Essay  on  Criticism/  were  actually  published,  and  the  '  Four 
Epistles '  were  ready  for  publication,  and  presentation  copies 
sent  out  before  he  died.  Spence  records — 

"  Here  I  am  [said  Pope]  like  Socrates,  distributing  my 
morality  among  my  friends  just  as  I  am  dying.  This  was  said 
on  sending  about  some  of  his  Ethic  Epistles,  as  presents,  about 
three  weeks  before  we  lost  him." 

The  "  book  "  which  Bolingbroke  had  was,  no  doubt,  one  of 
these  copies ;  and  the  public,  too,  would  have  had  copies,  but 
for  the  interference  of  the  Mends  of  the  Duchess,  Pope's 
executors,  Marchmont,  Chesterfield,  and  others,  all  influential. 
It  has  been  said,  though  we  do  not  at  the  moment  remember 
on  what  authority,  that  a  dozen  copies  were  thus  distributed, 
and  that  all  were  recalled  and  recovered  except  the  one  given 
to  Bethell ;  and  were  probably  destroyed.*  The  fact,  however, 
of  printing  and  distributing  proves  enough  for  our  purpose — 
proves  that  the  "favour"  may  mean  anything — courtesies, 
compliments,  civilities — anything  but,  what  Sir  George  assumed, 
a  bribe  to  suppress. 

These  assumptions,  however,  are  said  by  Mr.  Carruthers  to 
be  strengthened  by  the  "  separate  and  independent "  testimonies 
of  Walpole  and  Warton, — the  one  writing  in  1789,  and  the 
other  in  1797.  The  dates  alone  prove  that  personally  neither 
Walpole  nor  Warton  could  know  more  on  the  subject  than 
Mr.  Carruthers,  and  no  amount  of  repetition  can  add  a  feather's 
weight  to  the  original  evidence.  Neither  Warton  nor  Walpole 

*  All  Pope's  MSS.  and  '  imprinted  papers '  were  bequeathed  to  Bolingbroke 
"either  to  be  preserved  or  destroyed."  Pope  often  used  printed  for  published, 
»nd  if  the  word  be  so  interpreted,  Bolingbroke's  right  to  destroy  may  be  established. 
If  it  be  doubtful,  the  authority  of  the  executors  would  no  doubt  induce  Warburton 
not  to  withhold  his  cor  sent.  As  no  one  but  Bolingbroke  has  ever  seen  a  copy, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  edition  was  destroyed. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  231 

pretend  to  speak  on  authority — they  simply  record  a  current 
anecdote.  What  Warton  said  we  have  shown ;  and  Walpole 
simply  relates  the  story  as  "  the  anecdote  [told]  of  Pope." 

Mr.  Carruthers  does  not  appear  to  know  that  this  falsehood 
was  first  circulated  half-a- century  earlier ;  but  not  till  Pope 
was  dead,  and  the  Duchess  was  dead.  Even  then,  the  slanderer 
did  not  venture  to  speak  as  of  a  fact  within  his  knowledge,  or 
capable  of  proof,  but  as  an  on  dit,  an  "it  is  generally  said." 
The  verses  on  Atossa,  though  printed  in  the  "  Book,"*  as 
Bolingbroke  called  it,  were  first  published  in  1746,  and  the 
animus  of  the  publisher  was  betrayed  in  the  following 
note : — 

"  These  verses  are  part  of  a  poem  entitled  Characters  of 
Women.  It  is  generally  said,  the  D — ss  gave  Mr.  P.  1,000£.  to 
suppress  them :  he  took  the  money,  yet  the  world  sees  the 
verses ;  but  this  is  not  the  first  instance  where  Mr.  P.'s  prac- 
tical virtue  has  fallen  very  short  of  those  pompous  professions 
of  it  he  makes  in  his  writings." 

Here  is  an  obtuse  rascal  by  his  own  confession.  Pope,  he 
tells  us,  it  is  "  said,"  took  a  thousand  pounds  to  suppress 
these  verses ;  but  since  his  death,  /  got  hold  of  a  copy,  and 
here  they  are  !  /  publish  them,  and  my  publi cation  "  is  not 
the  first  instance  where  Mr.  Pope's  practical  virtue  has  fallen 
very  short  of  his  pompous  professions  !  " 

Is  the  "it  is  said  "  of  this  anonymous  and,  on  his  own 
showing,  disreputable  fellow  to  be  believed,  because  it  has  been 
circulated  by  Walpole  and  Warton,  and  Bowles  and  Carruthers, 
and  half-a-dozen  other  people,  in  ignorance,  we  hope  and  be- 
lieve, of  its  no -authority  ?  and  against  a  man  whose  whole  life, 
with  all  his  faults,  gives  the  lie  tcrTtT^a  man  who  resolutely 
refused  to  receive  pecuniary  favours  even  from  friends,  public 
or  private,  much  as  he  delighted  to  confer  such  favours  on  the 
unfortunate, — a  man  who,  while  living,  defied  his  enemies — 

*  I  have  an  edition  m  folio,  and  one  in  a  sort  of  magazine,  an<l  thcr  >  is  another 
copy  in  the  Foundling  Hospital  of  Wit,  and  all  with  the  note.  The  probabilities 
are  that  it  first  appeared  in  the  folio,  and  was  copied  into  the  newspaper  and 
magazine. 


232  PAPERS  OF  A    CXITIC.  [I. 

and  they  were  a  host — to  name  a  single  instance  in  which  he 
had  taken  "  money,  pension,  or  present,"  for  praise  or  censure, 
or  withholding  either.  Why,  we  might  as  well  believe  all  the 
falsehoods  circulated  by  the  heroes  of  the  '  Dunciad  ' — rather 
believe  them,  for  they  were  current  in  Pope's  lifetime,  whereas 
this  story  of  the  bribe  was  not  hazarded  till  he  was  in  his 
grave.  We  may  be  assured,  too,  that,  if  Pope  had  taken  the 
bribe,  the  shrewd  old  Duchess,  who  lived  in  Tear  of  "him,  would 
have  registered  tne  fact  ancTthe  proof.  If  she  thought  sup- 
pressfon~?oTth"~a~  fnousaniT  pounds,  she  would  have  guarded 
against  after^death  publication,  by  leaving  clear  evidence  of  the 
worthlessness  of  the  satire  and  satirist. 

Stories  like  this,  though  often  wilful  misrepresentations 
circulated  by  malice,  sometimes  originate  in  misapprehension  : 
and  it  strikes  us  as  possible  that  this  may  have  had  its  origin 
in  the  simple  fact,  that  the  Duchess  gave  Hooke,  the  historian, 
1,000^.*  for  writing  the  famous  pamphlet,  '  An  Account  of  the 
Conduct  of  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough.'  Chesterfield  thus 
wrote  to  Marchmont,  on  the  24th  of  April,  1741  : — 

"  Your  friend,  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough,  has  in  your 
absence  employed  me  as  your  substitute ;  and  I  have  brought 
Mr.  Hooke  and  her  together,  and  having  done  that,  will  leave 
the  rest  to  them,  not  caring  to  meddle  myself  in  an  affair 
which  I  am  sure  will  not  turn  out  at  last  to  her  satisfaction, 
though  I  hope  and  believe  it  will  be  to  his  advantage." 

We  know  not  what  circumstances  brought  Hooke  under  the 
notice  of  Chesterfield ;  and  it  is  strange,  considering  the 
violence  of  her  passions  and  prejudices,  that  the  Duchess 
should  in  this  very  delicate  and  confidential  business  have 
employed  a  Catholic.  Is  it  not  possible  that  literary  aid  being 
wanted,  it  was  thought  complimentary  to  apply  to  Pope,  or 
for  Pope's  recommendation;  and  that  he  recommended  his 
friend  Hooke  ?  It  did  happen  that  Pope  and  Chesterfield 
were  both  at  Bath  in  the  winter  of  1739-40 ;  and  that  on 

*  ?  £5,000. 


L]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  233 

the  9th  of  January,  1740,   Pope  wrote  from  Bath  to  Lord 
Polwarth  : — 

"  I  am  in  great  pain  to  find  out  Mr.  Hook.  Does  your 
Lordship,  or  Mr.  Hume,  or  Dr.  King,  know  where  he  is  ?  " 

It  is  quite  certain  that  about  that  time  the  Duchess  was 
very  anxious  to  conciliate  Pope.  The  year  before  lie  wrote  to 
Swift — "The  Duchess  of  Maiiborough  makes  great  court  to 
me;  but  I  am  too  old  for  her,  mind  and  body."  In  1742  she  her- 
self wrote  to  the  Earl  of  Marchmont : — "  Pray  *  *  if  you  talk  to 
Mr.  Pope  of  me,  endeavour  to  keep  him  my  friend.*7  No  doubt 
all  her  friends  acted  under  like  instructions.  On  a  subsequent 
visit  to  Bath,  Pope  wrote — "  My  Lord  Chesterfield  is  here. 
*  *  He  has  made  me  dine  with  him  en  malade,  though  my 
physicians  prescribe  me  garlick."  May  not  self-sacrifice  on 
the  part  of  the  refined  Chesterfield,  together  with  the  actual 
suppression  of  the  character  of  Atossa, — and  all  the  Duchess 
knew  was  that  the  character  had  been  written,  had  been  sup- 
pressed, and  that  Pope  was  dead,  and  had  made  no  sign, — have 
been  one  of  the  obligations  so  gratefully  remembered  in  the 
codicil  to  her  will  ? — 

"  I  give  to  Philip,  Earl  of  Chesterfield,  out  of  the  great 
regard  I  have  for  his  merit,  and  the  infinite  obligations  I  have 
received  from  him,  my  best  and  largest  brilliant  diamond  ring, 
and  the  sum  of  20,OOOL" 

Again,  she  records  : — 

"  — I  have  been  extremely  obliged  to  the  Earl  of  Chesterfield, 
ifho  never  had  any  call  to  give  himself  any  trouble  about 
me " 

AVe  have  thrown  this  out  as  a  speculation  for  the  amusement 
of  the  curious ;  and,  shall  now  conclude,  as  we  began,  with  an 
acknowledgment  that  this  edition  has  fairly  superseded  the 
former, — and  the  hope  that  a  third  edition  will  soon  supersede 
the  present. 


234  PAPEKS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 


From  the  Athenaeum  t  Nov.  21,  1857. 

Pope  :  his  Descent  and  Family  Connections.     Facts  and  Con- 
jectures.    By  Joseph  Hunter.     (J.  K.  Smith.) 

WHEN  we  first  read  the  announcement  of  this  little  volume, 
we  felt  satisfied  that  we  should  find  in  it  something  of  interest 
and  value.  Mr.  Hunter  is  an  inquirer  who  goes  direct  to  one 
object ;  and  in  this  instance,  he  proposed  to  illustrate  the 
descent  and  family  connexions  of  the  poet — to  submit  facts  and 
conjectures  on  the  subject.  Of  the  value  of  the  facts  we  had 
no  doubt :  the  conjectures  were  less  hopeful. 

Pope,  in  the  Prologue  to  the  Satires,  said  both  his  parents 
sprang  of  "  gentle  blood,"  and  in  a  note,  by  way  of  comment 
on  the  line  in  the  '  Epistle  to  a  Doctor  of  Divinity,' — 

Hard  as  thy  heart  and  as  thy  birth  obscure, 

observed  that  "Mr.  Pope's  father  was  of  a  gentleman's  family 
in  Oxfordshire,  the  head  of  which  was  the  Earl  of  Downe, 
whose  sole  heiress  married  the  Earl  of  Lindsay.  This  state- 
ment was  questioned  by  a  Mr.  Potenger,  who  claimed  kindred 
with  the  poet.  He  observed  to  Dr.  Bolton,  Dean  of  Carlisle, 
"  that  his  cousin  Pope  had  made  himself  out  a  fine  pedigree, 
but  he  wondered  where  he  got  it ;  that  he  had  never  heard  any- 
thing himself  of  their  being  descended  from  the  Earls  of  Downe ; 
and  what  is  more,  he  had  an  old  maiden  aunt,  equally  related, 
a  great  genealogist,  who  was  alwa}7s  talking  of  her  family,  but 
never  mentioned  this  circumstance, — on  which  she  certainly 
would  not  have  been  silent,  had  she  known  anything  of  it. 
Mr.  Pope's  grandfather  was  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of 
England  in  Hampshire,  He  placed  his  son,  Mr.  Pope's 
father,  with  a  merchant  at  Lisbon,  where  he  became  a  convert 
to  Popery."  The  Earl  of  Guildford  also  told  MivLoveday 
of  Caversharn  "  that  he  has  seen  and  examined  the  pedigrees 
and  descents  of  that  [the  Downe]  family,  and  is  sure  that 
there  were  then  none  of  the  name  of  Pope  left,  who  could  be 
descended  from  that  family." 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  235 

Mr.  Hunter  agrees  with  Mr.  Carruthers  in  the  belief  that 
Mr.  Potenger  was  probably  the  M.P.  for  Reading ;  and  this 
seems  plausible  when  we  remember  that  Dr.  Bolton  was  not 
only  Dean  of  Carlisle,  but  Vicar  of  St.  Mary's,  Reading.  But 
in  a  question  of  this  nature,  this  respectable  alliance  must  not 
be  assumed,  for  the  Potengers,  though  not  ennobled,  were  of 
an  older  and  better  family  than  the  Earls  of  Downe, — and 
there  are  objections.  Richard  Potenger,  the  M.P.,  was  also 
a  Welsh  Judge,  and  he  died  in  1739,  and  a  new  writ  was 
ordered  in  the  November  of  that  year ;  and  Dr.  Bolton  was 
not  appointed  Vicar  of  St.  Mary's  Reading,  until  the  20th  of 
August,  1738.  Again,  Mr.  Hunter  assumes  that  the  maiden 
aunt  referred  to,  must  have  been  the  sister  of  Pope's  grand- 
father Pope,  and  Mr.  Potenger  the  issue  of  another  sister  or 
brother.  Is  that  quite  certain  ?  It  would  tend  to  shake  our 
faith  in  the  Downe  connexion,  if  it  could  be  shown  that  both 
Mr.  Potenger  and  the  genealogist  were  Popes  by  descent, 
and  yet  had  never  heard  of  the  "  fine  pedigree."  However, 
on  Mr.  Potenger's  hint,  Mr.  Hunter  proceeded  with  his 
researches. — 

"  In  looking  over  the  list  of  beneficed  clergymen  in  the 
county  of  Hants,  in  the  period  in  which  he  lived,  presented  to 
us  by  '  The  Book  of  Compositions  for  First- Fruits,'  I  find 
only  one  person  of  the  name  of  Pope,  and  his  name  was  Alexander. 
This  of  itself  would  be  sufficient  to  support  Mr.  Potenger's 
account,  and  to  set  before  us  the  person  for  whom  search  has 
before  been  unsuccessfully  made.  Then  as  to  his  residence, 
and  position  in  the  Church,  we  find  in  these  books  of  Com- 
positions : — 1.  On  the  31st  of  January,  1631,  Alexander  Pope 
compounded  for  the  first-fruits  of  the  rectory  of  Thruxton,  in 
the  county  of  Hants.  2.  On  November  23,  1633,  he  com- 
pounded for  the  first-fruits  of  the  Prebend  of  Middleton. 
3.  And  on  May  23,  1639,  for  the  first-fruits  of  the  Prebend  of 
Ichen-Abbots.  As  he  held  Thruxton  till  his  death,  he  must 
be  considered  in  the  light  of  a  clergyman  possessed  of  good 
preferment,  in  fact,  as  belonging  to  the  superior  class  of  the 
clergy  in  the  diocese  of  Winchester," 


236  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

Mr.  Hunter  now  entertained  hopes  that  some  information 
might  even  yet  be  obtained  at  Thruxton  respecting  the  Rector 
and  his  family;  but  nothing  resulted  from  his  inquiries  but 
the  following  from  the  register  of  burials  : — 

"1645,  Feb.  21.  Alexander  Pope,  Minister  of  Thruxton, 
was  buried." 

That  the  Rector  of  Thruxton  was  the  grandfather  of  the  poet, 
Mr.  Hunter  has  little  doubt ;  is  of  opinion  indeed  that  dates 
and  circumstances  strongly  support  his  views.  Pope's  father, 
according  to  the  inscription  on  his  monument,  was  75  at  the 
time  of  his  death,  in  1717,  and  was,  therefore,  born  in  1642. 
Now,  "P.  T."  one  of  Curll's  initial  Correspondents,  who,  Mr. 
Hunter  admits,  "  was  acquainted  with  facts  in  the  history  of 
the  family  a  little  beyond  those  which  the  poet  himself  had 
divulged,"  stated  that  Pope's  father  was  a  posthumous  child. 
Mr.  Hunter  is  a  little  perplexed  with  "  P.  T."  ;  wonders  that 
any  one  should  have  attributed  that  letter  to  Pope  or  to  some 
friend  of  Pope's ;  while  we  should  wonder  if  any  one  acquainted 
with  all  the  circumstances  could  doubt  that  it  was  written  by 
or  at  the  suggestion  of  Pope.  However,  if  dates  could  be 
relied  on  and  Pope's  father  was  the  son  of  the  Rector  of 
Thruxton,  he  was  not  a  posthumous  child, — but  we  admit 
that  the  inscription  on  the  monument  is  not  an  absolute 
authority.  Pope  was  wrong  according  to  all  probabilities 
respecting  his  mother's  age  ;  and  even  P.  T.'s  assertion  may 
have  been  intentionally  near,  but  not  the  exact  truth.  Still, 
not  to  dwell  with  emphasis  on  small  points,  we  will  only  further 
observe,  that  we  have  no  evidence  whatever  to  show  that  the 
Rector  of  Thruxton  had  children — was  even  a  married  man. 
Evidence  of  this  marriage  it  might  be  difficult  to  procure ;  but 
we  might  surely  expect  to  find  a  record  of  the  baptism  of  his 
children. 

Mr.  Hunter  now  enters  upon  a  somewhat  wild,  but  very 
interesting  speculation,  from  which  he  deduces  not  only  the 
probability  of  his  marriage,  but  of  the  person  he  married.  He 
finds  in  the  wiU  of  Dr.  Barcroft,  of  C.  C.  C.,  Oxford,  a 
bequest — 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  237 

"  to  his  godson,  John  Wilkins,  Zanchi's  works,  so  many  as  I 
have,  to  be  delivered  to  his  father-in-law  [meaning  stepfather, 
says  Mr.  Hunter] ,  Mr.  Alexander  Pope,  for  his  use." 

— "Wilkins,"  says  Mr.  Hunter, 

"  was  then  a  boy ;  and  Wood  informs  us  (Ath.  Oxon.  2.  105) 
that  he  was  the  son  of  a  Walter  Wilkins,  a  goldsmith  of 
Oxford,  and  that  his  mother  was  one  of  the  daughters  of  Dodd 
of  Fawsley,  where  Wilkins  was  born.  Further,  that  Wilkins 
was  uterine  brother  to  Dr.  Walter  Pope,  who,  in  his  '  Life  of 
Bishop  Seth  Ward,'  speaks  of  this  relationship." 

It  having  been  thus  shown  that  Wilkins  (afterwards  Bishop 
of  Chester)  was  uterine  brother  to  Dr.  Walter  Pope,  Mr. 
Hunter  assumes  naturally  that  the  goldsmith's  widow  married 
a  Mr.  Alexander  Pope,  and  he  then  comes  to  the  somewhat 
startling  conclusion  that  this  Alexander  Pope  was  the  Rector 
of  Thruxton,  that  by  his  first  wife  he  had  Dr.  Walter  Pope, 
and  that  on  her  death  he  married  again,  and  that  Pope's  father 
was  the  issue  of  the  second  marriage.  This  would  make  Dr. 
Walter  Pope  half  brother  to  Pope's  father.  This  Mr.  Hunter 
admits  is  only  a  speculative  possibility,  difficult  to  believe, 
considering  how  much  is  known  of  Dr.  Walter  Pope  and  Bishop 
Wilkins,  and  that  Walter  lived  till  1714,  a  time  when  his 
celebrated  nephew  (?)  was  known  as  a  poet  of  great  promise, 
and  for  whose  translation  of  Homer  subscriptions  were  open. 
The  more  difficult  because  Walter  Pope  stood  in  some  relation 
to  the  family  of  the  Earls  of  Burlington,  to  whom  his  '  Wish ' 
was  dedicated.  But  Pope's  father  had  an  elder  brother,  of 
whom  Mr.  Hunter  takes  no  notice  whatever ;  a  man,  says  Pope 
in  his  Letter  to  a  Noble  Lord,  "  who  wanted  some  of  those 
good  qualities  which  yours  possessed," — a  description,  coupled 
with  the  statement  by  P.  T.  of  his  having  been  educated  at 
Oxford,  which  would  very  well  describe  Walter  Pope;  and  Mr. 
Hunter  may  think  it  tends  to  strengthen  his  conjecture  when 
we  add  that  Walter  in  his  '  Wish  '  speaks  of  "  those  odious 
names  of  distinction  "  [Whig  and  Tory]  baring  "  kindled  great 


238  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

animosity  and  strangeness  and  even  hatred,  betwixt  friends  and 
relations,  which  are  not  yet,  I  fear,  thoroughly  extinguished." 
Pope  says  further,  that  his  father  "  did  not  think  it  a  happiness 
to  bury  his  elder  brother,"  which  shows  that  he  died  before 
him.  P.  T.,  indeed,  says  the  elder  died  at  Oxford,  whereas 
Walter  lived  to  1714.  After  all,  if  Mr.  Hunter's  hypothesis, 
strange  as  it  appears,  is  not  to  be  implicitly  trusted,  what 
remains  ?  A  rector  of  Thruxton  of  the  name  of  Alexander 
Pope.  But  there  is  no  proof  whatever  that  he  was  the 
ancestor  of  the  poet,  that  he  had  children,  or  was  even  married ; 
and  Mr.  Carruthers  has  shown,  what  our  limited  observation 
tends  to  confirm,  that  the  name  of  Alexander  was  a  common 
Christian  name  amongst  the  Pope  family. 

The  argument  tending  to  show  that  "  probabilities  are 
strongly  in  favour  of  the  assertion,"  that  Pope  was  descended 
from  a  younger  son  of  the  family  afterwards  ennobled  as  Earls 
of  Downe,  amounts  to  this,  and  nothing  more. — The  Popes, 
Earls  of  Downe,  were  of  obscure  origin.  Sir  Thomas  Pope, 
the  founder,  the  son  of  a  poor  and  mean  man  at  Deddington, 
in  Oxfordshire,  acquired  his  wealth  out  of  the  spoils  of  the 
ancient  Church.  Now  surely  it  is  a  licence  beyond  what  is 
claimed  by  the  compilers  even  of  our  Books  of  Peerage,  to 
assume  that  a  man  whose  grandfather  is  not  known  is  de- 
scended from  some  one  who  lived  two  centuries  before,  for  as 
Sir  Thomas  left  no  issue,  the  connexion,  if  it  existed  at  all, 
must  be  through  the  Deddington  yeoman.  It  appears  to  us, 
that  there  is  no  more  evidence  to  show  that  Alexander  Pope 
was  descended  from  either  root  or  branch  of  the  Downe  family 
than  would  hold  equally  good  for  every  other  man  of  the  name 
of  Pope,  provided  he  did  not  know,  and  we  did  not  know,  who 
was  his  grandfather. 

The  poet's  maternal  descent  is  much  more  clearly  made  out. 
The  Turners  appear  to  have  been  persons  of  property  in  the 
county  of  York,  though  not  taking  rank  amongst  the  gentry, 
as  there  is  no  mention'of  them  in  the  '  Herald's  Visitations.' 

In  1603,  says  Mr.  Hunter,  a  grant  was  made  by  the  Crown 
to  Lancelot  Turner,  of  the  manor  of  Towthorpe,  and  there  he 
resided,  although  he  appears  about  the  same  time  to  have  had 


I.]  POPE'S   WHITINGS.  230 

a  house  in  York.  It  is  more  than  probable  that  this  Lancelot 
himself  acquired  the  property  which  enabled  him  to  make  the 
purchase  of  the  manor  of  Towthorpe.  He  appears  to  have 
died  before  the  17th  of  January,  1620,  and  by  his  will  he 
bequeaths  to  William  Turner,  son  of  his  brother  Philip,  all  the 
manor  of  Towthorpe  and  lands  there, — and  also  a  rent-charge 
of  70Z.  a  year,  which  he  had  issuing  out  of  the  manor  of 
Huston  ;  this,  it  will  be  remembered,  is  the  very  rent-charge 
bequeathed  by  the  elder  Pope  to  the  poet  nearly  a  century  later, 
— and  he  makes  William  Turner  his  executor.  There  is  also 
a  specific  bequest  of  50Z.  a  year  for  life  to  Thomasine  Newton, 
with  some  personals,  including  his  "  song-books."  This 
Thomasine,  as  our  readers  know,  soon  after  married  William 
Turner,  and  became  the  mother  of  seventeen  children,  of 
whom  Edith,  Pope's  mother,  was  one. 

Why  William  Turner  removed  to  Worsborough  is  not 
known ;  but  there  we  find  him  from  1641  to  1645,  as  appears 
by  the  baptismal  register  of  four  of  his  children, — but  he  is 
presumed  to  have  been  only  a  tenant. 

When  he  returned  to  York  is  not  known,  but  he  is  believed 
to  have  been  living  there  in  the  year  1665,  where,  says  Mr. 
Hunter,  he  resided  in  the  parish  of  St.  John  del  Pike. 

William  Turner's  will  is  dated  the  4th  of  September,  1665. 
Mr.  Hunter  gives  us  a  very  interesting  report  of  the  surviving 
children  mentioned  therein.  Of  course,  there  was  no  son  sur- 
viving but  William,  who,  as  Pope  said,  died  "  a  general  officer  " 
in  Spain.  The  history  of  the  "  general  officer  "  is  not  clearly 
made  out.  His  age,  if  he  were  living  in  1671,  in  York,  as  Mr. 
Hunter  surmises,  would  preclude  the  probability  of  his  having 
after  that  date  acquired  rank  in  the  army  in  Spain.  The 
William  Turner  in  1671,  however,  may  have  been  the  father, 
the  time  of  whose  death  does  not  appear,  Mr.  Hunter  having 
given  us  nothing  but  the  date  of  his  will  above  quoted. 


When  Mr.  Carruthers'  biography  of  the  poet  was  under 
consideration,  we  expressed  a  hope  that  we  should  be  enabled 
again  to  return  to  the  subject.  In  this  we  have  been  dis- 


240  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

appointed.  In  that  article  we  expressed  a  doubt  whether 
Mr.  Carruthers  could  have  found  in  the  original  letter  of 
the  13th  of  September,  1717,  that  passage  which  he  inter- 
preted as  the  "  touch  of  pride."  We  are  now  assured — 
on  authority  which  does  not  admit  of  a  doubt — that  the 
passage  is  in  the  original  letter.  We,  however,  were  correct 
in  stating  that  the  published  letter  was  a  piece  of  literary 
mosaic.  No  letter  written  in  September,  1717,  could  contain 
announcement  of  the  death  of  Dr.  Radcliffe,  who  died  on 
the  1st  of  November,  1714  ;  and  there  are  other  passages — 
and  offensive  passages,  too — introduced  into  the  published 
letter  which  are  not  in  the  original.  Thus  was  one  of  the 
pitfalls  dug  by  Pope  himself,  into  which  friends  and  enemies, 
critics  and  biographers,  must  alike  fall  on  occasions ;  and  all 
that  truth- seekers  can  do  is  to  cry  "  'ware  hawk,"  for  the 
safety  of  others. 

We  may  here  add,  that  our  speculations  upon  the  possibility 
of  the  Duchess  of  MaiTborough  having  obtained  through  Pope 
the  services  of  Hooke,  to  whom  it  is  said  she  gave  1,OOOZ. 
(Ruffhead  says  5,OOOZ.),  and  of  this  fact  having  given  rise  to 
the  story  of  Pope's  having  received  a  bribe  of  that  sum  from 
the  Duchess,  are  positively  confirmed  by  the  statement  of 
Ruffhead,  who  says  that  Hooke  "was  by  Pope  and  others 
recommended  to  her  Grace." 


From  Notes  and  Queries. 

POPE,  Editions  of  1735  and  1736. — Your  correspondent 
F.  E.  (2nd  S.  iv.  446)  raises  questions  well  worth  considering, 
but  which  I  certainly  cannot  solve ;  though  I  hope  to  direct 
attention  to  some  small  facts  which  may  aid  better  judgments 
to  conclusions. 

Your  correspondent  tells  us  that  "  Vol.  III."  of  Lintot, 
1736,  was  "  obviously  intended  to  follow  Vol.  II.  of  Pope's 
Works  published  in  the  preceding  year  by  L.  Gilliver."  This 


I.]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  241 

I  believe  to  be  true ;  and  he  might  have  added  that  Vol.  II.  of 
Gilliver  was  obviously  intended  to  follow  Vol.  I.  of  Lintot.  So 
disjointed  a  publication  of  an  author's  Works  seems  strange, 
and  deserves  inquiry  in  "  N.  &  Q." — first  as  to  the  fact,  and 
then  as  to  motives. 

I  have  many  copies  of  Pope's  Works,  all  published  between 
1735  and  1748,  all  agreeing  in  size  and  character,  all  in  con- 
temporary binding ;  some  bound  in  separate  volumes,  others 
with  the  four  volumes  bound  in  two — a  strange  and  curious 
example  of  inharmonious  harmony. 

I  have  two  editions  of  "  Vol.  I."  of  The  Works  of  Alexander 
Pope,  which  were,  as  set  forth  in  the  title-page,  "  printed  for 
B.  Lintot,  1736." 

I  have  four  copies  of  "  Vol.  II.  ; "  two  of  which  were 
"  printed  for  L.  Gilliver,  1735,"  as  described  b}T  your  corre- 
spondent, and  with  different  title-pages.  These  are  reprints 
from  the  quarto  of  1735,  with  some  additions.  Neither  con- 
tain The  Dunciad,  and  only  one  announces  its  speedy  publica- 
tion. I  have  also  two  copies  of  a  separate  volume,  called 
"Vol.  II.  Part  II.,"  "printed  for  Dodsley,  and  sold  by 
T.  Cooper,  1738 ; "  which  professes  to  contain  "  all  such 
pieces  of  the  author  as  were  written  since  the  former  volumes, 
and  never  before  published  in  octavo."  I  have  also  a  copy  of 
"  Vol.  II."  bound  up  with  "Vol.  I."  of  B.  Lintot,  1736,  which 
was  "  printed  for  R.  Dodsley,  and  sold  by  T.  Cooper,  1739." 
This  has  bound  up  with  it  a  copy  of  "  Satires  and  Epistles  " 
with  a  bastard  title-page  only.  It  has  a  separate  pagination. 
This  copy  of  "  Satires  and  Epistles  "  is  apparently  imperfect. 
It  does  not  contain  the  "  Epistles,"  and  there  is  a  break  in 
the  pagination  from  pp.  28  to  79.  But  it  is  proved  by  the 
Table  of  Contents  to  the  four  volumes,  of  which  it  forms  one, 
that  the  volume  contains  all  that  it  was  intended  to  contain — 
all  that  was  announced  in  the  Table  of  Contents.  So  that  this 
seemingly  imperfect  copy  is  perfect  according  to  intention. 

I  have  three  copies  of  "  Vol.  III.,"  all  alike,  and  all  "printed 
for  B.  Lintot,  1736." 

Of  "Vol.  IV."  I  have  two  copies,   both    containing    The 

VOL.    I.  R 


242  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

Dunciad  (N.  of  "  N.  &  Q.")t*  and  "  printed  for  L.  Gilliver  and 
J.  Clarke,  1786." 

We  get  a  little  light  as  to  this  strange  publication  of  col- 
lected Works  by  referring  to  those  curious  papers  long  since 
published  in  "  N.  &  Q."  (1st  S.  xi.  877),  the  extracts  from 
Woodfall's  Account  Book;  where  we  find,  Dec.  15,  1735, 
"  Mr.  Bernard  Lintot  "  charged  for  "printing  the  first  volume 
of  Mr.  Pope's  Works,"  &c.,  "  title  in  red  and  black,"  which 
correctly  describes  the  first  volume  of  The  Works  of  Alexander 
Pope.  There  is  no  charge  in  Wood/all's  account  for  printing, 
neither  any  reference  ivhatever  to  a  second  volume.  The  next 
entry  is  "  Mr.  Henry  Lintot,  April  30,  1736."  "  Printing  the 
third  volume  of  Pope's  Works,"  &c.,  "  title  red  and  black," 
which  as  exactly  describes  Vol.  III.  of  The  Works  of  Alexander 
Pope,  and  marks  the  very  difference  in  the  title-page :  Vol.  I. 
being  printed  for  B.  Lintot,  and  Vol.  III.  for  H.  Lintot, — 
Bernard  Lintot  having  died  on  Feb.  3,  1736. 

It  farther  appears  from  Woodfall's  A  ccount  Book,  that,  from 
1735  to  1741,  he  was  employed  in  printing  one  or  other  of 
Pope's  Works  for  B.  Lintot,  H.  Lintot,  E.  Dodsley,  L.  Gilliver 
d  Co.,  and  "  Alexander  Pope,  Esq." 

So  far  as  relates  to  what  Woodfall  calls  Epistles  of  Horace, 
the  account  runs  thus  : — On  May  12,  1737,  R.  Dodsley  is 
charged  for  "printing  the  First  Epistle  of  the  Second  Book  of 
Horace,  imitated,  folio," — that  is  the  first  edition  of  the  Epistle 
to  Augustus,  to  which  Dodsley  thought  it  politic  to  affix  the 
name  of  Cooper  as  publisher.  On  June  15,  1737,  "  Lawton 
Gilliver  &  Co."  are  charged  for  printing  Epistles  of  Horace, 
but  it  is  noted  in  margin  that  the  account  charged  to  Gilliver 
<6  Co.  was  "  paid  by  Mr.  Pope."  On  Feb.  10,  178|,  Alexander 
Pope  is  himself  charged  for  "printing  Epistles  of  Horace." 

I  cannot  doubt  that  these  separate  publications,  which  made 
up  The  Works  of  A.  Pope,  in  1735  and  1736,  originated  in  the 
several  copyright  interests  of  the  publishers  ;  and  though  these 
volumes  are  now  usually  considered  and  sold  as  "  odd  volumes," 


*  This  refers  to  the  catalogue  of  editions  of  the  Dunriad,  by  Mr.  Dilke  and 
ilr.  Thonis,  which  appeared  in  Not?*  and  Queries. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  243 

they  together  make  up  the  only  collected  edition  of  Pope's 
Works  in  8vo,  1735  or  1736. 

Can  any  of  your  readers  produce  a  copy  of  Vols.  I.  or  III. 
printed  for  any  booksellers  but  the  Lintots  ?  or  of  Vols.  II.  or 
IV.  printed  for  the  Lintots  ?  I  should  even  then  examine  it 
very  carefully  before  I  could  be  convinced  that  it  differed  in 
anything  beyond  the  title-page.*  P.  E.  [Mr.  Dilke.] 


From  the  Atlienceum,  May  8,  1858. 

The  Poetical   Works  of  Alexander  Pope.     Edited  by  Robert 
Carruthers.  2  vols.  Vol.1.  New  Edition,  revised.  (Bonn.) 

TAKING  Mr.  Carruthers's  first  volume  of  '  Pope's  Poetical 
Works  ' — which  is  tolerably  well  edited,  as  Pope  editions  go — 
as  our  point  of  departure,  we  propose  to  add  two  or  three  facts 
to  the  current  knowledge  of  Pope.  We  shall  endeavour  to 
show  from  original  papers,  and  from  a  review  of  the  patent 
Pope  facts,  and  the  patent  Pope  mystifications, — first,  that  the 
famous  ode  of  '  The  Dying  Christian  '  was  not  a  sudden  inspi- 
ration, as  asserted  by  all  the  biographers  ; — secondly,  that  Pope 
was  not  the  author  of  that  other  version  of  Adrian,  '  Ah,  fleeting 
spirit,'  included  in  every  collection  of  his  works,  from  War- 
burton  to  Carruthers ; — and,  thirdly,  that  Pope  was  not  the 
author  of  the  "Dr.  Norris  'Narrative,'' — a  paper  of  the 
utmost  consequence  for  a  fair  understanding  of  that  intricate 
mystery — the  Pope  and  Addison  quarrel. 

Mr.  Carruthers  told  us  heretofore  that  Pope,  when  he  spoke 
of  his  contributions  to  the  Spectator,  "  must  refer  to  the  poems 
of  the  '  Messiah  '  and  '  Dying  Christian,'  which  were  origi- 
nally published  in  that  work."  Mr.  Carruthers  is  now  better 
informed  ;  he  now  knows  that  '  The  Dying  Christian  '  did  not 
appear  in  the  Spectator, — and  therefore  the  "  revised  "  tells  us 
that  Pope  "  must  refer  to  the  poem  of  the  '  Messiah  '  and  the 
version  of  Adrian's  Animula  vagida."  The  "  revised  "  should 
have  said  the  "prose  version";  for  it  may  puzzle  simple 
readers  to  find  two  versions  in  the  volume  before  them — '  The 

*  K  &  Q.  2  S.  v.  183. 

R  2 


244  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

Dying  Christian  '  and  '  Ah,  fleeting  spirit ' — neither  of  which 
appeared  in  the  Spectator, — and  we  will  add,  neither  of  which, 
though  they  appear  in  all  editions  from  Warburton  to  Carru- 
thers,  was  ever  published  by  Pope.  One  of  these  we  have 
reason  to  believe — and  we  have  Pope's  warrant  for  it — was  not 
written  by  him.  Respecting  '  The  Dying  Christian,'  Mr.  Car- 
ruthers  has  become  not  only  better  informed,  but  a  little 
sceptical  as  to  its  history.  He  now  tells  us  : — 

"  This  exquisite  little  Ode  appears  in  the  small  edition  of 
Pope's  Works,  1736.  It  is  not  in  the  quartos  of  1717  and 
1735.  Yet,  if  we  may  credit  the  printed  correspondence,  it 
was  written  as  early  as  1712,  or  shortly  afterwards.  War- 
burton  publishes  two  letters  not  given  by  Pope  in  his  genuine 
edit,  of  the  correspondence,  1737.  The  first  is  from  Steele, 
dated  December  4,  1712,  requesting  the  poet  to  make  an  Ode 
as  of  a  cheerful  d}"ing  spirit,  that  is  to  sa}r,  the  Emperor 
Adrian's  Animula  vagula,  put  into  two  or  three  stanzas  for 
music.  Pope's  reply,  enclosing  the  Ode,  is  without  date.  He 
says :  "  I  do  not  send  you  word  I  will  do,  but  I  have  already 
done  the  thing  you  desire  of  me.  You  have  it  (as  Cowley  calls 
it)  just  warm  from  the  brain.  It  came  to  rne  the  first  moment 
I  waked  this  morning ;  yet  you  will  see  it  was  not  so  abso- 
lutely inspiration,  but  that  I  had  in  my  head  not  only  the 
verses  of  Adrian,  but  the  fine  fragment  of  Sappho.'  We 
suspect  these  two  letters  form  part  of  the  fabricated  corre- 
spondence. Had  the  piece  been  written  in  1712,  Steele 
would  have  published  it  in  the  Spectator  or  Guardian,  and 
Pope  would  have  included  it  in  the  collected  Works  of  1717."* 

According  to  Spence,  in  whom  we  have  no  blind  confidence, 
Pope  said  that  he  wrote  the  Ode  at  the  request  of  Steele,  and 
if  we  put  faith  in  the  published  letters,  the  fact  is  beyond 
question.  For  once,  Mr.  Carruthers  has  a  doubt — questions 
whether  the  letters  be  genuine  ;  and,  therefore,  whether  Pope 
did  write  '  The  Dying  Christian '  in  the  off-hand  fashion  of 
the  letters  and  did  send  it  to  Steele,  "  warm  from  the  brain," 
in  December  1712.  Yet  his  scepticism,  in  this  instance, 

*  The  answer  to  it  was  written  in  1713  (see  letter  to  J.  C.),  and  was  not  in 
the  edition  of  1717. 


I.]    •  POPFSS   WRITINGS.  245 

though  good  as  to  the  feet,  is  founded  on  false  premises. 
Steele's  letter  and  Pope's  reply,  inclosing  the  Ode,  "  warm 
from  the  brain,"  he  tells  us,  or  leads  us  to  infer,  were  first 
published  by  Warburton,  and  therefore  long  after  Pope's  death, 
— which,  if  true,  would  complicate  the  question;  for  War- 
burton  could  have  no  motive  for  misleading  the  public.  It  is 
not  true.  They  were  published  in  Roberts's  edition,  1737. 
How  can  Pope  be  made  responsible  for  such  publication  ? 
These  letters  do  not  appear  either  in  the  4to  of  1737  or  of 
1741.  He  did  not  even  publish  the  Ode  in  the  collected 
edition  of  his  works.  Steele,  in  1712,  we  are  led  by  these 
letters  to  believe,  had  asked  especially  for  it,  that  he  might 
have  it  set  to  music  ;  but  so  far  as  we  know  he  did  not  have  it 
set  to  music, — nay,  though  according  to  dates  it  may  have 
been  received  just  in  time,  to  add  a  grace  to  the  closing 
number  of  the  Spectator,  and  might  certainly  have  appeared 
in  the  Guardian,  Steele  did  not  publish  it.  In  fact,  like  the 
letters,  it  crept  into  daylight  amongst  Pope's  Works  in  a  little 
12ino  edition,  published  by  Lintot  in  1736;  which  edition 
appeared  as  a  mere  reprint  of  Lintot's  old  copyright  poems. 
Pope,  therefore,  is  not  responsible  for  either  letters  or  Ode  ; 
although  no  one,  we  suppose,  can  doubt  that  the  Ode  was 
written  by  Pope  ;  and,  as  we  shall  show,  he  privately  acknow- 
ledged it.  Of  course,  both  letters  and  Ode  were  stumbled  on 
by  Warburton,  and  have  ever  since  been  published  amongst 
Pope's  works  and  letters. 

There  is  a  circumstance  not  known  to  the  biographers 
which  in  itself  is  presumptive  evidence  that  the  Ode  had  not 
been  either  set  to  music  or  made  public  so  late  as  June,  1713 ; 
for  in  either  case  Caryll,  to  whom  the  following  letters  were 
addressed,  must  have  heard  of  it, — presumptive  evidence  for 
the  same  reason  that  the  Ode  had  not  been  sent  to  Steele,  for 
Caryll  was  a  friend  of  Steele's,  as  well  as  of  Pope's.  On  the 
12th  of  June,  1713,  Pope  wrote  to  Caryll  and  inclosed  three 
versions  of  the  Adriani  morientis  ad  Animam,  and  he  says  : — 

"  I  desire  your  opinion  of  these  verses,  and  which  are  best 
written.  They  are  of  three  different  hands." 


246 


PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC. 


[I- 


The  last  of  the  three,  headed  Chr'istiani  morientis  ad  Ani- 
mam,  Caryll  appears  to  have  preferred,  and  Pope  replies  on 
June  23  :— 


"  Your  judgment  on  the  three  copies  of  verse  I  sent  you  is 
what  you  need  not  doubt  I  think  good,  because  the  last  of  them 
was  my  own." 

Considering  that  this  beautiful  Ode  has  been  for  more  than 
a  century  the  admiration  of  everybody, — a  sort  of  inspired 
thing,  struck  off  at  a  moment,  in  1712, — it  may  be  interesting 
to  compare  the  copy  sent  to  Caryll  in  June,  1713,  with  the 
"  warm  from  the  brain  "  copy,  which  is  assumed  to  have  been 
written  in  1712,  which  was  first  published  in  1736,  and  which 
has  continued  "  warm  from  the  brain"  from  that  hour  to  the 
present. — 


June,  1713. 
CHRISTIAN!  MORIENTIS  AD  ANIMAM. 

1. 

Vital  spark  of  heavenly  flame  ! 
Dost  thou  quit  this  mortal  frame  ? 
Trembling,  hoping,  ling'ring,  flying ; 
Oh  the  pain,  the  bliss  of  dying  ; 
Cease,  fond  nature,  cease  thy  strife, 
Let  me  languish  into  life. 

2. 

My  swimming  eyes  are  sick  of  light, 
The  less'ning  world  forsakes  my  sight, 
A  damp  creeps  cold  o'er  every  part, 
Nor  moves  my  pulse,  nor  heaves  my 

heart, 

The  hov'ring  soul  is  on  the  wing  ? 
Where,  mighty  Death  ?  oh  where's  thy 

sting  ? 

3. 

I  hear  around  soft  music  play, 
And  angels  beckon  me  away  ! 
Calm  as  forgiven  hermits  rest, 
I'll  sleep,  or  infants  at  the  breast  ; 
T  11  the  last  trumpet  rends  the  ground  ; 
Then  wake  with  plea&ure  at  the  sound. 


1736. 
THE  DYING  CHRISTIAN  TO  HIS  SOUL. 

Ode. 
1. 

A7ital  spark  of  heav'nly  flame  ! 
Quit,  oh  quit  this  mortal  frame  ; 
Trembling,  hoping,  ling'ring,  flying, 
Oh  the  pain,  the  bli  s  of  dying  ! 
Cease,  fond  nature,  ce.ise  thy  strife, 
And  let  me  languish  into  life. 

2. 

Hark  !  they  whisper ;  Angels  say, 
Sister  spirit,  come  away  ! 
What  is  this  absorbs  me  quite  ? 
Steals  my  senses,  shuts  my  sight, 
Drowns  my  spirits,  draws  my  breath  ? 
Tell  me,  my  soul,  can  this  be  Death  ? 


The  world  recedes  ;  it  disappears  ! 
Heav'n  opens  on  my  eyes  !  my  ears 
W,th  sounds  seraphick  ring  : 
Lend,  lend  your  wings  !     I  mount !  I 

fly; 

0  Grave  !  where  is  thy  Victory  ? 
0  Death  !  where  is  thy  Sting  ? 


I.J  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  247 

It  is  strange  that  Mr.  Carruthers  and  all  the  editors  of  Pope 
have  overlooked  the  fact,  that  the  copy  of  the  Ode  of  1713  was 
published  in  Lewis's  Miscellany  in  1730,  but  without  the  name 
of  the  writer.  Lewis  was,  at  least,  an  acquaintance  of  Pope's, 
—  dedicated  to  Pope  his  tragedy  of  '  Philip  of  Macedon,'  and 
acknowledged  obligations  to  him.  It  is  more  than  probable, 
therefore,  that  Pope  himself  gave  Lewis  this  copy  of  the  Ode, 
with  other  pieces,  to  help  him  "  make  up  a  show ; "  and  if  so, 
then  the  "  warm  from  the  brain  "  copy  was  carefully  re-written 
after  1730. 

We  come  now  to  our  second  point — the  version  of  Adrian's 
verses,  beginning  "  Ah  !  fleeting  spirit,"  on  which  Mr.  Carru- 
thers thus  comments : — 

"In  the  Spectator,  November  10,  1712,  is  a  communication 
from  Pope  containing  a  prose  translation  of  Adrian's  verses, 
with  some  critical  remarks.  He  republished  this  communica- 
tion in  his  Letters  1735,  adding  the  above  metrical  transla- 
tion, but  he  omitted  the  lines  when  reprinting  the  Letters  in 
1737." 

— There  is  no  doubt  as  to  the  general  accuracy  of  this  state- 
ment ;  and  yet  some  explanation  is  required  before  the  reader, 
or  even  Mr.  Carruthers  himself,  will  understand  the  whole 
truth. 

We  have  no  more  doubt  than  Mr.  Carruthers,  and  have  said 
so,  that  Pope  furnished  the  copy  for,  or  rather  delivered  to 
Curll  and  other  booksellers  printed  copies  of  the  edition  of  his 
Letters  published  in  1735 ;  but  his  contemporaries  did  not 
know  that ;  they  were  indignant  at  the  wrongs  which  Pope  had 
suffered  from  Curll  and  others.  Pope  denounced  the  edition, 
and  certainly,  in  public  opinion,  he  was  not  responsible  for  a 
single  line  in  the  volume. 

Mr.  Carruthers  is  not  quite  correct  in  stating  that  this 
metrical  version  was  in  the  surreptitious  edition  of  1735  added 
to  the  prose  translation.  In  all  questions  which  affect  Pope's 
conduct  we  must  speak  by  the  card  and  be  scrupulously  exact. 
We,  submit,  therefore,  that  the  metrical  version  is  not  added 
to,  but  follows  the  letter.  There  is  no  one  word  helping  to 


248  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

link  them  together — they  are  simply  not  separated ;  and  we 
are  told  in  "  The  Narrative  of  the  Method  by  which  Mr.  Pope's 
Letters  have  been  published  "  that  in  the  books  from  which 
we  are  led  to  infer  that  these  letters  had  been  copied,  Pope  had 
inserted  "  some  small  pieces  in  verse  and  prose,  either  of  his 
own  or  Ms  correspondents."  It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that 
mere  publication  in  the  editions  of  1735  is  no  proof  that  the 
metrical  translation  was  by  Pope  :  it  may  have  been  by  one  of 
"his  correspondents  " — by  anybody.  There  is,  indeed,  strong 
presumptive  evidence  that  it  was  not  by  Pope.  Pope  repub- 
lished  the  letter  to  the  Spectator  with  the  prose  translation  in 
the  quarto  of  1737,  but  he  omitted  this  metrical  version, — a 
fact  which  ought  to  have  awakened  suspicion.  Then,  again, 
Mr.  Carruthers  does  not  seem  to  be  aware  that  this  metrical 
version  had  appeared  before  the  publication  of  the  Letters  in 
1735 — had  also  appeared  in  Lewis's  Miscellany,  1730,  but 
without  the  name  of  the  writer. 

We  shall  now  adduce  a  circumstance,  not  known  to  the 
biographers,  which  will,  we  think,  go  far  to  determine  the 
question  of  authorship,  even  if  it  be  not  considered  conclusive. 
In  the  letter  to  Gary  11  of  the  12th  of  June,  1713,  as  we  have 
before  shown,  Pope  sent  three  versions  by  "  three  different 
hands,"  and  in  his  letter  of  the  23rd  he  claimed  "the  last," 
'  The  Dying  Christian,'  as  his  own.  Now  the  first  was  Prior's 
version,  and  the  second  was  "  Ah,  fleeting  spirit."  Here  then 
is  a  virtual  declaration  by  Pope  that  the  "  Ah,  fleeting  spirit  " 
was  by  a  "  different  hand," — was  not  his  own  ;  and  Mr.  Car- 
ruthers will  now  see  the  significance  of  our  minute  proof  that 
Pope  never  claimed  it,  never  appropriated  it,  never  published 
it  amongst  his  works, — nay,  positively  rejected  it  when  he 
found  it  so  published,  that  is,  added  to  or  following  his  prose 
translation. 

With  the  exception  of  the  letters  to  Caryll,  these  facts  ought 
to  have  been  known  to  all  the  biographers ;  yet,  so  far  as  we 
know,  they  have  never  been  alluded  to  by  any  one  of  them. 
Whether  these  Steele  letters  be  genuine  or  not,  is  of  some 
consequence  in  considering  that  ^perplexing  question,  tlr 
quarrel  between  Addison  and  Pope.  The  biographers  sc 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  249 

never  forearmed  unless  they  are  forewarned, — never  to  consider 
that  the  only  account  we  have  of  the  quarrel  is  ?ope*s~~owh, — 
or  rather,  as  in  the  history  of  the  "Ah,  nVi'tiim  >pirit,"  not  a 
direct  statement  by  Pope,  but  a  story  which  the  ingenious 
weave  for  themselves,  by  inference  and  from  circumstances 
and  letters,  for  the  truth  of  which  no  man  is  warrant.  The 
biographers  might  reply,  and  perhaps  with  equal  justice,  that 
we  are  too  critical,  too  sceptical ;  and  we  acknowledge  that  we 
have  seen  others,  and  been  ourselves,  so  often  mystified  and 
misled  that  we  are  suspicious  in  all  questions  relating  to  Pope 
where  the  evidence  is  merely  inferential. 

The  very  starting-point  of  the  correspondence  between  Pope 
and  Addison,  Mr.  Carruthers  has,  in  our  opinion,  misread. 
Mr.  CaiTuthers  tells  us  that  when  the  notice  of  the  '  Essay  on 
Criticism  '  appeared  in  the  Spectator,  Pope  addressed  a  letter 
full  of  gratitude  to  Addison  — the  letter  which  Miss  Aikin 
found  amongst  the  Tickell  MSS.,  and  published  in  1843 — in 
which  he  expressed  an  eager  desire  "  to  cultivate  the  friendship 
of  Addison  "  ;  and  Mr.  Carruthers  adds  :  — 

"  The  quick  eye  of  Pope  had  at  once  recognized  the  hand  of 
Addison  in  the  Spectator,  and  he  wrote  to  him,  as  we  have 
seen,  the  day  after  he  perused  the  criticism.  The  same 
shrewdness,  however,  suggested  that  Steele  might  wish  to  be 
considered  the  author,  and  he  then  penned  a  second  letter  of 
acknowledgment." 

The  existence  of  this  "second  letter" — the  letter  to  Steele 
— is  mere  inference  from  Steele's  answer  of  January  20,  1711. 
It  is  strange  that  Mr.  Carruthers  did  not  observe  that  what  he 
calls  Pope's  letter  to  Addison  was  addressed  to  one  with  whom 
Pope  had  some  personal  acquaintance. — 

"I  almost  hope  [he  says]  'twas  some  particular  inclination 
to  the  author  which  carried  you  so  far.  This  would  please 
me  more  than  I  can  express,  for  I  should  in  good  earnest  be 
fonder  of  your  friendship  than  the  world's  applause." 

Now  at  that  time  Addison  was  not  known,  even  in  the  most 
distant  manner,  to  Pope.  Steele  does  not  even  name  Addison 


250  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

as  the  writer,  but  says  "  it  was  written  by  one  whom  I  will 
make  you  acquainted  with,  which  is  the  best  return  I  can  make 
you  for  your  favour." 

Mr.  Carruthers's  theory  is  founded  on  error.  Miss  Aikin 
found  the  letter  amongst  the  Tickell  papers,  came  hastily  to 
the  conclusion  that  it  had  been  addressed  to  Addison,  and 
published  it  as  if  addressed  "  To  Mr.  Addison."  We  felt  certain 
that  this  was  the  letter  sent  to  Steele,  to  which  Steele's  was  a 
reply,  and  which  Steele  had  probably  handed  over  to  Addison 
as  the  grateful  expression  of  the  feelings  of  the  young  poet, 
and  as  an  easy  and  pleasant  way  of  leading  to  the  promised 
introduction.  So  confident  did  we  feel  that  no  such  address 
would  be  found  on  it,  or  that  if  so  addressed,  the  address  would 
not  be  in  the  handwriting  of  the  poet,  that  we  got  a  friend, 
residing  in  Dublin,  to  call  on  the  present  representative  of 
the  Tickell  family  and  request  him  to  determine  the  fact. 
Mr.  Tickell  obligingly  referred  to  the  letter,  and  the  result 
was,  as  we  anticipated,  that  it  has  "  no  address." 

A  few  incidental  passages  in  Pope's  letters  to  Caryll  may 
throw  a  light  on  the  origin  of  the  acquaintance  between  Pope 
and  Steele  and  Addison.  Steele  was,  we  suspect,  an  acquaint- 
ance of  CarylTs  long  before  he  was  known  to  Pope.  When, 
in  169f,  Secretary  Lord  Caryll  was  outlawed,  his  estate,  and 
the  life  interest  in  the  entailed  estates,  were  granted  by  King 
William  to  Lord  Cutts.  Luttrell  notes,  on  Saturday,  the  23rd 
of  May,  1696— 

"  On  Monday,  the  Lord  Cutts  goes  to  take  possession  of 
Mr.  Caryll's  estate  in  Sussex  (Secretary  to  the  late  Queen), 
which  His  Majesty  permitted  him  to  enjoy,  tho'  beyond  sea, 
'till  'twas  discovered  he  gave  Sir  George  Barclay  800  to  buy 
horses,  arms,  &c.  to  assassinate  him,  &c." 

In  May,  1696,  John  Caryll,  the  nephew,  and  subsequently 
Pope's  friend,  was  in  Horsham  Gaol,  apprehended  on  sus- 
picion. So  soon  as  liberated,  he  entered  into  a  negotiation 
with  Cutts  for  the  purchase  of  his  uncle's  life-interest, — 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  251 

eventually  purchased  it,  and  took  possession  in  May,  1697,  as 
appears  pleasantly  by  his  accounts. — 

"  Given  ye  Ringers  att  Harting,  upon  ye  composition  with 
Lord  C.,  li  2s." 

At  that  very  time  Steele  was  acting  as  Secretary  to  Lord 
Cutts  ;  and  it  is  probable,  therefore,  that  he  was  thus  brought 
into  close  personal  communication  with  John  Caryll. 

Pope  passed  the  Christmas  of  1710  with  Caryll,  who  then 
read  the  '  Essay  on  Criticism '  in  MS.,  made  some  objections 
to  a  passage  afterwards  selected  for  especial  condemnation  by 
Dennis,  and  which  Pope  said  in  a  subsequent  letter  "had 
been  mended  but  for  the  haste  of  the  press."  On  the  18th  of 
June,  1711,  Pope  wrote  "I've  not  yet  had  the  honour  of  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Steel,"  leading  to  the  inference  that  Caryll 
had  mentioned  to  him  that  he  might  expect  to  receive  some 
communication.  On  the  26th  of  July,  as  we  know,  Steele 
wrote  to  Pope,  requesting  him,  if  at  leisure,  "to  help  Mr. 
Clayton,  that  is  me,  to  some  words  for  music  against  winter." 
Pope,  in  an  unpublished  letter  to  Caryll  of  the  2nd  of  August 
mentions  this. — 

"  I  have  two  letters  from  Mr.  Steele,  the  subject  of  which 
is  to  persuade  me  to  write  a  musical  interlude  to  be  set  next 
winter  by  Clayton,  whose  interest  he  espouses  with  great  zeal.* 
The  expression  is  Pray  oblige  Mr.  Clayton,  that  is  me,  so  far 
as,  &c.  The  desire  I  have  to  gratify  Mr.  Steele  has  made  me 
consent  to  his  request ;  tho'  'tis  a  task  that  otherwise  I'm  not 
very  fond  of." 

In  another  letter  without  date,  but  which,  as  it  contains  the 
epitaph  on  Lord  Caryll,  who  died  the  4th  of  September,  1711, 
we  may  assume  to  have  been  written  in  the  autumn  of  that 
year,  there  is  an  obscure  paragraph  which  the  biographers 
must  interpret : — 

"  What  application  that  was  which  was  made  to  Mr.  Steele 

*  It  is  unders!ood  that  the  concerts  in  York  Buildings  were  a  joint  speculation 
ty  Steele  and  Clayton. 


252  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

on  my  account  I  can't  imagine,  unless  it  was  made  from  }rour- 
self ;  for,  indeed,  I  know  no  other  friend  who  would  have  been 
so  generous  for  my  sake  ;  and  I  know  nothing  you  would  not 
attempt  to  oblige  those  you  once  profess  a  friendship  to." 

Our  own  impression  is  that  a  request  had  been  made  to 
Steele  that  some  notice  should  be  taken  in  the  Spectator  of  the 
'Essay  on  Criticism,'  and  therefore  it  was  that  when  a  notice 
appeared  on  the  20th  of  December  Pope  assumed  that  it  had 
been  written  by  Steele,  and  wrote  to  thank  him.  Pope  was 
probably  soon  after  introduced  to  Addison,  according  to 
Steele's  promise — he  told  Spence  that  his  acquaintance  with 
Addison  commenced  in  1712  ;  but  that  there  was  no  great 
personal  intimacy  between  them  even  so  late  as  the  27th  of 
August  in  that  3*ear,  we  infer  from  the  following  postscript  to 
a  letter  from  Steele  to  Caryll,  written  while  Pope  was  on  a 
visit  at  CarylTs  : — 

"  Mr.  Addison  gives  his  ser**  to  Mr.  Pope." 

From  a  still  later  letter  of  November  12,  1712,  it  appears 
that  the  manuscript  of  '  The  Temple  of  Fame  '  had  been  sub- 
mitted to  Steele — not  to  Addison.  Steele  was  delighted  with 
it, — wrote  to  say  so  to  the  young  author, — and  adds,  "  Mr. 
Addison  shall  see  it  to-morrow  ;  after  his  perusal  of  it,  I  will 
let  you  know  his  thoughts." 

No  great  intimacy  can  be  inferred  from  these  incidental 
references  to  Addison,  nor,  as  we  think,  from  the  published 
letters  of  Addison ;  only  two,  and  the  first  dated  more  than 
twelve  months  after  the  mention  of  him  in  Steele's  note  to 
Caryll,  six  months  after  Pope  had  written  the  famous  Prologue 
to  Cato ;  and  within  a  short  time,  calculated  by  months, 
certain  '  malevolencies  "  had  interrupted  the  friendly  feeling.* 
Even  the  intimacy,  such  as  it  was,  arose,  we  suspect,  from 
chance  meetings  at  Button's  Coffee  House.  We  know  of  no 
circumstance  from  which  we  can  infer  social  intercourse  at  any 

*  The  letters  to  and  from  Jervas  of  20  and  27  Aug.  1714,  show  that  there 
had  been  for  some  time  a  coolness — on  Pope's  part  a  quarrel — with  Addison. 


I.]  POPE'S    WETTINGS.  253 

time.  Addison,  for  political  reasons  probably,  stood  aloof 
from  Pope.  In  his  brief  formal  letters  he  warns  him  against 
party ;  and  he  acknowledged  to  Jervas  in  August,  1714,  that 
he  had  been  afraid  that  "  Dr.  Swift  might  have  earned  "  Pope 
"  too  far  among  the  enemy."  The  Prologue  proves  nothing, 
— a  courteous  thing,  gracious  and  graceful.  "  giving  and  taking 
odours,"  probably  sugi^tt-d  by  Stt-.-h-.  Tlu-  '  Narrative  '  of 
Dr.  Norn's,  which  is  universally  attributed  to  Pope,  is  an  affair 
of  a  different  complexion ;  and  next  week  we  propose  to  give 
our  reasons  and  authorities  for  believing  that  it  was  not  written 
by  Pope. 


From  the  Athenaeum  3  May  15,  1858. 

IT  was  under  the  circumstances  stated  in  our  last  that, 
according  to  the  biographers,  Dennis  put  forth  his  Criticism 
on  Cato,  and  Pope  rushed  in  chivalrous  haste  to  the  rescue, 
with  '  The  Narrative  of  Dr.  Robert  Norris.'  Surely,  if  this  be 
true,  the  circumstances  were  sufficiently  strange  to  have  called 
for  a  few  words  of  explanation.  When  Dennis  attacked  the 
Essay  on  Criticism,  Pope  was  silent ;  "  if  a  book,"  he  said, 
"  can't  answer  for  itself  to  the  publick,  'tis  of  no  sort  of  purpose 
for  its  author  to  do  it."  Why  had  he  changed  his  opinion  ? 
Why,  when  so  temperate  and  philosophical  in  his  own  case, 
should  he  be  so  indignant  in  the  case  of  Addison  ?  '  Cato  ' 
had  answered  for  itself,  and  triumphantly.  Dennis  and  Addison 
and  Steele  were  old  antagonists,  and  very  well  able  to  fight 
their  own  battles.  Why  then  should  Pope,  like  another  Harry 
Gow,  thrust  himself  so  eagerly  into  the  quarrel '?  Certainly 


*  So  fifteen  years  after,  in  the  Prologue  to  the  Satires,  and  speaking  of  his 
early  Poems — 

1  Yet  then  did  Geldon  drive  his  venal  quill ; 
I  wish'd  the  man  a  dinner,  and  sat  still. 
Yet  then  did  Dennis  rave  in  furious  fret ; 
I  never  ansicer'd—  *  *  ' 


254   *  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

*  Addison  agreed  with  us,  for  the  biographers,  who  assume, 
without  a  doubt,  that  Pope  wrote  the  '  Narrative  of  Dr.  Norris,' 
assure  us  that  Addison  immediately  caused  Steele  to  write  to 
Lintot,  Dennis's  publisher,  to  inform  him  that  he,  Addison, 
"  wholly  disapproves  of  the  manner  of  treating  Mr.  Dennis,"  and 
further,  "  that  when  the  papers  [the  MS.  of  the  '  Narrative,'] 
were  offered  to  be  communicated  to  him,  he  said  he  could  not, 
either  in  honour  or  conscience,  be  privy  to  such  treatment,  and 
was  sorry  to  hear  of  it."  *  If  we  were  troubled  to  understand 
why  Pope  intermeddled  in  the  quarrel,  we  areTsTill  moreTpuzzled 
to  know  why  Addison  should  cause  Steele  to  denounce  him. 
It  would  have  been  offensive  enough  had  Addison  written  him- 
self; but  to  cause  Steele  to  write, — Pope's  friend, — was  the 
very  wantonness  of  insult.  We  do  not  believe  that  Steele, 
with  all  his  idol  worship  of  Addison,  would  have  done  it. 
Mr.  Carruthers  himself  tells  us  it  must  have  "  irritated  and 
offended  "  Pope  "  in  no  small  degree." — 

"  He  had  only  four  months  before  contributed  his  prologue 
to  Addison's  Cato,  he  had  enriched  the  Spectator  with  his 
poem  of  the  Messiah,  had  assisted  Steele  by  writing  several 
papers  in  the  Guardian,  and  now  had  employed  his  pen  in 
I  reply  to  Dennis's  criticism — a  reply  which  must  be  characterised 
I  as  friendly  whatever  was  the  value  of  the  performance.  Under 
these  circumstances  for  Addison  so  officiously  to  disclaim  all 
sympathy  with  the  manner  in  which  Pope  treated  Dennis,  and 
to  forget  the  obligation  conferred  upon  him  so  recently  by  the 
younger  poet,  in  writing  for  his  play  the  finest  prologue  in  the 
language,  implies  ingratitude,  or,,  at  least,  cold  superciliousness, 

*  Mr.  Carruthers  knows  the  importance  of  small  facts,  and  very  properly 
collects  them — but  not  carefully.  Thus,  within  a  dozen  lines,  he  te'ls  us  that 
"Norris  was  an  apothecary  or  quack  in  Hatton  Garden."  So  Dennis  said,  and 
co.rectly,  in  1729  ;  but  at  the  time  when  the  'Narrative'  was  \uitten — the  only 
time  we  are  concerned  about — he  lived  on  Snow  Hill,  as  his  advertisements  show, 
and  the  very  '  Narrative  '  itself  is  dated  "  from  my  house  on  Snow  Hill. "  Then, 
again,  Mr.  Carruthers  tells  us  that  Steele 's  letter  was  addressed  to  ' '  Lintot,  the 
publisher"  of  the  'Narrative';  whereas  the  'Narrative'  was  published  by 
Morphew  ;  and  the  letter,  really  intended  for  Dennis,  was  addressed  to  Lintot, 
bee  tuse  he  was  the  publisher  of  Dennis's  '  Eemarks,'  &c.  These  may  be  .small 
matters  ;  but  some  importance  is  assumed  by  the  very  fact  of  publication. 


I.]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  255 

on  the  part  of  him  whom  '  all  the  world  commended.'  It  was 
at  once  insulting  Pope  and  affording  Dennis  a  triumph  at  the 
expense  of  a  man  of  genius,  who  had  come  forward,  if  not  in 
defence  of  Addison,  at  least  in  ridicule  of  Addison's  unfair  and 
malignant  critic.  In  the  printed  correspondence  is  a  letter 
which,  if  genuine,  puts  Addison  still  more  completely  in  the 
wrong,  *  *  renders  Addison's  subsequent  conduct  more  harsh 
and  indefensible." 

If  Addison's  conduct  were  "at  least"  cold,  supercilious, 
hard,  and  indefensible,  and  if  Pope  ought  to  have  been  irritated 
and  offended,  how  is  it  that  the  biographers  were  not  startled 
into  suspicion  by  the  fact,  which  they  admit,  that  "  no  inter- 
ruption appears  to  have  taken  place  in  the  friendly  inter- 
course "  ?  No  interruption  did  take  place :  the  "  malevo- 

__  -  A  *— — •^•••^^^•^^••^•a 

lencies "  and  the  quarrel  were  subsequent,  aricTln  no  way 
connected  with  this  Addison  outrage- — which,  indeed,  was  not 
heard  of  till  many  years  after,  not  till  after  Pope  was  known  as 
the  writer  of  that  satire  on  Addison,  which  everybody  con- 
demned,— not,  Mr.  Carruthers  acknowledges,  till  Pope  felt 
that  something  was  "  required  to  justify  the  poetical  satire." 
How  opportunely,  then,  this  story  about  the  generous  defence 
and  the  ungenerous  reproof  became  Known  !  Tt  placea"^j9dison 
clearly  in  the  wrong,  for  the  subsequent  publication  of  the 
letter  of  the  20th  of  July,  we  are  told,  put  Addison  "  more 
completely  in  the  wrong."  Let  us  trace  the  history  of  this 
fortunate  accident. 

When,  in  1713,  the  '  Narrative '  was  first  published,  many 
persons  were  suspected  as  the  writer,  and  Pope  amongst  the 
number ;  but  Dennis,  who  was  most  concerned,  never  breathed 
a  whisper  on  the  subject.  Addison's  letter  did  not  in  the  least 
enlighten  him — did  not  even  awaken  a  suspicion  as  to  Pope.  If 
Dennis  knew  that  Pope  was  the  writer,  wiry  did  he  not  state 
the  fact,  or  hint  at  it,  in  the  letter  to  Lintot,  June,  1715,*  in 
which  Pope  was  heartily  abused  ?  Why  not  in  '  The  True 

*  Why,  if  he  believed  it,  did  he  not  publish  his  '  Rema  ks  on  the  Rap!1  of  the 
Lock,'  which,  though  written  long  before  this,  was  not  published  until  the  pro- 
vocation  in  the  '  Dunci.uT  ? 


256  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

Character  of  Mr.  Pope,'  in  which  all  varieties  of  rascality  and 
even  crimes  are  attributed  to  him,  including  '  The  Poisoning 
of  Ed.  Curll '  ?  Yet  there  is  no  mention  of  '  The  Narrative  of 
Dr.  Robert  Norris.'  Dennis,  indeed,  early  accused  Pope  of 
double-dealing,  and  with  especial  reference  to  this  '  Cato ' 
question,  but  said  not  a  word  about  '  The  Narrative.'  In  a 
pamphlet  published  in  1716,  Dennis  asked,  "  Who  wrote  a 
prologue  to  '  Cato,'  and  teaz'd  Lintot  to  publish  remarks  upon 
it  ?  "  that  is,  Dennis's  '  Remarks.'  First,  Dennis  tells  the  old 
story  of  1713,  and  then  the  serviceable  addition. 

"  In  the  height  of  his  professions  of  friendship  for  Mr. 
Addison,  he  could  not  bear  the  success  of  Cato,  but  prevails 
upon  B.  L.  [Bernard  Lintot,  the  publisher]  to  engage  me  to 
write  and  publish  remarks  upon  that  tragedy,  which,  after  I 
had  done,  A.  P — E,  the  better  to  conceal  himself  from  Mr. 
Addison  and  his  friends,  writes  and  publishes  a  scandalous 
pamphlet  equally  foolish  and  villainous,  in  which  he  pretends 
that  I  was  in  the  hands  of  a  quack  who  cures  mad  men.  So 
weak  is  the  capacity  of  this  little  gentleman  that  he  did  not 
know  that  he  had  done  an  odious  thing — an  action  detested 
even  by  those  whom  he  fondly  designed  to  oblige  by  it.  For 
Mr.  Addison  was  so  far  from  approving  of  it,  that  he  engaged 
Sir  Richard  Steele  to  write  to  me  that  he  knew  nothing  of  that 
pamphlet  till  he  saw  it  in  print,  that  he  was  very  sorry  to  see 
it,  and  that  whenever  he  should  think  fit  to  answer  my  remarks 
on  his  tragedy  he  would  do  it  in  a  manner  to  which  I  should 
have  no  just  exception." 

It  certainly  appeared  to  strengthen  Dennis's  assertion  that 
Pope  was  the  writer,  when,  in  1732,  the  '  Narrative  '  appeared 
in  Pope  and  Swift's  Miscellanies.  But  a  careful  examination 
of  theTacts  in  respecT  to  the  publication  of  that  volume  of  the 
'  Miscellanies '  (1732)  will  show  that  no  evidence  as  to  author- 
ship can  be  inferred  from  it.  It  is  the  story  of  "  Ah,  fleeting 
spirit !  "  over  again — circumstances  out  of  which  biographers 
and  readers  build  up  a  theory  of  their  own.*  The  three 

*  This  argument  equally  applies  to  Cromwell,  who  died  in  1728. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  257 

volumes  of  Swift's  and  Pope's  '  Miscellanies '  were  published 
in  1727 — while  Steele  was  yet  alive — and  the  third  volume  is 
described  in  the  title-page  as  "  The  last  volume."  In  1732, 
five  years  later — and  when  Steele  was  dead — out  came  what 
was  called  "  The  third  volume."  Swift  himself  was  as  much 
puzzled  at  the  time  as  we  are  now.  He  thus  wrote  to  Motte 
on  the  4th  of  November,  1732  : — 

"  T'other  day  I  received  two  copies  of  the  last  '  Miscellany,' 
but  I  cannot  learn  who  brought  them  to  the  house.  Mr.  Pope 
had  been  for  some  months  before  writing  to  me  that  he 
thought  it  would  be  proper  to  publish  another  Miscellany,  for 
which  he  then  gave  me  reasons  that  I  did  not  well  comprehend, 
nor  do  I  remember  that  I  Was  much  convinced  because  I  did 
not  know  what  fund  he  had  for  it,  little  imagining  that  some 
humourous  or  satyrical  trifles  that  I  had  writ  here  occasionally, 
Ac.,  would  make  almost  six-sevenths  of  the  verse  part  in  the 
book ;  and  the  greater  part  of  the  prose  was  written  by  other 
persons  of  this  kingdom  as  well  as  myself.  *  *  I  have  sent  a 
kind  of  certificate  owning  my  consent  to  the  publishing  this 
last  Miscellany  against  my  will." 

The  more  Swift  thought  on  the  subject  the  less  he  was 
satisfied.  A  month  later,  9th  of  December,  he  again  wrote  to 

Motte,— 

"  I  am  not  at  all  satisfied  with  the  last  Miscellany.  I  believe 
I  told  you  so  in  a  former  letter.  *  *  Neither  do  I  in  the  least 
understand  the  reasons  for  printing  this." 

What  says  the  work  itself  as  to  authorship  ?  In  the  Preface 
to  the  first  volume,  1727,  the  public  were  informed  that  the 
collection  would  include  "  several  small  treatises  in  prose, 
wherein  a  friend  or  two  are  concerned ;  "  and  now,  1732,  the 
"  bookseller  "  repeated  the  notice,  "  There  are  in  this  volume, 
as  in  the  former,  one  or  two  small  pieces  by  other  han>h." 

Even  Pope  himself,  whilst  he  took  the  benefit  of  all  natural 
inferences,  not  only  kept  himself  free  from  assertion  as  to 

VOL.    I. 


258  PAPEES  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

authorship,  but  virtually  denied  it.  Thus,  as  "  Author  to 
Reader,"  prefixed  to  the  second  volume  of  his  "Works," 
quarto,  1735,  he  wrote, — 

"  This  volume  and  the  abovemention'd  [1717]  contain  what- 
soever I  have  written  and  design'd  for  the  press  ;  except  my 
translation,  &c.,  the  Preface  to  Shakspeare,  and  a  few  Spec- 
tators and  Guardians.  Wliatever  besides  I  have  written,  or 
join'd  in  writing  with  Dr.  Swift,  Dr.  Arbuthnot,  or  Mr.  Gay 
(the  only  persons  with  whom  I  ever  wrote  in  conjunction), 
are  to  be  found  in  the  four  volumes  of  Miscellanies,  by  us 
published :  I  think  them  too  inconsiderable  to  be  separated 
and  reprinted  here  ;  nevertheless,  that  none  of  my  faults  may 
be  imputed  to  another,  I  must  own  that  of  the  prose  part,  the 
'  Thoughts  on  Various  Subjects '  at  the  end  of  the  second 
volume  were  wholly  mine,  and  of  the  verses,  &c.  *  *  It  will 
be  but  justice  to  me  to  believe  that  nothing  more  is  mine,  not- 
withstanding all  that  hath  been  published  in  my  name,  or 
added  to  my  Miscellanies  since  1717,  by  any  bookseller  what- 
soever. 

A.  POPE." 

I  Not  one  word  here  about  the  authorship  of  Norris's  '  Narra- 
tive ; '  and  silence  under  the  circumstances,  is  equivalent  to  a 
denial.  Of  the  value  of  such  statements  the  reader  must 
judge  for  himself;  if  they  be  untrue,  they  ought  at  least  to 
shake  our  faith  in  mere  inferences  from  statements  still  more 
equivocal. 

Then  followed,  in  1735,  the  letter  addressed  to  Addison, 
which,  says  Mr.  Carruthers,  put  Addison  "more  completely  in 
the  wrong,"  with  this  significant  note  about  the  offer  of  Pope's 
pen,— 

"  This  relates  to  the  paper  occasioned  by  Dennis's  remarks 
upon  Cato,  called  Dr.  Norris's  Narrative  of  the  Frenzy  of  John 
Den  .  .  ." 

As  Mr.  Carruthers  may  naturally  lay  some  emphasis  on  this 
note,  let  us  consider  who  is  responsible  for  it.  No  one,  of 
course  !  It  appeared  in  the  denounced  edition  of  1735.  But 


I.]  POPE'S    WAITINGS.  2S9 

it  was  reproduced  in  the  Quai-to.  Very  true,  but  who  was 
responsible  for  that  reproduction  ?  Read  the  Preface,  written 
sometimes  in  the  first  person,  at  others  in  the  third, — some- 
times apparently  by  the  author,  at  others  by  the  bookseller,  but 

which 

flies 
Unclaim'd  of  any  man. 

No  matter  what  may  be  the  amount  of  double-dealing  here  im- 
plied, Mr.  CaiTuthers  will,  we  think,  admit  that  there  is  nothing 
in  our  conjectures  inconsistent  with  Pope's  wretched  code  of 
literary  morals, — nothing,  Mr.  Croker  ^would  have  said,  so 
tricky  and  false  as  the  statements  about  the  early  editions  of 
the  '  Duriciad,' — nothing  to  compare  in  mystification,  and  the 
consequent  false  inferences  to  which  it  gave  and  was  in- 
tended to  give  rise,  with  the  story  about  the  first  publication 
of  these  very  letters.  After  all,  the  conclusion  is  merely  in- 
ferential ;  there  is  no  assertion  to  the  effect  that  Pope  wrote 
'  The  Narrative ; '  and  those  who  best  understand  Pope  will 
most  strongly  feel  the  force  of  this  distinction.  We  have  no 
faith  in  the  inference.  As  the  letter  was  really  addressed  to 
Caryll  and  not  to  Addison,  and  written  months  before  '  Cato  ' 
was  acted,  the  "  offer  "  could  not  refer  either  to  the  Remarks 
or  to  Dennis. 

Mr.  Carruthers,  however,  thinks  it  possible — just  possible — 
that  the  poet  "  might  have  kept  a  copy  of  his  first  letter  and 
used  it  in  writing  to  Addison."  Possible  of  course.  But  we 
cannot  persuade  ourselves  that,  even  if  Pope  had  a  copy  of  the 
letter,  he  would,  in  1713,  have  re-addressed  it  to  Addison. 
However  natural  and  gracious  it  might  have  been  for  a  literary 
youngster  to  make  offer  of  his  "  poor  pen  "  to  a  country  gentle- 
man, it  was  not  quite  so  natural  to  offer  such  a  "pen"  to 
Addison,  who  had  a  very  good  one  of  his  own,  and  the  press 
at  his  command.  But  if  he  did,  why  was  the  letter  not  found 
with  the  other  letters  and  papers  of  Addison,  in  the  custody  of  his 
friend  and  executor,  Tickell  ?  Addison  had  preserved  even  the 
letter  addressed  by  Pope  to  Steele,  which  happened  by  chance 
to  be  in  his  possession. 

Other  parties  besides  Dennis  were  satirized  in  '  The  Xnrra* 

s  2 


260  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

live ; '  and  it  is  strange  that  this  fact  should  have  been  over- 
looked by  all  the  biographers.  When  the  Doctor  arrived  at 
Dennis's  lodgings,  he  found  Bernard  Lintot,  the  publisher  of 
Dennis's  pamphlet,  on  one  side  the  bed, 

"  and  a  grave  elderly  gentleman  on  the  other,  who,  as  I  have 
since  learned,  calls  himself  a  grammarian,  the  latitude  of  whose 
countenance  was  not  a  little  eclipsed  by  the  fullness  of  his 
peruke." 

This  description  answers  to  what  we  know  of  "  hatless  " 
Cromwell;  and  when  the  Doctor  mistakes  the  grave  elderly 
gentleman  for  the  apothecary,  Dennis  describes  him  more 
particularly. — 

"An  apothecary! He  who  like  myself  professes  the 

noblest  science  in  the  universe,  criticism  and  poetry.  Can  you 
think  I  would  submit  my  writings  to  the  judgment  of  an 
apothecary  ?  By  the  Immortals,  he  himself  inserted  three 
whole  Paragraphs  in  my  Remarks,  had  a  hand  in  my  Publick 
Spirit,  nay,  assisted  me  in  my  Description  of  the  Furies  and 
infernal  regions  in  my  '  Appius.' 

"  Mr.  Lintot.  He  is  an  Author  ;  you  mistake  the  Gentleman, 
Doctor ;  he  has  been  an  Author  these  twenty  years,  to  his 
Bookseller's  knowledge,  and  no  man's  else.  *  * 

"  Gent.  By  your  leave,  Gentlemen,  I  apprehend  you  not. 
I  must  not  see  my  friend  ill  treated ;  he  is  no  more  affected 
with  Lunacy  than  myself :  I  am  also  of  the  same  opinion  as  to 
the  Periptztia."* 

By  all  acquainted  with  the  literary  characters  of  that  period 
and  with  their  popular  reputation,  no  doubt  will  be  entertained 
on  reading  the  pamphlet,  after  this  suggestion,  that  Cromwell 
was  meant  by  the  elderly  gentleman, — and  Cromwell  and 
Dennis  were  old  friends,  and  to  the  last  continued  friends. 

It  may  appear  to  strengthen  the  assumption  that  Pope  was 
the  writer  when  we  remind  the  reader  that  between  Pope  and 

*  The  result  is,  that  by  the  assistance  of  Lintot,  says  N  orris,  "  We  lock'd  his 
friend—  the  grave  elderly  gentleman— into  a  closet,  who,  'tis  plain  from  his  last 
speech,  was  likewise  touch' d  in  his  Intellects." 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  261 

Cromwell  there  had  been  for  some  time  a  coolness.  So  far, 
indeed,  as  we  may  judge  from  the  date  of  the  published  letters, 
the  correspondence  between  them  had  ceased.  But  we  think 
that  other  circumstances  outweigh  this  fact.  Nothing  more 
natural,  however,  when  the  names  of  presumed  writers  were 
bruited  about,  and  Pope  mentioned  amongst  others,  that 
Cromwell  should  directly  appeal  to  him  on  the  subject.  He 
appears  to  have  done  so.  In  a  letter  to  Caryll,  dated  October 
17,  1713,  a  fragment  from  which  is  woven  into  a  published 
letter,  professedly  addressed  to  Addison,  Pope  says  : — 

"  But  (as  old  Dry  den  said  before  me)  'tis  not  the  violent  I 
design  to  please  ;  and  in  very  truth,  sir,  I  believe  they  will 
all  find  me,  at  long  run,  a  mere  papist.  As  to  the  whim  upon 
Dennis,  Cromwell  thought  me  the  author  of  it,  which  I  assured 
him  I  was  not,  and  we  are,  I  hope,  very  far  from  being 
enemies.  We  visit,  criticize,  and  drink  coffee  as  before.  I 
am  satisfied  of  his  merit  in  all  respects,  and  am  truly  his 
friend." 

Those  who  know  how  careful  Pope  was  not  to  stay  what  was, 
directly  untrue,  and  yet  how  willing  he  was  that  individuals  or 
the  public  should  draw  false  inferences  from  what  he  did  say, 
will  understand  the  force  of  this  positive  denial.*  If  Pope  were 
the  writer,  and  if  the  writer  were  known  to  Addison  and  Steele, 
as  must  be  inferred  from  Steele's  letter  to  Liutot,  the  fact 
was  reasonably  certain  to  be,  or  to  become,  known  to  Caryll. 

If  Pope  did  not  write  the  '  Narrative,'  who  did  ?  The 
biographers,  and  not  the  critic,  are  bound  to  answer,  We, 
however,  who  are  content  to  act  as  pioneers  for  these  gentle- 
men, will  hazard  a  conjecture.  If  it  be  very  wide  of  the  mark, 
it  will  serve  as  warning. 

Dennis  was  an  old  antagonist  of  both  Steele  and  Addison. 
There  is  a  letter  from  Dennis,  to  Steele  of  the  28th  of  July, 
1710,  wherein  he  upbraids  Steele  for  neglecting  and  insulting 

*  Bowles  says  (viii.  47),  "  I  have  a  letter  before  me  to  one  of  the  Miss 
Blounts,"  with  these  remaikable  words,  "If  yon  have  seen  a  late  advertisement, 
you  will  know  that  7  Jiave  not  told  a  lye,  which  we  both  ab  .niinnte, 
pretty  genteelly."  Qy.  what  t  e  date  ? 


262  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

him, — and  they  continued  enemies  at  least  down  to  1721,  when 
Dennis  published  the  '  Character  of  Sir  John  Edgar.'  Even  in 
the  very  Preface  to  the  '  Remarks  upon  Cato,'  Dennis  attacks 
the  Tatler,  Spectator,  and  Guardian.  There  "  Squire  Iron- 
side "  is  described  as  "  that  grave  offspring  of  ludicrous  an- 
cestors " — one  of  "a  race  most  unfortunate  in  the  talents  for 
criticism."  There  "  Squire  Bickerstaff "  is  said  to  be  rarely 
"in  the  right  where  he  pretended  to  judge  of  poetry;  "  and 
Mr.  Spectator,  we  are  told,  "  took  pains  *  *  to  put  impotence 
and  imbecility  upon  us  for  simplicity."  Dennis,  in  fact,  felt 
and  said  that  he  had  been  personally  insulted  in  what  he  con- 
temptuously called  "the  celebrated  penny  folios."  Steele  was 
not  quite  insensible  to  these  attacks,  and  had  an  occasional  sly 
hit  at  Dennis ;  but,  however  personally  indifferent,  what  so  con- 
sistent with  all  we  know  of  his  character  as  that  he  should  rush 
into  print  when  the  man  he  so  loved  and  worshipped,  in  1713, 
was  so  fiercely  assailed  by  one  whom  Mr.  Carruthers  calls  an 
unfair  and  malignant  critic.  Steele  had,  at  least,  all  the 
personal  motives  that  Pope  had — some  recent  and  rankling, 
and  other  motives,  ten  times  more  influential  with  Steele, 
which  Pope  had  not.  What  more  consistent  with  all  we  know 
of  Steele  than  that  his  zeal  should  outrun  discretion — far  out- 
run the  discretion  of  Addison  ?  And  what  more  probable, 
considering  the  intimate  connexion  of  Steele  and  Addison — 
their  undistinguishable  literary  connexion — than  that  Steele, 
1  having  written  the  '  Narrative,'  should  offer  to  submit  it  to 
I  Addison,  which  Addison 's  discretion  would  decline  :  and  that 
when  published  and  its  character  known  and  commented  on, 
Addison  should  request  Steele  to  inform  Lintot,  which  Steele 
only  could  do  with  authority,  that  Addison  was  no  party  to  it, 
and  that  Steele  should  comply  with  over-penitent  zeal  ? 

If  we  mistake  not,  there  are  incidental  passages  in  Pope's 
letters  which  strengthen  this  conjecture.  In  one,  which  when 
published  (1735)  was  addressed  to  Addison,  and  dated  the 
14th  of  December,  1713,  Pope  thus  wrote  : — 

"  This  minute,  perhaps,  I  am  above  the  stars  *  *  with 
W and  the  astronomers ;  the  next  moment  I  am  below  all 


I-]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  263 

trifles,  grovelling  with  T in  the  very  centre  of  nonsense. 

Now  I  am  recreated  with  the  brisk  sallies  and  quick  turns  of 
wit,  which  Mr.  Steele  in  his  liveliest  and  freest  humours  darts 
about  him  ;  and  now  levelling  my  application  to  the  insignifi- 
cant observations  and  quirks  of  grammar  of  Mr. and 

D ." 

Now  the  genuine  letter  from  which  this  extract  is  made  was 
addressed  to  Caryll,  and  dated  the  14th  of  August,  1713; 
which,  as  Mr.  Carruthers  will  observe,  was  about  a  fortnight 
after  the  publication  of  the  '  Narrative.'  What  more  natural, 
with  the  '  Remarks  '  of  Dennis  and  the  '  Narrative  '  of  Steele 
before  him,  than  to  contrast  the  brisk  sallies  of  the  one  with 
the  quirks  of  grammar  of  the  other  ?  In  the  original  the 
names  are  given  at  length — Whiston,  Tidcombe,  Cromwell, 
and  Dennis.* 

We  have  allowed  all  due  weight  to  the  fact  that  there  had 
been  for  some  time  a  coldness  between  Pope  and  Cromwell — 
that  Cromwell  was  satirized  in  the  '  Narrative,'  and  that  he 
suspected  Pope.  But  we  have  no  reason  to  believe  that  there 
was  any  open  hostility — any  angry  feeling  between  them.t 
Pope's  letter,  indeed,  would  lead  us  to  infer  that  there  was 
not.  But  Steele  and  Cromwell  were  old  antagonists.  To  a 
certain  extent  Dennis  and  Cromwell  may  be  said  to  have 
fought  together  against  Addison  and  Steele.  J  In  June,  1711, 
Dennis  addressed  "  To  H —  -  C ,  Esq.,"  his  attack  on 

*  Mr.  F ,  in  a  letter  of  15  May,  argurs  in  favour  of  Pope  from  internal 

evidence,  and  argues  well — "I  confess  I  think  the  internal  evidence  of  Pop -'3 
authorship  is  very  strong.  I  could  point  out  resemblances  in  his  known  and 
admitted  prose  pieces.  All  the  allusions  to  his  own  writings — the  coupL-t  intro- 
duced from  the  Essay  on  Criticism— the  reference  to  the  old  tapestry  and  heads 
of  tyrants  (not  likely  to  have  occurred  t)  another) — point  very  stiongly  10 
P.ipe.  And  beyond  all  doubt  the  manner  is  extremely  unlike  Steele.  1  don't 
believe  he  would  have  thought  of  the  old  woman  fetching  the  vial.  Pope's 
letter,  too,  telling  of  Steele's  'darting  about'  brisk  allies,  and  quick  turns 
of  wit,  must  merely  refer  t)  conversation,  and  nothing  else." 

t  In  proof  to  the  contrary,  see  Pope's  letter  to  Gay,  13  Nov.  1712.  "I  really 
much  love  Mr.  C  omwell,"  &c.  Cromwell  was  a  contributor  to  Pope's  Mis- 
cellany, published  1712.  The  2nd  edit,  is  1714. 

£  The  "three  whole  paragraphs  in  my  Remarks,"  &c.,  show  that  the  writer  of 
the  '  Narrative  '  meant  to  accuse  the  grave  elderly  gentleman  of  co-operating  in 
fact  or  in  spirit ;  but  there  had  been  no  co-operation  because  no  attack  on  Pope. 


264  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

the  Spectator  and  the  absurd  eulogy  of  the  old  doggerel  of 

Chevy-Chase ;    subsequently  seven  letters  "  To  Mr.  C " 

upon  *  The  Sentiments  of  Cato.'  In  the  '  Pylades  and  Corinna,' 
by  Mrs.  Thomas,  a  lady  said  to  have  been  the  mistress  of 
Cromwell,  and  written  after  their  separation,  Cromwell  is 
described  as  one  "  whose  Fame  our  incomparable  Tatler*  has 
rendered  immortal  by  the  three  distinguishing  Titles  of  Squire 
Easy,  the  Amorous  Bard ;  Sir  Timothy,  the  critic  ;  and  Sir 
Taffety  Trippet,  the  fortune-hunter."  Whether  the  lady  was 
right  or  not  in  the  personal  application  of  these  characters,  it 
is  obvious  that  the  point  and  meaning  would  have  been  lost, 
had  it  not  been  generally  known  that  Steele  and  Cromwell 
were  in  literary  opposition  or  personal  antagonism,  t 

We  have  thrown  out  these  speculations  for  tlje  consideration 
of  the  biographers.  We  have  shown  that  the  letter  ' '  full  of 
gratitude "  for  the  notice  of  the  Essay  on  Criticism  was 
certainly  not  addressed  "  To  Mr.  Addison," — was  indeed,  as 
we  believe,  addressed  to  Steele,-^-that  the  '  Narrative,'  another 
evidence  of  gratitude,  was  probably  written  by  Steele  and  not 
by  Pope"; and  Steele,  so  far  as  we  know,  never  denied  that  he 
was  the  writer ;  whereas  Pope  did  twice,  and  once  voluntarily 
and  unconditionally, — -that  the  '  Narrative  '  was  not  published 
by  Lintot,  but  by  Morphew,  Steele's  publisher,  the  publisher 
of  the  Tatler,  who  never,  so  far  as  we  know,  published  any- 
thing by  or  for  Pope, — that  the  duplicate  theory  of  the  Letters 
is  unsatisfactory,  and  more  improbable  than  Mr.  Carruthers' 

Again,  Dennis  in  the  '  Narrative '  is  driven  mad  as  much  by  the  Spectator  as  by 
Cafo. 

There  is  a  curious  passage  in  Pope's  letter  to  Cromwell  May  10  [1710],  which 
deserves  consideration. 

Nichols,  says  Cromwell,  was  not  Tom  Spindle,  but  this  was  a  mere  speculative 
opinion  of  his  own  subsequently  uttered.  See  the  Tatler,  v.  389. 

*  Nichols,  in  his  notes  on  Tatler,  ii.  124,  assumes  that  Mrs.  Thomas  was 
right — if  so  the  description  of  Sir  Taffety  there  given  would  explain  all,  and 
even  violent  animosity. 

t  The  writer  of  the  '  Narrative '  is  obviously  resolved  to  have  a  lash  at  Lintot 
the  bookseller.  It  is  Mr.  Lintot  who  "drank  up  all  the  gin  " — but  Lintot  before 
and  after  w  as  Pope's  publisher — but  never  we  believe  published  anything  for 
Steele. 


I.]  POPE'S   WETTINGS.  265 

"  possible  "  seems  to  assume  :  —  in  brief,  that  the  whole  story 
of  the  acquaintance,  friendship,  gratitude,  and  quarrel  between 
Addison  and  Pope  must  be  reconsidered. 

We  shall  conclude,  for  the  satisfaction  of  Mr.  Carruthers, 
with  a  few  words  as  to  the  date  of  the  letter  to  Addison, 
which  begins  "  Your  last  is  the  more  obliging."  If  Mr. 
Carruthers  will  read  that  letter  as  published  in  the  Quarto  of 
1737,  or  in  any  and  every  edition  of  Pope's  works,  from 
Warburton  to  Roscoe,  he  will  be  satisfied  that  it  must  have 
been  written  while  the  Guardian  was  in  course  of  publication. 
"  I  am  sorry,"  says  Pope,  "  to  find  it  has  taken  air  that  I  have 
some  hand  in  those  papers,  because  J  write  so  very  few." 
Again,  "  I  assure  you,  as  to  myself,  I  have  quite  done  with  'em 
as  to  the  future."  Pope  could  not  write  thus  of  a  work  which 
had  no  future — which  had  been  discontinued.  But,  says  Mr. 
Carruthers,  the  letter  when  first  published — that  is,  when 
published  in  the  surreptitious  and  denounced  edition  of 
Edmund  Curll — contained  a  passage  which  must  have  been 
written  after  the  Guardian  was  discontinued.  Very  true ;  and 
does  not  Mr.  Carruthers  see  in  that  fact  a  good  and  sufficient 
reason  why  the  passage  was  dropped  out  of  the  Quarto  ?  The 
facility  of  reconciling  the  irreconcileable  was  one  of  the 
advantages  which  resulted  from  a  surreptitious  edition.  If  a 
letter  which  had  been  addressed  to  a  living  man  was  therein 
found  addressed  to  a  dead  one — if  the  present  and  the  past 
were  jumbled  together  in  one  letter — -it  was  a  consequence  of 
the  ignorant  blundering  of  the  scoundrel  Curll  and  his  a<N 
complices.  The  facts  will  appear  whenever  the  Caryll  Letters 
are  published. 


From  the  Athenceum,  May  22,  1858. 

Pope :  additional  Facts  concerning  his  Maternal  Ancestry. 
By  Robert  Davies.     (J.  R.  Smith.) 

A  HINT  thrown  out  by  Mr.  Hunter,  in  his  recent  tract  upon 
Pope's  maternal  ancestry,  has  brought  forward  another  York- 


266  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

shire  antiquary,  with  some  additional  and  interesting  par- 
ticulars. We  trust  that  the  example  will  not  be  lost.  Some 
Hampshire  gentleman  who  has  time  and  opportunities  for 
research  will,  we  hope,  throw  a  light  upon  the  history  of  the 
Hampshire  clergyman,  Alexander  Pope,  the  paternal  grand- 
father of  the  Poet,  of  whom  we  still  know  nothing  hut  his 
name.  Mr.  Hunter,  as  will  be  remembered  by  readers 
interested  in  the  subject,  traced  the  mother's  ancestors  as  far 
back  as  Lancelot  Turner,  the  uncle  of  William  Turner,  the 
poet's  maternal  grandfather, — and  suggested  the  possibility  of 
"  ascending  a  generation  above"  him.  Mr.  Davies  has  carried 
his  researches  two  generations  higher,  tracing  the  poet's  descent 
by  the  mother's  side  to  "  a  source  whence  many  families  among 
the  presenl  aristocracy  of  Yorkshire  have  originally  sprung  — 
the  trade  or  commerce  of  the  city  of  York."  In  the  reign  of 
Henry  the  Eighth  there  lived  in  that  city  one  Robert  Turner, 
a  wax  chandler, — a  business  which  in  Catholic  times  and  in  an 
ancient  cathedral  city  was,  we  are  told,  a  "lucrative  and  im- 
portant "  one.  He  brought  up  his  son  to  one  of  the  learned 
professions.  Edward  Turner,  son  of  Robert,  became  a  "skry- 
vener,"  and  in  the  year  1553  was  enrolled  upon  the  register 
of  York  freemen.  This  Edward  was  the  father  of  Lancelot 
Turner,  the  earliest  name  in  Mr.  Hunter's  account  of  the 
family.  Edward  became  clerk  to  the  Council  or  Vice-Regal 
Court  of  the  Lords  Presidents  of  the  North,  held  in  the  city  of 
York,  and  appears  to  have  acquired  wealth,  and  to  have  been 
esteemed  by  his  fellow  citizens.  He  married  twice,  and  died 
December,  1580,  leaving  a  large  family,  of  whom  Lancelot  was 
the  elder,  and  Philip,  the  grandfather  of  Edith,  the  poet's 
mother,  was  the  second  child.  In  the  year  1586,  Philip  was 
admitted  to  the  franchise  of  the  city  of  York,  as  the  son  of 
Edward  Turner,  gentleman.  In  the  register  of  freemen,  Mr. 
Davies  informs  us  that  he  is  called  a  merchant,  implying  that 
he  was  a  member  of  the  chartered  company  of  Merchant 
Adventurers,  which  then  consisted  of  the  highest  class  of  York 
citizens,  Philip  married  "Edith,"  the  daughter  of  William 
Gylminge,  vintner,  of  York,  and  had  seven  children,  of  whom 
William  Turner  was  the  fifth.  It  was  to  this  son  that  Lancelot 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  267 

Turner,  his  uncle,  bequeathed  the  bulk  of  his  fortune,  in- 
cluding the  manor  of  Towthorpe  and  the  rent- charge  on  the 
manor  of  Huston,  mentioned  a  hundred  years  later  in  the 
poet's  father's  will, — an  elder  nephew,  Lancelot,  being  sup- 
posed to  have  died  early.  Mr.  Davies,  in  answer  to  our 
suggestion,  "  that  Lancelot  Turner  himself  acquired  the 
property  which  enabled  him  to  make  the  purchase  of  the 
manor  of  Towthorpe,"  remarks  that  he  seems  "  to  have 
obtained  the  means  of  making  that  purchase  by  converting 
into  money  part  of  the  property  bequeathed  to  him  by  his 
father,"  the  "  skryvener."  From  his  purchase  of  this  manor, 
and  of  land  and  copyhold  cottages  at  Towthorpe,  and  his 
"  manifest  desire  to  enlarge  the  borders  of  his  domain  there," 
Mr.  Davies  thinks  it  probable  that  he  had  some  ancestral 
attachment  to  that  place,  "  where  a  family  of  the  same  name, 
who  were  small  landed  proprietors,  had  long  been  settled  "  ; 
and  that  Robert,  the  wax-chandler  in  the  ancient  city,  had, 
"  according  to  a  practice  very  common  in  those  days,"  been 
transplanted  thither  from  the  country  to  be  brought  up  to  a 
trade.  On  January  14,  1621-22,  William  Turner  married 
Thomasine  Newton,  the  grandmother  of  Pope,  then  a  girl  of 
seventeen.  She  was  the  young  lady  to  whom  Lancelot  Turner, 
two  years  before,  bequeathed  an  annuity  and  other  property 
and  his  song-books,  and  for  whom  he  had,  therefore,  a  par- 
ticular affection.  The  Newtons  were  a  good  family  at  Thorpe 
in  the  country.  The  creed  in  which  the  parents  of  Pope's 
mother  were  educated  Mr.  Davies  has  not  been  able  to  ascer- 
tain ;  but  it  is  supposed  that  Lancelot  Turner  was  a  Catholic, 
or  had  Catholic  tendencies,  from  the  fact  of  his  having  sent 
his  brother,  a  youth  of  nineteen,  to  the  University  of  Venice, 
"  then  notorious  for  being  the  very  centre  and  hot- bed  of 
Jesuitism,"  and  that  "William  Turner,  and  probably  Edith 
Newton,  were  Catholics.  William  Turner  and  his  young  wife 
appear  to  have  resided  at  Towthorpe  and  sometimes  at  York. 
How  he  came  to  remove  to  Worsborough  Dale,  the  birthplace 
of  the  poet's  mother,  which  he  appears  to  have  done  about 
1640-41,  the  learned  antiquaries  have  not  been  able  to  dis- 
cover,— but  he  subsequently  returned  to  York,  where  he  died 


268  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

October  3,  1665,  and  where  his  widow,  who  survived  him 
sixteen  years,  was  buried.  Of  their  children  Mr.  Davies  gives 
little  information,  beyond  what  was  already  known  from  the 
researches  of  Mr.  Hunter  and  others ;  although  he  supplies  us 
with  the  name  of  a  son,  "  George  Turner,  son  of  William 
Turner,  of  Towthorpe,  gentleman,"  baptized  at  Huntington, 
March  30,  1624.  Concerning  the  poet's  mother  and  her 
parents'  position  in  life,  Mr.  Davies  says  : — 

"Assuming  it  to  have  been  soon  after  the  Restoration  that 
William  Turner  returned  to  York,  his  daughter  Edith  was  then 
just  entering  into  womanhood,  so  that  for  nearly  twenty  years 
of  the  bloom  of  her  life  she  was  domesticated  with  her  family 
within  the  walls  of  our  venerable  city.  Their  residence  stood 
under  the  very  shadow  of  the  towers  of  our  cathedral.  *  *  The 
neighbourhood  in  which  they  lived  was  crowded  with  the 
stately  mansions  of  the  dignitaries  of  the  church,  the  higher 
officers  of  the  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  many  of  the  wealthy 
families  of  the  county.  We  cannot  doubt  that  the  Turners 
moved  in  the  best  society  of  which  the  city  could  at  that  period 
boast ;  not  so  brilliant  and  dignified  as  when  it  shone  with  the 
splendour  of  the  vice-regal  court  of  the  Lords  Presidents  of  the 
North ;  but  still  aristocratic,  refined,  and  intellectual, — a 
society  in  which  Edith  Turner  might  receive  that  training 
which  fitted  her  to  hold  converse  in  after-life  with  Bolingbroke, 
and  Congreve,  and  Swift.  When,  upon  the  death  of  Mrs. 
Turner,  the  daughters  who  had  remained  under  the  maternal 
roof  at  York  had  to  seek  a  home  with  their  married  sisters  in 
other  parts  of  the  kingdom,  it  was  Edith's  lot  to  remove  to 
London,  where  she  became  the  wife  of  Alexander  Pope,  and 
the  mother  of  the  POET." 

It  is  strange  that  with  such  full  particulars  of  Pope's  descent 
on  the  mother's  side,  we  should  have  as  yet  no  information 
concerning  the  father's  family,  save  the  extraordinary  fact, 
that  the  father  of  the  Catholic  London  merchant  was  a 
Protestant  clergyman  in  Hampshire. 


POPE'S   WRITINGS.  269 


From  the  Athenaum,  August  4,  1860. 

On  the  Relations  of  Alexander  Pope  with  the  Duchess  of  Marl- 
borough  and  the  Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire ;  and  on  the 
Character  and  Characteristics  of  Atossa. 

IN  1854  we  took  advantage  of  a  lull  in  the  publishing  world 
and  ventured,  by  way  of  experiment,  to  try  our  critical  skill  on 
an  advertisement — the  announcement  of  a  forthcoming  edition 
of  Pope's  Works  to  be  edited  by  John  Wilson  Croker.  That 
edition,  so  long-expected,  has  been  delayed,  almost  beyond 
hope,  By  the  death  of  the  Editor.  We  are  pleased  now  to 
hear  UTat  it  will  certainly  be  amongst  the  issues  of  the  coming 
season.  Delay,  however,  has  not  been  without  its  advantages 
— the  announcement  in  1854  of  "  150  unpublished  letters  "  has 
enlarged  its  golden  promise,  and  the  last  number  of  the 
Quarterly  speaks  of  "more  than  300  unpublished  letters."  In 
other  respects,  too,  good  has  resulted  from  dela}'.  Mr.  Carru- 
thers  has  liberally  declared  that  the  publication  of  the  papers 
in  the  A thenceum  constituted  "an  era  in  Pope  history."  We 
are  willing  to  believe  that  they  did  good  service,  pioneer 
fashion.  But  some  questions  then  raised  have  not  yet  been 
decided ;  and  amongst  them  one  seriously  affecting  the  moral 
character  of  the  poet  — did  he,  or  did  he  not,  receive  a  thou- 
sand  pounds  from  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough,  to  sii]>]>n --, 
the  character  of  Atossa ?  We  think  it  well  tlicrct'oiv  t<>  revert 
to  this  subject  before  the  new  edition  is  issued. 

We  do  not  mean  to  enter  again  on  the  evidence ;  that 
has  been  fully  considered.  We  proved  that  the  story 
was  first  published  anonymous!}',  and  after  the  established 
fashion,  with  an  "  it  is  said."  We  proved,  as  we  thought,  that 
\Varton  and  Walpole  merely  re-echoed  the  story  with  such 
"  circumstantialities  "  as  time  adds  as  a  matter  of  course ;  and 
that  Mr.  Rose's  pencilling  was  a  mere  indication  of  what  might 
have  been  referred  to — whether  fact  or  falsehood.  We  propose 
on  this  dC6a&ion  to  snow,  not  merely  that  the  anecdote  is 
untrue,  but  that  it  could  not  be  true,  and  that  the  character  of 


270  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

Atossa  was  not  meant  for  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough  at  all, 
l»ut  for  the  Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire.  This  is  a  new  light 
altogether — new  to  us  as  to  others — a  result  of  that  spirit  of 
doubt  and  consequent  research  which  have  done  more,  in  the 
last  ten  years,  to  clear  up  the  Pope  history  and  mystery  than 
all  the  trusting  labours  of  editors  in  the  preceding  century. 
Some  of  the  letters  to  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to  refer 
are  yet  in  manuscript ;  but  they  are  now  all  in  the  possession 
of  Mr.  Murray,  and  will  therefore  appear  in  the  forthcoming 
edition  of  Pope's  Works. 

As  a  starting-point  in  our  inquiry,  we  will  consider  the  per- 
sonal relations  of  the  several  parties. 

Pope  for  many  years  belonged  to  the  same  political  party  as 
the  Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire,  and  was  in  open  and  avowed 
hostility  to  the  Marlboroughs.  He  was  under  friendly  obliga- 
tions to  the  Duke  of  Buckinghamshire,  and  .subsequently  to 
the  Duchess.  We  infer,  from  a  letter  of  Jacob  Tonson  to 
Pope,  among  the  Homer  MSS.,  that  Pope  received  the  profits 
of  the  splendid  edition  of  the  Duke's  works,  printed  after  the 
Duke's  death  at  the  expense  of  the  Duchess.  It  was  natural 
and  proper  that  it  should  be  so,  for  Pope  selected,  arranged 
and  prepared  the  work  for  publication  ;— the  Duchess  received 
literary  help,  and  Pope  the  reward  for  literary  labour.  We 
find  Pope,  on  more  than  one  occasion,  on  a  friendly  visit  to 
the  Duchess ;  and  in  1725  he  was  the  active  and  confidential 
friend  in  the  famous  prosecution  of  Ward — a  fact  which  appears 
to  have  been  overlooked  by  the  biographers,  although  the  fol- 
lowing letter  from  the  Duchess  to  Pope,  also  among  the  Homer 
MSS.,  is1  pTWf  !2S"" 

Sr- — I  am  much  obliged  to  Lord  Harcourt  for  his  friendly 
assistance  in  helping  my  son  against  the  variety  of  injustices 
which  we  meet  with  from  Ward.  There  is  nobody  who  can  be 
obliged  whose  gratitude  is  so  useless  as  a  woman's  and  a 
child's ;  but  I'll  answer  for  the  first  having  a  great  share  of  it, 
and  I  hope  the  other  will  alway  show  the  same  disposition.  I 
am  always,  Sr,  yr  faithful,  humble  serv.  K.  B." 

"  I  have  wrote  to  Lord  Trevor,  who  has  appointed  a  meeting 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  271 

at  oui'  house,  and  hopes  to  have  the  business  heard  this  Ses- 
sions.    I  expect  you  to-morrow." 

Again : — 

"  This  is  first  to  tell  you  that  I  hope  you  found  your  mother 
in  very  good  health,  and  made  your  peace  with  the  old  woman 
for  staving  abroad  so  long.  She  will  probably  describe  you  by 
the  Gadder  as  she  did  Mr.  Compton  by  the  Proser. 

"  I  know  'tis  unnecessary,  but  I  desire  you  to  say  nothing  of 
what  you  know  of  Mr.  Sheffield's  being  at  present  not  well  in 
my  favour,  except  to  my  Lord  Bathurst,  in  case  he  mentions 
it,  because  I  have  many  reasons  to  have  the  particular  cir- 
cumstances as  little  spoke  on  as  possible,  and  not  the  man  at 
all,  at  least  for  some  time. — I  am  ever,  Sr,  yr  most  humble 
seiV-  K.  B." 

These  friendly  relations  continued  up  to  November,  1728, 
when  Pope  thus  wrote  to  Lord  Bathurst : — 

"  The  Duchess  of  Buckingham  is  at  Leigh's.  *  *  The 
writings  to  my  mother  and  me  she  has  signed.*  You  will  re- 
joice, I  know,  with  me  that  what  you  so  warmly  solicited  and 
contributed  to,  for  my  future  ease,  is  accomplished.  If  I  live 
these  hundred  years  I  shall  never  fancy,  even  in  my  jealous  old 
age,  that  I  live  too  long  upon  you  and  her.  And  if  I  live  but 
one  year  it  would  better  please  me  to  think  an  obelisque  might 
be  added  to  your  garden,  &c." 

Pope  and  the  Duchess,  as  we  shall  show,  soon  after  quar- 
relled, so  that  the  flattering  "  Character  of  Katherine  late 
Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire  and  Normanby,"  published  in 
1746  as  "  By  the  late  Mr.  Pope, "must  have  been  written  about 
or  before  this  time.  Whether  really  written  by  Pope,  or  com- 
piled, as  he  said,  from  the  manuscript  of  the  Duchess,  there 
is,  we  think,  internal  evidence  that  it  was  written  man}'  years 
before  her  death.  Pope  distinctly  says  so  in  his  letter  to 
Moyser.  It  must,  therefore,  have  been  subsequently  adapted 

*  The  negotiation  must  have  continued  some  tim<>,  and  even  after  the  deed 
was  drawn  the  Duchess  apparently  refused  or  delayed  to  sign,  for  it  is  dated 
11  Dec.  1727. 


272  PAPERS  OF  A   CEITia  [I. 

to  circumstances,  for  reference  is  therein  made  to  the  loss  of 
"  all  her  children,"  which  was  not  true  until  after  the  31st  of 
October,  1735,  when  her  son  Edmund  died,  and  it  concludes 
with  an  account  of  the  death  of  the  Duchess  herself. 

The  cause  of  quarrel  is  a  mystery;  but  the  date,  within 
moderate  limits,  it  is  not  difficult  to  determine.  On  the  9th  of 
July  [1732]  Pope  thus  wrote  to  Lord  Bathurst : — 

"  There  is  one  woman  at  least  that  I  think  you  will  never 
run  after,  of  whom  the  town  rings  with  a  hundred  stories,  why 
she  run,  and  whither  she  is  run.  Her  sober  friends  are  sorry 
for  her,  and  truly  so  am  I,  whom  she  cut  off  from  the  number 
of  them  three  years  ago.  She  has  dealt  as  mysteriously  with 
you  as  with  me  formerly ;  both  which  are  proofs  that  we  are 
both  less  mad  than  is  requisite  for  her  to  think  quite  well 
of  us." 

This  "one  woman"  was,  beyond  all  doubt,  the  Duchess  of 
Buckinghamshire,  who  thought  it  necessary,  in  consequence 
of  the  gossip  with  which  the  town  rang,  to  inform  the 
Minister,  Sir  Robert  Walpole,  why  and  whither  she  had  run, 
which  she  did  on  the  6th  of  June,  1732,  by  a  letter  from 
Boulogne  : — 

"  I  left  England,  Sir,  with  'no  other  precipitation  than  was 
occasioned  by  my  having  some  accounts  to  state  and  pass  with 
Mr.  Arthbornott.' "  * 

She  then  informs  him  that  she  had  been  taken  ill  at  Bou- 
logne,— and  adds — 

"  This  has  given  me  the  lucky  opportunity  of  hearing,  some- 
thing quick,  the  silly  reports  somehow  spread  concerning  a 

*  There  can  le  little  doubt  that  tne  strong  motive  which  induced  the  hurried 
visit  to  Paris  was  to  get  possess!  >n  of  her  letters  to  Atterbury,  a  correspondence 
declared  treasonable  by  law.  The  Pretender  and  his  agents  refused  to  give  them 
up  to  Morice,  the  Bishop's  son-in-law,  and  I  think  executor,  or  even  to  have  them 
burnt  in  his  presence.  On  this  becoming  known  to  her  she  hurried  ov^r  to  Paris, 
and  there  no  doubt  succeeded,  r.s  even  the  MS.  of  the  Bishop's  trial,  which  the 
agents  had  refused  to  deliYfr  to  Morice,  was  delivered  to  her  in  trust,  &c.  See 
the  Pref.  to  Stuait  Pagers,  Correspondence.  Atterbury. 


!•]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  273 

thing  done  by  everybody  at  their  pleasure, — I  mean  taking  a 
journey  to  Paris." 

She  begs  Walpole  to  take  notice  of  her  explanation  to  the 
Queen  or  not,  as  he  shall  decide, — 

"  in  case  any  of  these  nonsensical  storys,  or  any  others,  have 
reached  her  ears,  or  whether  my  coming  away  in  the  manner  I 
did  has  happened  to  be  represented  or  taken  in  a  light  any  way 
requires  being  set  right."  (Cox's  Walpole,  iii.  126.) 

The  following  is  the  account  of  Pope's  quarrel  with  the 
Duchess,  which  he  whispered  in  a  letter  to  Moyser,  as  if  in 
anticipation  of  the  publication  of  the  "  Character,"  and  of  its 
being  attributed  to  him.  This  letter  Warburton  fortunately 
stumbled  on,  when,  after  Pope's  death,  the  "  Character"  was 
published  and  was  so  attributed  : — 

"  There  was  another  Character  written  of  her  Grace  by  her- 
self (with  what  help  I  know  not),  but  she  shewed  it  me  in  her 
blots,  and  pressed  me,  by  all  the  adjurations  of  friendship,  to 
give  her  my  sincere  opinion  of  it.  I  acted  honestly  and  did 
so.  She  seemed  to  take  it  patiently,  and  upon  many  excep- 
tions which  I  made,  engaged  me  to  take  the  whole,  and  to 
select  out  of  it  just  as  much  as  I  judged  might  stand  and 
return  her  the  copy.  I  did  so.  Immediately  she  picked  a 
quarrel  ivith  me,  and  we  never  saw  each  other  in  Jive  or  six 
years." 

We  have  now  clear  evidence  not  only  of  the  quarrel,  but 
that  it  took  place  in  or  about  July,  1729.  This  brings  us  to, 
and  helps  to  explain  an  incident  in  Pope's  life  not  known  to 
his  biographers. 

In  1729-30,  Edward  Caryll  married  the  daughter  of  Pope's 
friend  and  neighbour,  Mr.  Pigot ;  and  the  following  is  an  ex- 
tract from  a  letter  of  Pope's  of  the  12th  of  February,  in  which 
he  sent  his  congratulations  to  Caryll's  father  : — 

"  I  could  not  see  Mr.  Pigot  as  yet;  but  this  day  I  have  re- 
ceived from  him,  by  the  post,  the  letter  you  mentioned  as 
having  been  given  to  you  to  deliver  into  my  own  hands.  The 
contents  of  that  letter  are  so  extraordinary  that  I  must  desire 


274  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

you  fairly  to  tell  me,  who  gave  it  you  ?  and  if,  instead  of  your 
giving  it  to  Mr.  Pigot,  he  did  not  give  it  to  you." 

On  the  10th  of  May  Pope  again  adverts  to  the  subject  :— 

"  A  very  odd  adventure  has  lately  befallen  me,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  letter  you  sent  me  enclosed  to  Mr.  Pigot  which 
contained  a  note  for  £100,  and  it  gives  me  a  great  curiosity  to 
know  what  person  put  it  into  your  hands.  I  soon  found  out 
the  original  plotter,  but  am  at  a  loss  for  the  instruments  made 
use  of,  which  this  may  give  me  some  light  into." 

On  the  16th  of  June  Pope  continues  his  questioning  : — 

"  I  can't  help  telling  you,  as  well  as  I  love  you,  that  I  am 
ready  to  take  it  ill  (and  the  more  ill  the  more  I  love  you)  your 
silence  and  evasion  of  my  question,  who  it  was  that  put  into 
your  hands  the  letter  which  contained  a  Bank  Bill  for  £100  ? 
I  found  out,  as  I  told  you,  the  original  plotter,  and  returned 
the  bribe  back,  as  an  honest  man  ought,  with  the  contempt  it 
deserved,  by  the  hands  of  Lord  Bathurst  to  the  lady.  There- 
fore, sir,  the  plot  failed,  and  'twas  not  a  farthing  to  ray  advan- 
tage. Must  I  be  forced  to  assure  you  that  I  can  refuse 
anything  I  do  not  deserve,  or  do  not  seek,  be  it  a  hundred,  or 
a  thousand.  And  I  thank  God  for  having  bestowed  upon  me 
a  mind  and  nature  more  beneficent  than  craving.  Adieu. 
Think  of  me  as  I  merit;  for  I  really  am  no  worldly  man, 
though  but  a  poor  one  ;  but  a  friendly  one  where  obliged,  and 
therefore  very  mindfully  to  yourself  and  all  yours." 

On  the  29th  of  July  we  have  a  last  reference  to  this  sub- 
ject :— 

"  I  take  very  kindly  the  warmth  and  concern  you  show  in 
apprehending  I  fancied  your  opinion  of  me  to  be  less  favour- 
able than  it  is.  Indeed  I  did  not ;  but  was  merely  desirous  to 
tell  you  I  am  the  man  I  am  in  respect  to  temptations  of  in- 
terest. Nor  was  the  pretence  taken  to  send  me  that  £100  any 
proposal  to  me  to  do  what  was  dishonourable,  but  only  a  notion 
that  I  would  receive  reward  for  what  I  had  formerly  done  out 
of  pure  friendship.  A  lady  who  imagined  herself  obliged  to 
me  on  that  score  imagined  she  could  acquit  herself  of  an  obli- 


!•]  POPE'*    H'HITINGS.  275 

gation  by  money,  which  she  cared  not  to  owe  on  a  more  generous 
account,  and  Mr.  Pigot  can  tell  you  the  whole  story,  and  so 
will  I  when  we  meet." 

It  is  obvious  from  the  agents  employed  that  the  lady,  who- 
ever she  may  have  been,  was  connected  with  the  Catholic,  the 
Nonjuring,  the  High  Church,  and  the  Tory  party.  The 
Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire  in  1730  answered  exactly  to  this 
description.  Pigot  the  Counsellor  was  employed  by  her  pro- 
fessionally, at  least  in  the  prosecution  of  Ward  (see  '  Life  of 
Hardwicke,'  i.  185),  and,  therefore,  perhaps  Pigot  wished  that 
the  money  should  reach  Pope  by  a  less  direct  channel ;  and  so, 
as  appears  from  his  first  letter,  Pope  himself  suspected.  Pope, 
as  we  have  shown,  had  been  actively  the  Mend  of  the  Duchess 
in  the  prosecution  of  Ward ;  and,  in  the  letter  we  have  quoted, 
wherein  he  is  entreated  to  be  silent,  she  makes  a  special  ex- 
emption in  favour  of  Lord  Bathurst,  who  was,  indeed,  a  trustee 
under  the  Duke's  will.  What  more  natural  than  that  a  proud, 
half-mad  Duchess  would  not,  if  she  could  avoid  it,  remain  under 
an  obligation,  and  should  believe  that  she  might  acquit  herself 
of  it  by  a  mere  money  payment  ? 

Atterbury,  who  was  in  great  favour  with  the  Duchess,  and 
was  often  consulted  by  her  confidentially,  hoped  and  promised, 
as  we  believe,  to  bring  about  a  reconciliation ;  but  it  was  be- 
yond his  power.  We  can  no  other  way  understand  a  mysterious 
paragraph  im  a  letter  to  his  son-in-law,  Mr.  Morice,  to  whom 
he  thus  wrote,  March  18-29,  1731  :— 

"  I  see  you  are  afraid  to  see  Pope,  and  easily  guess  at  your 
reasons.  I  have  mine,  while  I  almost  despair  of  making  up 
that  matter;  since  the  prejudices  conceived  are,  I  see,  so 
strong  and  so-  unlikely  to  be  altogether  removed."  (*  Att. 
Corr.'  iv.  294.) 

On  this  subject,  whatever  it  was,  he  also  wrote  to  Pope  on 
the  23rd  of  November,  1731  :— 

"  I  expected  to  have  heard  from  you  by  Mr.  Morice,  and 
wondered  a  little  that  I  did  not ;  but  he  owns  himself  in  a 
fault,  for  not  giving  you  due  notice  of  his  motions.  It  was  not 
amiss  that  you  forebore  writing  on  a  head  wherein  I  promised 

T  2 


276  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

more  than  I  was  able  to  perform.  Disgraced  men  fane}7  some- 
times that  they  preserve  an  influence,  where,  when  they 
endeavour  to  exert  it,  they  soon  see  their  mistake.  I  did  so, 
my  good  friend,  and  acknowledge  it  under  my  hand.  You 
sounded  the  coast,  and  found  out  my  error,  it  seems,  before  I 
was  aware  of  it." 

There  is  something  mysterious  about  this  quarrel — every- 
body seems  studiously  to  avoid  all  mention  of  the  cause. 
Pope,  in  his  most  communicative  mood,  only  promised  "  to 
tell"  his  old  friend  when  "we  meet,"  although  his  friend  had 
been  a  blind  agent  in  the  drama,  and  would  in  all  reasonable 
certainty  be  informed  by  Pigot.  Atterbury  is  as  obscure  as  an 
oracle ;  and  nothing  can  be  gleaned  from  Pope's  letter  to 
Bathurst,  nor  even  from  his  explanatory  letter  to  Moyser.  All 
we  get  at  with  certainty  is,  that  there  was  a  quarrel, — an 
irreconcileable  quarrel,  and  that  it  must  have  taken  place  soon 
after  the  Duchess,  at  the  warm  solicitation  of  Bathurst,  had 
signed  "  the  writings  "  so  much  to  Pope's  satisfaction  and  his 
"  future  ease."  There  cannot  be  the  least  doubt  that  Pope, 
in  this  letter,  refers  to  some  grant  of  an  annuity  which  he  had 
purchased,  but  purchased  of  whom  ?  Not  of  the  Duchess,  we 
think,  for  if  she  had  taken  his  money,  she  must  have  "  signed 
the  writings."  No  solicitation  would  have  been  required  from 
Bathurst  or  any  other  person ;  there  was  a  legal  necessity  for 
her  doing  so,  and  on  her  part  a  moral  necessity.  Is  it  not 
possible  that  her  son,  the  young  Duke,  as  young  dukes  some- 
times do,  had  taken  up  money  from  Pope  on  annuity,  which, 
on  account  of  the  youth  of  the  former,  and  for  his  honour's 
sake,  required  the  sanction  and  therefore  the  signature  of  the 
Duchess  ?  *  There  is  an  enigmatical  passage  in  a  poem  called 
"  The  Difference  between  Verbal  and  Practical  Virtue,"  attri- 
buted to  Lord  Hervey,  and  published  in  1742,  in  which  a 
charge  is  preferred  against  Pope,  which  we  do  not  remember 
to  have  seen  before  : 

Thus  scribbling  P.,  who  Peter  never  spare-, 
Feeds  on  extortion's  interest  from  young  heirs. 

*  The  circumstances  are  explained  in  a  note  from  Mr.  Reeves  giving  an  extract 
from  some  title-deeds. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  277 

— Peter  was,  of  course,  the  "wise  Peter"  Walter,  of  the 
Epistle  to  Bathurst,  whose  great  fortune  was,  we  are  told  in  a 
note,  raised  by  "  diligent  attendance  on  the  necessities  of 
others."  But  the  young  Duke  was  a  mere  boy, — not  more 
than  twelve  or  thirteen. 

Dr.  Johnson  mentions  that  the  estate  of  John  of  Bucks  was 
found  charged  with  an  annuity  to  Pope, — of  200L  a  year,  says 
the  annotator  of  Johnson's  Lives.  Was  there  something  in- 
formal in  this  deed,  which,  after  the  Duke's  death,  required 
the  signature  of  the  Duchess  to  give  it  validity  and  force  ? 

These,  however,  are  mere  speculations,  and  we  are  concerned 
only  with  facts. 

Whether  Pope  and  the  Duchess  were  ever  after  on  civil 
terms,  we  know  not.  Pope,  in  his  letter  to  Moyser,  says  that 
she  "  picked  a  quarrel  "  with  him — in  1729 — and  they  "  never 
saw  each  other  in  five  or  six  3rears."  This  would  bring  us  to 
about  the  time  of  the  young  Duke's  death, — November,  1735, 
— a  very  natural  occasion  for  Pope  to  express  the  respect 
which  he  had  ever  professed  for  the  family,  and  to  offer  a  word 
of  consolation  even  to  the  Duchess.  Pope  did  so,  and  wrote 
the  well-known  epitaph ;  but  the  "  weeping  marble  "  never 
asked  a  "  tear," — the  proud  Duchess  was  no  more  willing  to 
remain  under  an  obligation  in  1735  than  in  1730,  and  the 
epitaph  was  not  inscribed  on  the  monument.  This  must  have 
been  gall  and  wormwood  to  Pope.  Even  after  her  death,  he 
spoke  of  her  with  bitterness.  In  a  letter  to  Bethel,  he  thus 
wrote : — 

"  All  her  private  papers,  and  those  of  her  correspondents, 
are  left  in  the  hands  of  Lord  Hervey,  so  that  it  is  not  impos- 
sible another  volume  of  my  letters  may  come  out.  I  am  sure 
they  make  no  part  of  her  treasonable  correspondence  (which 
they  say  she  has  expressly  left  to  him)  ;  but  sure  this  is 
infamous  conduct  towards  any  common  acquaintance.  And 
yet  this  woman  seemed  once  a  woman  of  great  honour,  and 
many  generous  principles."  (Ruff head,  p,  408.) 

Here  the  actions  of  the  Duchess,  once,  in  Pope's  opinion,  a 


278  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

woman  "  of  great  honour  and  many  generous  principles,"  are 
spoken  of  as  infamous.* 

Whether  this  enmity  was  embittered  by  political  differences, 
we  know  not.  It  is  certain  that  the  High- Church  Jacobite 
Duchess,  before  she  died,  took  the  more  celebrated  Whigs  into 
her  especial  favour.!  Her  grandson,  by  her  first  husband  the 
Earl  of  Anglesea,  was  married  to  the  daughter  of  Lord  Hervey, 
a  Court  Whig  of  unmistakeable  politics,  to  whom  the  Duchess 
bequeathed,  among  other  things,  her  noble  mansion  of 
Buckingham  House,  in  St.  James's  Park ;  and  she  appointed 
Lord  Orford,  the  hated  Sir  Robert  Walpole  of  other  days,  her 
executor. 

It  is  strange,  but  more  certain,  that  a  political  change  took 
place  in  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough,  "wEb,  from  personal 
dislike  to,  or  prejudice  against  Walpole,  became  intimately 
associated  with  the  discontented  Whigs  and  the  Tories — with 
Pope's  friends — with  what  was  called  the  "  Opposition."  I  We 
see  fh~e~  effect  of  this  change  on  Pope,  so  early  as  1735.  In 
the  Epistle  to  Cobharn,  published  in  the  quarto  edition  of  his 
PoemsfT.735,  Pope  introduced  the  following  attack  on  Marl- 
borough : — 

(Triumphant  leaders  at  an  army's  head, 
Hemni'd  round  with  glories,  pilfVr  cloth  and  bread  ; 
As  meanly  plunder  as  they  bravely  fought, 
Now  save  a  people,  and  now  save  a  groa'. 

Some  friendly  influence  was  now  brought  to  bear  on  Pope, 
or  Pope's  own  feelings  suggested  the  indelicac3r  of  this  ;  and, 
therefore,  we  have  the  following  note  in  the  Appendix  :— 

"  Epist.  1,  ver.  146.  Triumphant  leaders,  &c.  These  four 
verses  having  been  misconstrued,  contrary  to  the  author's 
meaning,  they  are  suppressed  in  as  many  copies  as  he  could 
recall." 

We  never  saw  a  copy  of  this  or  any  subsequent  edition  in 

*  See  Mr.  Walpole's  explanation  in  note  to  Williams. 
t  See  Dr.  King's  Anecdotes,  p.  38,  for  an  odd  explanation. 
£  She  was  in  fie;ce  opposition  during  the  whole  reigu  of  George    II.     See 
Hervey,  Memoirs,  i.  129. 


!•]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  279 

which  they  were  suppressed ;  but  the  note  served  Pope's 
purpose. 

The  Duchess  of  Marlborough  humoured  and  flattered,  and 
did  everything  to  conciliate  Pope ;  ;ill  h.-r  friends  were  his 
friends,  and  we  see  the  growing  effect  of  this.  In  what  was 
called  the  surreptitious  edition  of  Pope's  Letters,  1735,  we 
have  one  describing  and  disparaging  Blenheim,  in  which  he 
takes  occasion  to  illustrate  the  description  of  the  place  by  the 
characters  of  the  Duke  and  Duchess — their  greatness  and 
littleness — their  selfishness  and  meanness.  This  letter  was 
not  republished  in  the  quarto,  1737,  nor,  which  is  far  more 
significant,  in  the  smaller  edition  of  1737,  which  was  un- 
doubtedly published  with  Pope's  sanction,  and  which  professed 
to  contain  all  the  rejected  letters  of  the  quarto  ;  nor  in  any 
edition  published  in  Pope's  lifetime.  So,  too,  the  sarcasm  on 
the  Duke,  in  the  letter  to  a  lady,  with  reference  to  the  camp 
in  Hyde  Park,  where  he  speaks  of  "  new  regiments  with  new 
clothes  and  furniture  (far  exceeding  the  late  cloth  and  linen 
designed  by  his  Grace  for  the  soldiery),"  even  this  reference 
to  a  subject,  which  circumstances  had  made  painful  to  the 
Marlboroughs,  was  omitted  in  the  quarto  of  1737. 

In  May,  1739,  Pope  wrote  to  Swift :  "  the  Duchess  of 
MarlborougE "mates  great  courT'to"  "me.""  Tn  January,  T741, 
when  at  Bath,  he  was,  we  think,  applied  to  by  the  Duchess's 
friend,  Lord  Chesterfield,  to  recommend  some  person  to  write 
her  Memoirs.  Pope  certainly  at  that  time,  9th  of  January, 
1740,  wrote  to  Lord  Polwarth,  "  I  am  in  great  pain  to  find  out 
Mr.  Hook.  Does  your  Lordship,  or  Mr.  Hume,  or  Dr.  King, 
know  where  he  is  ?  "  Ruffhead  tells  us  that  Hooke— 

"  performed  this  work  so  much  to  her  Graee's  satisfaction, 
that  she  talked  of  rewarding  largely,  but  would  do  nothing  till 
Mr.  Pope  came  to  her,  whose  company  she  then  sought  all 
opportunities  to  procure,  and  was  uneasy  to  be  without  it.  He 
was  at  that  time  with  some  friends,  whom  he  was  unwilling  to 
part  with,  a  hundred  miles  distant ;  but  at  Mr.  Hooke's  earnest 
solicitation,  when  Mr.  Pope  found  his  presence  so  essentially 
concerned  his  friend's  interest  and  future  support,  he  broke 


230  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

through  all  his  engagements,  and  in  the  depth  of  winter  and 
ill  ways,  flew  to  his  assistance.  On  his  coining,  the  Duchess 
secured  to  Mr.  Hooke  five  thousand  pounds." 

In  a  letter  to  the  Earl  of  Marchmont,  written  so  late  as  3rd 
of  March,  1742,  the  Duchess  says  : — "  If  you  talk  to  Mr.  Pope 
of  me,  endeavour  to  keep  him  my  friend."  Pope  then  was 
her  friend  at  that  time. 

Again,  15th  of  March,  1742,  among  other  complimentary 
phrases,  she  says  : — 

"If  I  could  receive  letters  from  you  and  Mr.  Pope  as  I  had 
leisure,  I  would  never  come  to  town  as  long  as  I  live.  *  *  I 
shall  always  be  pleased  to  see  your  Lordship  and  Mr.  Pope 
when  you  will  be  so  bountiful  as  to  give  me  any  part  of  your 
time." 

On  the  8th  of  September,  1742,  Lord  Chesterfield  wrote  to 
Lord  Marchmont : — 

"  I  go'  to-morrow  to  Nugent  for  a  week,  from  whence,  when 
I  return,  I  shall  take  up  Pope  at  Twickenham  on  the  19th, 
and  "cany  him  to  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough's,  at  Windsor, 
in  our  way  to  Cobham's,  where  we  are  to  be  on  the  21st  of  this 
month." 

So  Pope  [in  July,  1743] ,  to  Lord  Marchmont : — 

11  There  are  many  hours  I  could  be  glad  to  talk  to  (or  rather 
to  hear}" the  Duchess  of  Marlborough.  *  *  I  could  listen  to 
her  with  the  same  veneration  and  belief  in  all  her  doctrines  as 
the  disciples  of  Socrates  gave  to  the  words  of  their  master,  or 
he  himself  to  his  demon  (for,  I  think,  she  too  has  a  devil, 
whom  in  civility  we  will  call  a  genius.") 

No  doubt  the  Duchess  had  a  devil,  and  a  fierce  one  if 
1  provoked,  as  her  friends  and  enemies  well  knew. 

The  result  of  this  inquiry  is  proof  that  Pope  had  quarrelled 
personally  with  that  "  mad  "  woman,  the  Duchess  of  Bucking- 
hamshire, as  early  as  1729, — that  they  never,  as  is  admitted, 
saw  each  other  for  five  or  six  years, — and  never,  so  far  as  we 
have  evidence,  were  on  friendly  terms  afterwards,  and  that 


I-]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  281 

even  death  did  not  save  her  from  his  denunciations.  It  is 
further  proved  that,  however  politically  opposed  to  the  Marl- 
boroughs,  Pope  never  ITad  any  personal  quarrel  with  the 
.Duchess,  and  that  the  political  antipathies  and  associations 
which  had  at  first  separated  them,  eventually  drew  them 
together.  There  is  reason  to  believe  that  Pope  manifested 
the  most  friendly  disposition  towards  the  Duchess  as  early  as 
1735.  This  feeling  is  shown  in  increasing  strength  by  various 
suppressions  of  letters  and  passages  in  letters.  We  have  proof 
that  they  became  more  and  more  intimate, — that  Pope  visited 
her, — that  she  wrote  and  spoke  most  kindly  of  Pope,  and  Pope 
as  respectfully  of  the  Duchess,  as  late  as  July,  1743.  Later 
still  he  must  have  thought  well  and  kindly  of  her,  for  he 
remarked  to  Spence  (p.  295),  "  the  old  Duchess  of  Marl- 
borough  has  given  away  in  charities  and  in  presents  to  her 
granddaughters  and  other  relations  near  300,000/.  in  her  life- 
time." 

Under  these  circumstances,  which  was  the  lady  Pope  was 
most  in  the  humour  to  satirize  in  1743  ? 

The  character  of  Atossa  is  first  heard  of  after  Pope's  death. 
Bolingbroke  then  wrote  to  Marchinont : — 

"  Our  friend  Pope,  it  seems,  corrected  and  prepared  for  the 
press,  just  before  his  death,  an  edition  of  the  four  Epistles, 
that  follow  the  'Essay  on  Man.'  They  were  then  printed  off, 
and  are  now  ready  for  publication.  I  am  sorry  for  it,  because 
if  he  could  be  excused  for  writing  the  Character  of  Atossa 
formerly,  there  is  no  excuse  for  his  design  of  publishing  it, 
after  he  had  received  the  favour  you  and  I  know,  and  the 
Character  of  Atossa  is  inserted.  I  have  a  copy  of  the  book." 

This  book  was,  no  doubt,  a  continuation  of  the  edition  in 
quarto,  "with  the  Commentary  and  Notes  of  W.  Warburton," 
of  which  the  'Dunciad,'  the  'Essaj"  on  Man,'  and  the  'Essay 
on  Criticism '  were  already  published ;  the  work,  in  short, 
referred  to  by  Pope,  as  mentioned  by  Spence  : — 

"  '  Here  am  I,  like  Socrates,  distributing  my  morality  among 
my  friends  just  as  I  am  dying. — P.'  And  Speiice  adds : — 


282  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

'  This  was  said  on  his  sending  about  some  of  his  Ethic 
Epistles,  as  presents,  about  three  weeks  before  we  lost  him.'  ' 

This  Character  of  Atossa  is  understood  to  have  been  referred 
to  in  the  following  note  to  the  epistle  '  On  the  Characters  of 
Women,'  published  in  1735  : — 

"  Between  this  and  the  former  lines,  and  also  in  some 
following  parts,  a  want  of  connexion  may  be  perceived,  occa- 
sioned by  the  omission  of  certain  examples  and  illustrations  of 
the  maxims  laid  down,  which  may  put  the  reader  in  mind  of 
what  the  author  has  said  in  his  Imitation  of  Horace  : — 

Publish  the  present  age,  but  where  the  text 
Is  vice  too  high,  reserve  it  for  the  next." 

Did  Pope  act  on  his  own  precept?  Did  he  reserve  this 
Character  of  Atossa  till  the  next  age, — that  is,  at  least,  till 
after  "  vice  too  high  "  was  in  its  grave  ?  Certainly  not,  if  the 
Duchess  of  Marlborough  was  concerned,  for  she  outlived  Pope. 
All  the  arguments  against  publication  were,  in  her  case,  in  as 
full  force  in  1743  as  in  1735.  Not  so  in  respect  to  the  Duchess 
of  Buckinghamshire.  She  die_d  twelve  months  before_Pope, — 
on  the  12th  of  March,  1743.  Her  grandson,  by  the  Earl  of 
Anglesea,  had  been  married  a  fortnight  before  her  death,  on 
the  26th  of  February,  to  the  daughter  of  Pope's  old  enemy, 
Lord  Hervey ;  and  strange,  if  merely  coincident,  on  the  3rd 
of  March,  1743,  we  find  Pope  giving  instructions  for  printing 
the  very  edition  found  by  Bolingbroke, — "the  four  Epistles," 
one  of  which  contained  the  Character  of  Atossa.  On  that  day 
he  wrote  to  Bowyer  the  printer : — 

"  On  second  thoughts,  let  the  proof  of  the  Epistle  to  Lord 
Cobham  [the  first  of  the  four]  be  done  in  the  quarto,  not  the 
octavo  size  :  contrive  the  capitals  and  everything  exactly  to 
correspond  with  that  edition.  The  first  proof  send  me." 
(Additional  MSS.  in  Brit.  Mus.  12,113.) 

Of  contemporary  evidence  bearing  on  this  question  there  is 
very  little.  The  Duchess  of  Marlborough,  knowing  what  Pope 
had  formerly  written  and  kindly  suppressed,  feared  naturally 


l.J  POPE'S    W&IT1MM.  283 

that  some  suppressed  satires  might  be  found  among  his  manu- 
scripts. She  applied,  therefore,  through  her  friend  Lord 
Marchmont,  one  of  Pope's  executors,  to  Lord  Bolingbroke, 
to  whom  Pope  had  bequeathed  all  his  manuscripts ;  and 
Bolingbroke  replied,  "If  there  are  any  that  may  be  injurious 
to  the  late  Duke,  or  to  her  Grace,  even  indirectly  and  covertly, 
as  I  hope  there  are  not,  they  shall  be  destroyed."  He  subse- 
quently found  the  four  Epistles,  and  in  them  the  Character  of 
Atossa ;  and  he  jumped  at  once  to  the  conclusion  that  it  was 
meant  for  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough.  This  was  mere  con- 
jecture, a  hasty  assumption.  Bolingbroke  had  no  time  for 
consideration  or  inquiry ;  for  Pope  was  buried  on  the  5th  of 
June,  and  Bolingbroke  was  at  Calais  on  the  18th.  Boling- 
broke  be  it  remembered,  at  the  time  of  Pope's  especial  intimacy 
with  the  Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire — from  1721  to  1725 — 
was  in  exile  or  abroad,  and  Pope's  intercourse  with  the 
Duchess  had  ceased  for  fifteen  years  before  he  died.  Boling- 
broke, therefore,  knew  nothing  about  Pope's  intimate  relations 
with  the  Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire  ;  and  the  very  appli- 
cation of  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough  suggested  her  as  the 
subject.  Yet,  though  under  the  influence  of  that  suggestion, 
Bolingbroke  was  perplexed  by  the  want  of  likeness.  "Is  it 
worth  while,"  he  asks  of  Marchmont,  "  to  suppress  the  edition, 
or  should  her  Grace's  friends  say,  as  they  may  from  several 
strokes  in  it,  that  it  was  not  intended  to  be  her  Character  ?  " 

Against  the  hasty  conjecture  of  Bolingbroke  we   have  the 
evidence  of  Warburton — the  very  man  who,  under  the  eye  of 
Pope,  prepared  and  annotated  the  edition  of  which  these  "  four 
Epistles  "  formed  a  part ;    Warburton  must,   therefore,  have 
been  informed  by  Pope,  and  must  have  known  who  were  the 
parties  satirized.     Now  Warburton,  in  a  note  prefixed  to  the      j 
'  Character  of  Katherine  Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire,'  says, 
Pope's  enemies  have  published  it  since  his  death,  as  if  written 
by  him  ;  and  he  refers  to  Pope's  letter  to  Moyser,  in  proof     j 
that  it  was  not.     He  thus  continues  : — 

"  The  Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire  would  have  had  Mr.  I'«»IK- 


284  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

to  draw  her  husband's  Character.  But  though  he  refused  this 
office,  yet  in  his  Epistle  on  the  Characters  of  Women,  these 
lines, 

To  htirs  unknown  descends  th'  unguarded  store, 
Or  wanders,  heav'n-directed,  to  the  poor, 

— are  supposed  to  mark  her  out  in  such  a  manner  as  not  to  be 
mistaken  for  another." 

Mark  out  whom  ? — the  Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire ;  and 
those  lines  are  from  the  Character  of  Atossa. 

Let  us  now,  in  conclusion,  examine  the  Character  itself,  and 
see  to  which  lady  its  characteristics  will  best  apply. 

Warton  observes  that  the  Classical  Atossa  was  the  daughter 
•  of  Cyrus  and  the  sister  of  Cambyses, — that  is,  the  daughter 
1  and  TnT  sister  of  kings.  Now  Katherine  Duchess  of  Bucking- 
hamshire was  the  natural  daughter  of  King  James,  and  the 
(sister  of  him  whom  she  called,  and  her  party  called,  King 
James  the  Third.  The  king,  her  father,  by  warrant,  declared 
and  ordered  that  she  should  have  place,  pre-eminence  and 
precedency  as  the  daughter  of  a  Duke,  and  should  bear  the 
royal  arms  within  a  border  compony.  This  she  did  ;  she  ever 
considered  herself  as  of  the  blood  royal,  and  required  from  her 
servants  and  dependents  the  observance  of  all  forms  usual  in 
the  royal  family.  Does  this  apply  to  Sarah  Duchess  of  Marl- 
borough,  the  daughter  of  a  country  squire — of  plain  Richard 
Jennings  ? 

Then  Atossa,  we  are  told, — 

from  her  birth 

Finds  all  her  life  one  warfare  upon  earth  ; 
Shines  in  exposing  knaves. 

— The  father  of  the  Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire  was  driven 
from  his  throne,  and  her  brother  declared  supposititious. 
While  yet  in  her  teens  she  was  forced  to  sue  for  a  divorce  from 

I  her  husband,  the  Earl  of  Anglesea,  on  the  ground  of  cruelty, 
and  obtained  it.  She  had  long  litigations  with  the  Duke  of 
Buckinghamshire's  natural  children,  and  she  makes  an  express 
bequest  to  one  of  them,  because  "  of  her  not  taking  part  with 
the  other  illegitimate  children  of  her  late  husband  in  the 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  285 

unjust  lawsuits  brought  against  her."  She  prosecuted  to  con- 
viction John  Ward,  M.P.  for  Weymouth,  for  forgery,  and  he 
was  in  consequence  expelled  the  House  of  Commons  and  con- 
demned to  the  pillory.  Pope  alludes  to  this  prosecution  in 

*  The  Dunciad,'  written  before  the  quarrel ;  and  Curll's  '  Key ' 
says,  the  passage  was  written  "  to  please  a  certain  Duchess." 

We  know  not  how,  by  possibility,  any  one  of  these  circum- 
stances can  be  made^to^a^plylo^n^T)ucHess~of  JMarfBorough. 

We  then^reay of "  Atoss1aVnrrTo'veTess  "^outnT"  How  that 
might  apply  to  th'e  Duchess  of  BuckTnghamshire  we  know  not, 
unless,  indeed,  something  might  be  inferred  from  the  treat- 
ment she  received  from  her  first  husband.  It  is,  however,  - » 
directly  the  reverse  of  true  if  applied  to  the  Duchess  of  Marl-  ' 
borough,  who,  as  Coxe  tells  us,  "  though  not  so  transcendently 
lovely  as  her  sister "  [la  belle  Jennings  of  Grammont], 
"  her  animated  countenance  and  commanding  figure  attracted 
numerous  admirers,  and  even  in  the  dawn  of  beauty  she 
received  advantageous  offers  of  marriage."  So  Macaulay  says  : 
"  Sarah,  less  regularly  beautiful  [than  la  belle  Jennings],  was 
perhaps  more  attractive.  The  face  was  expressive.  Her  form 
wanted  no  feminine  charm,  and  the  profusion  of  her  fine  hair 

*  *   was   the   delight   of  numerous    admirers.    *    *    Colonel 
Churchill,  young,  handsome,   graceful,   *   *  must  have  been 
enamoured    indeed.    *    *    Marriage    only    strengthened    his 

passion." 

The  pleasure  missed  her,  but  tie  scandal  hit. 

— Here,  again,  we  know  not  how  this  might  apply  to  the 
Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire ;  but,  assuredly,  it  does  not  to 
the  Duchess  of  Maiiborough,  who,  as  Coxe  records,  "  in  the 
midst  of  a  licentious  Court,  maintained  an  unspotted  reputation, 
and  was  as  much  respected  for  her  prudence  and  propriety  as 
she  was  admired  for  the  charms  of  her  person." 

Last  night  her  Lord  was  all  that's  good  and  great  ; 
A  knave  this  morning,  and  his  will  a  cheat. 

The  Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire  had  some  reason  to  com- 
plain of  the  Duke,  and  "  the  unjust  lawsuits  "  which  his  will 


286  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

gave  rise  to,  consequent,  we  presume,  on  the  reversionary 
interests  therein  given  to  his  natural  children.  The  Duchess 
of  Marlborough  made  no  such  complaining — night  and  morning 
were  alike  with  her,  and  alike  her  love  and  reverence  for  her 
dead  husband.  When  the  proud  Duke  of  Somerset,  as  he  was 
called,  offered  to  lay  his  fortune  at  her  feet  and  implored  her 
hand,  she  declared  that,  "  if  she  were  only  thirty,  she  would 
not  permit  even  the  Emperor  of  the  World  to  succeed  in  that 
heart  which  had  been  devoted  to  John  Duke  of  Marlborough." 

Childless,  with  all  her  children,  wants  an  heir. 

— The  Duchess  of  Buckinghamshire  had  a  daughter  by  the 
Earl  of  Anglesea,  who,  however,  died  before  her  mother,  but 
left  issue.  But  the  satire  applies  to  the  Duchess,  who  had  by 
the  Duke  five  children,  all  of  whom  died  before  her,  and  the 
last  in  1735,  when  the  dukedom  became  extinct. 

The  Duchess  of  Mariborough,  though  she  lived  to  eighty - 
four,  left  one  child,  and  a  dozen  grandchildren,  every  one  of 
whom  would  have  been  her  heir  bj7  law,  and  was  under  the 
entail  heir  to  the  Dukedom.  So  far  from  wanting  an  heir,  she 
was  herself,  for  many  years,  Dowager  Duchess.  One  of  her 
daughters,  Henrietta  Duchess  of  Marlborough,  was  succeeded 
in  1733  by  Charles  the  son  of  Anne  (Henrietta's  sister)  and 
the  grandson  of  the  Dowager. 

To  heirs  unknown  descends  th'  ungiiarded  store, 
Or  wanders,  heav'n-directed,  to  the  poor. 

— We  find,  by  the  London  Evening  Post  of  the  5th  of  May, 
1743,  that  immediately  on  the  death  of  the  Duchess  of 
Buckinghamshire  there  was  "  a  trial  at  bar  to  prove  who  was 
heir-at-law  to  the  late  Duke  of  Buckinghamshire,  wb,en  the 
Misses  Walshes  of  Ireland  were  found  to  be  his  heirs."  Could 
this  be  said,  or  prophesied,  of  Sarah  Duchess  of  Marlborough  ? 
Living  or  dead,  was  her  vast  wealth  "  unguarded  "  ?  Only 
300Z.  went  to  the  poor,  and  that,  not  heaven-directed,  but  by 
direction  of  her  will ;  and  not  one  shilling  wandered,  or  could 
wander,  if  her  will  might  determine  its  direction  ;  but  that 
fact  could  not  have  been  known  to  Pope,  who  died  before  her. 
We  have  now  fairly  exhausted  this  particular  subject.  On 


I.]  POPE'S   ll-'RITIXt;*.  287 

the  first  convenient  opportunity  we  shall  inquire  into  the  very 
curious  history  connected  with  the  publication  of  Pope's 
Letters. 


From  the  Athenaum,  September  1,  1860. 
A  Search  into  the  History  of  the  Publication  of  Pope's  Letters. 

EIGHTY  years  since  Dr.  Johnson  observed  that  "  one  of  the 
passages  of  Pope's  life  which  seems  to  deserve  some  inquiry 
was  a  publication  of  letters  between  him  and  many  of  his 
friends."  We  propose  to  open  that  inquiry  with  a  view  to  the 
forthcoming  Life  of  Pope. 

*  The  Letters  of  Mr.  Pope  and  several  Eminent  Persons ' 
were  first  published  in  1735.  There  had  been  prior  publications 
of  Pope's  Letters,— of'^Familiar  Letters'  to  Mr.  Cromwell, 
and  '  Letters  of  Mr.  Wycherley  and  Mr.  Pope.'  But  these 
may  be  considered  as  exceptional,  for  one  of  them  was  avow- 
edly without  the  consent  of  the  parties,  and  the  other  in 
vindication  of  the  memory  of  Mr.  Wycherley.  The  publication, 
however,  of  1735  was  of  a  far  more  comprehensive  and  more 
questionable  character :  it  included  not  only  the  letters  of 
Pope,  but  those  of  many  distinguished  contemporaries. 

The  publication  of  friendly  and  familiar  letters  at  that  time, 
if  not  altogether  unprecedented,  had  been  of  very  rare  occur- 
rence, and  grave  doubts  were  entertained  as  to  the  delicacy 
and  propriety  of  such  a  proceeding.  Pope  knew  this,  and  he 
denounced  the  publication  as  surreptitious  and  the  publishers 
as  men  guilty  of  "  the  highest  offence  against  society."  "  To 
open  letters,"  he  said, — 

"  is  esteemed  the  greatest  breach  of  honour  ;  even  to  look  into 
them  already  open'd,  or  accidentally  dropt,  is  held  an  ungene- 
rous, if  not  an  immoral,  act.  What,  then,  can  be  thought  of  the 
procuring  them  merely  by  Fraud,  and  the  printing  them  merely 
for  Lucre  ?  " 

— And  he  concludes  that  a  law  must  be  found  or  made  "  to 
prevent  so  great  and  growing  an  evil." 


288  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

Notwithstanding  this  emphatic  denunciation,  there  has  been, 
from  1735  to  the  present  time,  an  impression  that  Pope  himself 
was  in  some  way  concerned  in  or  connected  with  that  publica- 
tion. Mr.  Roscoe,  however,  the  last  editor  of  a  complete 
edition  of  Pope's  Works,  is  emphatic  in  his  denial  of  Pope's 
complicity;  and  he  enters  into  a  long  and  elaborate  discussion 
on  the  subject,  concluding  briefly  that  the  cause  of  the  several 
publications  of  Pope's  letters  was  : — "  1.  The  treachery  of  a 
woman  [Mrs.  Thomas] ;  2.  The  rapacity  of  a  bookseller  [Curll], 
and  the  imbecility  of  a  friend  [Dean  Swift]."  We  propose, 
therefore,  to  examine  into  the  circumstances — to  trace  out,  so 
far  as  possible,  a  history  of  the  several  publications.  That  is 
to  say,  of — 

First,  The  Letters  to  Cromwell. 

Second,  The  Letters  to  and  from  Wycherley. 

Third,  The  Letters  of  Mr.  Pope  in  1735. 

Fourth,  The  Swift  and  Pope  Letters  of  1741. 

I.  POPE'S  LETTERS  TO  CROMWELL. 

The  history  of  this  publication  is  simple  ;  all  accounts — 
Cromwell's,  Pope's,  and  Curll's — substantially  agree.  Cromwell 
gave  the  letters  to  Mrs.  Thomas  ;  she  sold  them  to  Curll  for 
ten  guineas  ;  lie  printed  and  published  them.  The  originals 
were  "in  Curll's  possession  in  1735  (as  Curll  admitted  before 
the  House"oF  Lords),  and"~are  now  among  the  Rawlinson 
Manuscripts  in  the  Bodleian  Library  at  Oxford. 

Warton  tells  us  that,  "  on  comparison  "  with  the  originals, 
"  it  appears  that  Curll  omitted  some,  mutilated  others,  and 
blended  two  together."  This  account  has  been  in  substance 
repeated  by  subsequent  biographers;  yet  it  is  not  only  not 
true,  but  is  the  reverse  of  the  truth.  Curll  printed  the  letters 
with  singular  accuracy.  We  can  only  suppose  that  Warton 


compared  the  manuscripts  with  the  edition  of  1735,  which,  on 
the  authority  of  Pope,  he  assumed  to  have  been  published  by 
Curll,  and,  so  far  as  the  Cromwell  letters  are  concerned,  to 
have  been  a  literal  reprint  of  the  first  publication.  His  descrip- 
tion would  in  that  case  have  been  sufficiently  accurate.  There 


I-]  POPE'S   WRITINGS. 


289 


were  mutilations,  omissions  and  accessions  in  the  edition  of 
1735:  one-third  of  the  letters  from  Pope  to  Cromwell,  and 
the  whole  of  the  letters  from  Cromwell  to  Pope,  being  first 
published  in  "that  edition.  Further  change  is  found  in  the 
quarto ;  so  that  we  have  no  manuscript  authority,  no  proof  of 
authenticity,  for  one-half  of  the  letters  therein  and  since 
published.  Cromwell  had  died  in  the  interval. 

All  accounts  also  agree  in  giving  or  suggesting  1727  as  the 
date  of  the  first  publication, — the  'True  Narrative  of  the 
Method  by  which  Mr.  Pope's  Letters  have  been  published' 
says  so, — the  note  in  '  The  Dunciad  '  says  so, — the  Catalogue 
of  Surreptitious  Editions,  prefixed  to  Warburton,  and  copied 
into  all  succeeding  editions  of  Pope's  works,  says  so.  Yet  all 
these  accounts  are  wrong  by  a  year.  Mrs.  Thomas's  letter  to 
Cromwell  is  dated  the  27th  of  June,  1727 — Cromwell's  letters 
to  Pope,  the  6th  of  July  and  the  1st  of  August,  1727.  "  No 
sooner,"  says  Mr.  Roscoe,  "  was  Pope  apprised  of  this  sur- 
reptitious publication  of  his  letters,  than  he  applied  to  Mr. 
Cromwell  to  know  by  what  means  it  had  been  accomplished. 
When  Pope  applied  to  Cromwell  is  not  positively  known ;  but 
all  other  assertions  about  the  date  of  publication  are  erroneous, 
for  it  is  certain  that  the  work  was  published  before  the  20th  of 
October,  1726.  Thomson,  in  a  letter  of  that  date  to  A.  Hill, 
speaks  not  only  of  its  being  published,  but  of  his  having  read 
it ;  and  in  a  letter  from  Pope  to  Car3rll  of  the  5th  of  December, 
1726,  the  publication  is  given  as  the  apology  for  recalling  his 
letters. 

The  following  advertisement,  indeed,  would  carry  us  back  to 
August,  1726  :— 

Daily  Post,  Friday,  August  12,  1726.  — "  This  day  is 
published,'*  £c.,  "  Mr.  Pope's  familiar  letters  on  Wit  and 
Humour,  Love  and  Gallantry,  Poetry  and  Criticism,  written 
to  Henry  Cromwell,  Esq.,  between  the  year  1707  and  1712, 
with  original  poems  by  Mr.  Pope,  Mr.  Cromwell,  and  Sappho," 
&c. 

It  is  reasonably  certain  that  Fenton  must  refer  to  the  letters 
VOL.  i.  v 


290  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

to  Cromwell  in  the  following  passage  from  a  letter  to  Broome 
of  the  7th  of  September,  1726  :— 

"  I  have  the  collection  of  letters  you  mentioned,  and  was 
delighted  with  nothing  more  than  the  air  of  sincerity,  those 
professions  of  esteem  and  respect,  and  the  deference  paid  to 
his  friend's  judgment  in  poetry,  which  I  have  sometimes  seen 
expressed  to  others,  and  I  doubt  not  with  the  same  cordial 
affection.  If  they  are  read  in  that  light  they  will  be  very 
entertaining  and  useful  to  the  present  age;  but  in  the  next 
Cicero,  Pliny,  and  Voiture  may  regain  their  reputation." 

When  this  letter  was  written  angry  differences  existed 
between  Fenton,  Broome,  and  Pope. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  work  was  published  in  the 

summer  or  autumn  of  1726  ;  and  Pope,  so  far  from  acting  with 

energy,  as  Roscoe  asserts,  appears  to  have  remained  passive. 

He  might  in  a  moment  have  put  a  stop  to  the  circulation  of 

the  volume,  even  on  tne  first  issue  of1  the  advertisement,  by 

moving  for  an  injunction  ;  he  did  not,  and  it  may  be  inferred 

that  he  rather  rejoiced  at  the  publication ;  for  he  soon  after 

1  found"  or  made,  an  apology,  such  as  it  was,  for  publishing  the 

;  "NVycherley  Letters.     Pope,  however,  who  loved  to  talk  of  his 

I  wrongs,  asserted  that  tife~~teffeFs  had  beeiT  stolen.     On  this, 

Mrs.' Thomas  wrote  to  Cromwell  to  beseech  him  to  do  her  so 

much  justice  as  to  acknowledge  that  he  had  made  her  "  a  free 

gift  of  them."     Cromwell  told  the  messenger  that  he  "  should 

not  write  anything,  but  believed  it  might  be  so  as  she  writ  in 

her  letter."    On  this,  Curll  published  a  new  advertisement : — 

"  This  day  is  republished,  in  two  neat  pocket  volumes, 
price  5s.  1.  Mr.  Pope's  familiar  Letters  to  Henry  Cromwell, 
Esq.  (Given  by  him  to  a  gentlewoman,  but  not  stolen,  as  Mr. 
Pope  has  had  the  assurance  lately  to  assert),"  &c. 

This  republication,  as  it  is  here  called,  was  probably  a  mere 
re-issue  with  a  new  title-page  and  the  date  of  1727. 

II.  LETTERS  TO  AND  FROM  WYCHERLEY. 

These  Letters  were  first  published  by  Pope  in  1729,  fourteen 
years  after  Wycherley's  death.  Pope  had  been  accused  of 


LJ  POPE'S   WRITIXi:,<.  291 

commending   himself    and    his    poetry    under    the   names    of 
others;    and,    in    1732,    Welstead   embodied   this   charge    in 

rhyme  : — 

Forgot  the  self-applauding  strain  shall  be  ; 
Though  own'd  hy  Walsh  or  palin'd  on  Wycherley. 

—And  Pope  was  now,  or  professed  himself  to  be,  so  anxious 
to  put  the  accuracy  of  this  publication  beyond  question,  that 
he  asked  leave  of  Lord  Oxford  (loth  of  Sept.  and  Gth  of  Oct., 
1729)  to  be  allowed  to  deposit  the  original  letters  in  his  Lord- 
ship's LiSraryT 

PopTenf  avowed  object  in  such  publication  was  to  do  honour 
to  the  memory  of  Wycherley — "  to  show  the  world  his  better 
judgment,  and  that  it  was  his  last  resolution  to  suppress  those 
poems  "  which  "  a  mercenary  had  published  under  the  title  of 
his  Posthumous  Works."  The  letters  did  not  show  that 
"W  ycherley  had  intended  to  suppress  those  poems ;  the  only 
effect  of  the  publication  was  to  prove  the  vast  superiority  of 
the  precocious  boy-critic,  and  that  the  best  things  in  the  post- 
humous Poems  had  been  contributed  by  Pope. 

It  has  been  shown  in  this  journal,  and  will  be  but 
too  manifest  when  the  new  edition  of  Pope  is  published, 
that  Pope  took  liberties  wholly  unjustifiable  with  the  corre- 
spondence" published  in  1735  ;  and  the  Letters  to  Lord  Oxford 
will  show  that  he  was  not  so  scrupulous  with  regard  to  the 
perfect  accuracy  of  the  published  Letters  of  Wycherley  as 
might  be  inferred  from  his  wish  to  deposit  the  originals  in 
Lord  Oxford's  Library  ;  for  he  (Gth  of  October,  17'29)  avowed 
his  intention  of  publishing  them,  "with  proper  guard  and 
caution  to  reserve  what  should  not  be  published."  To  what 
extent  such  reserve  might  affect  the  letters  as  evidence,  must, 
of  course,  depend  on  the  integrity  of  the  individual  exercising 
the  power  of  suppression.  Pope,  unfortunately,  had  no 
scruples  in  such  matters  ;  and  even  in  respect  to  the  publica- 
tion of  these  Wycherley  Letters,  the  story  told  to  his  friends 
and  the  public  had  so  much  of  "reserve,"  or  whatever  else 
Pope  might  please  to  call  it,  that  it  was  positively  false. 

Pope's  request  to  Lord  Oxford  was  to  be  allowed  to  deposit 
the  Wycherley  Letters  in  his  Library,  and  to  give  leave  that  it 

u  2 


292  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

may  be  said  "  the  originals  are  in  your  library."  Lord  Oxford 
was  at  Wimpole,  and  Pope  had  to  repeat  this  request.  In  the 
second  letter  he  further  developes  his  plan.  "  I  would  not," 
he  writes,  "  appear  myself  as  publisher  of  'em  ;  but  any  man 
else  may,  or  even  the  bookseller,  be  supposed  to  have  procured 
copies  of 'em  formerly  or  now."  On  the  9th  of  October,  1729, 
Lord  Oxford  replied  :  "  If  you  please  to  have  those  papers  put 
in  a  box  and  left  with  my  porter  [at  his  house  in  Dover  Street], 
he  has  orders  to  put  the  box  into  the  library,  and  whatever 
mention  you  make  of  that  library  I  shall  be  pleased  with." 

Pope  immediately  (16th  of  October,  1729)  wrote  to  thank 
his  Lordship  for  the  kind  permission  to  refer  to  his  Library, 
"  and  to  mention  it  in  what  manner  I  pleased,"  and  he  informs 
his  Lordship  that  he  has  "  perhaps  "  exceeded  his  commission; 
for  in  the  Preface  he  has  made  the  publishers  say,  "  that  your 
Lordship  permitted  them  a  copy  01  some  of  the  papers  from 
the  Library,  where  the  originals  remain  as  testimonies  of  the 
truth."  ThusTTns" Lordship  was  not  only  made  the  unautho- 
rized  publisheFof  these  private  letters,  but  a  guarantee  for  the 
perfect  accuracy  of  that  which  he  had  never  seen— of^  the 
perfect  accuracy"bT  what  had  avowedly-been  made  public  with 
the  "  reserve  "  of  another  man  ;  and  of  a  publication  which 
Pope  himself  described,  when  he  forwarded  a  copy  to  his 
Lordship  (29th  of  October,  1729),  as  "  strange,  jumbled  things 
as  they  have  printed  them,  of  no  congruity  nor  colour,  nor 
quality  of  any  sort."  Strange  as  it  may  appear,  Pope  ventured 
to  tell  the  same  story  to  Swift  (28th  of  November,  lW; :  "  I 
speak"~oToTar  WycTiefTeyT'some  letters  of  whom  (by  the  bye)  and 
of  mine  the  booksellers  have  got  and  printed,  not  without  the 
concurrence  of  a  noble  friend  of  mine  and  yours.  I  don't  much 
approve  of  it,  though  there  is  nothing  for  "me  to  be  ashamed 
of,  because  I  will  not  be  ashamed  of  anything  I  do  not  do 
myself." 

It  is  doubtful  whether  Pope  did  deposit  the  originals,  or  only 
what  professed  to  be  copies  of  his  correspondence. 

We  are  also  told  in  the  quarto  that  the  "  next  year"  after 
the  copy  of  Pope's  correspondence  was  deposited  in  his  friend 
Lord  Oxford's  Library,  the  Posthumous  Works  of  Mr.Wj'cherley 


!•]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  293 

were  published, — thus  leading  the  reader  to  infer  that  the 
letters  were  deposited  in  1727,  for  the  Posthumous  Works  were 
published  in  1728.  We  now  see  that  leave  so  to  deposit  them 
was  not  asked  for  before  the  15th  of  September,  and  was  not 
given  before  the  9th  of  October,  1729— just  twenty  days  before 
the  publication  of  the  Letters.  In  the  'Narrative  of  the 
Method  by  which  Mr.  Pope's  Letters  have  been  published  ' 
(1735),  the  public  were  led  to  believe  that  they  had  been  sur- 
reptitiously copied  by  one  or  other  of  the  amanuenses  employed 
in  copying  the  Wycherley  Letters, — "  an  amanuensis  or  two 
was  employed  by  Mr.  Pope  when  the  books  were  in  the  country, 
and  by  the  Earl  of  Oxford  when  they  were  in  town."  This 
story  of  the  employment  of  an  amanuensis  by  the  Earl  of 
Oxford  is  consistent  with  what  Pope  acknowledges  he  had, 
\vithout  authority,  made  the  booksellers  say  in  their  Preface  to 
the  edition  of  1729 — that  "  his  Lordship  had  permitted  them  a 
copy."  This  story  is  also  consistent  with,  and  confirmed  by, 
the  letter  of  P.  T.  to  Curll  of  the  14th  of  May,  1735,  who 
therein  says,  "  the  old  gentleman  ...  is  no  man  of  quality, 
but  conversant  with  many ;  and  happening  to  be  concerned 
with  a  noble  Lord  in  handing  to  the  press  his  Letters  to 
Wycherley,  he  got  some  copies  over  and  above."  We  now 
know  that  this  is  absolutely  false,  as  proved  by  Pope's  own 
letters. 

Under  these  circumstances,  and  considering  how  familiar 
Pope  was  with  the  press,  we  cannot  believe  that  the  strange 
jumbling  in  the  published  letters  was  altogether  accidental. 

It  is  a  significant  fact,  that  no  copy  of  this  edition  of  1729 
has  been  found.  That  it  was  printed  and  published,  or  in- 
tended for  publication,  is  beyond  question.  That  a  copy  was 
presented  by  Pope  to  Lord  Oxford,  appears  by  Pope's  letter 
to  Lord  Oxford,  29th  of  October,  1729,  and  that  it  was 
received  may  be  inferred  from  the  following  item  in  the  '  Cata- 
logus  Bibliothecse  Harleianae  : ' — 

"  1391.     Wycherley's  Posthumous  Works.     2  vols.  1728." 

The  date  was,  we  presume,  copied  from  the  title-page  of 
the  first  volume.  It  must,  however,  be  observed  that  the 


294  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

"  Posthumous  Works  "  were  announced  in  the  title-page  as 
published  "  in  two  parts,"  and  the  second  part,  although  with- 
out a  separate  title-page,  is  called  "  Vol.  2."  Pope  also  wrote 
to  Swift,  announcing  the  publication,  and  the  very  da}'  after, 
the  following  advertisement  appeared  in  the  Country  Journal 
(29th  November,  1729)  :— 

"  This  day  is  published,  the  Posthumous  Works  of  William 
Wycherley,  Esq.  In  Prose  and  Verse.  The  Second  Volume. 
Containing — 1.  Letters  of  Mr.  Wycherley  and  Mr.  Pope,  on 
several  subjects  (the  former  at  70  j'ears  of  age,  the  latter  at  17). 
— 2.  Poems  not  inserted  in  the  first  volume,  and  others  more 
correct,  from  original  manuscripts  in  the  Harley  Library,  &c. 
Printed  for  J.  Roberts." 

Curll  certainly  once  possessed  a  cop}%  which  he  gave  to 
R.  S.  to  show  to  P.  T.  (See  Narrative,  with  Curll's  Note, 
p.  2.) 

Was  the  edition  suppressed,  in  consequence  of  the  objections 
of  Lord  Oxford  ?  Curll,  we  suspect,  was  not  very  wide  of  the 
truth  when,  in  reference  to  the  edition  of  1735,  he  thus 
wrote  : — 

"  The  plot  is  now  discovered.  Lawton  Gilliver  has  declared 
that  you  bought  of  him  the  remainder  of  the  impression  of 
Wycherley's  Letters,  which  he  printed  by  your  direction  in 
1728  [1729],  and  have  printed  six  hundred  of  the  additional 
letters,  with  those  to  Mr.  Cromwell,  to  make  up  the  volume." 

Curll's  statement,  taken  generally,  amounts  to  this : — that 
the  edition  of  1729  had  been  suppressed,  and  that  some  of  the 
copies  had  been  used  in  the  volume,  just  published  (1735),  of 
'  Mr.  Pope's  Literary  Correspondence,' 

The  story  would  seem  incredible,  considering  how  loudly 
Pope  denounced  the  parties  who  had  stolen  copies  of  his 
letters  and  published  them ;  for,  if  true,  they  must  also  have 
stolen  the  printed  sheets  of  the  Wycherley  Letters.  Yet,  there 
are  circumstances  which  seem  to  confirm  Curll's  statement. 
The  notes  in  the  first  issue  of  the  P,  T.  edition  of  1735  refer 
more  than  once  to  an  accompanying  edition  of  Wycherley's 


I-]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  295 

Posthumous  Works.  Thus,  in  reference  to  Wycherley's  paper 
'  On  Dry  den,'  corrected  by  Pope,  a  note  informs  us  that  it 
Avas — 

'  The  same  which  was  printed  in  the  year  1717,  in  a 
miscellany  of  Bern.  Lintot's,  and  in  the  present  edition  of  the 
'Posthumous  Works  of  Mr.  Wycherley.'"  (P.  15.) 

Again,  on  the  question  of  "  Wit,"  with  which  Wycherley's 
poem,  as  published  in  the  first  volume  of  his  Posthumous 
Works,  concludes,  the  note  says  : — 

"  This  is  totally  omitted  in  the  present  edition."     (P.  26.) 

— Edition  of  what  ?  No  edition  of  Wycherley's  Posthumous 
Poems  was  contained  in  the  edition  of  '  Mr.  Pope's  Correspond- 
ence,' published  in  1735. 

A  careful  examination  of  some  copies  of  the  volume  of  1735, 
— both  of  that  printed  for  the  booksellers  and  the  one  for 
Roberts, — led  us  to  the  belief  that  they  contained  important 
evidence  in  themselves ;  evidence  that  the  Wycherley  Letters 
were  printed  on  a  different  paper,  and  had  been  printed  so  long 
before  publication  in  1735  that  the  paper  had  become  dis- 
coloured.* Unwilling  to  hazard  an  opinion  on  such  a  subject, 
a  volume  was  submitted  by  us  to  an  experienced  stationer, — 
not  hinting  an  opinion,  but  simply  inquiring  whether  he 
could  discover  any  difference  between  the  paper  used  for  the 
Wycherley  and  the  other  letters.  The  answer  was  conclusive: — 
he  had  no  doubt  the  Wycherley  Letters  were  printed  on  a 
different  and  inferior  paper,  and  that  the  printing  preceded  that 
of  the  rest  of  the  volume. 

The  curious  story  of  the  Collection  of  1735  we  shall 
examine  another  day.  The  Swift  Letters  will  come  after- 
wards. 

*  One  letter,  June  23,  1705  (manufactured  from  the  Caryll)  was  certainly 
printed  in  1735  and  inserted,  and  there  is  a  probability  that  the  first  sheet  was 
tamp  red  with  and  probably  reprinted. 


296  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

From  the  Athenceum,  September  8,  1860. 

A  Search  into  the  History  of  the  Publication  of  Pope's  Letters. 

THE   LETTERS   OF   MR.   POPE,   1735. 

POPE,  as  we  have  shown,  denounced  the  publishers,  and 
asserted  by  advertisement  (April  4)  that  some  of  the  letters 
could  only  have  been  procured  "from  his  own  library,  or  that 
of  a  noble  Lord."  How  obtained  Pope  was  professedly  so 
ignorant,  that  he  offered  a  reward  of  twenty  guineas  if  P.  T.  or 
R.  Smythe,  who  had,  he  said,  in  combination  with  Curll, 
printed  these  letters,  would  discover  to  him  the  whole  of  this 
affair.  On  this,  either  P.  T.  or  R.  Smythe  came  forward,  and 
gave  not  only  Pope  but  the  public  the  benefit  of  confession,  by 
publishing  '  A  Narrative  of  the  Method  by  which  Mr.  Pope's 
Letters  have  been  procured.'  On  this  "Narrative"  Curll 
commented ;  and  published,  in  illustration,  the  letters  which 
had  passed  between  them,  from  which  letters  it  appears,  as 
before  noticed,  that  P.  T.'s  friend,  who  had  furnished  the  copy 
of  the  letters,  and  had  been  "  concerned  with  a  noble  Lord  (a 
friend  of  Mr.  Pope's)  in  handing  to  the  press  his  letters  to 
Wycherley,  got  some  copies  over  and  above.  This  accident 
first  put  into  his  head  the  thought  of  collecting  more."  Now 
the  reader  is  already  aware  that  the  noble  Lord — Lord  Oxford 
— had  nothing  whatever  to  do  withstanding  to  the  press  the 
Wycherley  Letters ;  but  the  falsehood  agrees  with  what  Pope 
had  "  made  tlie  Publishers  say  "  in  the  Preface  to  the  Wycherley 
Letters  six  years  before — with  what  he  had  said  in  his  adver- 
tisement— with  what  was  said  in  the  "  Narrative."  The  public 
were  there  told  that  after  the  publication  of  the  Cromwell 
Letters, — 

'  Some  of  his  [Pope's]  friends  advised  him  to  print  a  Col- 
lection himself  to  prevent  a  worse  ;  but  this  he  would  by  no 
means  agree  to.  However,  as  some  of  the  Letters  served  to 
revive  several  past  Scenes  of  Friendship,  and  others  to  clear 
the  Truth  of  Facts  in  which  he  had  been  misrepresented  by 
the  common  Scribblers,  he  was  induced  to  preserve  a  few  of  his 
own  Letters,  as  well  as  of  his  Friends.  These,  as  I  have  been 


L]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  297 

told,  he  inserted  in  Two  Books,  some  Originals,  others  Copies, 
with  a  few  Notes  and  Extracts  here  and  there  added.  In  the 
same  Books  he  caused  to  be  copied  some  small  Pieces  in  Verse 
and  Prose,  either  of  his  own  or  his  Correspondents  ;  which, 
though  not  finished  enough  for  the  Public,  were  such  as  the 
Partiality  of  any  Friend  would  be  sorry  to  be  deprived  of. 
To  this  purpose  an  Amanuensis  or  two  were  employed  by 
Mr.  Pope  when  the  books  were  in  the  Country,  and  by  the 
Earl  of  Oxford  when  they  were  in  Town.  It  happened  soon 
after  that  the  Posthumous  Works  of  Mr.  Wycherley  were 
published,  in  such  a  Manner  as  could  no  way  increase  the 
Reputation  of  that  Gentleman,  who  had  been  Mr.  Pope's  first 
Correspondent  and  Friend ;  and  several  of  these  Letters  so 
fully  showed  the  State  of  the  Case,  that  it  was  thought  but  a 
Justice  to  Mr.  Wycherley's  Memory  to  print  a  few  to  discredit 
that  Imposition.  These  were  accordingly  transcribed  for  the 
Press  from  the  Manuscript  Books  above  mentioned." 

This  '  Narrative  '  the  public  were  led  to  believe  was  a  mere 
anonymous  publication — a  consequence,  Pope  said,  of  a  quarrel 
among  the  rogues.  But  its  accuracy  was  never  questioned — 
no,  not  even  in  the  Preface  to  the  Quarto ;  indeed,  the  ex- 
planation there  given  is  occasionally  in  the  very  words  of  the 
'  Narrative.'  Pope,  in  fact,  never  denied  the  truth  of  the 
'  Narrative,'  and  he  took  the  benefit  of  it  for  some  eighteen 
months — indeed,  for  ever.  After  all,  the  Preface  to  the  Quarto 
— an  edition  for  which  Pope  received  subscriptions— is  itself 
anonymous,  the  responsibilities  for  which  it  would  be  difficult 
to  fix  on  an}7  one ;  for  it  is  sometimes  written  in  the  first 
person  singular,  at  others  in  the  first  person  plural, — some- 
times apparently  by  the  author,  at  others  by  the  booksellers. 
We  must,  therefore,  trace  out  the  history  of  this  edition  of 
1735.  It  is  of  interest,  not  merely  for  its  own  curious  revela- 
tions, but  from  the  fact  that  many  of  the  letters  which,  from 
Warburton  to  Roscoe,  have  always  been  published  as  Pope's 
letters,  rest  on  no  other  authority. 

From  the  'Narrative,'  and  Curll's  Initial  Correspondence 
we  learn,  as  the  starting-point  of  this  strange  history,  that  in 
March,  1733,  some  person,  signing  himself  E.P.,  opened  a 


298  PAPERS  Of  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

Correspondence  with  Curll  by  sending  him  anecdotes  about 
Pope  for  a  memoir,  which  Curll  had  announced  his  intention 
of  publishing.  On  the  llth  of  October,  1733,  P.  T.  sent  more 
anecdotes',  and  though  P.  T.  professed  to  be  out  of  humour 
with  Pope  for  some  personal  neglect,  these  anecdotes  were  of  a 
character  so  nattering  to  Pope's  vanity,  that  Pope  himself 
subsequently  adopted  and  published  them,  in  substance  as  a 
note  to  the  Epistle  to  Arbuthnot.  The  next  Month,  November, 
1733,  P.  T.  wrote  again  to  Curll  and  informed  him : — 

"  there  have  lately  fallen  into  my  hands  a  large  collection  of 
his  [Pope's]  letters  from  the  former  part  of  his  days  till  the 
year  1727,  which  being  more  considerable  than  any  yet  seen, 
and  opening  very  many  scenes  new  to  the  world,  will  alone 
make  a  perfect  and  the  most  authentic  life  and  memoirs  of  him 
that  could  be.  To  shew  you  my  sincerity  and  determinate 
resolution  of  assisting  you  herein,  I  will  give  you  an  advertise- 
ment which  you  may  publish,  if  you  please,  forthwith,  and  on 
your  so  doing  the  letters  shall  be  sent  to  you.  They  will 
make  a  four  or  five  shilling  book  ;  yet  I  expect  no  more  than 
what  will  barely  pay  a  transcriber,  that  the  originals  may  be 
preserved  in  mine  or  your  hands  to  vouch  the  truth  of  them." 

This  advertisement  Curll  did  not  publish,  and  the  corre- 
spondence therefore  closed.  It  is  important  to  observe  that 
this  advertisement  not  merely  announced  the  publication  of 
Pope's  letters,  but  concluded  with  an  important  "  N.B.  The 
originals  will  be  shewn  at  E.  Curll' s  when  the  book  is  published" 
— a  condition  which  P.  T.  could  not  have  complied  with, — 
unless  P.  T.  were  Alexander  Pope  ;  for,  as  Pope  declared,  the 
original  letters  remained  long  after  (in  1735)  in  his  own  pos- 
session. Such  an  announcement,  therefore,  must  have  been 
solely  intended  to  damage  Curll.  Curll  manifestly  could  not 
publish,  for  he  had  neither  copies  nor  originals  of  Pope's 
letters.  But,  on  the  mere  issue  of  such  an  advertisement, 
would  not  Pope's  friends  have  done  what  they  did  when  the 
publication  of  the  Cromwell  letters  was  announced — have 
advised  Pope  forthwith  "  to  print  a  collection  himself  to  pre- 


i.]  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  299 

vent  a  worse"?     We  shall  see  how  this,  as  a  probability, 
works  out  in  the  progress  of  events. 

Curll,  as  we  learn  from  the  '  Narrative,'  had  about  him, 
certain  " Sifte?'s"  who  were  employed  to  discover  his  secrets. 
It  is  not  improbable  that  the  persons  so  employed  would,  on 
occasion,  be  suggesters.  We,  however,  only  know  that  eight- 
teen  months  after  all  communication  between  Curll  and  P.  T. 
had  ceased,  Curll  thought,  or  it  was  suggested  to  him,  that  his 
difference  with  Pope  "  had  continued  much  too  long,  being 
almost  eight  years,"  and  he,  therefore,  wrote  to  Pope  to  that 
effect,  and  in  proof  of  his  good  faith  and  good  feeling,  he  told 
Pope  of  the  offer  which  had  been  made  to  him  eighteen  months 
before,  and  inclosed  the  advertisement  which  P.  T.  had  sent 
for  insertion  in  the  newspapers. 

All  communication,  be  it  remembered,  between  P.  T.  and 
Curll  had  long  ceased.  Curll  had  no  letters  of  Pope's,  either 
originals  or  copies — he  had  no  means  of  publishing  any  of 
Pope's  letters — no  means  of  even  communicating  with  P.  T. 
Had  Pope,  therefore,  thrown  Curll' s  letter  into  the  fire,  or 
replied  after  the  usual  fashion,  the  public  would  not  have 
known  that  any  one  had,  or  even  pretended  to  have,  "a  large 
collection  of  Pope's  letters."  Pope,  however,  replied  to 
Curll's  letter  by  public  advertisemenTT  AH,  therefore^  that 
followed  was  consequent  upon  Pope's  own  act.  The  advertise- 
ment itself  is  so  important  as  to  be  of  necessity  reproduced 
here : — 

"Whereas  E.  C.,  Bookseller,  has  written  to  Mr.  P.  pre- 
tending that  a  person,  the  Initials  of  whose  name  are  P.  T., 
hath  offered  him  to  print  a  large  collection  of  the  said  Mr. 

P 's  letters,  to  which  E,  C,  requires  an  Answer.     This  is 

to  certify  that  Mr.  P having  never  had,  nor  intending  ever 

to  have  any  private  Correspondence  with  E.  C.  gives  his 
Answer  in  this  Manner.  That  he  knows  no  such  person  as 
P.  T. ;  that  he  thinks  no  Man  has  any  such  Collection  ;  that 
he  believes  the  whole  a  Forgery,  and  shall  not  trouble  himself 
about  it." 

No  one  reading  this  advertisement  could  doubt  that  Curll 


300  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

had  threatened  Pope  to  publish  a  large  collection  of  Pope's 
letters — whereas  Curll  had  only  informed  him  that  some 
person,  not  known  to  Curll,  had  contemplated  such  a  publi- 
cation some  eighteen  months  before,  with  which  Curll  had 
refused  to  be  concerned,  and  Curll  had  now  furnished  Pope 
with  the  possible  means  of  detecting  the  party,  and  thereby 
regaining  possession  of  the  manuscripts,  if  such  manuscripts 
really  existed.  It  is  strange,  too,  that  reading,  or  affecting  to 
read,  Curll's  letter  as  an  announcement  of  a  forthcoming 
publication,  Pope  concludes  not  with  informing  all  parties 
concerned  that  he  will  assuredly  prosecute  them ;  but  that  he 
"shall  not  trouble  himself  about  it" — a  sort  of  licence  and 
authority  to  do  as  they  pleased. 

There  are  other  statements  in  this  advertisement  still  more 
strange  when  interpreted  by  events.  Pope  therein  tells  us  that 
P.  T.  "  hath  offered  him  [Curll]  to  print "  this  collection  of 
letters.  The  expression  may  be  equivocal ;  but  read  literally, 
it  means  that  P.  T.  had  offered  to  print — to  get  printed — to 
deliver  printed  copies  to  Curll ;  whereas  P.  T.  had  made  no 
such  offer — no  offer  that  could  be  so  interpreted.  His  words 
are  : — 

"  I  expect  no  more  than  will  barely  pay  a  transcriber,  that 
the  originals  may  be  preserved  in  mine  or  in  your  hands,  to 
vouch  for  the  truth  of  them." 

In  what  could  have  originated  the  equivocal  statement  in 
Pope's  advertisement,  except  in  the  knowledge  of  a  fact,  not 
known  to  Curll,  that  P.  T.  had  already  printed  the  collection  ? 
Since  1733,  when  P.  T.  had  offered  to  get  the  copies  tran- 
scribed, he  had,  it  subsequently  appeared,  printed  the  whole, 
and  was  just  now  in  want  of  a  publisher.  Respectable  book- 
sellers would  not  embark  in  so  questionable  a  proceeding  as  to 
publish  a  man's  letters — not  only  without  his  consent,  but  in 
defiance  of  him  and  of  the  law.  They  might  object,  as  Curll 
did  in  1733,  and  as  Lintot  did  in  1735,  "to  deal  with  a 
nameless  agent."  P.  T.,  therefore,  was  in  search  of  a  Curll 
and  something  more — a  Curll  whose  courtesies  had  been  flung 
back  in  his  face— who  had  been  denounced  and  insulted  b' 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  301 

public  advertisement — and  he  must  find  him,  too,  at  a  particular 
moment  of  time. 

Pope's  denunciatory  advertisement,  we  are  told  in  the 
'  Narrative,'  appeared  in  the  Daily  Post  Boy  of  the  4th  of 
April,  and  "  Curll  returned  an  impertinent  answer  in  the  same 
paper  the  next  day."  This  is  true,  but  not  the  whole  truth : 
although  the  question  is  not  materially  affected  by  the 
difference.  Pope's  advertisement  first  appeared  in  the  Grub 
Street  Journal  of  the  3rd  of  April;  and  there  can  be  little 
doubt  that  had  Curll  been  left  to  himself,  he  would  have 
replied  by  advertisement,  and  would  have  told  the  plain  truth 
— would  have  denied  any  combination  with  P.  T.  or  any  other 
person — denied  that  he  had  threatened  to  publish  a  Collection 
of  Pope's  Letters,  or  had  any  thought  or  intention,  or  even 
the  power,  of  doing  so.  After  the  appearance  of  such  a  letter 
from  Curll,  there  would  have  been  no  pretext  on  which  the 
most  obliging  of  friends  could  suggest  to  Pope  a  publication 
of  his  own  letters  "to  prevent  a  worse."  It  was  necessary, 
therefore,  that  immediate  communication  should  be  had  with 
Curll — that  some  influence,  good  or  bad,  should  be  exercised 
over  him.  By  strange  accident,  no  sooner  had  Pope's  adver- 
tisement appeared  than  it  was  seen  by  P.  T. — P.  T.  must  have 
written — did  write — instantly  to  the  angry  Curll,  with  the 
intelligence  that  since  the  treaty  of  1733  had  been  broken  off, 
he  had  been  persuaded  to  print  the  letters  ;  and  though,  of 
course,  a  little  indignant  with  Curll  for  having  "  betrayed 
him*" to  "  Squire  Pop'e,"  yet,  as  he  himsel/  was  a  good- 
tempered,  placable  man,  lie  would  still  give  Curll  the  preference 
as  publisher,  if  Tie  would  pay  the  cost  of  paper  and  print,  and 
allow  him  handsomely  for  the  copy.  Revenge  is  sweet.  P.  T. 
was  heartily  welcomed,  and  on  the  morning  of  the  5th  of  April 
out  came  Curll's  advertisement.  Curll  had  not  on  this  oc- 
casion received  a  copy  of  the  advertisement  which  he  was  to 
insert,  and  was  therefore  under  the  necessity  of  so  preparing 
his  advertisement  that  it  should  reply  to  Pope ;  and  he  now 
promised,  on  the  authority  of  P.  T.  of  1733,  that  the  originals 
of  the  collection  should  be  exhibited  "  in  Mr.  P.'s  own  hand," 
"  when  printed."  All  this  and  the  negotiation  took  place  in 


302  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

one  day,  according  to  the  '  Narrative  " — in  two  days  at  the 
utmost.  Pope's  advertisement  appeared  on  the  3rd  and  4th, 
and  Curll's  on  the  5th :  and  in  that  short  interval,  by  the 
intervention  of  P.  T.,  Curll's  policy,  and,  as  he  thought,  his 
powers  of  revenge,  were  changed. 

It  is  a  strong  circumstance  in  favour  of  the  conjecture  that 
the  statement — P.  T.  had  "  offered  to  print" — originated  in  a 
knowledge  of  the  fact  that  P.  T.  had  already  printed,  that 
P.  T.'s  immediate  offer  to  Curll  was  of  650  copies — reduced  to 
600  copies  on  the  10th  of  May — "  each  book  to  contain  380 
pages  octavo  " ;  and  when  the  book  was  published,  it  was 
found  to  contain  378  pages,  and,  including  the  bastard  title 
of  the  first  volume,  not  included  in  the  pagination,  exactly 
380 ;  and  it  had  been  proposed  by  P.  T.  that  Curll  should 
print  the  title-page  himself.  The  negotiation  now  hurried  on. 
Curll  was  impatient,  and  P.  T.  was  impatient;  but  Curll  was 
impatient  for  the  copies,  whereas  P.  T.,  as  in  1733,  was  im- 
patient only  to  get  Curll  committed  by  an  advertisement  as  to 
the  actual  contents  of  the  volume,  before  he,  Curll,  had  an 
opportunity  of  verifying  its  accuracy.  But  Cuiil_was  cautious  ; 
accordingly,  a  short,  squat  man  in  a  clergyman's  gown — 
clergymen  then  commonly  wore  their  gowns — called  at  Curll's 
house  between  nine  and  ten  at  night,  and  showed  him  "  a 
book  in  sheets,  almost  finished,  and  about  a  dozen  original 
letters,  and  promised  me  the  whole  at  our  next  meeting." 
"  That  Curll  gave  a  true  account  of  the  transaction."  says  Dr. 
Johnson,  "it  is  reasonable  to  believe,  because  no  falsehood 
was  ever  detected."  There  is,  indeed,  no  reason  to  doubt  the 
truth  of  Curll's  statement.  All  he  said,  and  all  he  wrote  on 
the  subject,  was  consistent,  and,  though  cavilled  at  and 
denounced,  was  not  disproved.  He  knew  Pope's  handwriting 
well — he  had  the  originals  of  the  Cromwell  Letters  still  in  his 
possession.  Where,  then,  did  the  originals  shown  to  Curll 
come  from  ?  They  were  avowedly  in  Pope's  possession  long 
after.  But  they^must  have  been  out  of  his  possession  and 
doing  aervice  on  that  memorable  evening. 

Still  CurlT  remained  sflentT  Hls~advertisement  had  been 
merely  vague  and  threatening,  and  it  is  evident  that  he  would 


I.J  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  303 

not  commit  himself  by  assertions  as  to  the  contents  of  the 
volume  until  he  had  copies  of  the  work  in  his  possession. 
P.  T.  and  R.  S.  still  continue  to  urge  forward — "  get  the  titles 
printed  with  all  expedition  " — the  letters  must  come  out  "  forth- 
with," but  always  with  the  same  cuckoo  questioning — "  Why 
do  you  not  advertise  ? "  Still  no  advertisement  appeared. 
A  few  copies  of  the  work  were,  therefore,  delivered  to  Curll, 
and  then,  on  the  morning  of  the  12th  of  May,  the  advertise- 
ment appeared,  announcing  the  publication  "  This  day."  On 
"  this  day"  Curll  had  been  promised  two  hundred  more  copies. 
About  one  o'clock  Smythe  sent  for  him  to  the  Standard  Tavern 
in  Leicester  Fields.  "  We  had  not  been  together  half  an  hour," 
says  Curll,  "  before  two  porters  brought  to  the  tavern  five 
bundles  of  books  upon  a  horse,  which  R.  S.  told  me  came  by 
water.  He  ordered  the  porters  to  cariy  them  to  my  house, 
and  my  wife  took  them  in." 

Curll's  advertisement,  drawn  out,  as-  he  said,  by  instructions 
of  P.  T.,had  announced  among  other  letters  some  from  certain 
"  Lords."  The  publication  of  the  letters  of  "Lords  "  was,  it 
appeared,  a  breach  of  privilege,  ana  the  advertisement  had 
been  brought  under  notice  in  the  House  of  Lords  on  the 
morning  of  its  appearance,  the  12th,  the  very  morning  R. 
Smythe  had  arranged  to  deliver  copies.  The  copies,  the 
horse-load,  sent  forwarcTfrom  Leicester  Fields  to  Curll's  house, 
must  have  arrived  there  about  two  o'clock,  and  so  soon  as 
received  by  Mrs.  Curll,  and  before  a  single  bale  had  been 
opened,  the  whole  were  seized  by  messengers  from  the  House 
of  Lords,  and  Curll  was  summoned  to  attend  the  House  the 
next  day.  It  is  a  fact  wnich "HfiEJl  not  be  overlooked,  that  had 
the  ""messenger  entered  Curll's  house  one  half  hour  earlier, 
there  would  not  have  been  a  single  copy  on  the  premises  ;  for 
Curll  had  received  but  fifty  copies,  and  had  sold  them  all,  as 
he  stated  in  his  examination.* 

It  is  a  proof  of  the  electric  speed  with  which  everything 
became  known  in  relation  to  these  proceedings,  that  Curll's 

*  The  subject  was  brought  under  the  consideration  of  the  House  by  the  Earl  of 
I  slay,  Pope's  neighbour.  There  is  a  Poem  in  Hanbnry  "Williams  (also  in  Chester- 
field) '  On  the  Earl  of  Islay  altering  his  Gardens  at  Whitton.' 


; 


304  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

advertisement  announcing  among  the  contents  of  the  volume 
the  letters  of  "  Lords"  was  published  on  the  morning  of  the 
12th,  that  on  the  morning  of  the  12th  it  was  read  and  de- 
nounced in  the  House  of  Lords,  the  debate  on  the  subject  was 
over,  the  Usher  of  the  Black  Rod  had  been  ordered  to  seize 
the  impressions  of  the  book,  and  the  copies  had  been  seized  all 
before  two  o'clock  on  the  12th.  P.  T.  was  instantly  informed 
of  everything,  and  R.  Smythe  knew  of  the  seizure  the  very 
same  day,  for  the  next  morning  he  condoled  with  Curll,  told 
him  of  the  active  measures  which  had  been  taken  consequent 
on  the  seizure,  and  instructed  him  as  to  what  he  should  tell 
the  "  Lords  "  :— 

"  Whatever  questions  the  Lords  ask  you  will  answer  no  more 
than  thus  :  that  you  had  the  Letters  from  different  Hands,  some 
of  which  you  paid  for;  that  you  printed  these,  as  you  did  Mr. 
CromiveWs  before,  without  Mr.  Pope's  ever  gainsaying  it ;  and 
that  as  to  the  originals  many  you  can  show  now,  and  the  rest 
you  can  very  speedily  " 

Fortunately  for  Curll  he  did  not  attend  to  instructions,  but 
told  the  exact  truth ;  and  as  there  were  no  letters  from  "  Lords" 
in  the  volumes  seized,  ana  as  he  did  not  pretend  thatTie  had 
any  in  his  possession,  he  was  dismissed,  and  the  seized  copies 
ordered  by  the  Committee,  at  its  adjourned  meeting,  the  15th, 
to  be  returned. 

In  tin-  advertisement  published  by  Curll,  and,  as  he  said, 
copied  from  one  shown  to  him  for  the  purpose  of  being  copied 
— in  conformity  with  the  instructions  of  1733 — and  on  the 
strength  of  the  dozen  original  letters  which  he  had  seen,  and 
the  promise  of  all,  Curll  had  ventured  to  say  that  the  original 
MSS.  might  be  seen  at  his  house.  Smythe  had  instructed 
Curll  to  tell  the  "  Lords  "  "  that  as  to  the  originals  many  you 
can  show  now,  and  the  rest  you  can  very  speedily ;  "  and  yet 
Smythe  now  tells  him  :  — 

"  It  is  well  that  an  accident  hinders  you  at  present  from  the 
originals,  which  now  they  would  seize.  P.  T.  thinks  it  was 
indiscreet  to  advertise  the  originals  so  very  quick  as  the  first 


1.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  305 

Day,  until  you  actually  had  them,  which  by  his  own  falling  ill 
he  could  not  come  at  so  soon  in  the  place  where  they  lay." 

No  doubt  Curll  himself  began  to  think  that  he  had  acted 
indiscreetly,  for  already  P.  T.  was  ill,  and  could  not  "  come 
at"  the  originals;  and  within  a  few  days  he  was  so  dis- 
satisfied with  Curll  that  it  was  doubtful  to  Smythe  whether 
he  ever  would  send  the  originals ;  and,  of  course,  he  never 
did." 

It  was  professedly  of  the  utmost  consequence  to  P.  T.  and 
R.  Smythe  that  Pope  should  not  see  a  line  of  their  correspon- 
dence with  Curll : — 

"  The  Clergyman  you  saw  will  bring  you  the  books,  to  whom 
I  insist  you  will  deliver  my  former  letters  concerning  Mr. 
Pope,  whom  I  must  be  concealed  from ;  and  he  tells  me  you 
had  written  an  advertisement  of  Mr.  Pope's  life,  in  which  if 
you  insert  any  one  circumstance  of  what  I  told  you  in  a 
private  Letter  I  shall  be  discovered,  and  exposed  to  his  Re- 
sentment. I  insist,  on  your  honor,  in  returning  them  there- 
fore." 

So  wrote  P.  T.  Yet  all  the  dangerous  and  damaging  letters 
were  no  sooner  received  from  Curll  than  they,  or  copies,*  were 
in  the  possession  of  Cooper,  the  bookseller,  and  within  the 
power  of  Pope,  for  Cooper  was  at  this  moment  in  friendly  re- 
lations with  Pope  ;  he  was  not  only  the  publisher  of  the 
*  Narrative,'  but  of  an  edition  of  Pope's  Letters,  which  edi- 
tion, though  it  appeared  to  be  but  another  surreptitious 
edition,  was,  we  know,  at  least  "  connived  at  "  by  Pope,  as  he 
was  forced  to  acknowledge  to  his  legal  adviser,  Fortescue,  when 
Cooper  was  threatened  with  a  prosecution  by  Curll.  The  last 
letter  of  Smythe  to  Curll  is  dated  the  17th  of  May,  and  on  the 
24th  it  was  announced  that,  "  the  Clergyman  concerned  with 
P.  T,  and  Edmund  Curll  to  publish  Mr.  Pope's  Letters  hath 

*  The  originals  of  CurWs  letters  were  in  possession  of  Cooper,  for  not  only  the 
Advertisement  but  the  title-page  of  the  '  Narrative '  published  by  Cooper  (Mr. 
Thorns  has  a  copy)  sets  forth  :  "N.B.  The  original  papers,  in  CurlT»  own  hand, 
may  be  seen  at  T.  Cooper's." 

VOL.  i.  X 


306  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

discovered  the  whole  transaction,  and  a  Narrative  of  the  same 
will  be  speedily  printed." 

We  conie  now  to  the  Preface  to  the  Quarto  edition  of  these 
Letters  published  in  17&T. 

If  would  be  difficult — indeed  impossible— if  Pope  desired  to 
evade  responsibility,  to  fix  the  statements  in  that  Preface  on 
him.  It  is  equally  difficult  to  separate  what  is  said  in  it  in 
relation  to  the  publication  of  1735,  from  what  is  said  of,  or 
may  be  applied  to,  the  publication  of  the  Cromwell  Letters  of 
1726,  the  Wycherley  Letters,  the  letters  published  in  the 
second  and  subsequent  volumes  by  Curll  of  what  he  called 
Pope's  Correspondence ;  but  notwithstanding  the  vague  talk, 
on  this  and  other  occasions,  about  letters  which  "  no  man  of 
common  sense  would  have  published,"  the  authenticity  of  not 
one  single  letter  is  denied  or  questioned ! 

If  we  might  rely  on  the  account  of  the  publications  given  in 
the  Preface  to  the  Quarto  edition,  1737,  no  such  good  fortune 
ever  attended  any  other  man.  Pope  prepared  the  correspond- 
ence ;  Pope  selected  the  letters  worthy  of  publication,  and 
destroyed  the  remainder ;  Pope  wrote  notes ;  Pope  inserted 
bits  of  poetry  ;  somebody  then  stole  copies  of  all,  and  published 
all,  and  so  strictly  in  conformity  with  his  intentions  and  wishes, 
that  when  he  published  his  own  Quarto  in  1737,  he  left  the 
wrong  addresses,  the  false  dates,  and  the  "cooking"  un- 
touched, of  the  large  extent  and  of  the  significant  character  of 
which  we  have  already  adduced  proof.  The  omissions,  indeed, 
in  the  Quarto  made  the  collections  less  to  Pope's  taste  than 
the  surreptitious  edition,  for  he  secretly,  but  immediately,  in 
1737,  reproduced  the  whole  through  the  agency  of  Cooper. 
The  following  is  from  an  advertisement  in  the  Daily  Post  of 
the  7th  of  June,  1737:— 

"  This  day  is  published,  price  6s.  (Beautifully  printed  in  the 
same  Letter  with  his  other  Works).  *  *  Letters  of  Mr.  Pope, 
&c.  In  this  Impression  are  contained  all  the  Letters  of  the 
Author's  own  Edition,  exactly  printed  from  thence,  with  all 
that  are  genuine  from  the  other  impressions,  more  correct,  and 
several  never  before  published." 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  307 

Pope  left  a  copy  of  this  edition,  as  we  must  believe,  to  his 
literary  executor,  Warburton,  who  had  implicit  faith  in  its 
accuracy,  and  therefore  introduced  all  the  letters  from  the 
surreptitious  editions  into  his  own  —  introduced  even  the 
Notes,  and  affixed  "P."  as  the  initial  of  the  writer  —  and 
they  have  ever  since  been  republished  without  one  word  of 
caution. 

Curll,  it  is  obvious,  had  no  more  to  do  with  the  publication 
than  any  other  bookseller  who  sold  it  ;  but  Curll  was  a  man  of 
doubtful  reputation,  easily  played  upon,  who  had  long  been  at 
open  variance  with  Pope  ;  and  it  was  of  the  utmost  importance 
to  keep  the  public  on  a  wrong  scent.  Nothing  but  stolen 
copies,  and  ignorant  surreptitious  editions  could  explain  to 
correspondents,  still  living,  the  misdirection  and  mutilation  of 
their  letters.  In  proof,  not  one  letter  in  the  whole  collection 
of  1735  was  addressedT  to  Pope's  old  Oatholic  friends,  the 
CaryHs,  who  had  contributed  so  many  :  the  nearest  approach 
to  the  ~£ame~was7  ""From  J.  ~C7Esq.,"  "  To  Mr.  C—  ,"  "To 
the  Hon.  —  ,"  and  half-a-dozen  "  To  the  Hon.  J.  C. 


which,  of  course,  the  public  interpreted,  as  Koscoe  did,  to 
mean  "  The  Hon.  James  Craggs,"  and  the  more  naturally,  as 
one  of  the  letters  was  formally  addressed  "  To  the  Hon.  James 
Craggs,  Esq.,"  although  Craggs  never  was  "  the  Honorable," 
and  CarylTs  pretensions  to  the  courtesy  were  unknown,  except 
to  a  few  Catholics  and  Jacobites.  Others  of  the  Caryll  letters 
were  on  publication  addressed,  as  will  appear  in  the  forth- 
coming edition,  to  Addison,  to  Congreve,  to  Steele,  to  Trum- 
ball,  and  like  distinguished  persons.  Yet  Caryll,  though  ill 
and  seventy  years  of  age,  was  still  living. 

Pope,  however,  promised  what  might  be  considered  a  remedy 
for  these  wrongs,  an  edition  of  his  own,  "with  all  convenient 
speed  ;  "  but  though  speed  was,  under  circumstances,  essential, 
there  was  no  movement  towards  a  publication  until  after  his 
friend,  Caryll,  was  dead  and  buried,  17th  of  April,  1736.* 
Then,  indeed,  and  within  a  fortnight,  Pope  wrote  to  Allen  of 

*  So  on  Tuesday,  April,  1736,  to  Fortescue  :  "I  send  you  the  Papers,  Ac. 
Give  rec'  in  this  form,  &c.  Recd  of  —  1  Guin.  for  Pope's  Wks.  in  prose,  which 
if  impression  docs  not  go,  I  promise  to  return  Midsummer  next." 

x  2 


308  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

Bath — "I  have  yet  heard  little  of  the  subscriptions  " — subscrip- 
tions, says  Warburton,  for  his  own  edition  of  the  Letters.  Not 
a  letter  afterwards  without  reference  to  this  subject.  On  June 
the  5th,  Pope  announces  that  he  "will  publish  in  the  News 
next  winter  the  Proposals."  On  the  14th  of  September,  1736, 
he  wrote  to  Slingsby  Bethel — "  If  any  subscribers  to  my  Prose 
Works  [the  Letters]  have  fallen  in  your  way  (of  which  Mr. 
[Hugh]  Bethel  lately  sent  me  his  list)  be  pleased  to  tell  me." 
But  he  did  not  wait  either  for  winter  or  for  the  publication  of 
the  Proposals ;  for  on  the  6th  of  November  he  announces  to 
Allen  that  the  work  is  "  three  quarters  printed." 

Let  us  now  consider  what  apparent  security  we  have  for  the 
authenticity  of  the  letters  so  published.  So  far  as  the  Wy- 
cheiiey  and  Cromwell  Letters  are  concerned  we  have  discussed 
i  the  question.  But  the  depositing  of  the  Wycherley  Letters  in 
Lord  Oxford's  library  was  merely  an  incident — urgent  because 
those  letters  were  to  be  immediately  published.  Pope's  re- 
quest, however,  was  general.  On  Sept.  the  15th,  1729,  he 
asked  for  leave  to  deposit  "  some  original  papers  and  letters 
both  of  my  own  and  some  of  my  friends."  The  Wycherley 
Letters,  or  copies,  were  said  to  be  ready,  and  we  will  assume 
deposited ;  but  Pope  adds  : — 

"  As  the  rest  of  the  work  that  I  told  you  of  (that  of  collecting 
the  papers  and  letters  of  many  other  correspondents)  advances 
now  to  some  bulk,  I  think  more  and  more  of  it  as  finding  what 
a  number  of  facts  they  will  settle  the  truth  of,  both  relating  to 
history  and  criticism,  and  points  of  private  life  and  character 
of  the  eminent  men  of  my  time.  And  really,  my  Lord,  I  am 
in  hopes  that  I  shall  in  this  make  you  no  disagreeable  and 
invaluable  present  to  your  Manuscript  Library." 

Here,  then,  we  have  proof  that  at  the  time  P.  T.'s  friend 
was  professedly  "  concerned  with  a  noble  Lord  (a  friend  of 
Mr.  Pope's)  in  handing  to  the  press  his  letters  to  Mr.  Wy- 
cherley," by  which  means  he  obtained  possession  of  the  letters 
or  copies  of  the  letters  published  in  1735,  the  noble  Lord  had 
not  possession  of — had  not  even  seen  "  the  rest  of  the  work  " 
• — the  general  correspondence.  Let  us,  however,  assume  for  a 


I.]  POPE'S    WRITINGS  309 

moment  the  truth  of  the  assertions  in  the  '  Narrative.'  It  is 
obvious  that  P.  T.'s  friends  could  not  in  1729  have  obtained 
either  letters  or  copies  of  letters  written  later  than  1729,  and 
yet  the  volume  contains  four  letters  of  a  later  date ;  and  one, 
the  letter  from  Arbuthnot,  of  July  the  17th,  1734.  As  Ar- 
buthnot  only  died  on  the  27th  of  February,  1735,  the  insertion 
of  this  letter  must  have  been  decided  on  at  the  last  moment — 
so  late,  indeed,  that  Pope  had  not  time  to  write,  or  had  not, 
perhaps,  thought  of  the  admirable  answer  which  he  could  write, 
and  which  answer,  therefore,  first  appeared  in  the  Quarto  of 
1737:— the  answer  which  he  did  write  will  appear  in  Mr. 
Murray's  edition. 

When  the  general  correspondence  was  deposited  in  the. 
Harley  Library,  we  know  not — of  what  it  consisted,  we  know 
not.  From  the  first  letter  to  Oxford  we  ought  to  infer  that  it 
was  made  up  of"  original  papers  and  letters  ;  "  but  the  '  Nar- 
rative '  says  "  some  originals,  some  copies,"  and  in  the  Quarto 
we  are  informed  that  Mr.  Pope  "  lay'd  by  the  originals, 
and  caused  a  copy  to  be  taken  to  deposit  in  the  library  of  a 
noble  friend."  This  is  confirmed  by  a  letter  from  Pope  to 
Lord  Oxford,  of  March  3,  1734-5— a  very  important  letter ; 
for  it  is  proof  that,  whether  originals  or  copies  had  been  de- 
posited, they  were  that  day  asked  for,  and  removed  from  his 
Lordship's  custody,  and  never,  we  believe,  returned  : — 

"  TWITNAM,  March  3,  1734-5. 

"  I  beg  your  Lordship  to  give  the  bearer,  my  waterman,  the 
bound  book  of  copies  of  letters,  which  I  want  to  inspect  for  a 
day  or  two." 

In  that  same  month,  the  "  Sifters,"  as  we  believe,  com- 
menced their  operations.  Curll  was  persuaded  to  attempt — 
certainly  did  attempt — a  reconciliation.  Pope  denouncedjiim 
by  public  advertisement — P.  T.  came  to  the  rescue,  and, 
within  two  months,  these  letters  were  published  !  The  in- 
ference is  obvious  ;  but  what  we  desire  to  impress  on  the 
reader  is  that  if  Pope,  even  from  the  first,  meant  to  act 
honestly,  why  did  he  not,  according  to  his  declared  intention, 
deposit  the  originals  of  these  letters  in  Lord  Oxford's  Library ; 


310  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

why  did  he  destroy  the  originals,  or,  in  his  own  phrase,  lay 
themTbj  sio  carefull^that^o^  one  ever  saw  them,  and  not  one 
has  ever  been  found  ?  If  the J"  copies .'^Tgere  J^tMol.  why, 

when  the  originals  were  professedly  in  his  own  hands,  apply  to 
Lord  Oxford,  and  remove  those  copies  from  his  library  ?  and 
by  what  chance,  or  under  what  circumstances,  should  he  want 
to  inspect  those  copies  "for  a  day  or  two,"  just  when  some 
unknown  and  never  known  person  had  the  intention  and  the 
means,  and  was  about  to  publish  them  ?  and  why  did  he  not 
return  those  copies  which  it  was  essential  to  his  honour  and 
the  vindication  of  his  character,  if  the  publication  were  as  false 
and  objectionable  as  he  led  the  public  to  believe,  should  be 
available  for  reference  and  in  proof  ? 

In  another  letter  of  the  17th  of  June,  1735,  Pope  asked  for 
the  last  fragment  of  the  sacred  deposit  which,  we  are  told,  was 
to  settle  the  truth  of  so  many  facts  relating  to  history  and 
criticism,  and  the  characters  of  eminent  men. 

"I  recollect  that  your  Lordship  has  still  in  your  custody  the 
brouillons  of  verses,  and  some  letters  of  Wycherley  I  think,  in 
a  red  leather  case  with  your  arms  upon  it.  I  beg  also  that 
I  may  have  it." 

By  what  agents  Pope  carried  on  his  negotiations  with  Curll 
may  never  be  known.  Dr.  Johnson  said7^hat  'r^ames  Wors- 
dale~,  a  painter,  who  was  employed  in  clandestine  negotiations, 
but  whose  veracity  was  very  doubtful,  declared  that  he  was  the 
messenger  who  carried,  by  Pope's  direction,  the  books  to 
Curll,"  in  other  words,  that  he  was  the  B.  Smythe  of  the 
'  Narrative.'  Dr.  Johnson's  objection  to  Worsdale's  evidence 
is  of  no  more  force  than  it  would  be  against  the  like  evidence 
of  any  other  person.  That  the  agent  employed  was  a  disrepu- 
table fellow  is  proved  by  his  being  engaged  in  such  a  trans- 
action ;  and  certainly  no  man  who  had  a  regard  for  truth 
would  have  played  a  part  of  which  falsehood  was  the  very 
element  and  life. 

The  character  of  Worsdale  seems  to  strengthen  the  proba- 
bilities of  his  bemg  the  man.  Worsdale,  though  passing  as  a 
colour-grinder's  son,  is  said  by  some  of  his  contemporaries  to 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  311 

have  boasted  that  he  was  the  natural  son  of  Sir  Godfrey 
Kneller.  Walpole  says  that  he  was  a  pupil  of  Kneller's,  and 
married  Kneller's  wife's  niece  without  their  consent.  In  either 
case,  he  would  have  been  well  known  to  Pope :  and  if  an  anec- 
dote told  by  Horace  Walpole,  who  also  knew  Worsdale,  be 
true,  he  painted  for  Pope  half-a-dozen  copies  of  a  portrait  of 
Atterbury,  which  Pope  gave  to  different  friends.  As  this  would 
probably  have  been  after  Atterbury's  death,— 1732 — it  brings 
Pope  and  Worsdale  into  close  connexion  about  the  time  of  the 
surreptitious  printing  and  publication  of  the  Letters.  Wors- 
dale, an  artist  by  education,  was  an  actor  by  choice,  and 
although  he  occasionally  followed  his  profession,  he  really 
lived  as  a  dramatic  author  and  actor.  Foote  thought  highly 
of  him  as  an  actor,  selected  him  to  play  Lady  Pentweazle  in 
his  comedy  of  '  Taste,'  and  made  him  a  present  of  the  piece 
and  the  profits.  '  The  Memoirs  of  Mrs.  Pilkington,' — Swift's 
Mrs.  Pilkington,  who  appears  to  have  lived,  or,  as  she  gives  us 
to  believe,  starved,  with  Worsdale — is  full  of  disreputable 
anecdotes  about  him.  Dr.  Johnson  speaks  of  him  as  a  man 
"  employed  in  clandestine  negotiations."  This  is  time  ;  nego- 
tiations and  personations  from  which  honest  men  shrink  in- 
stinctively were  the  delight  of  his  life.  One  remarkable 
instance  of  personation  runs  so  exactly  parallel  to  this  with 
Curll  that  it  tends  strongly  to  confirm  Worsdale's  statement. 
When  an  attempt  was  made  to  extort  money  from  the  Hon. 
Edward  Walpole,  the  second  son  of  the  first  Earl  of  Orford,  it 
was  thought  to  be  good  policy  to  get  some  one  to  introduce 
himself  to  the  conspirators,  and  to  the  required  extent  to  be- 
come a  conspirator,  that  they  might  obtain  evidence  against 
the  parties,  and  Worsdale  was  the  man  selected.  Worsdale 
passed  among  them  as  "  Counsellor  Johnson,"  and  soon  brought 
the  plot  to  a  close — apprehended  the  parties,  who  were  forth- 
with tried  and  convicted ;  and  Worsdale,  we  are  told,  in  giving 
evidence  "  acted  with  so  much  life  and  spirit  the  several  parts 
he  had  performed  during  the  time  of  sifting  out  the  mystery,  as 
gave  no  small  diversion  to  the  Court." 

This  shows  that   Worsdale  was  the  very  man  for  Pope's 
purpose,  and  that  Worsdale's  friends  knew  it,  and  knew  him 


312  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

to  be  unscrupulous.  But  we  have  not  only  Worsdale's  ac- 
knowledgment, as  mentioned  by  Johnson,  but  as  confirmed  by 
Faulkner,  the  Dublin  printer,  who  told  Dr.  Birch  : — 

"  Worsdale  the  painter  was  employed  by  Pope  to  go  to 
Curll  in  the  habit  of  a  clergyman  and  sell  him  the  printed 
copies  of  his  letters." 

This,  it  is  probable,  Faulkner  had  direct  from  Worsdale, 
for  Worsdale  was,  at  one  time,  an  actor  at  the  Dublin  theatre, 
while  Faulkner  was  proprietor  and  printer  of  a  Dublin  news- 
paper.* 


A  Search  into  the  History  of  the  Publication  of  Pope's  Letters. 
THE  WORKS  OF  A.   POPE,    IN  PROSE,   1741. 

THE  history  of  this  publication,  collected  from  Pope  and 
his  contemporaries,  has  never  been  questioned.  Pope's  first 
biographer,  Ruffhead,  writing  under  the  direction  oT~War- 
burton,  tells  us  that  nothing  affected  Pope  more  than  the 
publication  of  his  letters  to  Swift,  "which  were  published 
without  his  consent,  and,  what  is  more  strange,  with  the  Dean's 
concurrence  and  approbation."  The  last  of  Pope's  biogra- 
phers confirms  this  : — "  A  severe  shock,"  he  says,  "  was  given 
to  Pope's  most  cherished  feelings  by  the  publication  in  Dublin, 
of  the  correspondence  with  Swift."  Pope  himself  wrote  to 
Allen  to  the  same  effect : — 


*  It  may  be  well  briefly  to  show  the  order  of  publication  of  these  several 
editions  of  1735,  and  how  they  may  be  distinguished.  Ti'e  first  issue  had  a 
ni  tice  of  errata,  which  does  not  appear  in  the  second  ;  but  all  the  errata  pointed 
out  and  existing  in  the  Wycherley  of  the  first  issue — the  Wycherley  of  1729 — are 
correcte  I  in  the  second  issue  ;  but  the  errata  of  the  remaining  part  of  the  volume 
are  not  corrected.  This  reprinting  of  the  Wycherley  Letters  enforced  a  change  in 
the  pagination,  which  differs  throughout. 

All  the  copies  we  have  seen  with  Curll's  name  as  publisher,  are  reprints  from 
the  second  issue  of  the  edition  "printed  for  the  Booksellers,"  and,  indeed,  Curll 
first  announced  his  intention  to  reprint  in  his  letter  to  the  "  Lords,"  of  the  22nd 
of  May. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  313 

"  My  vexation  about  Dean  Swift's  proceeding  has  fretted 
and  employed  me  a  great  deal,  in  writing  to  Ireland  and  trying 
all  the  means  possible  to  retard  it ;  for  it  is  put  past  prevent- 
ing by  his  having  (without  asking  my  consent,  or  so  much  as 
letting  me  see  the  book)  printed  most  of  it."  [Ruff head, 
467.] 

So  he  wrote  to  Warburton  (4th  of  February,  1740-1)  : — 

"  My  vexations  I  would  not  trouble  you  with,  but  I  must 
just  mention  the  two  greatest  I  now  have.  They  have  printed, 
in  Ireland,  my  letters  to  Dr.  Swift,  and  (which  is  the  strangest 
circumstance)  by  his  own  consent  and  direction,  without  ac- 
quainting me  till  it  was  done." 

These  vexations  Pope  resolved  to  make  known  to  the  public. 
Pope,  or,  to  speak  by  the  card,  the  "  Booksellers"  tells  us,  in 
the  advertisement  prefixed  to  the  Quarto,  1741,  that  it  was 
printed  from  an  impression  sent  from  Dublin,  and  said  to  be 
printed  by  the  Dean's  direction,  and  that  Mr.  Pope,  naturally 
indignant  at  such  publication  "  begun  without  our  author's 
knowledge,  and  not  only  continued  without  his  consent,  but 
after  his  absolute  refusal,  *  *  would  not  be  prevailed  upon  to 
revise  those  letters,  but  gave  us  a  few  more  of  the  Dean's,  a 
little  to  clear  up  the  history  of  their  publication,  which 
[history]  the  reader  may  see  in  one  view  if  he  only  observes 
the  passages  marked  with  commas  in  Letters  75,  77,  81,  84, 
86,  87,  88  of  this  Book  "—that  is,  of  the  Quarto.* 

As  the  passages  were  marked  with  commas,  expressly  to 
clear  up  the  history  of  the  publication,  it  follows  that  we  have 
in  those  passages  what  we  may  call,  after  the  fashion  of  1735, 
"  A  True  Narrative  of  the  Method  by  which  Mr.  Pope's  letters" 
to  Dean  Swift  "  have  been  published." 

The  first  of  these  letters  so  marked  (No.  75)  is  from  Swift 
to  Pope,  and  dated  the  3rd  of  September,  1735.  We  must, 
however,  direct  attention  to  a  passage  in  it,  not  marked  with 
commas,  from  which  it  appears  that  the  Dean's  letter  was  an 

*  Only  three  of  these  letters— No.  77,  87,  and  88  were  given  by  Pope  for  that 
purpose— but  all  had  passages  marked  with  commas.  Other  letters  were  given 
by  Pope. 


314  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

answer  to  one  from  Pope  received  "  two  months  ago,"  in  which 
Pope  had  complained  of  the  publication  of  his  letters  "by 
that  profligate  fellow,  Curll" — further,  that  the  letter  from 
Pope  was  not  published — further  still,  that  of  all  the  urgent 
and  anxious  letters  professedly  written  to  the  Dean  on  this 
subject  not  one  was  published  ;  that  between  the  19th  of  De- 
cember, 1734,  and  the  30th  of  December,  1736,  only  three 
letters  from  Pope  appear  in  the  Quarto,  and  in  those  letters 
there  is  no  reference  whatever  to  the  subject.  Our  know- 
ledge, therefore,  of  the  feelings  and  wishes  of  Pope  must  be 
collected  at  second-hand  from  -the  passages  in  Swift's  letters 
"  marked  with  commas."  In  the  passages  so  marked,  Swift 
tells  Pope  (September  the  3rd,  1735) : — 

"You  need  not  fear  any  consequence  in  the  commerce  that 
hath  so  long  passed  between  us ;  although  I  never  destroyed 
one  of  your  letters.  But  my  executors  are  men  of  honour  and 
virtue,  who  have  strict  orders  in  my  will  to  burn  every  letter 
left  behind  me." 

On  the  21st  of  October  :— 

"  You  need  not  apprehend  any  Curlls  meddling  with  your 
letters  to  me.  I  will  not  destroy  them ;  but  have  ordered  my 
executors  to  do  that  office." 

We  learn  by  letter  of  the  22nd  of  April,  1736,  that  the 
Dean  began  to  yield  to  Pope's  importunity  : — 

"  As  to  what  you  say  of  your  letters,  since  you  have  many 
years  of  life  more  than  I,  my  resolution  is  to  direct  my 
executors  to  send  you  all  your  letters,  well  sealed  and  packetted, 
along  with  some  legacies  mentioned  in  my  Will,  and  leave 
them  entirely  to  your  disposal.  These  things  are  all  tied 
up,  endorsed  and  locked  in  a  cabinet,  and  I  have  not  one 
servant  who  can  properly  be  said  to  write  or  read.  No  mortal 
shall  copy  them,  but  you  shall  surely  have  them  when  I  am  no 
more." 

It  subsequently  appears  that  Swift's  "  cabinet "  was  no 
security ;  for,  as  Lord  Orrery  said,  in  his  pleadings  with  Swift 


I.]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  315 

for  Pope's  letters  to  be  returned,  "  the  Devil  thrusts  himself 
into  the  most  private  cabinets."  Curll,  it  appeared,  had 
already  obtained  two  of  these  letters, — one  from  Pope  and 
one  from  Lord  Bolingbroke, — and  had  informed  the  public 
that  these  two  and  several  others  had  been  transmitted  to  him 
from  Ireland.* 

Why  Cuiil  gave  this  public  notice,  it  is  difficult  to  con- 
jecture ;  he  did  not  publish  the  "  several  others,"  and  the 
announcement,  by  frightening  Swift,  would  close  the  door 
against  all  hope  of  more  such  treasures.  Such  was  Pope's 
professed  alarm,  that,  as  he  wrote  to  Swift  on  the  30th  of 
December,  1736,  he  was  obliged  to  detain  his  letters  until  he 
could  find  some  safe  conveyance — though  how  a  safe  convey- 
ance could  insure  safe  preservation,  it  is  difficult  to  under- 
stand. It  is  worth  notice,  too,  that  these  two  letters,  as  they 
are  called,  were  in  fact  but  one  letter — a  joint  letter — and 
must,  therefore,  have  passed  through  the  hands  of  Pope.  [See 
letters  to  Swift,  12th  of  January,  1723.]  t 

This  story,  however,  is  consistent — Pope's  horror  of  publi- 
cation— his  "  anxiety,"  as  he  wrote  to  Allen,  to  stop  or  retard 
it — a  publication  begun,  as  the  Quarto  says,  without  his  know- 
ledge, and  persevered  in  after  his  positive  refusal,  is  so  clearly 
made  out  as  to  justify  the  biographers  in  speaking  of  the  mor- 
tification he  felt  at  such  publication,  and  the  severe  shock  that 
it  was  to  his  feelings. 

We  must,  however,  remember  that  this  is  Pope's  published 
version  of  the  story ;  and  as  we  have  proved  in  respect  to  the 
publication  of  the  Wycherley  Letters,  and  shown  in  respect  to 
the  publication  of  his  general  correspondence  in  1735,  Pope  was 
not  very  exact,  or  very  scrupulous  in  his  statements  on  such 
occasions.  Let  us,  therefore,  look  at  the  question  from  another 
point  of  view,  and  see  if  it  be  possible  to  reconcile  Pope's  version 
with  Pope's  conduct/— horror  of  publication  with  the  fact  that 
Pope  had  asked  of  Swift  for  the  return  of  his  letters  expressly 

*  Two  were  published  by  Curll, — the  Quartos,  and  down  to  Roscoe,  but  a  joint 
letter  as  we  now  know,  and  the  Table  of  Contents,  calls  Bolingbroke's  letter,  "a 
Postscript  "  to  Pope's.  See  t  below. 

•f  So  dated  in  the  second  Quarto,  but  August  in  the  first  Quarto. 


316  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

that  he  might  publish  them  in  his  Quarto  of  1737  !  What 
follows  is  Pope's  account  of  his  own  and  the  Dean's  conduct 
in  respect  to  the  letters,  given  confidentially  to  Lord  Orrery, 
(March,  1736-7)  when  his  Lordship,  at  Pope's  request,  was 
soliciting  the  Dean  to  return  them : — 

"  I  think  in  this  I  made  the  Dean  so  just  a  request  that  I 
beg  your  Lordship  to  second  it,  by  showing  him  what  I  write. 
I  told  him  as  soon  as  I  found  myself  obliged  to  publish  an 
edition  of  Letters,  to  my  great  sorrow,  that  I  wished  to  make 
use  of  some  of  these  ;  nor  do  I  think  any  part  of  my  corre- 
spondence would  do  me  a  greater  honor,  and  be  really  a 
greater  pleasure  to  me  than  what  might  preserve  the  memory 
how  well  we  loved  one  another.  I  find  the  Dean  was  not  quite 
of  the  same  opinion,  or  he  would  not,  I  think,  have  denied 
this." 

The  "  excessive  earnestness  "  to  publish  was,  it  now  appears, 
on  Pope's  side,  and  the  objections  were  on  the  Dean's. 

The  Dean,  indeed,  had  not  only  refused  to  sanction  the 
publication,  but  to  put  it  in  Pope's  power  to  publish,  by 
refusing  to  return  the  letters.  He  was  now,  however,  getting 
feeble — was  puzzled  and  perplexed  by  Pope's  importunity — 
frightened  by  CurlTs  publication  of  two  letters  professedly 
*'  received  from  Ireland,"  and  obtained,  as  he  was  led  to 
believe,  out  of  his  own  cabinet — and  at  length  he  gave  a 
reluctant  consent  to  Lord  Orrery  that  Pope's  letters  should 
be  returned.  Lord  Orrery,  in  a  letter  of  the  18th  of  March, 
173CT-Tf  informs  Swift  that  he  had  lost  no  time  in  letting  Pope 
know  the  Dean's  resolution — that  he  himself  would  leave  for 
England  in  June,  so  that  "you  may  depend  upon  a  safe 
carriage  of  any  papers  you  may  think  fit  to  send  him,"  and 
that  he  "  should  think  himself  particularly  fortunate  to  deliver 
to  him  those  letters  he  seems  so  justly  desirous  of."  From  a 
subsequent  letter  of  the  3rd  of  April,  1737,  from  Orrery  to 
Swift,  we  may  infer  Swift's  reply : — 

"  You  tell  me  I  am  to  carry  a  load  for  you  to  England.  *  * 
In  the  middle  of  June  I  set  sail." 


I.]  POPE'S  WRITINGS.  317 

This  load,  it  may  be  assumed,  is  described  in  Swift's  letter 
to  Pope  of  the  31st  of  May,  1737  : 

"  All  the  letters  I  can  find  of  yours  I  have  fast'ned  in  a  folio 
cover,  and  the  rest  in  bundles  endorsed.  But,  by  reading 
their  dates,  I  find  a  chasm  of  six  years,  of  which  I  can  find  no 
copies,  and  yet  I  keep  them  with  all  possible  care.  *  *  How- 
ever, what  I  have  are  not  much  above  sixty." 

Lord  Orrery  did  "  set  sail "  about  the  time  mentioned, 
and  on  the  23rd  of  July,  1737,  he  thus  reported  to  Swift  how 
he  had  disposed  of  his  "  load  "  : — 

"  Your  commands  are  obeyed  long  ago.  Dr.  King  has  his 
cargo,  Mrs.  Barber  her  Conversation,  and  Mr.  Pope  his  letters. 
To-morrow  I  pass  with  him  at  Twickenham.  The  olim 
meminisse  will  be  our  feast." 

At  that  time  Swift's  fine  mind  was  giving  way.  It  is 
generally  agreed,  by  those  who  had  personal  opportunities  of 
observing  him,  that  in  the  summer  and  autumn  of  1736  he 
suffered  greatly.  He  was  long  after,  no  doubt,  capable  at 
times,  and  for  a  time,  of  writing  letters,  and  of  delighting 
friends  ;  but  then  came  a  collapse ;  his  memory  was  gone ; 
and  these  attacks  became  more  frequent  and  severe  until  mind 
and  memory  were  alike  overthrown.  Assuming  the  accuracy  of 
the  dates  of  Swift's  letters,  which  we  shall  do, — though  Pope 
never  hesitated  to  alter  a  date  if  it  would  serve  his  purpose, 
— this  want  of  memory  is  manifest  enough  in  Swift's  letters  to 
Pope  published  in  the  Quarto,  and  avowedly  contributed  by 
Pope.  Thus,  in  one  dated  23rd  of  July,  1737 — the  very  day 
when  Lord  Orrery  announced  from  London,  "  Mr.  Pope  has 
his  letters  " — Swift  wrote  to  Pope,  Lord  Orrery  "  goes  over  in 
about  ten  days,  and  then  he  will  take  with  him  all  the  letters  I 
preserved  of  yours."  Again,  and  thirteen  months  after  Lord 
Orrery  had  delivered  the  letters  to  Pope,  he  wrote  : — 

"  I  can  faithfully  assure  you  that  every  letter  you  have 
favour'd  me  with  these  twenty  years  and  more  are  sealed  up 
in  bundles,  and  delivered  to  Mrs.  W., — a  very  worthy,  rational, 


318  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [1. 

and  judicious  cousin  of  mine,  and  the  only  relation  whose  visits 
I  can  suffer.  All  these  letters  she  is  directed  to  send  safely  to 
you  upon  my  decease." 

Whether  Pope,  through  Lord  Orrery,  had  been  endeavouring 
to  discover  the  missing  six  years'  letters,  and  honestly  thought 
that  they  might  be  inclosed  in  these  sealed  bundles,  we  know 
not ;  but  we  have  no  doubt  of  the  truth  of  Mrs.  Whiteway's 
assurance  that  she  had  none  of  them.  In  fact,  except  as  to 
the  six  years,  she  could  not,  for  they  had  been  for  more  than 
a  twelvemonth  in  Pope's  possession.  As  to  the  chasm  of  six 
years,  the  letters  were  never  recovered :  there  is  just  such  a 
chasm  in  the  published  correspondence  from  June,  1716,  to 
January,*  1723 ;  and  it  is  not  improbable  that  in  a  fit  of 
abstraction  Swift  may  have  burnt  them  when,  as  Mrs.  White- 
way  informs  us,  he  burnt  most  of  his  unpublished  writings. 
[Mrs.  W.  to  Pope,  16th  of  May,  1740.] 

Mrs.  Whiteway,  indeed,  Swift's  first  cousin,  and  a  devoted 
friend  of  the  Dean's,  was  anxious  that  nothing  should  be  done 
by  the  Dean  in  a  moment  of  forgetfulness  that  could  be  open 
to  objection.  She  was  roused  at  Pope's  applications,  frightened 
at  possible  consequences,  was  watchful  on  the  subject,  and  not 
without  success.  In  May,  1740,  she  thus  wrote  to  Pope  : 

"  I  have  several  of  your  letters  to  the  Dean,  which  I  will 
send  by  the  first  safe  hand  that  I  can  get  to  deliver  them  to 
yourself,  and  believe  it  may  be  Mr.  McAuley,  the  gentleman 
the  Dean  recommended  through  your  friendship  to  the  Prince 
of  Wales." 

These  were,  no  doubt,  the  letters  received  after  M&y  or 
June,  1737,  and  one  which  had  been  overlooked  when  the 
general  collection  was  transmitted  to  Pope.  [Mrs.  W.  to 
Lord  Orrery.] 

We  have  now  clear  evidence  that  Pope  had  received  his 

*  January  is  the  date  of  the  second  Quarto,  August  of  the  first  Quarto,  and  the 
latter  is  probably  correct,  or  July,  when  B.  was  in  England.  He  arrived  towards 
the  end  of  June,  1723.  It  is  the  only  letter  published  in  nine  years,  and  at  the 
time  of  publication  by  Curl  Pope  did  not  know  of  the  chasm. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  319 

letters  from  Swift  through  Lord  Orrery  in  July,  1737.  The 
letters,  subsequently  VrTtten,  Mrs.  "Wniteway  had  collected  for 
Pope,  as  she  announced  in  her  letter  to  him  of  the  16th  of 
May,  1740 ;  but  she  had  not  found  a  safe  hand  to  deliver 
them  so  late  as  the  spring  of  1741,  as  appeal's  by  her  letter  to 
Lord  Orrery — not,  therefore,  till  too  late  for  publication  in  the 
Quarto  of  1741  *  ;  and  it  is  a  significant  fact,  as  bearing  on  the 
question  of  first  publication,  that  there  is  not  a  single  letter 
from  Pope  to  Swift  published  in  either  the  London  or  Dublin 
editions  of  a  later  date  than  the  23rd  of  March,  1736-7.  Not 
a  suspicion,  however,  of  the  return  of  his  letters  can  be  gleaned 
or  inferred  from  "  the  history  of  the  publication  "  to  be  found 
in  the  passages  "  marked  with  commas,"  or  an}r  passages  to  be 
found  in  any  letters  published  in  the  Quarto. 

These  facts  were  at  least  known  to  Mrs.  Whiteway,  and  to 
her  son-in-law,  Mr.  D.  Swift ;  and  if  any  story  had  been  cir- 
culated, as  of  old,  about  copies  stolen  from  the  Deanery,  these 
persons  would  for  their  own  honour'  have  stated  them  publicly, 
and  Pope  could  not  have  denied  that  all  the  published  letters 
were,  or  had  been,  in  his  own  possession.  We  have  evidence 
that  the  moment  publication  was  mentioned  people  did  begin 
to  talk,  and  Pope's  friend  Allen  hinted  what  their  suspicions 
were,  or  would  be.  It  is  strange  that  the  letter  to  which  we 
shall  now  refer  was  not  published  by  Warburton  in  his  own 
edition  of  Pope's  letters  to  Allen  in  1751,  but  in  Ruffhead's 
Life  of  Pope,  1769,  five-and-twenty  years  after  Pope's  death. 
The  date  probably  about  December,  1740,  or  January,  1740-1 : 

"As  to  your  apprehension  that  any  suspicion  may  arise  of 
my  own  being  any  way  consenting  or  concerned  in  it,  I  have 
the  pleasure  to  tell  you  the  whole  thing  is  so  circumstanced, 
and  so  plain,  that  it  can  never  be  the  case." 

This  letter  contains  a  curious  history  of  the  proceedings  of  the 

*  Lord  Orrery's  letter  to  Mrs.  "W.  authorising  his  agent  to  receive  is  dated — 
ye  2,  1740-1.  This  must  have  been  February  or  January,  and  he  had  already 
read  the  "printed  collection."  He  had  since  his  arrival  in  London  seen  Pope — 
that  is,  before  22  March — and  on  the  15  April  the  Quarto  was  on  sale. 


320  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

assumed  Dublin  printers,  which  indeed  seems  to  develope  itself 
in  the  very  progress  of  writing,  for  at  starting  we  learn  that — 

"  they  [the  printers]  at  last  promise  me  to  send  me  the 
copy,  and  that  I  may  correct  and  expunge  what  I  will.  This 
last  would  be  of  some  use ;  but  I  dare  not  even  do  this,  for 
they  would  say  I  revised  it." 

Further  overtures  must  have  been  received,  for  he  adds,  in 
the  same  letter  : — 

"  They  now  offer  to  send  me  the  originals  (which  have  been 
so  long  detained),  and  I'll  accept  of  them  (though  they  have 
done  their  job),  that  they  may  not  have  them  to  produce 
against  me  in  case  there  be  any  offensive  passages  in  them." 

In  a  paragraph  extracted  from  a  letter  written  "  some  months 
afterwards,"  Pope  informs  Allen  :— >- 

"  It  will  please  you  to  know  that  I  have  received  the  packet 
of  letters  from  Ireland  safe,  by  the  means  of  Lord  Orrery." 

This  may  have  been  a  fact — he  may  have  received  "  from 
Ireland,"  through  Lord  Orrery,  the  additional  letters  which 
Mrs.  Whiteway  had  collected  for  him ;  for  in  her  letter  to 
Lord  Orrery,  written  about  1740-1,  she  says : — 

"  I  shall  not  hesitate  one  moment  to  send  jTour  Lordship 
Mr.  Pope's  letters,  as  likewise  that  from  Bath.  *  *  If  your 
Lordship  will  order  a  faithful  servant,  or  a  gentleman,  with  a 
line  under  your  hand,  to  call  for  them." 

Lord  Orrery,  in  reply,  thanked  Mrs.  Whiteway  for  her 
"  obliging  offer  of  returning  my  letters,  together  with  those 
designed  for  Mr.  Pope,"  and  he  sent  his  agent,  Mr.  Ellis,  to 
receive  them,  giving  Mrs.  Whiteway  these  instructions  : — 

"  The  parcel  for  Mr.  Pope  I  desire  may  be  sealed  up  by 
you;  but  I  could  wish  to  see  the  letter  from  Bath,  if  you 
thought  proper ;  if  you  enclose  it  to  me,  I  will  lose  no  time  in 
forwarding  it  to  Mr.  Pope." 

Here  we  have  notice  of  three  distinct  things — the  letters  of 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  321 

Lord  Orrery,  the  letters  of  Pope,  and  "  the  letter  from  Bath." 
This  "  letter  from  Bath  "  was  obviously  not  one  of  Pope's 
acknowledged  letters,  although  Pope  was  in  some  way  interested 
in  it,  and  to  him  it  was  to  be  returned.  We  shall  hear  more, 
from  Faulkner,  concerning  this  letter. 

Mrs.  Whiteway  had  refused  to  send  the  letters  of  Pope  by 
post ;  for  she  had  been  led  to  believe  it  was  dangerous,  and  no 
doubt  so  led  by  Pope's  repeated  assertions  on  the  subject :  she 
had  objected  to  send  them  by  Mr.  Nugent's  mother,  because, 
as  she  says,  Pope  had  approved  of  her  sending  them  by  Mr. 
McAuley.  Mr.  McAuley,  however,  had  been  detained  in 
Dublin,  and  she  now  offered  them  to  Lord  Orrery,  on  condition 
that  he,  under  his  hand,  should  authorize  the  party  to  receive 
them.  Not  a  word  of  this  is  to  be  learnt  from  the  Quarto ; 
there  Lord  Orrery  concludes  his  search  after  the  letters — the 
missing  six  years,  as  we  suppose, — in  1738. 

Pope  told  Allen  that  he  had  been  "fretted"  and  "employed" 
with  a  great  deal  of  writing  to  Ireland  on  the  subject  of  this 
publication.  He  regrets  that  he  could  not  show  Allen  what 
the  "  Dean's  people,  the  women,  the  booksellers,  have  done 
and  writ;'''  and  yet,  anxious  as  he  was  to  "clear  up  the 
history  of  the  publication,"  he  never  named  either  bookseller, 
or  printer,  or  woman,  or  ever  published  one  of  their  letters. 
The  correspondence  in  the  Quarto  of  1741  concludes  with  a 
letter  of  the  4th  of  October,  1738.  It  is  true  one  letter  to 
Mrs.  Whiteway  has  since  been  published — in  1767,  long  after 
Pope's  death ;  and  we  find  a  mention  of  Faulkner  in  a  letter 
to  Mr.  Nugent  published  more  than  a  hundred  years  after 
Pope's  death.  Why  were  not  these  interesting  letters  from 
the  Dean's  people,  the  women,  the  booksellers,  the  printers 
published?  Had  they  been,  it  is  obvious  that  a  word  of 
explanation  from  Mi's.  Whiteway  would  have  shown  that  Pope 
had  got  back  all  the  letters  published  in  the  Quarto— that  all 
this  correspondence,  whether  more  or  less,  related  to  a  few 
letters  written  after  June,  1737,  or  the  missing  six  years' 
letters,  neither  of  which  were  published. 

We  shall  now  produce  evidence  of  a  wholly  independent 
character,  in  proof  that  Pope  had  got  possession  of  the  letters 


322  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

to  Swift.  It  is  stated  incidentally  in  a  note  to  the  Quarto 
(p.  181)  that  Swift's  letters  to  Gay  were  returned  t©  Swift 
after  Gay's  death,  and  we  learn  from  Mr.  Croker  (Notes  and 
Queries,  \.  X.  p.  148),  that  the  letter  published  in  the  Quarto 
from  Swift  to  Gay  of  the  23rd  of  November,  1727,  is  in  fact 
a  combination  of  two  different  letters,  neither  of  them  of  that 
date — which  is  manifest,  as  he  points  out,  by  internal  evidence. 
How  did  Mr.  Croker  become  aware  of  the  fact  ?  Because,  as 
he  tells  us,  he  found  copies  of  some  of  the  letters  printed  in 
the  Quarto  of  1741,  at  Longleat.  How  these  letters  came  to 
Longleat  we  know  not — if  through  the  marriage  of  the  Earl 
of  Bath  with  the  eldest  daughter  of  the  Duchess  of  Portland, 
only  child  of  Edward  Earl  of  Oxford,  they  must  have  been 
deposited  in  the  Harleian  Library  before  the  16th  of  June, 
1741,  when  Lord  Oxford  died.  The  existence  of  these  copies 
is  evidence  that  some  of  Swift's  letters  had  got  back  to  England 
— got  back,  we  say,  to  Pope. 

It  may  be  suggested  that  Pope  received  the  letters  from  the 
Dublin  printers ;  but  how  could  the  Dublin  printers,  even 
assuming  publication  to  have  been  with  the  consent  of  the 
Dean,  have  got  possession  of  Swift's  letters  to  Pope  ?  It  is 
not  to  be  believed  that  Swift  had  all  his  life  kept  copies  of  his 
letters — letters  written  often  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  or 
the  mere  impulse  of  friendly  good  will.  In  a  letter  to  Atter- 
bury  of  July  the  18th,  1717,  Swift  said  "  I  keep  no  copies  of 
letters."  This  difficulty  or  improbability  struck  Mrs.  White- 
way  at  once  :  "  I  do  not  believe,"  she  says,  in  a  letter  to  Lord 
Orrery,  "  they  were  taken  here  [in  Dublin].  I  will  tell  you 
my  reasons  for  it.  First,  I  do  assure  your  Lordship,  the 
Dean  kept  no  copies  of  Mr.  Pope's  letters  J^his  letters  to  Pope] 
for  these  twelve  }rears  past  to  my  knowledge,  or  [of  his  own 
letters]  to  anybody  else,  *  *  those  to  Mr.  Pope,  I  saw  him 
write  and  send  off  immediately."  Mrs.  Whiteway  says  further 
that  it  "  was  not  from  this  quarter,"  i.  e.  not  from  Dublin,  that 
Mr.  Pope  had  been  ill-used  ;  he  "  must  have  been  betrayed  by 
his  English  servants,  who  have  *  *  a  nearer  way  of  making 
money  of  them  than  ours  have."  To  this  Lord  Orrery 
replies,  "  I  should  think  with  you,  madam,  that  some  of  Mr. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  323 

Pope's  servants  had  stolen  them,  did  not,"  &c.;  and  he  gives 
reasons  that  there  many  letters  appear  from  other  people  to  the 
Dean,  &c.,  &c.  The  only  letters  from  '  other  people  '  are  from 
Gay  and  Bolingbroke,  both  of  whom  wrote  joint  letters  with 
Pope,  and  whose  letters  were  therefore  probably  tied  up  together 
and  the  whole  bundle  returned  together.  If  this  be  a  reason- 
able explanation,  then  Lord  Orrery  agrees  with  Mrs.  Whiteway 
that  Pope's  "  servants,"  &c.,  or  as  we  say  Pope.*  Further,  it 
was  too  late  after  the  letters  were  printed,  which  Pope  states  was 
the  condition  of  their  return,  to  tamper  with  them.  And  wh}r, 
as  in  1785,  were  copies,  and  not  the  original  letters,  deposited  ? 
And  why  were  the  originals  destroyed  ?  We  must  repeat  here 
that  Ho  reason  suggests  itself  to  us,  but  that  the  copies  were, 
as  in  T73o,  doctored,  or  in  modern  phrase,  "  cooked."  We 
have  flie  evidence  of  Mr.  Croker  that  the  copies  themselves 
were  "  cooked  "  a  second  time  before  publication  ;  and  as 
these  twice  cooked  were  produced,  or  reproduced,  in  the 
Quarto,  it  must  have  been  done  much  to  the  taste  of  Pope ; . 
for  he  could  have  reproduced  the  originals  verbatim,  or  at  least 
the  once-cooked  letters. 

Now,  a  few  concluding  words  as  to  the  facts  of  publication — 
whether  first  in  Dublin  or  in  London" Some  readers  may 
remember  the  well-planned  mystification  in  respect  to  the 
publication  of  the  Dunciad,  which  puzzled  Mr.  Croker — (see 
letters  signed  C.  in  Xotes  and  Queries),  who  long  maintained, 
and  was  never  quite  satisfied  to  the  contrary,  that  the  Dunciad, 
as  professed,  was  first  published  in  Dublin. 

That  the  Swift  and  Pope  letters  were  first  published  in 
Dublin  has  never  been  doubted  by  any  of  the  Pope  or  Swif^ 
editors.  It  is,  however,  just  worth  notice  that  in  the  Bill 
which  Pope,  on  the  4th  of  June,  1741,  filed  against  Curll  for 
piratically  publishing  these  letters,  Pope  makes  no  reference 
to  a  prior  publication  in  Dublin ;  but  simply  asserts  that  Curll, 
combining  with  divers  persons,  has  printed  these  letters,  which 
are  the  property  of  Pope,  and  that  he,  Pope,  has  never  dis- 
posed of  the  copyright ;  and  Curll,  in  his  answer,  says  only 

*  But  observe  they  do  agree  that  Pope's  servants  might  have  got  all  S.  to  P. 
and  1'.  to  S.     IIo\v,  if  they  had  not  been  n-tunicd  to  Pope  ? 

Y  2 


324  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

that  he  is  informed  and  believes  that  the  said  letters  were  first 
printed  in  Dublin  by  Mr.  Geo.  Faulkner,  as  it  is  said,  by 
direction  pf  Dr.  Swift.  Against  CurlTs  hearsay  evidence 
we  are  enabled  to  produce  Faulkner's  own  testimony,  and 
shall  do  so. 

Incidentally  we  get  a  glimmer  of  light  from  the  last  note 
on  the  last  letter  of  the  Quarto.  Mr.  D.  Swift,  who  had 
married  Mrs.  Whiteway's  daughter,  knew  as  much  on  this 
subject  as  his  mother-in-law,  and  more  than  any  other  person  ; 
and  he,  it  appears,  "  insisted  upon  writing  a  preface  "  to,  as 
will  appear  hereafter,  the  Dublin  edition  of  the  Letters,  "  to 
justify  Mr.  P.  from  any  knowledge  of  it,  and  to  lay  it  upon  the 
corrupt  practices  of  the  Printers  in  London!"  This,  we  are 
told,  Mr.  Pope  would  not  agree  to,  "  as  not  knowing  the  truth 
of  the  fact."  Of  what  fact  ?  That  the  publication  was  owing 
to  the  corrupt  practices  of  the  printers  in  London  ?  Why,  he 
knew  that  the  Quarto  was  the  first  publication  of  the  letters  in 
London,  and  that  it  was  professedly  "  copied  from  an  im- 
pression sent  from  Dublin."  Mr.  Swift's  history  of  the  publica- 
tion would,  therefore,  have  been  quite  "  another  guess  "  sort 
of  history  to  that  put  forth  in  the  "passages  marked  with 
commas."  Mr.  Swift  and  Mrs.  Whiteway  knew  that  the 
letters  could  not  have  been  first  printed  in  Dublin  unless 
copies  had  been  sent  from  London ;  they  knew,  indeed,  that 
they  were  not  first  printed  in  Dublin,  and  Mr.  Swift  re-asserted 
this  forty  years  after  in  a  letter  to  Mr.  Nichols  : 

"  I  could  tell  you,  if  it  were  worth  while,  how  Faulkner 
came  to  publish  four  first  volumes  of  Swift's  Works,  and 
afterwards  the  two  next,  having  had  the  whole  story  from  his 
own  mouth.  And  now  I  mention  Faulkner's  publication,  I 
can  say  with  truth  that  I  am  the  only  person  now  living  who 
can  give  a  clear  and  full  account  how  Faulkner  s  seventh 
volume,  that  is  how  Swift  and  Popes  correspondence,  came  to 
be,  not  jirst  printed,  but  first  published,  in  Ireland,  which  as 
it  happens  to  be  a  very  singular  and  laughable  story,  I  shall 
perhaps  take  some  notice  of  hereafter." 

When  the  reader  is  informed   that  the  words    "  not  first 


I-]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  325 

printed"  were  marked  in  italics  by  Mr.  Swift,  he  will  admit 
that  Mr.  Swift  has  told  all  that  we  care  to  know,  or  desire  to 
prove.  ^Respecting  the  priority  of  publication,  Mr.  Swift's 
words  may  be  thought  equivocal ;  but  we  have  direct  testimony 
on  the  subject,  and  the  best.  Faulkner,  the  publisher  of  the 
Dublin  edition,  told  Dr.  Birch  (Birch  MSS.,  Brit.  Mus., 
No.  4244,  p.  38)— 

"Mr.  Pope  sent  to  Ireland  to  Dr.  Swift,  by  Mr.  Gerrard, 
an  Irish  gentleman,  then  at  Bath,  a  printed  copy  of  their  letters 
with  an  anonymous  letter,  which  occasioned  Dr.  Swift  to  give 
Mr.  Faulkner  leave  to  reprint  them  at  Dublin,  though  Mr. 
Popes  edition  iv as  published  Jirst." 

Here,  then,  we  have  the  Dublin  publisher  of  the  Letters 
acknowledging  that  the  Dean  received  "  a  printed  copy  of  the 
Letters  "  from  Mr.  Pope,  and  that  "  Mr.  Pope's  edition  was 
published  first."  These  are  facts  about  which  he  could  not 
be  mistaken. 

The  Dean,  we  know,  from  letters  since  published,  had  given 
this  Mr.  Gerrard  a  letter  of  introduction  to  Pope,  and  he  was 
in  London  and  in  communication  with  Pope  in  April,  1740, 
and  in  May  he  was  at  Bath,  and  then  about  to  return  to 
Dublin,  and  had  so  informed  Pope. 

We  have  proof,  in  a  letter  from  Pope  to  Mr.  Nugent,  after- 
wards Lord  Clare,  not  published  till  1849,  (Gent.  Mag.),  that 
Faulkner,  in  August,  1740,  had  told  Pope  substantially  the 
very  story  which  he  afterwards  told  Dr.  Birch : — 

"  Last  week  I  recd  an  ace1  from  Faulkner,  the  Dublin  Book- 
seller, that  the  Dean  himself  has  given  him  a  collection  of 
Letters  of  his  own,  and  mine,  and  others,  to  be  printed,  [from 
a  printed  copy]  and  he  civilly  asks  my  consent,  assuring  me 
the  d.  declares  them  genuine,  and  that  Mr.  Swift,  Mrs.  White- 
way's  son-in-law,  will  correct  yc  press,  out  of  his  great  respect 
to  the  dean  and  myself !  He  says  they  were  collected  by  some 
unknown  persons,  and  the  copy  sent  with  a  letter  importing  that 
it  was  criminal  to  suppress  such  an  amiable  picture  of  the 
dean,  and  his  private  character  appearing  in  those  letters,  and 


326  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

that  if  he  would  not  publish  them  in  his  lifetime  others  would 
after  his  death." 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  anonymous  letter  men- 
tioned by  Faulkner  is  the  mysterious  "  letter  from  Bath " 
mentioned  by  Mrs.  Whiteway  and  Lord  Orrery.  That  Pope 
wrote  the  anonymous  letter,  and  sent  the  printed  "  copy " 
through  Mr.  Gerrard  may  have  been  a  fact,  or  a  mystification. 
Pope  had  certainly  asked  Mr.  Gerrard  to  take  charge  of  some- 
thing, but  found,  as  he  said,  "  an  opportunity,  just  after  I  saw 
you,  of  sending  him  [the  Dean]  a  very  long  and  full  letter  by 
a  safe  hand  "  ;  and  it  may  be  worth  notice  that  if  James  Wors- 
dale  were  the  mysterious  agent  through  whom  Pope  worked 
his  wicked  will  on  Curll  in  1735,  this  same  mysterious  agent 
did  about  that  time  visit  Dublin — for  his  benefit  at  the  Smock 
Alley  Theatre  was  announced  in  the  Dublin  News  Letter  as  to 
take  place  on  Friday  the  18th  of  April,  1740. 

Faulkner's  story,  in  all  essentials,  is  confirmed  by  other 
evidence.  Pope's  assertion,  also,  that  the  Dean  gave  Faulkner 
the  letters,  interpreted  by  Faulkner's  own  words,  means  that 
the  Dean  gave  him  leave  to  print  a  Dublin  edition  of  what  was 
already  in  print.  This  must  have  been  in  or  about  July,  1740. 
We  doubt  whether,  at  that  time,  Faulkner  was  permitted  to 
hold  direct  personal  communication  with  the  Dean  ;  and  the 
probabilities  are  that  the  printed  copy,  if  sent  to  the  Dean, 
was  given  to  Faulkner  by  Mrs.  Whiteway,  or  leave  to  reprint 
them  was  asked  through  her,  and  therefore  it  was,  the  exact 
facts  being  known  to  Mrs.  Whiteway,  that  she  charged  the 
wrong  on  Pope's  servants  ;  and  being  known  to  her  son-in-law, 
Mr.  D.  Swift,  he  offered  to  write  a  preface  to  the  Dublin  edi- 
tion, and  to  lay  it  (the  publication)  upon  "  the  corrupt  prac- 
tices of  the  printers  in  London."  These  facts,  too,  explain 
how  it  was  that  Mrs.  Whiteway,  in  her  letter  to  Lord  Orrery, 
was  enabled  to  quote  a  passage  from  these  letters  before,  as 
far  as  we  know,  any  edition  was  published,  and  how  it  was 
that  Lord  Orrery  was  enabled  to  pass  judgment  on  them.* 

*  Faulkner  had  of  course  reprinted  the  printed  copy  sent  from  London  before 
the  Quarto  was  published,  and  a  Mr.   Pink,  of  12,  Queen  Square,  Bristol,  in- 


I.]  POPE'S    WRITINGS.  327 

As  far  as  evidence  of  publication  can  be  discovered,  it  bears 
out  the  opinion  that  the  Swift  and  Pope  letters  were  first 
printed  and  first  published  in  London.  The  first  announce- 
ment that  we  have  found,  either  in  the  London  or  Dublin 
papers,  appears  in  the  London  Daily  Post  (Printed  for  H. 
Woodfall)  of  the  24th  of  March,  1741.  This  advertisement 
sets  forth  "  that  whereas  there  is  an  impression  of  certain 
letters  between  Dr.  Swift  and  Mr.  Pope  openly  printed  [not 
published]  in  Dublin  without  Mr.  Pope's  consent,  and  there  is 
reason  to  think  the  same  hath  been  [hath  been !]  or  will  be 
done  clandestinely  in  London  :  Notice  is  hereby  given  that 
they  will  be  speedily  published,  with  several  additional  letters, 
&c.,  composing  altogether  a  Second  Volume  of  his  Works  in 
Prose." 

At  that  date — the  24th  of  March — these  letters — the  Quarto 
edition,  called  the  Second  Volume  of  the  "  Prose  Works  " — 
must  have  been  printed,  for  it  was  on  sale  within  three  weeks. 
On  the  15th  of  April,  the  Second  Volume  of  the  Works  of 
Mr.  Pope  in  Prose  was  entered,  not  by  the  Booksellers  as 
usual,  but  by  Pope  himself,  at  Stationers'  Hall.  On  the  next 
day,  the  16th  of  April,  the  work  is  announced  as  "  This  day 
published,"  in  London  Daily  Post. 

A  review  of  this  Second  Volume  of  the  Prose  Works  ap- 
peared in  the  May  Number  of  "  The  Works  of  the  Learned," 
written  probably  by  Warburton,  who  was  a  known  contributor, 
and  who  had  therein  defended  the  Essay  on  Man  against 
Crousaz.  The  reviewer  tells  the  exact  Pope  story — that  Pope 
had  protested  against  publication,  wished  the  letters  burnt — 
that  the  Dean  had  promised  that  his  executors  should  burn 
them,  and  that  "  probably,  had  he  died  ere  he  arrived  at  his 
dotage,  these  people  had  executed  his  Will." 

forms  me  that  he  has  in  his  possession  a  copy  of  the  work  without  the  Supple- 
ment, with  the  following  note  written  on  the  inside  of  the  cover  : — 

"Orrery.  This  book  was  sent  to  me  by  Faulkner,  who  printed  it,  just  as  it 
now  stands.  He  has  since  printed  it  with  additions  from  Mr.  Pope's  London 
Edition  in  Quarto ;"  and  on  the  top  of  page  1,  in  the  same  handwriting,  "  No 
Title-page  Published. "  The  Book,  s  ,ys  Mr.  Pink,  contains  81  letters— that  is 
to  say,  does  not  contain  the  Supplement.  (See  M'-.  Pink's  letter  prefixed  to  my 
edition  of  Faulkner,  1741.)  When  Lord  0.  says  Faulkner  has  since  printed  ft 
with  additions,  he  means  that  F.  has  since  printed  additions,  &c.,  from,  &c. 


328  PA  PEES  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

Here,  then,  we  have  in  London  advertisements  announcing 
the  publication  in  March,  and  the  actual  publication  in  April ; 
but  we  can  find  no  announcement  of  such  publication  in  the 
Dublin  papers  before  June.  A  perfect  file  of  the  Dublin  Xeics 
Letter  has  been  examined  from  January,  1740  ;  and  the  first 
advertisement  of  the  work  appears  on  the  16th  of  June,  1741  : — 
"  Yesterday  was  published,  by  Edward  Exshaw,  &c.,  Letters 
to  and  from  the  Rev.  Dr.  Swift,  D.S.P.D.,  from  the  year  1714 
to  1738 "  ;  and  in  the  next  publication,  the  20th  of  June, — 
"  This  day  is  published,  by  George  Faulkener,  &c.,  Letters  to 
and  from  the  Reverend  Dr.  Jonathan  Swift,  D.S.P.D.,  &c. 
At  the  same  place  may  be  had  the  Author's  Works  in  Six 
Volumes  8vo.  printed  the  same  size  as  the  Letters."  These 
letters  formed  the  Seventh  Volume,  and  are  so  referred  to  by 
Mr.  D.  Swift  and  Lord  Orrery. 

No  earlier  copy  has  been  found.*  Search  has  been  made 
at  the  British  Museum,  at  the  Bodleian,  at  Trinity  College, 
Dublin,  at  Archbishop  Marsh's  Library  attached  to  St,  Pat- 
rick's Cathedral,  and  other  places  where  there  was  a  proba- 
bility of  finding  such  copies  if  they  existed.  Booksellers' 
catalogues,  both  Irish  and  English,  have  been  examined  for 
many  years — examination  made  of  the  bookstalls  in  Dublin, 
and  copies  sought  by  public  advertisement,  but  no  earlier 
edition  has  been  heard  of.  Both  these  editions  are  printed 
from  the  same  copy — tell  the  exact  same  story ;  both  profess 
to  be  reprints — and  so  they  would  be,  if,  as  Faulkner  said,  he 
received  a  "  printed  copy  "  ;  both  contain  a  Supplement,  and 
both  publishers  inform  the  reader  that, — "After  we  had  re- 
printed the  foregoing  Sheets,  we  found  the  following  Letters 
in  the  folio  edition,  published  by  Mr.  Pope  in  London,  which 
we  here  insert  to  make  our  Collection  as  compleat  as 
possible." 

*  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  Exshaw  edition  was  printed  by  Faulkner. 
I  have  a  reissue  of  it  with  a  new  title.  The  first  edition,  1641,  says  merely 
' '  Dublin  :  For  Ed.  Exshaw  " — but  the  title-page  of  the  reissue  runs  thus, 
"Dublin  Printed  by  and  f  r  George  Faulkner,  1746." 

No  earlier  edition  having  been  found,  we  have  further  evidence  of  the  prior 
publication  in  London,  for  the  title-page  of  both  Exshaw  and  Faulkner  set  forth, 
"  To  which  are  added  several  notes  and  translations  not  in  the  London  edition." 


l.j  rui'i-rn  WRITINGS.  329 


From  Notes  and  Queries,  2  S.  x.  381. 
BOWLES  IT.   ROSCOE. 

SOME  of  your  readers  will  remember,  and  most  of  them  will 
have  heard  of,  the  controversy  which  raged  some  thirty  years 
since — Wm.  Lisle  Bowles  against  Byron,  Campbell,  and  others, 
on  the  subject  oi  Nature  and  "Art,  and  the  rank  of  Pope  as  a 
poet.  I  do  not  mean  to  revive  that  discussion.  Incidentally, 
however,  a  question  arose  which  was  thought,  and  not  without 
apparent  reason,  to  affect  the  moral  character  of  Bowles. 
Bowles,  in  an  introductory  note  to  the  correspondence  of 
Pope,  said,  with  reference  to  the  first  publication  of  Pope's 
Letters  : — 

"  In  the  Appendix  to  this  volume  will  be  seen  the  statement 
of  the  transaction  as  first  published,  when  the  unauthorized 
edition  came  out  that  the  reader  may  form  his  opinion." 

On  reference  to  the  Appendix  it  appeared  that  Bowles  gave 
only  extracts  from  the  statement — the  "  Narrative  " — -observ- 
ing that : — 

"  It  would  be  trifling  with  the  reader's  patience  to  carry  him 
through  the  whole  of  the  correspondence,  but  the  following 
letter  is  too  singular  to  be  omitted." 

On  this  Gilchrist  charged  Bowles  with  disingenuousness  and 
duplicity  ;  and  Gilchrist  was  followed  by  Roscoe,  who  asserted 
that  even  Mr.  Gilchrist  was  not  aware  of  the  injustice  done  by 
Bowles  to  Pope  : — 

"It  consists,  not  merely  in  withholding  the  narrative  which 
he  had  promised  to  lay  before  the  reader,  but  in  substituting 
for  the  part  so  omitted  other  pieces  not  found  in  the  original: 
the  two  first  of  the  three  letters  given  by  Mr.  Bowles,  which 
appear  to  the  reader  as  documents  adduced  by  Pope,  being  in 
fact  extracted  from  the  counter-nnrnttive  of  Curll." 

Bowles,  not  unnaturally,  was  in  a  fever  of  indignation  :  "  I 
have  been  charged,"  he  writes,  "  with  a  most  base  and  dis- 


330  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

honourable  act,"  with  "  substituting  something  which  Mr. 
Iloscoe  says  is  taken  from  the  counter-narrative  of  Curl ;  " 
and  he  rushed  on  with  comment  and  extract  through  fourteen 
pages  in  proof  that  he  had  found  the  letters  in  the  "  Narra- 
tive "  from  which  he  quoted  and  in  an  edition  of  Pope's  Letters 
of  which  he  gave  the  title-page.  Roscoe  replied,  and  asserted 
that  Bowles  "  hath  not  ventured  to  deny  "  that  he  did  abso- 
lutely "  substitute  one  document  for  another."  Bowles,  there- 
fore, did  indignantly  deny  the  charge,  and  offered  to  make 
oath  on  the  subject,  if  required.  All  this  is  strange,  and  very 
painful.  Here  are  two  amiable  and  excellent  men  charging 
each  other  with  positive  fraud,  for  if  Bowles  be  innocent, 
Iloscoe  must  be  guilty,  and  yet  neither  party  takes  the  decent 
trouble  to  determine  the  fact ;  but  both  rest  content  on  the 
single  authority  which  happens  b}r  accident  to  be  on  his  table. 
Most  strange  of  all,  it  was  Roscoe  whose  statement  was  "  ex- 
tracted from  the  counter-narrative  of  Curl." 

I  have  before  me  not  only  the  "  Narrative  "  as  originally 
published  by  Cooper — Pope's  "  Narrative  "  as  it  may  be  called, 
— but  two  editions  of  the  letters  published  by  Cooper  to 
which  the  "  Narrative  "  was  prefixed,  and  three  other  editions, 
all  published  in  1735,  and  they  all  include  the  two  letters 
quoted  by  Bowles.  What,  then,  it  will  be  said,  could  have 
misled  Roscoe  ?  Simply  the  fact  that  he  had  seen  no  other 
copy  of  the  "  Narrative  "  than  that  published  by  Curll  in  the 
second  volume  of  the  Pope  Correspondence.  Curll  announced 
on  the  21st  May  his  intention  of  publishing  an  edition  of  the 
Letters  with  a  Supplement  containing  all  the  letters  received 
from  P.  T.,  R.  S.,  &c.,  the  Initial  Correspondence  as  it  is 
called.  There  is  no  doubt  in  my  mind,  and  the  fact  I  am 
about  to  relate  tends  to  prove  it,  that  the  Initial  Correspon- 
dence was  at  that  time  printed,  and  the  two  letters  referred  to 
by  Roscoe  were,  of  course,  included.  But  Curll's  intention 
having  been  thus  made  known,  an  announcement  appeared  on 
the  24th  that  "  the  Clergyman,"  the  R.  Smythe  of  the  Cor- 
respondence, had  discovered  the  whole  transaction,  and  that  a 
"  Narrative  "  of  the  same  would  be  speedily  published.  Curll 
thought  it  good  policy  not  to  publish  the  Initial  Correspon- 


I.]  POPE'S   WHITINGS.  331 

dence  until  he  had  seen  this  "  Narrative."  He  therefore 
issued  the  edition  of  Pope's  Letters  without  the  promised  Sup- 
plement, reserving  that  for  his  second  volume,  which,  however, 
immediately  appeared,  and  prefixed  to  it  was  the  "  Narrative  " 
with  Curll's  Notes  and  the  Initial  Correspondence.  As  the 
latter  had  been  some  time  in  print,  and  contained  the  two 
letters  referred  to  by  Roscoe,  which  appeared  in  the  "  Narra- 
tive," Curll  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  reproduce  them  in 
the  "  Narrative."  Curll  had  no  purpose  in  this  but  to  save 
needless  expense.  Roscoe,  however,  finding  them  only  in  the 
Initial  Correspondence  considered  them  as  a  part  of  Curll's 
counter- statement,  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  they  had  appeared 
in  the  "  Narrative,"  and  in  every  edition  of  the  "  Narrative." 
Bowles  was  right  by  chance,  for  he  knew  nothing  of  the  au- 
thority of  the  edition  he  quoted  from :  Roscoe  was  wrong  by 
chance,  and  for  the  same  reason. — B.  V.  R.  [Mr.  Dilke.] 


From  Notes  and  Queries,  2  S.  x.  485. 
POPE'S   LETTERS,  1735. 

THE  late  inquiries  respecting  Pope's  Letters  have  given  an 
interest  and  even  importance  to  what  might  otherwise  be 
considered  a  mere  bibliographical  question  — the  exact  order 
of  publication.  I  propose,  therefore,  to  enter  somewhat 
minutely  into  the  subject,  and  shall  take  as  my  model,  so  far  as 
circumstances  admit,  the  papers  on  The  Dunciad,  which  ap- 
peared some  years  since  in  "  N.  &  Q-,"  and  which  settled  that 
vexed  question.  I  fear  that  my  inquiry  will  be  a  little  more 
tedious,  and  require  more  attention  on  the  part  of  the  reader, 
from  the  fact  that  the  editions  or  issues  to  be  referred  to  have 
all  the  exact  same  title-pages,  and  are  not  different  editions, 
but  the  same  with  particular  sheets  reprinted. 

My  conclusions  will  rest  on  evidence  deduced  from  the 
"Narrative"  published  by,  or  with  the  sanction  of,  Pope,  the 
"Initial  Correspondence"  published  by  Curll,  the  evidence 
taken  before  the  House  of  Lords,  and  the  editions  published 


332  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

in  1735.  The  first  inquiry  will  be  for  one  of  the  fifty  copies, 
the  "  perfect  copies  "  delivered  by  R.  S  my  the  to  Curll,  and 
which  Curll  acknowledged  that  he  had  received  and  sold  before 
the  12th  May;  and  then  for  one  of  the  "horseload" — the 
imperfect — received  at  Curll's  house  on  the  12th  May,  and 
seized,  before  the  bales  had  been  opened,  by  the  Messenger 
from  the  House  of  Lords. 

The  difference  between  the  fifty  and  the  "  horseload  "  is 
easily  shown.  Lord  Islay,  who  had  a  copj',  bought,  he  said, 
at  Curll's* — one,  therefore,  of  the.  fifty — found  on  the  117th 
page  "  a  letter  to  Mr.  Jervas,  which  contained,  as  he  appre- 
hended, an  abuse  of  the  Earl  of  Burlington."  That  letter 
could  not  be  found  in  the  copies  seized.  Notice  was  also 
taken  of  a  note,  "  which  mentions  that  a  letter  from  the  D.  of 
Chandos  to  Mr.  Pope  may  be  printed  in  the  2nd  volume," 
which  note  also,  as  I  presume,  was  not  found.  Curll  who,  be 
it  remembered,  had  never  seen  the  seized  copies,  could  give 
no  explanation ;  but  subsequently,  after  examination,  he  stated 
in  a  Letter  to  the  Peers,  that  he  found  the  letters  to  Jervas, 
Digby,  Blount,  and  Arbuthnot,  were  wanting  in  all  those 
copies. 

Here,  then,  from  Lord  Islay  and  Curll,  we  have  an  account 
of  the  differences  between  the  first — the  perfect  copies — and 
the  "  horseload,"  or  imperfect  copies.  But  as  the  letters 
wanting  in  the  imperfect  copies  were  reproduced  in  all  subse- 
quent editions,  we  must  seek  for  some  other  test  of  the  first 
edition. 

The  first  edition,  or  rather  first  issue  of  the  first  edition, — 
we  will  call  it  A — and  the  "  horseload,"  B, — have  a  table  of 
errata.  The  passages  referred  to  in  this  table  are  found  by 
its  directions  in  an  edition  "  printed  and  sold  by  the  Book- 
sellers of  London  and  Westminster,"  1735.  There  are,  how- 
ever, many  editions  or  many  issues  so  described.  To  distinguish 
this  particular  edition  A,  I  will  notice  other  peculiarities. 

*  Ix>rd  Islay  does  not  say  that  he  bought  the  copy  at  Curll's.  He  probably 
had  a  copy  which  was  given  to  him  as  one  of  the  copies  sold  by  Curll.  We  must 
not  therefore  assume  as  certain  that  the  copy  Lord  Islay  had  was  one  of  the  first 
fifty,  though  I  have  little  doubt  that  it  was  one  of  them. 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  333 

Tims  at  p.  22,  the  catchword  is  a  misprint,  "  I  thanhk  "  for 
"  I  thank."  Curll  also  asserted  in  his  letter  to  Pope  (ii.  p.  14) 
that  the  copies  of  the  Wycherley  letters  printed  in  1728  [1729] 
were  used  in  the  first  edition  of  the  letters,  1735.  This  is 
substantially  correct :  they  were  used,  but  tampered  with  ; 
and  one  letter,  at  least,  inserted.  There  is  strange  confusion 
in  the  pagination  of  these  Wycherley  letters ;  but  that  it  was 
not  mere  blundering  is  proved  by  there  being  equal  confusion 
in  the  sheet  lettering.  Thus  p.  1  is  on  a  sheet  marked  "  *B." 
This  B  with  an  asterisk  is  only  half  a  sheet,  pp.  1  to  4.  As 
the  next  sheet  is  "  B,"  and  the  pagination  begins  with  re- 
peating p.  3,  I  suspect  that  the  Wycherley  letters  of  1729  had 
only  two  pages  of  letters  preceding  this  p.  3,  and  that  the  con- 
fusion arises  from  the  introduction  of  that  very  suspicious 
letter  of  Dec.  26,  1704,  wherein,  as  Dr.  Johnson  observes,  the 
boy  of  sixteen  wrote  with  all  the  "  cant  of  an  author,"  and,  I 
will  add,  many  years  before  he  was  an  author — before  he  had 
even  contributed  a  line  to  a  Miscellany. 

The  sheet  "  B  "  is  of  eight  pages,  and  was,  I  have  no  doubt, 
transferred  bodily  from  the  edition  of  1729.  It  is  followed, 
however,  by  "  *C  "  which  again  is  only  a  half  sheet,  with  a 
pagination  from  pp.  11  to  14.  The  asterisk  signifies  inser- 
tion, and  the  four  pages  are  occupied  with  one  letter.  To 
accomplish  this,  to  fill  the  four  pages,  the  letter,  contrary  to 
usage,  is  broken  up  into  seven  paragraphs,  with  double  the 
usual  space  between  each,  and  it  concludes,  also  contrary  to 
usage,  with  the  formal  subscription  "  Dear  Sir,  Your  most 
affectionate  Servant."  Yet  after  all  these  typographical  ex- 
tensions, the  letter  only  reaches  by  five  lines  into  the  fourth 
page  ;  all  the  rest  of  the  page  being  blank  space.  These  four 
pages,  from  pp.  11  to  14  of  "  *C,"  are  foUowed  by  the  "  C  " 
of  1729,  which  begins  by  repeating  p.  11. 

As  a  general  description,  I  may  note  that  the  title  of  this 
edition  is  "  Letters  of  Mr.  Pope  and  several  Eminent  Persons 
from  the'Year  1705  to  1711,  vol.  i.  London,  Printed  and  Soil 
by  the  Booksellers  of  London  and  Westminster,  1735."  The 
address  "  To  the  Reader "  fills  eight  pages.  The  letters 
follow,  beginning  p.  1,  and  ending  at  p.  208.  The  second 


334  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

volume  in  my  copy  has  no  title-page,  but  begins  with  a  bastard 
title  of  "  Letters  of  Sir  William  Trumbull,  Mr.  Steele,  Mr. 
Addison,  and  Mr.  Pope.  From  1711  to  1715 " ;  and  the 
letters  begin  p.  3,  and  conclude  p.  164,  with  "Finis."  I 
have  shown  that  the  pagination  is  wrong,  but  it  may  serve 
as  a  guide. 

The  only  copy  I  have  or  have  seen  of  the  "  horseload," — 
call  it  B, — is  said  in  the  title-page  to  have  been  "  Printed  for 
J.  Roberts."  That  the  copy  I  refer  to  was  one  of  the  "  horse- 
load  "  is  shown  by  its  deficiencies.  It  does  not  contain  on  the 
117th  page  the  letter  to  Jervas  with  its  reference  to  the  Earl 
of  Burlington  ;  it  does  not  contain  the  note  about  the  Duke  of 
Chandos;  it  does  not  contain  the  letters  to  Jervas,  Digby, 
Blount,  or  Arbuthnot,  although  in  other  respects  it  agrees 
with  the  copy  A,  as  appears  when  tested  by  the  table  of  errata. 
These  facts  prove  that  the  "  horseload  "  were  copies,  though 
imperfect  copies,  of  the  first  edition. 

Assuming  this  B  copy  to  be  one  of  the  "horseload,"  it  con- 
tains proof  that  the  "  horseload  "  was  actually  prepared  for 
the  seizure,  with  a  foreknowledge  of  the  exact  points  to  which 
Lord  Islay,  who  brought  the  subject  under  the  consideration 
of  the  House  of  Lords,  would  direct  special  attention ;  for  the 
copies  were  not  merely  defective,  but  there  had  been  an 
attempt  by  actual  printing  and  an  alteration  of  the  pagination, 
to  make  them  appear  complete,  and  this  must  have  been  done 
before  the  copies  were  seized  on  the  twelfth,  for  Lord  Islay's 
questionings  were  not  until  the  14th.  Thus  the  Jervas  letter, 
p.  117,  about  which  and  its  offences  my  Lord  Islay  was 
anxious,  was  not  only  gone,  but  a  harmless  letter  to  Gay,  by 
alteration  of  pagination,  figures  in  its  place ;  and  as  the  Jervas 
letter,  with  its  reference  to  the  Earl  of  B.  began  p.  115,  the 
note  on  Trumbull  (p.  114)  is  extended  decently  to  cover 
p.  115  by  adding  the  epitaph  on  Trumbull.  This  epitaph,  be 
it  understood,  had  only  appeared  as  an  "  Ep.  on  Trumbull" 
in  Pope's  Works,  vol.  ii.,  entered  at  Stationers'  Hall  on  the 
llth  April.  That  it  was  here  printed  for  the  purpose  assigned 
is  manifested  by  the  fact  that  it  does  not  appear  in  the  copies 
"  Printed  for  the  Booksellers,"  nor  in  any  subsequent  edition. 


L]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  335 

At  the  end  of  this  epitaph  we  find  the  word  "  Finis,"  as  if  the 
work  was  complete  ;  but  this  "  Finis "  is  followed  by  the 
letters  to  Gay  beginning  p.  117,  and  the  Gay  group  concludes 
the  volume  without  a  "  Finis."  The  half  sheets  X  and  Y 
with  which  the  "  Booksellers'  "  conclude,  and  which  contain 
the  note  about  the  letter  to  the  Duke  of  Chandos  and  the 
letter  to  Arbuthnot,  are  wanting. 

The  hurry  to  be  in  the  market  with  the  "  Booksellers'  " 
copy  after  the  "  horseload  "  had  been  returned  by  the  Lords 
to  Curll  on  the  15th  May  is  shown  in  this — the  Gay  group 
will  be  found  in  the  "  Booksellers'  "  with  its  pagination  be- 
ginning p.  117,  although  this  p.  117  follows  p.  194. 

But  though  these  omissions  and  alterations  were  required  to 
mystify  the  Lords — to  gain  notoriety  for  the  publication  without 
the  risk  of  stopping  it — I  do  not  see  why  the  Digby  and 
Blount  letters  were  omitted,  except  to  damage  Curll  and 
destroy  the  market  value  of  the  "  horseload."  Curll  paid 
Smythe  WL  in  cash,  and  gave  him  a  bill  or  bills  for  20/. 
(See  Xarr.  p.  16.)  The  WL  cash  paid  for  the  fifty  copies 
which  Curll  had  received  and  sold  ;  and  as  the  bills  could  not 
be  presented  for  payment,  Curll  lost  nothing  by  the  copies 
being  defective,  and  this  may  have  quieted  the  conscience  of 
P.  T.,  R.  S.,  or  A.  Pope. 

It  may  seem  strange  under  the  circumstances,  that  I  should 
refer  for  a  specimen  of  the  "  horseload  "  to  a  copy  published 
by  Roberts;  but  Curll,  Roberts,  Burleigh,  and  other  book- 
sellers of  that  class  frequently  speculated  in  conjunction,  each 
printing  a  title-page  with  his  name.  Curll,  hot  for  revenge, 
announced  on  the  22 nd  May  that  he  should  that  week  publish 
a  perfect  edition  ;  and  what  with  the  editions  by  the  "  Book- 
sellers," the  large  and  small  editions  by  Curll,  editions  by 
Cooper,  Smith,  and  others,  the  town  was  soon  inundated,  and 
the  imperfect  copies  may  have  been  got  rid  of  as  waste  paper. 
Yet  it  is  not  improbable  that  other  copies  of  the  "  horseload  " 
may  yet  turn  up,  with  Curll' s  name  or  other  names  upon  the 
title-page. 

My  copy  of  the  "horseload" — Roberts — maybe  described 
thus:  It  has  the  address  "To  the  Reader"  prefixed;  the 


336  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

pagination  of  the  Letters  begins  p.  1,  and  ends  p.  208,  without 
"  Finis,"  and  with  "  Letter "  as  a  catch-word  ;  the  second 
volume  opens  with  a  bastard  title,  "  Letters  of  Sir  William 
Trumbull,"  &c.,  and  the  Letters  begin  p.  3,  and  end  p.  154 
without  "  Finis." 

We  come  now  to  another  issue  of  the  first  edition — C.  It 
agrees  generally  with  the  A  copy.  The  errors  indicated  in 
the  errata  are  found  by  its  direction  in  this,  as  in  the  A  and 
B  copies  ;  the  catch- word  at  p.  22  has  the  same  blunder — "  I 
than/ek  "  for  "  I  thank  "  :  but  there  are  differences  ;  thus,  from 
p.  1  to  16  the  pagination  is  correct,  and  I  presume  the  letters 
had,  so  far,  been  reprinted, — but  no  farther,  as  the  next  page 
recommences  as  before  with  p.  11.  Other  sheets,  however, 
must  have  been  reprinted,  as  I  find,  ii.  13,  a  whole  line 
omitted. 

The  title-page  and  address  to  another  issue  or  edition, 
which  I  shall  call  D,  appears  to  be  identical  with  A  and  C  ; 
but  here,  again,  there  are  differences.  The  pagination  and 
the  sheet  lettering  of  the  Wycherley  letters  are  correct  through- 
out :  the  errors,  therefore,  in  the  table  of  errata  are  not  to  be 
found  by  the  directions  there  given ;  and  when  the  passages 
referred  to  are  found,  the  errors  have  been  corrected.  We 
have,  indeed,  conclusive  proof  of  reprinting,  so  far  as  the 
Wycherley  letters  are  concerned,  for  pp.  30,  31  contain  more 
lines  than  the  A  and  C  copies,  and  the  reason  appears  p.  32, 
where  twelve  lines  are  quoted  in  the  note,  while  only  six 
appear  in  the  A  and  C  copies.  Other  evidence  of  reprinting 
will  be  found  on  collation.  As  a  farther  help  to  distinguish 
this  D  issue,  I  will  notice  that  p.  208  is  followed  by  p.  281. 

This  early  and  hurried  reprint  of  the  Wycherley  and  of 
some  other  letters,  was  no  doubt  consequent  on  the  interest 
excited  by  the  proceedings  in  the  House  of  Lords.  Yet  that 
this  D  copy  was  not  entirely  a  new  edition,  I  shall  proceed  to 
show  by  very  curious  evidence. 

The  number  of  copies  delivered  to  Curll,  whether  300, 
according  to  his  receipt,  or  240  as  he  said  ("  Narrative,"  p.  13, 
note),  had  reduced  the  possible  supply  below  the  demand,  and 
so  far  as  the  Wycherley  Letters,  printed  in  1729,  were  con- 


I.]  POPE'S   WHITINGS.  337 

cerned,  there  was  no  means  of  increasing  the  number  of  copies 
but  by  reprinting,  and  I  have  shown  that  they  were  reprinted. 
Other  sheets  were  also  reprinted.  But  be  it  remembered  the 
"  horseload  "  of  copies  were  all  without  the  important  groups 
of  letters  to  Jervas,  Blount,  and  Digby.  Pope,  therefore,  or 
Pope's  agent,  had  all  those  copies  on  hand,  over  and  above 
the  number  of  copies  of  the  other  letters  :  and  there  is  proof, 
I  think,  beyond  question,  that  the  sheets  withheld  from  Curll 
were  used  in  this  D  issue.  Thus,  in  the  Digby  group,  p.  135, 
the  catch- word  is  "  therefor  " — the  same  as  in  A,  B,  and  C  ; 
in  the  Blount,  at  p.  165,  "interesting"  is  spelt  " interessing," 
as  also  in  A,  B,  C ;  and  in  p.  176  we  read  in  all  "  Unh 
appiness  tha  I  am  obliged ".  Here  are  proofs  that  the 
volumes  were  not  wholly  reprinted  ;  further,  at  ii.  17  and  116, 
errors  remain  which  were  pointed  out  in  the  errata ;  and  in 
the  Gay  group  there  are  like  errors;  as  at  p.  155,  where, 
owing  to  the  letter  s  having  dropped  out,  the  word  is  printed 
"  thou  and,"  which  is  inexplicable,  except  on  the  assumption 
that  they  were  all  printed  from  the  same  form.  It  is  probable, 
however,  that  the  Gay  group  were  partially  reprinted,  because 
the  pagination  runs  on  correctly  up  to  p.  236 ;  but  then  comes 
the  old  pagination,  p.  155,  with  the  old  errors. 

This  edition  D,  may  be  thus  known :  The  first  volume  of 
the  Letters  begins  p.  1  and  ends  p.  286  with  "  The  end  of  the 
first  volume."  In  vol.  ii.  the  Letters  begin  page  3,  and  end 
p.  164  with  "  Finis." 

I  have  another  copy  of  this  issue  which  differs  in  minute 
points,  and  in  which  some  minute  errors  have  been  corrected : 
thus,  the  pagination  of  vol.  ii.  runs  on  to  p.  246. 

It  is  impossible,  at  least  I  have  found  it  so,  to  distinguish 
a  reprint  from  a  corrected  sheet.  It  is  obvious  to  me  that 
Pope  was  "  paper  sparing,"  with  print  as  with  manuscript ; 
and  that  every  sheet,  even  when  its  errors  were  known,  was 
saved  and  sold.  Another  difficulty  originates  in  the  fact, 
that,  in  a  hurried  publication,  the  "  copy,"  as  it  is  technically 
called,  must  have  been  placed  in  the  hands  of  many  com- 
positors ;  and  the  only  instructions  could  have  been  to  follow 
"  copy,"  which  necessarily  led  to  the  perpetuation  of  errors. 
VOL.  i.  z 


338  PAPEES  OF  A  CRITIC.  [I/ 

I  have  noticed  certain  marking  peculiarities,  and  the  reader 
ma}7  form  his  own  opinion  as  to  the  cause. 

The  history  of  the  subsequent  issues  in  1735  I  shall  reserve 
till  next  week.  D.  [Mr.  Dilke]. 

POPE'S   LETTERS,  1735. 

I  come  now  to  the  edition  of  "  Mr.  Popes  Literary  Cor- 
respondence, printed  for  E.  Curll,  1735."  Pope's  outcry 
and  hue  and  cry  led  the  public  to  believe  that  Curll  was 
the  first  printer  of  the  Letters.  Curll  had  no  more  to  do 
with  printing  the  Letters  than  any  bookseller  who  sold  copies. 
The  first  printer  and  publisher,  as  shown  in  The  Athenaum, 
was  P.  T.  or  Pope  himself.  Curll,  however,  finding  that  he 
had  been  made  a  tool  of,  that  the  "  horseload "  were  all 
imperfect  copies,  resolved  to  print  an  edition  of  his  own 
— a  complete  edition  as  he  called  it  —  and  announced  his 
intention  to  do  so  in  his  Letter  to  the  Peers,  of  22nd  May ; 
with,  by  way  of  "  Supplement,"  all  letters  received  from  E.  T., 
P.  T.,  B.  S.,  and  others,  and  a  new  plate  of  Mr.  Pope's  head 
from  Mr.  Jervas's  picture. 

The  copy  before  me  has  a  portrait  of  Pope,  but  without  the 
name  either  of  painter  or  engraver.  It  has  the  address  "  To 
the  Reader  "  from  the  Booksellers'  edition,  here  called  "  Pre- 
face " ;  except  that  the  passage  referring  to  the  Wycheiiey 
letters  is  omitted  ;  and  it  may  be  well  to  notice,  that  the  same 
passage  was  omitted  in  the  edition  published  by  Boberts.  It 
has  not  the  promised  "  Supplement." 

It  must,  however,  be  remembered,  before  this  fact  be  allowed 
weight  on  the  question  of  priority,  that  Curll's  advertisement, 
promising  the  "  Supplement,"  is  dated  the  21st,  and  his  Letter 
to  the  Peers  22nd  of  May ;  and  it  was  not  announced  till  the 
24th  that  the  clergyman,  &c.,  had  discovered  the  whole  trans- 
action, and  that  a  "  Narrative  "  of  the  same  would  be  speedily 
published.  This  may  have  suggested  to  Curll  the  policy  of 
remaining  quiet  until  the  "  Narrative  "  was  published.  But 
he  could  not,  in  regard  to  his  interest,  defer  the  publication  of 
the  Letters  which  had  been  announced  for  this  week  ;  and  this 


I.]  POPE'S   WRITINGS.  339 

week  ended  Saturday  the  2 1th  May,  and  the  "  Narrative  "  did 
not  appear  before  the  10th  of  June. 

The  "  Supplement,"  however,  did  appear  prefixed  to  what 
Curll  calls  the  second  volume  of  Pope's  Correspondence,  which 
also  contained  a  copy  of  the  "  Narrative,"  with  notes  by  Curll. 
This  second  volume  must  have  followed  quickly,  as  a  third  is 
announced  on  the  26th  July  as  to  appear  next  month. 

It  may  be  well  to  note  that  Curll's  "  Supplement " — the 
"  Initial  Correspondence  " — has  a  different  pagination,  and  a 
different  sheet-lettering  from  the  "  Narrative."  There  is  no 
reference  to  it  in  the  "  Narrative  "  :  it  brings  the  account  down 
only  to  the  22nd  May,  in  brief,  suggests  by  its  silence  and  by 
circumstances  that  it  had  been  printed  before  the  "  Narrative  " 
was  published.  It  is  strong  evidence  of  this,  that  Curll's 
"  Supplement  "  does  contain  the  "  Initial  Correspondence  "  ; 
and  among  other  letters,  the  two  of  Oct.  11,  and  of  Nov.  15, 
1733,  which  two  letters  were  published  in  the  "  Narrative," 
and  are  not,  therefore,  included  in  Curll's  reprint  of  it. 

The  Letters  begin  p.  1,  and  end  p.  232,  without  "  Finis  "  ; 
and  vol.  ii.  begins  p.  1,  and  ends  p.  316,  which  is  announced 
as  "  The  end  of  the  first  volume."  I  have  two  editions.  My 
description  is  general,  and  merely  to  help  the  curious  at  a 
bookstall.  It  will  be  found,  however,  on  examination,  that 
the  pagination  of  the  second  volume  ends  p.  128,  and  then 
recommences  p.  233,  which  would  make  what  follows  the 
proper  continuation  of  vol.  i. 

I  have  also  four  editions  of  1735,  in  12mo.  As,  however, 
the  interest  attaches  only  to  the  first  edition  and  its  various 
issues,  these  12mos.  may  be  briefly  dismissed. 

The  first,  as  I  believe,  was  "  Printed  for  T.  Cooper,  and 
sold  by  the  Booksellers  of  London  and  Westminster."  After 
a  hurried  examination,  I  am  of  opinion  that  it  was  reprinted 
from  the  A  copy,  corrected  by  the  table  of  errata.  It  was 
advertised  as  "  this  day  published,"  in  the  Country  Journal  of 
June  16th.  The  copy  itself  bears  evidence  that  it  must  have 
been  got  up  in  great  haste,  and  it  was  intended  probably  to 
undersell  Curll's  8vo.,  which  was  only  announced  on  the  21st 
May.  Three  of  the  letters  are  throughout  printed  in  italics, 

z  2 


340  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [I. 

and  after  p.  244,  the  pagination  commences  with  p.  217 ;  and 
all  that  follows  is  in  a  different  type.  This  was  probably  the 
edition  which  Pope  "  connived  at/'  as  he  was  forced  to  acknow- 
ledge to  Fortescue. 

The  next  edition  was  probably  one  "  Printed,  and  sold  by  the 
Booksellers  of  London  and  Westminster."  This  was  a  still 
cheaper  reprint,  probably  by  or  for  Cooper.  Here  again  haste 
is  evident :  four  letters  are  printed,  throughout,  in  italics.  It 
is  professed  in  the  title-page  that  this  "  Edition  contains  more 
letters,  and  more  correctly  printed,  than  any  other  extant." 
As  to  the  superior  accuracy  I  have  not  collated,  and  therefore 
cannot  say ;  but  it  certainly  contains  two  letters  not  before 
published,  one  from  Atterbury  and  one  "  To  *  *  **  *,"  no 
doubt  contributed  by  Pope.  It  has  also  a  portrait  of  Pope, 
copied  I  presume  from  Curll,  and  therefore  reversed ;  it  is  in- 
scribed, "  Mr.  Alexander  Pope,"  whereas  C mil's  is  "  Mr.  Pope." 
The  portrait  may  have  been,  and  probably  was,  a  subsequent 
insertion.  This  is  the  edition  to  which  Bowles  referred  in  his 
controversy  with  Roscoe.  (See  "  N.  &  Q.,"  2n|  S.  x.  381.) 

The  best,  typographically,  of  these  12mo.  editions,  is  "  Printed 
for  T.  Cooper."  The  pagination  is  wrong  in  both,  and  at  the 
same  places.  Thus  p.  216  is  followed  by  page  221,  and  p.  263 
by  p.  294.  It  contains  the  additional  Letters,  and  the  "  Nar- 
rative." There  was  a  second  issue  of  this  edition,  with  a  sheet 
of  portraits  prefixed,  no  doubt  in  rivalry  of  Curll's  edition 
"  with  portraits." 

All  the  above  12rno.  editions  have  the  "  Narrative  "  prefixed 
or  affixed. 

Curll  also  issued  a  12mo.  edition  of  the  letters,  "  Printed 
for  E.  Curll,  in  Rose  Street,  Covent  Garden."  I  have  a  third 
edition  of  it  with  date  of  1735*.—  D.— [Mr.  Dilke.] 

*  See  Spence  on  publication  of  Pope's  Letters,  Note  and  Queries,  2  S.  xi.  61. 


I.]  POPE'S   WETTINGS.  341 


SWIFT  OR  POPE. 

F.  C.  H.  comes  much  too  hastily  to  his  confident  conclusion 
that  Swift*  wrote  the  maxim  quoted  by  a  former  corre- 
spondent from  "  Thoughts  on  Various  Occasions  "  published 
in  the  Miscellanies  of  Swift  and  Pope  in  1727.  Let  me  re- 
mind F.  C.  H.  that  there  were  two  series  of  maxims  called 
"  Thoughts,"  &c.  published  in  the  Miscellanies — the  one 
printed  at  the  end  of  the  first  volume,  and  the  other  at  the  end 
of  the  second,  and  that  the  maxim  referred  to  is  from  the 
second  series,  or  to  speak  more  exactly,  from  the  second 
volume.  Now  Pope  told  Spence  (edit.  1820,  p.  158),  "  those 
[maxims]  at  the  end  of  one  volume  are  mine,  and  those  at  the 
end  of  the  other,  Dr.  Swift's."  The  only  difficulty  therefore 
is  to  find  out  the  specific  series  to  which  Pope  referred  as  his 
own,  and  I  think  the  following  evidence  will  be  considered  as 
conclusive,  and  conclusive  as  against  F.  C.  H. 

In  1735,  Faulkner,  the  Dublin  bookseller,  published  the 
first  collected  edition  of  the  Works  of  Swift,  in  four  handsome 
volumes.  It  has  been  stated,  on  contemporary  authority,  that 
Swift  revised  and  superintended  that  edition.  Whether  he  did 
or  not,  there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that,  as  he  was  the 
avowed  friend  and  patron  of  Faulkner,  and  so  continued  for  life, 
a  word  from  him  would  have  insured  the  insertion  or  rejection 

*  SUPPOSED  QUOTATION  FROM  SWIFT  (2nd  S.  vi.  188  ;  vii.  136. — At  the  first 
of  the  above  references,  a  correspondent  signing  himself  DELTA,  enquired  where 
the  following  quotation  occurred  in  the  works  of  Swift : — 

"  I  as  little  fear  that  God  will  damn  a  man  that  has  charity,  as  I  hope  that  the 
priests  can  save  one  who  has  not." 

This  was  answered  at  the  second  reference  given  by  another  correspondent, 
under  the  signature  of  *,  who  stated  that  he  had  not,  after  considerable  search, 
found  such  a  sentence  in  Swift's  works ;  but  that  Pope,  in  a  letter  to  Edward 
Blount,  Esq.,  dated  Feb.  10,  17^,  makes  use  exactly  of  the  above  expression. 
Not  "  exactly,"  however,  for  Pope's  sentence  is  thus  worded  in  the  second  part  : 
"As  I  hope  any  Priest  can  save  t  ne  who  has  not." 

The  difference  is  immaterial,  but  I  wish  to  observe  that  the  sentence,  as  given  by 
DKLTA,  does  occur,  word  for  word,  in  Swift's  "  Thoughts  on  Va  ious  Subjects"  at 
the  end  of  the  sec*  nd  vo  unie  of  his  Mi.~ceJlanies,  London,  printed  for  Benj.  Motto 
and  Chas.  Batlmrst,  1736,  p.  275.  I  think  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  sentence 
was  originally  Swift's. — Notes  atid  Queries,  3  S.  iii.  297.— F.  (_'.  H. 


342  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [I. 

of  any  of  the  many  anonymous  works  attributed  to  him  ;  so  far, 
therefore,  as  the  contents  are  concerned,  Faulkner's  edition 
may  be  considered  as  of  authority.  In  this  edition  appears 
the  "  Thoughts  "  reprinted  from  the  first  volume  of  the  Mis- 
cellanies, but  the  "  Thoughts  "  from  the  second  volume  were 
not  therein  republished.  This  surely  is  very  strong  evidence 
against  the  conclusion  of  F.  C.  H.  Further,  in  1741,  Pope 
published  the  second  volume  of  his  Works  in  Prose,  and  amongst 
these  are  "  Thoughts  "  from  the  second  volume  of  the  Mis- 
cellanies, but  the  "  Thoughts  "  from  the  first  volume  are  not 
included.  Can  there  be  stronger  evidence  ?  It  is  true  that 
both  series  have,  since  the  death  of  the  writers,  been  included 
in  editions  of  Swift's  Works;  why,  I  know  not,  for  neither 
Nichols  nor  Scott  had  any  doubt  about  the  authorship  of  the 
second  series,  as  both  prefix  to  the  latter  "  By  Mr.  Pope/' 

It  may  be  just  worth  noting,  that  the  republications  in 
1735  and  in  1741  wrere  after  the  known  custom  of  the  several 
writers.  The  Swift  "  Thoughts  "  are  a  mere  reprint ;  whereas, 
in  the  Pope  series,  there  are  many  omissions  and  additions. 
It  is  not  to  be  believed  that  Pope  would  have  ventured  on  this 
had  they  been  written  by  Swift. 

Bowles  noticed  that  many  of  the  "  Thoughts  "  in  the  Pope 
series  are  found  totidem  verbis  in  his  Letters.  This  is  quite 
true,  and  Pope,  I  suspect,  found  that  out  before  Bowles,  and 
therefore  many  of  the  omissions  in  the  Quarto.  It  is  curious 
that  the  very  maxim  to  which  your  correspondents  refer,  and 
about  which  this  discussion  has  arisen,  is  of  the  number ;  it 
appeared,  substantially,  in  1735^  in  a  letter  professedly  ad- 
dressed to  Ed.  Blount,  and  was,  therefore,  I  suspect,  omitted 
in  1741 ;  and  here,  to  prevent  further  confusion,  let  me  ob- 
serve, that  as  the  series  "  by  Mr.  Pope  "  were  printed  among 
Swift's  Works  from  Pope's  quarto,  the  particular  maxim  does 
not  appear  in  either  Scott  or  Nichols's  edition  of  Swift's 
Works,  or  any  edition  of  Pope's  Works  published  during  his 
pfe. — Xotes  and  Queries,  3  S.  iii,  350. — S.  O.  P.  [Mr.  Dilke.] 


LADY  HABY  MONTAGU. 


From  the  Athenceum,  April  6,  1861. 

The  Letters  and  Works  of  Lady  Mary  Worthy  Montagu.  By 
Lord  Wharncliffe.  Third  Edition,  with  Additions. 
Edited  by  Moy  Thomas.  Vol.  I.  (Bohn.) 

FOB  more  than  a  century  the  character  of  Lady  Mary 
Wortley  Montagu  has  been  a  subject  of  discussion, — a  mystery 
which  neither  time  nor  literary  research  has  been  able  satis- 
factorily to  clear  up.  We  can  only  explain  this  by  the  fact 
that,  for  a  person  of  fortune  and  position,  she  lived,  by  choice, 
in  comparative  retirement  —  latterly  and  for  twenty  years 
abroad — and  that,  on  her  death,  all  her  papers  came  into  the 
possession  of  Lord  Bute,  who  had  married  her  only  daughter, 
and  who,  though  a  distinguished  and  somewhat  ostentatious 
patron  of  Literature  and  Science,  thought  it  altogether  dero- 
gatory that  his  wife's  mother  should  appear  and  take  rank 
among  a  class  which  he  looked  on  as  persons  to  be  patronized. 
This  feeling  was  more  general  in  the  eighteenth  thaii  in  the 
nineteenth  century.  Lady  Mary  herself  felt  it  little  less 
strongly  than  her  son-in-law ;  we  are  not  aware  that  she  ever 
published  anything  in  her  lifetime  with  her  name.  The  famous 
"  Turkish  Letters"  she  certainly  gave  to  Mr.  Sowden  to  do 
what  he  pleased  with;  but  that  was  forty  years  after  they 
were  written — after  they  had  been  long  circulated  in  manuscript 
among  her  friends,  and  when  she  was  more  than  seventy  years 
old.  Lord  Bute  no  sooner  heard  of  this  than  he  entered  into 


344  PAPEES  OF  A    CRITIC.  [II. 

a  treaty  with  Sowden,  and  gave  him  300L  or  500Z.  for  the 
manuscript.  At  that  time,  1762-3,  Lord  Bute  was  "  the  hest 
abused  man  in  England."  It  was  therefore  of  importance  that 
he  should — for  a  time  at  least — suppress  the  work.  That  the 
Letters  were  immediately  published  does  not  affect  the  ques- 
tion. They  were  published  without  the  sanction,  indeed  in 
direct  opposition  to  the  wishes,  of  the  family ;  whose  object 
in  the  purchase  had  manifestly  been  to  suppress — to  suppress 
a  work  harmless  in  itself,  which  has  stood  the  test  of  a 
century,  is  read  to  this  hour  with  admiration,  and  has  won  for 
the  writer  a  European  reputation.  Suppression,  indeed,  was 
the  anxious  wish  of  the  Butes ;  even  Lady  Bute,  wrho  had  a 
high  respect  for  her  mother,  and  a  just  appreciation  of  her 
abilities,  not  only  suppressed  but  burned  her  manuscripts. 
Among  Lady  Mary's  papers  there  was  found  a  voluminous 
diary,  begun  on  her  marriage  and  continued  almost  to  the  day 
of  her  death.  This  was  ever  kept  by  Lady  Bute  under  lock 
and  key,  and  at  last  was  committed  to  the  flames.  The 
apology  for  this — and  we  must  believe  for  other  like  burnings, 
for  the  argument  so  far  as  it  is  of  force  has  no  limit — is 
plausible  ;—* 

ft  Though  she  always  spoke  of  Lady  Mary  with  great 
respect,  yet  it  might  be  perceived  that  she  knew  it  had  been 
too  much  her  custom  to  note  down  and  enlarge  upon  all  the 
scandalous  rumours  of  the  day,  without  weighing  their  truth 
or  even  their  probability ;  to  record  as  certain  facts  stories 
that  perhaps  sprang  up  like  mushrooms  from  the  dirt,  and  had 
as  brief  an  existence,  but  tended  to  defame  persons  of  the 
most  spotless  character.  In  this  age,  she  said,  everything  got 
into  print,  sooner  or  later." 

This  is  to  us  unsatisfactory :  the  "  getting  into  print "  is 
not  quite  a  matter  of  course  ;  and  if  it  did  happen  some 
century  after  the  death  of  the  parties,  no  great  mischief  would 
result.  Memoirs,  however  scandalous,  are  never  historically 
or  biographically  worthless.  "  Mushrooms,"  naturalists  tell 
us,  have  been  known  to  lift  stones  of  a  ton  weight ;  and  we 


II.]  LADY  MARY  WORTLEY  MONTAGU.  345 

may  be  assured  that  anecdotes — mushrooms  though  they  may 
be — often  influence  as  well  as  indicate  human  character.  Few 
are  so  self-sustained  as  to  be  above  public  opinion.  After  all, 
should  an  anecdote  turn  out  to  be  high-coloured,  or  absolutely 
false,  a  little  editorial  alkali  in  a  note  would  neutralize  the 
acid  of  the  text. 

If  this  principle  of  suppression  and  of  burning  be  admitted, 
where  is  the  line  to  be  drawn  ?     How  are  we  to  distinguish 
the   anecdotes  which  may,  from   those  which  must  not,  be 
published  ?     Are  the  great  and  the  illustrious  only  to  be  con- 
sidered fair  game  ? — for  what  are   one-half  of  our  political 
ballads,  rhymes,  and  epigrams  but  slanderous  anecdotes  which, 
so  far  from   suppressing  or  burning,  we   seek  for  with  avidity, 
and  treasure  up  as  pearls  of  high  price  and  value  ?     We  have, 
at  this   moment,  before    us   a  ponderous  volume — entitled  a 
'  Collection   of  Reports,    Lyes,  and   Stories   which  were  the 
Precursors  of  the  Revolution  of  1688,' — -a  work  which  is  con- 
stantly referred  to  by  Lord  Macaulay  :  we  have  on  our  shelves 
probably  five-and-twenty,  or  more,  volumes  of  like  "  Reports  " 
and  "  Lyes,"  relating  to  the   birth  of  the  son  of  James  the 
Second.     Who  is  the  worse  for  their  having  been  published  or 
collected  ?     Yet  the  fact  of  publication  and  circulation  is  of 
great  historical  importance  as  showing  the  credulity,  or  the 
belief,  of  the  people  ;  and  they  were  probably  as  influential  in 
passing  the  Bill  of  Settlement  as  all  the  eloquence  of  all  the 
orators  in  both  Houses  of  Parliament.     One  half  the  political 
engineering  from  the  first  of  William  the  Third  to  the  last  of 
George  the  Second  was  mere  "  Reports "  and  "  Lyes,"  and 
we   doubt   not   that   the   contributions   of   Swift,  Arbuthnot, 
Pope,   Burnet    (father    and   son),    Chesterfield,    and    others, 
would  form  a  volume  of  great  interest  if  it  could  be  collected 
and  authenticated,  as  it  might  have  been  but  for  suppressions 
and  burnings.     Lady  Mary  herself  is  believed  to  have  been  a 
contributor  to  these  satires ;  and  she  certainly  had  a  natural 
tendency  that  way ;  but  she  reaped  nothing  but  suspicion  and 
hatred ;  for  as  a  woman  she  could  not,  and  as  a  daughter  of 
the  Duke  of  Kingston  she  would  not,  enter  into  the  common 
arena,  and  fight  with  professed  gladiators.     She  had,  there- 


346  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [IL 

fore,  while  living  only  to  bear  and  forbear ;  and  now  that  she 
is  dead  we  learn  that  the  best  evidence  in  her  favour  which 
we,  who  have  faith  in  her,  believe  would  have  been  found  in 
her  diaries,  has  been  burnt.  These  diaries,  we  are  satisfied, 
would  have  enabled  us  to  prove  the  falsehood  of  the  slanders 
of  Pope  and  the  gossip  of  Horace  Walpole.  But  the  poor 
Lady  had  been  while  living  so  shamefully  calumniated,  with  cir- 
cumstantial falsehoods  as  to  her  moral  character  and  conduct, 
that  the  Bute  family  feared  discussion  even  though  it  should 
end  in  disproof.  They  had  themselves  been  poor,  and  were 
become,  by  the  death  of  Mr.  Wortley,  enormously  rich ;  and 
they  desired  above  all  things  peace  and  quiet.  They  had  a 
true  aristocratic  horror  of  the  public — they  feared  revelation 
lest  they  should  not  have  foreseen  all  its  possible  consequences, 
as  the  country  gentlemen  of  that  age  feared  to  let  our  county 
historians  trace  the  descent  of  property  by  the  aid  of  their 
title-deeds,  lest  some  question  as  to  title  should  thence  arise, 
— though  we  never  heard  of  any  one  of  them  whose  fears  led 
him  to  burn  his  title-deeds. 

Giving  all  possible  force  to  Lady  Bute's  objection,  it  is  met, 
we  repeat,  by  the  fact  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  publica- 
tion— no  reason  why  anj^body,  much  less  everybody,  should  be 
permitted  to  examine  the  manuscripts ;  but  they  were  a  sort 
of  moral  title-deeds,  and  essential,  in  friendly  hands,  for  the 
vindication  of  her  mother's  character.  If  any  one  has  doubts 
on  this  subject  led  him  read,  with  critical  attention,  the 
memoir  of  Mr.  Thomas  prefixed  to  this  volume,  and  see  what 
an  amount  of  slander  he  has  been  enabled  to  clear  away,  or  to 
neutralize,  by  aid  of  such  manuscripts  as  remain ;  and  these, 
we  may  be  sure,  were  preserved  because  they  were  the  least 
significant,  least  enlivened  with  anecdote,  touched  least  on 
those  very  persons  and  subjects  about  whom  we  are  most 
interested. 

There  is  the  famous  case  of  Kemond — Euremond  as  Walpole 
calls  him — the  "hapless  Monsieur,"  as  we  are  told,  of  the 
Dunciad, — of  which  we  have  some  doubts, — whom  Lady  Mary 
is  said  to  have  intrigued  with,  and  to  have  cheated  out  of 
5,OOOL  in  the  South- Sea  year.  Horace  Walpole,  who  had 


II.]  LADY  MARY    WORTLEY  MONTAGU.  347 

been  permitted  to  read  Lady  Mary's  letters  to  her  sister,  Lady 
Mar,  makes  this  report : — 

'  Ten  of  the  letters  indeed  are  dismal  lamentations  and 
frights,  on  a  scene  of  villany  of  Lady  Mary's,  who  having 
persuaded  one  Ruremonde,  a  Frenchman  and  her  lover,  to 
entrust  her  with  a  large  sum  of  money  to  buy  stock  for  him, 
frightened  him  out  of  England  by  persuading  him  that  Mr. 
Wortley  had  discovered  the  intrigue,  and  would  murder  him, 
and  then  would  have  sunk  the  trust." 

Nine  of  the  letters  here  referred  to  were  subsequently  pub- 
lished by  Lord  Wharncliffe,  who  expressed  his  regret  that  he 
could  not  find  the  tenth.  It  is  curious  to  observe  the  critical 
significance  of  this  lost  letter  in  the  eyes  of  the  writer  in  the 
Quarterly  Review,  who  had  just  before  given  his  sanction  and 
approbation  to  the  suppressing  and  burning  theory.  The 
moment  he  finds  nine  letters  only,  the  tenth  becomes  all  im- 
portant. He  sees  in  the  nine  evidence  that  the  Frenchman 
was  in  possession  "  of  some  letters  of  hers  which  were  of  the 
greatest  importance  to  her  character."  If  the  case  had  been, 
he  says,  as  she  represented  it,  a  mere  money  difference  about 
South- Sea  stock -jobbing  transactions,  why  should  Lady  Mary 
have  been  in  such  "an  extreme  panic?"  why,  as  Lord 
Wharncliffe  conjectured,  all  this  anxiety  to  conceal  from  her 
husband  and  the  world  the  indiscretion  of  her  having  under- 
taken to  purchase  a  few  hundred  pounds  of  South- Sea  stock  ? 
"  This  passionate  terror,  we  are  told,  is  "  quite  dispropor- 
tionate to  any  such  cause."  "  There  is  evidence,  too,"  he 
tells  us,  "  of  coquetry  at  least "  even  in  the  nine  remaining 
letters,  "  of  a  flirtation  begun  abroad,  and  lasting  almost  a 
year,  in  consequence  of  which  R —  followed  her  to  England  ; 
where,  in  order  to  bribe  him  to  go  back  again,  she  turned  it 
into  a  stockbroking  affair." 

What  sins  has  this  one  lost,  suppressed,  or  burnt  letter  to 
answer  for  ?  What  calumnious  speculations  might  it  not  put 
an  end  to  could  it  be  now  found  ?  Fortunately  it  may  be 
found  ;  in  truth,  it  was  actually  published  (Vol.  2,  p.  164)  by 


348  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [IL 

Lord  Whnrncliffe,  but  having  got  mis-sorted  and  separated 
from  the  nine,  it  was  so  harmless  and  so  innocent  that  it  was 
overlooked  equally  by  editor  and  critic.  But  even  the  ten 
letters  give  us,  we  are  told,  only  Lady  Mary's  "  own  account 
of  the  transaction,"  in  which,  of  course,  if  she  had  "  made  him 
happy  in  his  own  way,  she  could  hardly  be  expected  to  confess 
it."  Well,  then,  Mr.  Thomas  has  discovered  the  whole  of  the 
letters  from  Rernond  to  Lady  Mary,  eveiy  one  of  which  it 
appeai-s  her  husband,  Mr.  Wortley,  had  seen,  and,  after  his 
fashion,  indorsed  with  a  precis  of  its  contents.  From  these  we 
learn  that  this  flirtation,  begun  abroad  and  lasting  almost  a 
year,  began  after  the  fashion  of  the  "wits"  of  that  day,  in 
pure  literary  admiration  of  her  genius,  inferred  from  her  letters 
to  his  and  her  friend,  the  Abbe  Conti — Mons.  Remond  being 
in  Paris  and  Lady  Mary  in  Constantinople  !  If  she  saw  him 
at  all  while  on  the  Continent,  it  must  have  been  on  her  hurried 
return  through  Paris  ;  and  as  to  his  visit  to  England,  it  was  in 
the  hope  of  retrieving  his  "  tottering  fortune  "  by  investments 
in  South- Sea  stock,  under  the  direction  and  supposed  informa- 
tion of  Lady  Mary. 


On  the  subject  of  Lady  Mary's  intimacy  and  subsequent 
quarrel  with  Pope  very  little  is  known,  and  not  much  new 
information  could  be  expected.  We  have  long  been  of  opinion 
that  their  acquaintance  before  her  departure  for  Constantinople 
must  have  been  very  slight ;  and  there  is  no  mention  of  him 
in  her  letters  of  that  period,  though  "  Garth,  Addison, 
Congreve  and  Vanbrugh  are  spoken  of  in  terms  of  familiar 
friendship."  There  is,  indeed,  proof  in  her  '  Unfinished 
Sketch'  that  "  when  Oxford  had  the  wand  and  Anna  reigned," 
she  heartily  despised  him. 


Pope's  passionate  utterances  in  his  letters  to  women  meant 
nothing ;  his  divinity  was  she  to  whom,  at  the  moment,  he 
chanced  to  hp~fariting, — he  wan  thinking  rmly  pf  the  tine  things 
he  could  sajTM<^r?Telieve^tsTomeperaonsCavel  prol'esse d  to 


II.]  LADY  MARY   WORTLEY  MONTAGU.  349 

do,  that  there  was  an  attachment  between  Pope  and  Lady 
Mary  before  she  went  abroad  is  absurd.  She  was  young, 
beautiful  and  accomplished,  married  to  a  man  ot  her  own 
choice  four  years,  and  dope's  letters  prove  only,  as  we  have 
said,  that  his  passions  and  professions  were  mere  w<>nls.  His 
theory  is  plainly  stated  in  one  <>f  lii-;  letters  to  her — "The 

farther  you  go  from  me,  the  more  freely  I  shall  write 

Let  us  be  like  modest  people,  who,  when  they  are  close  to- 
gether, keep  all  decorum  ;  but  if  they  step  a  little  aside,"  &c., 
Lady  Mary  was  not  for  a  moment  deceived. 

"  Let  it  be  observed  [sa}*s  Lady  Louisa  Stuart]  in  justice  to 
Lady  Mary's  taste,  that  her  answers  treat  this  kind  of  language 
with  tacit  contempt.  Viewing  it  probably,  with  the  widow 
in  '  Hudibras,'  as  only  '  high-heroic  fustian,'  she  returns  him 
a  recital  of  some  plain  matter  of  fact,  and  never  takes  the 
smallest  notice  of  protestation  or  panegyric." 

If  any  one  doubts  whether  these  letters  were  mere  words 
and  phrases,  let  him  look  at  the  very  first  which  Pope  addressed 
to  Lady  Mary  after  her  arrival, — when,  "wit"  as  he  was,  he 
knew  he  must  "  keep  all  decorum" — descend  to  common  sense 
and  respectful  manners, — and  there,  after  the  introductory 
flourishing  of  some  fifteen  lines,  he  runs  off  into  a  minute 
description  of  Stanton  Harcourt,  "  a  true  picture  of  a  genuine 
ancient  country-seat";  a  letter  which  he  might  have  addressed 
to  his  grandmother,  and  which,  on  the  evidence  of  his  own 
quarto,  of  1737,  he  did  address,  in  duplicate,  to  the  Duke  of 
Buckingham.  The  character  and  degree  of  their  intimacy,  two 
years  after  her  return,  may  perhaps  be  judged  of  by  Gay's 
'  Welcome,'  written  in  1720,  for  Gay  knew  them  both  : — 

What  lady's  that  to  whom  he  gently  bends  ? 
"Who  knows  not  her  ?     Ah !  those  are  Wortley's  eyes ! 
How  art  thou  honour  d,  number'd  with  her  friends, 
For  she  distinguishes  the  good  and  wise. 

It  is  true  that  the  manuscript  fragment  in  the  British  Museum 
reads  "Howard"  instead  of  Worthy, — but,  until  some  one 


350  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [IT. 

shall  have  discovered  a  copy  of  an  early  edition,  we  must  take 
the  printed  text  as  authority.  If  it  prove  erroneous — if  we 
ought  to  read  Howard — the  fact  would  he  still  more  significant ; 
for  then,  in  Gay's  endless  enumeration  of  Pope's  friends,  Lady 
Mary  will  not  have  been  mentioned. 

Some  time  after  their  return,  Lady  Mary  sat  for  her  portrait 
to  Kneller ;  so  did  her  husband,  Mr.  Wortley ;  so  did  her 
sister  Lady  Mar  ;  so  did  most  fashionable  people.  Dallaway 
tells  us  that  Lady  Mary  sat  for  this  portrait  at  the  request  of 
Pope.  On  what  evidence — what  tittle  of  evidence — did  he 
make  this  assertion  ?  Did  Pope  ever  possess  the  picture  ? 
Dallaway,  at  least,  ought  to  have  known  that  the  portrait  was 
in  the  possession  of  her  daughter;  that  it  was  engraved, 
with  the  date  of  1720,  and  prefixed  to  his  own  edition,  where 
it  is  stated  to  have  been  engraved  "from  a  picture  by  Sir 
Godfrey  Kneller,  in  the  collection  of  the  Marquis  of  Bute." 
Dallaway,  we  suppose,  was  misled  by  Pope's  fine  phrasings ; 
and  very  fine  they  are.  But  he  was  not  half  so  rapturous  as 
when  Miss  Cowper  sat  for  her  portrait;  he  does  not  assure 
Lady  Mary  that  he  has  been  tempted  to  "  steal"  the  portrait, 
or  that  he  is  so  "mad  with  the  idea"  of  her  that  he  "passes 
whole  days  in  sitting  before  it,  talking  to  himself." 

We  shall  deal  with  the  story  of  Pope's  quarrel  with  Lady 
Mary  another  day. 


From  the  Ailunceum,  April  13,  1861. 

WE  come  now  to  the  estrangement  from,  and  subsequent 
quarrel  with,  Pope.  There  is  no  evidence,  as  we  have  stated, 
that  Pope  had  more  than  a  very  general  acquaintance  with  the 
Wortleys  before  they  went  abroad  ;  and  soon  after  their  return, 
and  after  they  had  taken  a  house  at  Twickenham,  the  estrange- 
ment began.  The  last  known  letter  from  Pope  is  dated 
September,  1721 ;  and  in  a  letter  to  her  sister,  written  about 
that  time,  Lad^y  Mary  says,  "  I  see  sometimes  Mr.  Congreve, 


II.]  LADY  MARY  WORTLEY  MONTAGU.  351 

and  very  seldom  Mr.  Pope."  She  had  not,  indeed,  seen  his 
niuch-talked-about  Grotto,  though  residing  in  the  same  village. 
On  this  subject,  Mr.  Thomas  observes : 

"  It  is  not  difficult  to  conceive  what  were  the  causes  which 
led  to  this  position  of  affairs.  When  Lady  Mary  first  knew 
Pope,  he  was  indifferent  about  politics,  and  suspected  of  Whig 
tendencies,  only,  perhaps,  because  he  wrote  in  conjunction 
with  Steele  and  Addison,  and  associated  with  them ;  but,  in 
the  interval  of  her  absence,  he  had  become  an  avowed  Tory, 
intimately  allied  with  extreme  Tories— Bwitt,  Arbuthnot, 
OxfofcT,  'Atterbury,  Bathurst.  He  had  openly  quarrelled  with 
and  libelled  their  old  and  dear  friend  Addison,  and  separated 
himself  from  Steele  and  other  Whigs  ;  he  had  become  a  nater 
of  Whigs"m  the  abstract,  although  he  held  "orTwifli  lii-,  neigh- 
bour, young  CYaggs,  and  others.  Lady  Mary  and  her  husband 
were  always  Whigs,  but  now  they  were  Whigs  of  influence. 
Their"claily  associates  were  Whigs,  their  intimates  were  Whigs. 
They  had  become,  as  most  political  people  do,  less  tolerant 
than  in  their  literary  days  of  political  differences ;  and  Pope 
must  have  felt  ill  at  ease  when  he  visited  his  neighbour — 
perhaps  not  always  welcome  to  the  host,  looked  on  with  positive 
dislike  by  many,  with  suspicion  by  all." 

This  is  true :  but  is  it  the  whole  truth  ?  We,  as  common 
men,  dealing  with  the  realities  of  common  life,  suspect  that 
there  was  as  much  of  bathos  as  of  sentiment  in  the  time  story 
of  their  alienation.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive  a  stronger 
contrast  than  between  the  dashing,  brilliant  woman  of  fashion 
and  Pope's  mother,  the  venerable  lady  of  eighty,  with  his  good 
old  nurse,  Mary  Beach.  We  can  imagine  them  in  their  little, 
quiet,  sunny  home  by  the  river-side — a  picture  not  indeed  for 
the  Court  painter,  but  for  that  great  though  homely  artist, 
Izaak  Walton.  When  Mr.  Wortley  first  resided  at  Twickenham 
it  was  in  a  furnished  house,  and  that  means  a  house  wanting  in 
everything.  The  Wortleys,  too,  were  themselves  just  then 
wanting  money;  he  was  not  the  rich  man  he  afterwards  became. 
Both  husband  and  wife  had  been  dabbling  in  South-sea  stock, 


352  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [II. 

the  wife  unknown  to  her  husband ;  and  she  was,  we  know, 
about  that  time,  anxiously  seeking  even  to  sell  her  diamonds. 
Circumstances  make  it  probable  that  Lady  Mary  began  by 
borrowing  of  her  established  neighbour.  Imagine  the  conse- 
quence on  the  old  lady  and  her  old  household — imagine,  too, 
Pope's  excitement,  who  would  not  have  had  his  mother  troubled 
and  worried  for  '*a  wilderness"  of  Wortle}Ts  or  "  Wortley's 
eyes."  It  may  be  but  another  illustration  of  "the  art  of 
sinking" — it  nia}r  be  that  such  illustrations  are  beneath  "  the 
dignity  of  history"  or  biography,  but  we  think  it  right  to 
notice  that  Miss  Hawkins  ('  Anecdotes,'  p.  75)  tells  us,  that 
her  father,  Sir  John,  long  a  resident  at  Twickenham,  had 
heard  that  "  the  celebrated  quarrel,"  or  coolness,  between  her 
Lad}"ship  and  Pope  "  originated  in  the  return  of  a  borrowed 
pair  of  sheets  unwashed."  This  may  be  a  specimen  of  the 
true  bathos ;  but  as  a  fact  it  is  confirmed  by  Worsdale,  the 
painter,  the  pupil  of  Kneller,  and  who  resided  with  him  on  the 
spot.  He  said  "that  the  first  cause  of  quarrel  between  her 
and  Pope  was  her  borrowing  a  pair  of  sheets  from  the  poet, 
which,  after  keeping  them  a  fortnight,  were  returned  to  him 
unwashed"  ('  Life  of  Malone,'  p.  150).  These  were  small 
matters  in  the  eye  of  my  Lady,  or  my  Lady's  maid  ;  not  so  to 
the  feelings  of  Mrs.  Pope.  We  are  old  enough  to  remember 
when  women  of  her  class  would  talk  as  lovingly  about  their 
"fineholland"  as  ladies  of  quality/ about  their  Brussels  and 
Mechlin,  or  connoisseurs  of  a  fine  picture ;  and  no  doubt  Mrs. 
Pope's  holland  was  of  the  finest, — for  her  dead  husband,  be  it 
remembered,  as  she  boastfully  said,  "  dealt  in  hollands  whole- 
sale." These  sheets  were  with  her  not  onl}r  choice  but  full  of 
memories,  and  it  was  painful  indeed  to  see  them,  treasured  as 
they  had  been,  "  fresh  and  smelling  sweet  of  lavender,"  come 
back  to  her  like  rags  of  abomination.  If  there  be  nothing  in 
all  this,  it  is  curious  that  the  very  last  letter  from  Pope  to 
Lady  Mary,  dated  Cirencester,  Sept.  15,  1721,  is  a  strange 
unintelligible  excuse  for  not  lending  a  harpsichord,  as  he  had 
promised  to  do  : — 

"  I  write  this  purely  to  confess  myself  ingenuously  what  I 


II. J  LADY  MARY   WORTLEY  MONTAGU.  353 

am,  a  beast,  *  *  for  what  I  said  and  did  about  the  harpsichord; 
*  *  I  deserve  no  better  pillow  than  a  mossy  bank,  for  that  head 
which  could  be  guilty  of  so  much  thoughtlessness  as  to  promise 
what  was  not  in  my  power,  without  considering  first  whether  it 
was  or  not.  But  the  truth  is,  I  imagined  you  would  take  it 
merely  as  an  excuse  had  I  told  you  I  had  the  instrument  under 
such  conditions  ;  and  I  likewise  simply  thought  I  could  obtain 
leave  to  lend  it ;  which  failing  on  the  trial,  I  suffer  now,  I  find, 
in  your  opinion  of  my  veracity." 

— and  he  continues  with  some  vague  offers  of  a  "  gallery"  in 
his  house  for  her  concerts,  "  unless  my  mother  knows  of  some 
conditions  against  it."  Concerts  were  just  then  the  rage  at 
Twickenham,  where  Eononcini  and  Senesino  and  Anastasia 
Robinson  chanced  to  be  residing. 

We  accept  Mr.  Thomas's  explanation  as  to  the  probable 
causes  of  estrangement,  and  merely  superadd  these  facts  in 
further  illustration.  They  could  not  have  been  known  to  Lady 
Mary,  and  could  not  have  been  alluded  to  by  Pope.  This 
agrees  with  what  Lady  Mary  told  Spence,  "  I  got  a  common 
friend  to  ask  Mr.  Pope  why  he  had  left  off  visiting  me  ?  He 
answered  negligently  that  he  went  as  often  as  he  used  to  do." 
So  said  Pope  in  his  famous  letter  to  Lord  Hervey  :  "  neither 
had  I  the  least  misunderstanding  with  that  lady  till  after  I 
was  the  author  of  my  own  misfortune  in  discontinuing  Jier 
acquaintance." 

Had  Pope  and  Lad}r  Mary  lived  at  a  distance — the  one  in 
London,  the  other  in  Twickenham — their  acquaintance  might 
have  quietly  and  silently  died  out,  as  a  hundred  more  congenial 
friendships  die  out  in  the  everyday  progress  of  life ;  but  living 
in  the  same  village,  the  estrangement  required  explanation, 
and  explanation,  with  its  exaggerations  and  misrepresentations, 
was  a  sure  ground  of  quarrel.  Mr.  Thomas  has  a  very  happy 
conjecture  as  to  one  cause  of  the  direct  quarrel.  Lady  Mary's 
"  Turkish  Letters  "  were,  it  now  appears,  not  letters  at  all, 
but  a  volume  of  travels  in  the  form  of  letters,  compiled  from 
journals,  diaries,  and  letters,  after  her  return  home. 


354  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [II. 

The  quarrel  soon  after  broke  out ;  Swift  arrived  on  a  visit 
to  Pope  in  the  spring  of  1726.  Swift  hated  Lady  Mary — Lady 
Mary,  we  are  told,  "  abhorred  the  very  name  of  Dean  Swift." 
Swift,  so  far  as  we  know,  opened  the  attack  with  the  Capon's 
Tale,  which  however  contains  in  itself  some  obscure  allusions 
to  "  lampoons,"  previously  circulated  by  the  lady.  From  that 
moment  there  was  no  peace,  and  the  genius  of  Pope  and  the 
popularity  of  his  satires  must  have  made  life  itself  hateful  to 
her.  This  might  explain  why  she  went  abroad  ;  but  we  have 
other,  and  we  think  sufficient,  reasons. 

It  would  not  be  very  extraordinary  if  incompatibility  of 
temper  alone  were  urged  as  the  apology  for  a  man  and  his 
wife  living  separate ;  but  the  separation  of  Mr.  Wortley  and 
Lady  Mary,  temporary  probably  in  intention,  was  full  of 
malicious  suggestions  to  the  young  and  brilliant  Horace 
Walpole,  who  hated  them  both,  because  the  husband  was  the 
open  opponent  of  his  father,  a  fact  never  forgiven  by  Horace, 
and  the  wife  spoke  slightingly  at  least  of  his  mother.  We 
doubt  whether  at  any  moment  of  his  life,  Mr.  Wortley  was  a 
loving  and  affectionate  husband.  So  far  as  we  can  fathom  his 
character,  he  appears  to  have  been  a  man  of  shrewd  good  sense, 
upright  and  honourable,  but  of  a  mean  and  penurious  nature, 
which  after  his  father's  death,  and  when  the  possible  million 
of  which  he  died  possessed  loomed  in  the  distance,  became  an 
all-absorbing  passion.  In  the  eyes  of  the  "  wits,"  Lady  Mary 
was  remarkably  mean ;  in  the  eyes  of  her  husband  she  was 
extravagant.  He  was  constantly  absent,  looking  after  his 
estates  in  Yorkshire  and  Durham,  and  above  all,  his  great 
coal-fields,  while  she  was  left  in  London.  For  many  years 
she  had  suffered  from  ill-health ;  and  about  1737,  or  1738, 
she  became  painfully  disfigured  by  an  eruption  which  shut  her 
out  from  all  but  very  friendly  society,  which  continued  through 
life,  and  sent  her  to  the  grave  with  a  cancer.  We  are  con- 
vinced that  there  was  a  taint  of  disease  in  the  blood  of  the 
Pierreponts.  Her  sister  Gower  died  young ;  her  sister  Mar 
was  for  years  a  lunatic  ;  her  son,  it  is  charitable  to  believe, 
was  never  in  his  senses  ;  and  Lady  Mary  may  have  been  saved 
by  that  terrible  outbreak  from  like  affliction — if  indeed  she  did 


II.]  LADY  MARY  WORTLEY  MONTAGU.  355 

altogether  escape,  of  which  we  have  some  doubts.  But  how- 
ever blessed  it  ma}'  have  been  in  its  consequences,  it  was  not 
the  less  terrible  to  bear.  Long  after,  she  wrote  to  her  daughter, 
"  It  is  eleven  years  since  I  saw  my  figure  [French  for  face]  in 
the  glass,  and  the  last  reflection  I  saw  there  was  so  disagreeable 
that  I  resolved  to  spare  myself  such  mortifications  for  the 
future."  The  young  Horace,  who  met  her  at  Florence  in 
1740,  could  see  in  her  suffering  only  a  subject  for  jest  and 
caricature,  and  an  evidence  of  his  own  foregone  conclusions  : — 

"  Her  face  swelled  violently  on  one  side,  *  *  partly  covered 
with  a  plaster,  and  partly  with  white  paint,  which  for  cheap- 
ness she  has  bought  so  coarse  that  you  would  not  use  it  to 
wash  a  chimney." 

What  if  this  were  true  ?  It  was  but  following  a  foolish 
fashion.  Many  beautiful  women — his  own  especial  beauty, 
Lady  Coventry,  among  them — were  believed  to  have  seriously 
injured  their  health,  if  not  shortened  their  lives,  by  the  use  of 
white  paint.  But  the  suffering  Lady  Mary,  as  Walpole's  satire 
would  lead  us  to  believe,  was  but  too  indifferent  to  personal 
appearances  ;  and  a  little  better  knowledge,  and  a  little  more 
humanity,  might  have  suggested  to  him  that  what  he  took  for 
white  paint  was  probably  that  white  powder  which  then,  as 
now,  physicians  recommend  in  such  cases  as  an  absorbent. 
This  disease  was  so  terrible  that  when  at  Venice  she  was  glad 
to  avail  herself  of  a  fashion  of  the  place,  and  to  receive  company 
in  a  mask. 

It  was  in  this  state  of  suffering  that  the  poor  lady  thought,  as 
hundreds  had  done  before,  and  thousands  since,  that  a  residence 
for  a  time  in  a  warmer  and  more  genial  climate,  might  restore 
her  health  ;  and  when  she  had  no  home  duties  to  detain  her, 
when  her  son  was  wandering  abroad,  and  her  daughter  happily 
married,  what  more  natural  than  that  she  should  be  anxious  to 
try  the  influence  of  "  the  sweet  South  ?  "  Her  grand-daughter, 
Lady  Louisa  Stuart,  in  her  delightful  '  Anecdotes,'  says: — 

"  There  is  proof  that  Lady  Mary's  departure  from  England 

A  A  2 


356  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [II. 

was  not  by  any  means  hasty  or  sudden  ;  for  in  a  letter  to  Lady 
Pomfret,  dated  the  2nd  of  May,  1739,  she  announces  her  design 
of  going  abroad  that  summer ;  and  she  did  not  begin  her 
journey  till  the  end  of  July,  three  months  afterwards.  Other 
letters  are  extant  affording  equal  proof  that  Mr.  Wortley  and 
she  parted  upon  the  most  friendly  terms,  and  indeed  as  no 
couple  could  have  done  who  had  had  any  recent  quarrel  or 
cause  of  quarrel.  She  wrote  to  him  from  Dartford,  her  first 
stage ;  again  a  few  lines  from  Dover,  and  again  the  moment 
she  arrived  at  Calais.  Could  this  have  passed,  or  would  the 
petty  details  about  servants,  carriages,  prices,  &c.,  have  been 
entered  into  between  persons  in  a  state  of  mutual  displeasure  ? 
Not  to  mention  that  his  preserving,  docketing,  and  indorsing 
with  his  own  hand  even  these  slight  notes  as  well  as  all  her 
subsequent  letters,  shows  that  he  received  nothing  which  came 
from  her  with  indifference." 

We  learn  from  Mr.  Thomas  that  down  to  a  very  late  period 
there  are  expressions  in  the  letters  of  Mr.  Wortley  wholty  in- 
consistent with  the  idea  of  separation.  There  is,  indeed, 
evidence  leading  to  the  belief  that  he  originally  intended  to 
accompany  her;  but  probably  the  "  one  million  three  hundred 
thousand,"  which  we  are  told  he  died  possessed  of,  suggested 
to  Mr.  Wortley  that  he  had  better  remain  and  look  after  it. 
Lady  Mary,  therefore,  was  under  the  necessity  of  starting 
alone.  After  a  run  through  Italy,  she  settled  down  at  Avignon. 
She  left  Avignon  for  very  obvious  reasons,  as' Mr.  Thomas  has 
shown,  for  the  North  of  Italy,  where  she  was  taken  dangerousty 
ill.  Of  course,  Horace  Walpole  and  his  friends  and  allies  saw 
in  this  a  profound  mystery ;  and  in  August,  1751,  he  thus  wrote 
inquiringly  and  suggestively  to  Sir  Horace  Mann,  the  English 
Minister  at  Florence  : — 

"  Pray  tell  me  if  you  know  anything  of  Lady  Mary  Wortley  : 
we  have  an  obscure  history  here  of  her  being  in  durance  in  the 
Brescian  or  the  Bergamesco  :  that  a  young  fellow,  whom  she 
set  out  with  keeping,  has  taken  it  into  his  head  to  keep  her 
close  prisoner,  not  permitting  her  to  write  or  receive  any  letters 
but  what  he  sees." 


II.]  LADY  MARY  WORT  LEY  MONTAGU.  357 

This  of  a  woman  suffering  from  an  incurable  disease,  and 
sixty-one  years  old  !  Lord  Wharncliffe  endeavoured  to  explain 
this  "  obscure  history ;  "  but  Mr.  Thomas  makes  the  facts  as 
plain  and  simple  as  every  honest  man  and  woman  must  have 
felt  that  they  might  be  made. 

*  *  *  *  * 

Lady  Mary's  first  feeling  was  to  resent  restraint.  She 
actually  had  a  Case  drawn  up  as  if  she  at  one  time  contem- 
plated legal  proceedings,  and  this  paper  described  her  as 
having  been  detained  against  her  will  in  a  country  house 
inhabited  by  the  Count  and  his  mother.  She  had  no  objection, 
therefore,  to  the  facts  being  known ;  and  this  statement  was 
preserved  to  her  death,  and  was  amongst  the  papers  which 
descended  to  her  daughter.  It  is  probable  that  she  thought 
better  of  the  conduct  of  the  Count  and  his  mother,  as  she 
herself  became  better  in  health.  We  have  a  suspicion  that  the 
detention  may  have  been  necessary  at  that  time — that  in  this 
"  terrible  fit  of  sickness/'  as  she  calls  it,  her  mind  may  have 
been  affected.  There  is  a  very  enigmatical  paragraph  in  a  letter 
to  her  sister  of  a  much  earlier  date  (1725)  which  hints  at  some 
such  possible  future  : — 

"  I  have  such  a  complication  of  things  both  in  my  head  and 
heart  that  I  do  not  very  well  know  what  I  do,  and  if  I  can't 
settle  my  brains,  your  next  news  of  me  will  be,  that  I  am 
locked  up  by  my  relations  :  in  the  mean  time  I  lock  myself  up ; 
and  keep  my  distraction  as  private  as  possible." 

In  compliance  with  the  wish  of  her  daughter,  she  started  for 
England  in  the  severe  winter  of  1761-2,  arrived  in  January, 
1762,  and  died  here  in  the  following  August,  as  she  had 
foretold. 

The  reader  will  best  understand  the  merit  of  Mr.  Thomas's 
Memoir  from  the  defence  which  it  has  suggested  of  that  much 
calumniated  woman  who  is  the  subject  of  it.  The  volume, 
however,  has  other  merits.  It  has  been  carefully  edited,  with 
more  labour,  we  suspect,  than  will  be  appreciated  or  apparent, 
except  to  the  critical. 


358  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [II. 

We  long  since  expressed  doubts  as  to  the  authenticity  of  the 
"  Turkish  Letters."  We  had  proof  that  in  some  instances 
the  addresses,  the  names,  the  dates,  the  references  were  not  to 
be  reconciled  with  known  facts.  The  history  of  the  publication 
has  ever  been  a  mystery,  and  given  rise  to  much  discussion. 
Three  volumes  appeared  in  1763,  and  a  fourth  volume  in  1767. 
Respecting  this  last  volume,  though  he  has  very  properly 
inserted  the  letters  in  his  collection,  Mr.  Thomas  acknowledges 
that  he,  too,  has  doubts. 


Other  proofs  might  easily  be  adduced,  but,  with  us,  this 

Twickenham  blunder  has  ever  been  conclusive.     How,  then, 

as  to  the  authenticity  of  the  whole  of  the  "  Turkish  Letters  ?  " 

for  in  Dallaway's  edition,  published  with  the  sanction  of  the 

family,  we  were  informed,  that  no  letter,  essay,  or  poem  would 

be  found,  "  the  original  manuscript  of  which  is  not  at  this 

time  extant,  in  the  possession  of  her  grandson."     Yet  therein 

appears  a  letter  from  Pope  himself,  dated  "  Twick'nam,  Aug. 

18,    1716 "  ;    and   this,   very   exact   date   re-appears   in   both 

Lord  Wharncliffe's  editions.     What  was  of  force  against  the 

one  volume  appeared  to  us  equally  so  as  against  the  whole 

collection,     Dallaway  we  might  have  suspected ;  he  was  an 

accomplished  man  of  letters,  but  indifferent  about  that  minute 

accuracy   which   is    essential   to   a   good   editor.     But   Lord 

Wharncliffe  had,  apparently,  found  him  out;  protested  against 

his  omissions,  combinations  and  adaptations,  and  gave  us  the 

further   assurance   that,  in    his   edition,   "  these   defects   are 

remedied."   Yet  it  now  appears  that  the  only  date  to  the  above 

letter  is  "  Aug.  18,"  the  year  and  place  being  a  conjecture  of 

Dallaway's,  published  by  both  Dallaway  and  Lord  Wharncliffe 

without  a  note  of  warning.     After  a  like  fashion,  other  dates 

were  inserted  conjecturally,  names  were  reduced  to  initials, 

and  for   initials   names  were   inserted.     Thus,  some   of  the 

"  Turkish   Letters "   were   addressed   by   Dallaway   to    Miss 

Skerritt,  first  the  mistress,  and  then  the  second  wife  of  Sir 

Robert  Walpole  ;    whereas  it  may  be  shown  by  a  letter   of 

Lady  Mar's  that,  so  late  as  1721,  Miss  Skerritt  was  not  even 


II.]  LADY  MAEY   WORTLEY  MONTAGU.  359 

known  to  Lady  Mary.  Can  any  one  wonder  that,  with  such 
misleading  lights,  the  more  careful  and  critical  the  reader,  the 
more  he  was  sure  to  be  perplexed  with  doubts  ? 

We  could  go  on  with  our  illustrations  through  a  dozen  more 
columns  ;  but  may  reserve  what  further  we  have  to  say  till  the 
second  volume  is  published. 


SWIFT,  &c. 


SWIFT  OR  BOLINGBROKE:    WHICH  OR  NEITHER? 

SWIFT,  as  is  well  known,  wrote  Remarks  on  the  Ba  rricr 
Treaty.  Subsequently  there  appeared  Remarks  on  the  Barrier 
Treaty,  vindicated  in  a  JLetter  to  the  Author.  Who  was  the 
writer  of  this  ?  *  If  there  be  any  information  on  the  subject  in 
any  of  the  Lives  of  Swift,  it  has  escaped  me.  Presumptively  it 
was  not  written  by  Swift ;  for,  with  all  his  strange  odd  fancies, 
I  cannot  believe  that  he  would  have  addressed  a  letter  to 
himself  by  way  of  vindicating  himself.  The  fact  was  open  to 
misconstruction — might  have  become  known,  and  been  used  as 
a  weapon  of  offence  against  him. 

I  have,  on  very  insufficient  evidence,  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  this  pamphlet  was  written  by  Bolingbroke,  although  it  is 
not  named  amongst  tne  works  bequeathed  to  Mallet,  nor 
included  in  any  of  the  collected  editions  of  his  works,  nor 
referred  to  in  any  published  memoir,  so  far  as  I  have  observed. 
The  pamphlet  is  written  with  great  ability,  quite  equal  to 
SwifTs  Remarks;  but  there  is  not  one  of  those  coltbquial 
passages  usually  found,  here  and  there,  in  Swift's  writings ; 
none  of  those  occasional  bursts  of  contempt  for  an  adversary ; 
and,  on  the  whole,  more  than  usual,  with  Swift,  of  sus- 
tained dignity  and  refinement.  The  weapon  is  not  of  better 
metal,  but  is  of  a  finer  polish. 

My  opinion  that  it  was  written  by  Bolingbroke  is  not  founded 

*  In  the  Occasional  Writer,  No.  1,  included  amongst  Bolingbroke 's  Works 
(p.  208),  mention  is  made  of  "that  excellent  treatise  The  Barrier  Treaty  Vin- 
dicated." This  has  no  weight  with  me  ;  but  to  those  in  whom  it  might  raise  a 
doubt,  I  submit  that,  giving  full  force  to  the  objection,  it  would  prove  only  that 
it  had  been  written  at  Bolingbroke' s  suggestion,  and  was  excellent,  because  it 
enforced  his  arguments. 


362  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [III. 

on  style  only.  Questions  are  raised  therein,  and  speculations 
thrown  out  not  bearing  immediately  on  the  subject  under  dis- 
cussion, to  which  Swift  was  indifferent,  but  which  Bolingbroke 
may  have  been  anxious  to  get  circulated  and  to  see  passing 
current.  Bolingbroke,  as  we  now  know,  was,  while  minister, 
in  communication  with  the  Pretender ;  so  Harley,  so  Marl- 
borough,  Whigs  and  Tories  alike.  But,  so  far  as  Bolingbroke 
is  concerned,  the  difficulty  has  been  to  reconcile  this  fact  with 
the  positive  assertions  in  his  Letter  to  Windham,  and  in  The 
State  of  Parties.  In  the  one  he  writes,  "  Nothing  is  more 
certain  than  this  truth,  that  there  was  at  that  tune  no  formed 
design,  whatever  views  some  particular  men  might  have, 
against  His  Majesty's  [George  I.]  succession."  Here,  however, 
the  denial  refers  to  a  particular  time,  to  a  formed  design,  and 
may  therefore  pass ;  the  natural  inference,  indeed,  is,  that  at 
some  other  time  there  was  a  formed  design  against  His 
Majesty's  succession.  But  hi  The  State  of  Parties  he  speaks, 
as  generally  assumed,  positively.  He  there  asserts  that  under 
Harley's  ministry  there  was  no  design  to  "  place  the  crown  on 
the  head  of  the  Pretender."  This  is  thought  to  be  clear  and 
unconditional, — an  untruth  of  a  very  gross  character ;  and  even 
his  biographers  give  him  up.  In  the  celebrated  article  in  the 
Edinburgh  Review,  generally  attributed  to  Lord  Brougham,  it 
is  urged  that  Bolingbroke,  the  minister,  had  professed  "  in- 
violable attachment  to  the  Revolution  Settlement," — "  the 
Revolution  Settlement  had  obtained  Bolingbroke's  deliberate 
(official  and  public)  approbation." 

Excuse  me  if  I  attempt  to  reconcile  these  seeming  con- 
tradictions by  the  aid  of  the  pamphlet  under  consideration; 
and  if  what  I  have  to  say  be  thought  a  little  over-refined,  be  it 
remembered  that  over-refinement  in  such  matters — equivoca- 
tion, if  you  please — was  almost  a  condition  of  existence  at  that 
period,  and  had  been  for  half  a  century,  of  kings  and  common- 
wealths, de  jures  and  de  factos. 

Bolingbroke  is  here  said  to  have  approved,  as  minister,  of 
the  Revolution  Settlement — that  is,  on  broad  general  principles, 
the  settlement,  under  contingencies,  of  the  crown  of  England 
on  the  next  Protestant  heir  after  the  death  of  Queen  Anne  ; 


III.]  SWIFT,   ETC.  363 

and  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  there  was  anything  in  his 
conduct,  while  minister,  that  tended  "to  place  the  crown  on 
the  head  of  the  Pretender."  Bolingbroke,  observe,  names  a 
"  Pretender,"  the  "  Pretender."  Now,  who  was  the  Pretender  ? 
And  why  was  he  a  Pretender  ?  We  must  take  care,  in  such 
inquiries,  not  to  be  misled  by  words  and  their  popular  signifi- 
cation. Bolingbroke,  in  reply,  would  probably  have  referred 
to  the  Act  of  Settlement,  which  sets  forth  that  the  Princess 
Sophia  "  be,  and  is  hereby  declared  to  be,  the  next  in  succession 
in  the  Protestant  line  to  the  crown  of  England,"  and  that,  in 
default,  &c.,  the  said  crown  shall  remain  to  the  said  Princess 
Sophia,  and  the  heirs  of  her  body,  being  Protestants."  That 
is  to  say,  in  case  of  '  default,'  the  Princess  Sophia  is  declared 
to  be  next  in  succession,  because  she  is  the  first  Protestant  in 
succession  ;  and  the  son  of  King  James  is  a  pretender,  because 
he  assumes  to  have  a  right  contrary  to  that  law,  he  being  a 
Catholic.  Another  act  for  the  better  securing  the  succession 
"  in  the  Protestant  line,"  enacts  that  "  The  Privy  Council  at 
the  time  of  Her  Majesty's  demise  "  are  "  to  cause  the  next  Pro- 
testant successor  to  be  proclaimed,"  &c.  Now  suppose  that  the 
Chevalier,  the  natural  heir,  the  son  of  King  James,  the  brother 
of  Queen  Anne,  had  turned  Protestant,  would  there  have  been 
*  default ' ;  would  he  under  these  acts  have  been  disqualified  ?  * 
Probably,  in  1855,  the  answer  would  be  "Yes;"  although 
that  does  not  appear  to  me  quite  certain,  and  might  have  been 
still  more  doubtful  in  those  stilling  times,  when  so  many  con- 
sciences had  lost  their  guiding  light  and  suffered  wreck.  But 
as  it  is  admitted,  I  believe,  by  all  writers,  that  both  Bolingbroke 
and  Harley  made  it  a  positive  condition,!  in  all  their  nego- 

*  See  a  curious  letter,  in  proof  that  this  was  the  view  of  the  Ministers,  from 
Schutz,  of  the  16th  February,  1714.  Macpherson  Papers,  ii.  556. 

t  Bolingbroke's  whole  argument,  in  reply  to  letter  from  Avignon  (see  letter  to 
Windham,  p.  168,  &c.),  is  founded  on  the  assumption  that  "YVindham  and  the 
Tories  believed  that  the  Prince  would  turn  Protestant ;  that  he  took  it  for  granted 
that  as  Windham  and  the  Tories  were  willing  to  declare  for  the  Prince,  they  had 
received  '  entire  satisfaction  on  the  Article  of  Religion  ' ;  that  he,  Bolingbroke 
(p.  169),  "  would  never  submit  to  be  governed  by  a  Prince  who  was  not  of  the 
religion  of  our  country  "  for  reasons  there  given  (p.  168),  and  that  he  never 
doubted  on  this  point  until  just  before  Queen  Anne's  death,  when  he  received  a 
letter  from  the  Prince  declaring  his  resolution  to  adhere  to  Popery,  and  the  effect, 


364  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [III. 

tiations  with  the  Prince,  that  before  they  would  attempt  his 
restoration  he  should  turn  Protestant;  might  not  Bolingbroke 
be  excused  for  saying  that  under  Harley's  ministry  there  was 
no  design  to  place  the  crown  on  the  head  of  the  Pretender, — 
that  is,  on  the  head  of  a  Catholic, — the  prince  being  a  pre- 
tender only  while,  and  because,  a  Catholic ;  the  design  being 
to  "proclaim"  and  put  the  crown  on  the  head  of  "the  next 
Protestant  successor."  Might  he  not  consider  that  in  thus 
acting  he  was  proving  his  "  inviolable  attachment "  to  the 
principle  of  "the  Revolution  Settlement?"  The  argument, 
I  admitted  at  starting,  might  be  thought  somewhat  over- 
refined  ;  but  I  repeat  that  in  those  times  it  was  by  such  refine- 
ments and  over -refinements  that  men  quieted  their  consciences, 
and  kept  their  heads  on  their  shoulders.  At  any  rate,  the 
more  special  the  argument,  the  more  individual,  and  the  more 
it  helps  us  to  fix  on  the  writer.  Swift's  argument  on  the 
subject,  though  it  may  at  a  hasty  glance  read  something  like 
it,  is  essentially  different.  He  says : 

"  In  one  part  of  The  Conduct  of  the  Allies,  dec.,  among  other 
remarks  upon  this  treaty,  I  make  it  a  question,  whether  it  were 
right  in  point  of  policy  or  prudence  to  call  in  a  foreign  power 
to  be  guarantee  to  our  succession ;  because  by  that  means  we 
put  it  out  of  the  power  of  our  own  legislature  to  alter  the  succes- 
sion, how  much  soever  the  necessity  of  the  kingdom  may  require 
it  ?  To  comply  with  the  cautions  of  some  people,  I  explained 
my  meaning  in  the  following  editions.  I  was  assured  that  my 
L — d  Ch — f  J — ce  affirmed  that  passage  was  treason  ;  one  of 
my  answerers,  I  think,  decides  as  favourably ;  and  I  am  told 
that  paragraph  was  read  very  lately  during  a  debate,  with  a 
comment  in  very  injurious  terms,  which,  perhaps,  might  have 
been  spared.  That  the  legislature  should  have  power  to  change 
the  succession,  whenever  the  necessities  of  the  kingdom  require, 
is  so  very  useful  towards  preserving  our  religion  and  liberty, 
that  I  know  not  how  to  recant.  The  worst  of  this  opinion  is, 

he  says,  on  me  and  the  other  Tories  to  whom  it  was  shown,  "made  us  resolve  to 
have  nothing  more  to  do  with  him. "  In  apology  for  his  subsequent  conduct  in 
joining  the  Prince,  Bolingbroke  says  he  was  again  deceived.  See  whole  argument, 
pp.  168  to  176. 


III.]  SWIFT,   ETC.  365 

that  at  first  sight  it  appears  to  be  Whiggish ;  but  the  distinction 
is  thus  :  the  Whigs  are  for  changing  the  succession  when  they 
think  fit,  though  the  entire  legislature  do  not  consent ;  I  think 
it  ought  never  to  be  done  but  upon  great  necessity,  and  that 
•with  the  sanction  of  the  whole  legislature.  Do  these  gentlemen 
of  revolution  principles  think  it  impossible  that  we  should  ever 
have  occasion  again  to  change  our  succession  ?  And  if  such 
an  accident  should  fall  out,  must  we  have  no  remedy,  'till  the 
Seven  Provinces  will  give  their  consent  ?  " 

This  is  plain  enough.  It  may  have  been  a  hazardous 
assertion  in  those  times, — treason,  as  my  Lord  Chief  Justice 
affirmed  ;  but  it  is  simply  the  assertion  of  an  abstract  right  in 
the  legislature  to  alter,  amend,  or  repeal  an  act  of  parliament. 
This  brings  me  to  the  Remarks,  &c.,  Vindicated,  the  writer  of 
which  seems  to  hint  that  the  order  of  succession  contemplated 
in  the  Act  of  Settlement  might,  under  circumstances,  be 
altered  without  a  repeal  of  the  act ;  and  it  is  the  peculiarity  of 
this  argument,  over  and  above  the  style  of  the  pamphlet — a 
peculiarity  which  would  reconcile  Bolingbroke's  then  conduct 
with  his  after  assertions — that  leads  me  to  infer  the  possibility 
that  he  was  the  writer.  Of  course,  the  opinions  to  which  I 
refer  are  only  incidentally  introduced,  delicately  touched  on, 
logical  inferences,  but  not,  I  think,  intended  to  be  passed  over 
as  mere  bye-play.  We  soon  get  a  glimmering  of  the  argument. 
Thus,— 

"The  first  thing  which  you  lay  down  is,  that  the  Protestant 
succession  is  of  the  greatest  consequence  to  Britain,  wherein  I 
can't  do  otherwise  than  agree  with  you ;  observing,  by  the  way, 
that  the  arguments  by  which  you  prove  this  position,  if  there  was 
need  of  any,  don't  prove  that  the  Princess  Sophia,  or  the  Elector 
of  Hanover,  must  of  necessity  be  that  Protestant  Prince ;  for  if 
there  shou'd  be  any  other  Protestant  Prince  of  the  royal  blood, 
he  might  (so  far,  I  mean,  as  your  argument  goes)  claim  a  title  to 
the  succession." — P.  5. 

Again,  pp.  26,  27  : 

"  The  force  of  this  objection,  if  I  rightly  understood  those 
who  made  it,  was  not  such  as  you  represent  it,  that  a  defensive 


306  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [III. 

alliance  in  general  wou'd  lessen  the  independency  of  our  crown, 
but  that  the  nature  of  this,  in  particular,  was  such,*  having 
pinn'd  down  the  queen  and  parliament  to  the  settlement  made 
in  the  Hanover  family,  so  that  we  were,  quoad  that  particular, 
become  absolutely  dependent  on  their  good-will  and  pleasure. 
I  can't  forbear  observing  here,  that  this  family  [the  Hanover 
family]  by  this  treaty  is  provided  for  in  general  terms,  and 
without  any  limitations  ;  and  that  about  the  Protestant  religion 
(for  which  you  wou'd  be  thought  so  much  concern'd),  in  the 
articles  in  which  the  succession  is  stipulated,  not  one  word  is 
mention'd;  so  that  the  Princess  Sophia,  her  heirs,  successors, 
and  descendants  (whatever  religion  any  of  'em  hereafter  may 
be),  are  in  all  events  to  have  the  crown  of  Britain.  And 
I  think,  Sir,  that  the  addition  of  two  words  (being  Protestants), 
which  addition  our  act  of  parliament  makes,  wou'd  have  pre- 
vented the  suspicions  which  some  ill-natur'd  persons  may 
entertain,  and  have  left  us  free  of  those  necessities,  which 
future  times  may  on  that  account  create." 

Then  follows  the  general  abstract  proposition  about  altering, 
amending,  or  explaining.  Has  not  the  argument  here,  so 
needlessly  adduced,  as  to  the  exclusion  of  a  Catholic  in  the 
Hanover  line  of  succession,  a  bearing  on,  and  illustration  of, 
the  question  whether  Protestants  of  the  Stuart  line — "  a 
Protestant  Prince  of  the  royal  blood  " — might  not  succeed  in 
preference  even  to  the  Princess  Sophia  or  her  heirs  ?  * 

This  question  is  not,  I  think,  without  interest,  historical  and 
literary ;  perhaps  interest  of  a  higher  character,  as  helping  to 
show  the  moral  bewilderment  of  those  ticklish  times. — S.  B.  W. 
[Mr.  Dilke.] 

Sir  Richard  Steele  and  Dean  Sicift.^ — I  wish  I  could  answer, 
or  that  anybody  could  and  would  answer,  the  questions 

*  Miss  Strickland  (Queens,  xii.  327)  says,  that  Queen  Anne  had  hopes  that  the 
Prince  would  change  his  religion,  and  then  hoped  and  believed  that  his  sister, 
the  Princess  Louisa,  would  change.  She  refers  to  Macpherson's  Stuart  Papers, 
ii.  223,  225.  I  suppose  the  Quarto  edition,  as  I  cannot  find  by  the  direction  in 
the  octavo. 

t  Pamphlet  against  Stvift. — Where  can  I  learn  any  particulars  as  to  the  author- 
ship of  a  bitter  pamphlet  directed  against  Swift  ?  It  is  entitled  Essays,  Divine, 


HI]  SH'IFT,   ETC.  3(57 

of  M.  S.,  as  to  who  was  the  author  of  Essays,  dc.,  by 
the  Author  of  the  "Tale  of  a  Tub."  The  squibbing  anil 
pamphleteering  of  that  day  is  rarely  noticed  even  by  our 
biographers  or  bibliographers  :  although  a  knowledge  of  it, 
and  of  its  parentage,  is  absolutely  required  to  enable  us  to 
understand  the  personal  and  political  relations  of  the  men  of 
that  time.  For  example,  we  know  that  Swift  and  Steele  were 
friends  and  literary  associates  up  to  1713,  and  from  that  time 
to  the  day  of  Steele's  death  they  were  enemies.  Swift,  indeed, 
rarely  mentioned  Steele  but  with  bitterness.  How  is  this  to 
be  explained  ?  Swift,  we  know,  left  the  Whigs  and  joined  the 
Tories  ;  but  that  separated  him  equally  from  Addison  as  from 
Steele,  and  yet  Addison  and  Swift  were  ever  friends.  There 
may  have  been  a  coolness — a  drawing  apart — from  1710-11, 
and  in  1713-1714  when  the  quarrel  raged  between  Swift  and 
Steele ;  but  nothing  more,  as  Swift  himself  has  recorded. 
Swift  saj-s  Steele  attacked  him  in  The  Guardian  ;  but  the 
attack  amounts  to  so  little  that  they  might  have  shaken  hands 
in  half  an  hour.  Swift  indeed  asserts  that  he  had  called  him 
an  infidel ;  but,  so  far  as  The  Guardian  is  concerned,  this  is 
mere  exaggeration,  and  disproved  by  The  Guardian  itself.  It 
is  obvious  that  there  must  have  been  more  serious  and  more 
lasting  grounds  of  quarrel  than  we  are  aware  of,  and  it  is  my 
opinion  that  these  mutual  criminations  and  recriminations 
went  on  perseveringly  for  some  time.  I  have  always  been  of 
opinion  that  the  pamphlet  referred  to  b}*  M.  S.  was  written  by 

Moral,  and  Political:  viz — I.  Of  Religion  in  General.  II.  Of  Cfiristianity. 
III.  Of  Priests.  IV.  Of  Virtue.  V.  Of  Friendship.  VI.  Of  Government. 
VII.  Of  Parties.  VIII.  Of  Plots.  By  the  Author  of  "The  Tale  of  a  Tub:" 
sometime  the  writer  of  "  The  Examiner,'1''  and  tlie  original  inventor  of  the  B«/i</- 
Box  Plot.  With  the  Effigies  of  the  Author.  Out  of  thy  own  Mouth  will  I  concl<  m  // 
Thee,  0  thou  Hypocrite.  Ex  hoc  dicite  (sic)  Hominem,  London,  printed  in  the 
year  1714.  .Price  One  Shilling.  The  frontispiece  is  engraved  on  copper,  and  repre- 
sents Swift  on  horseback  at  the  gates  of  a  large  house,  listening  apparently  to 
the  master  of  it,  who  is  standing  at  a  gate,  and  seems  by  his  gesture  to  be  dhvrt- 
ing  him  to  go  away.  There  are  two  other  figures  in  the  print,  both  on  horseback 
and  riding  from  the  house— the  first  is  in  clerical  costume,  the  second,  whose 
back  only  is  seen,  blowing  a  horn.  The  book  is  full  of  charges  against  Swift  of 
the  grossest  kind.  I  do  not  find  it  mentioned  in  Scott's  Life  of  the  Dean. — 
Notes  and  Queries,  2  S.  v.  27.  M.  S. 


368  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [III. 

Steele.  There  are  charges  in  it  which  no  other  man  would 
have  thought  worth  marshalling  against  Swift.  Thus  in  the 
Dedication  the  writer,  in  the  character  of  Swift,  proceeds  to 
justify  himself  from  "two  pretended  crimes"  which  had  been, 
he  says,  urged  against  him  (p.  vii.)  : 

"  The  first  is,  the  breach  of  friendship  with  my  old  ac- 
quaintance and  bottle-companion,  Dick  Steele ;  and  that  I 
have  pursued  him  with  a  violence  inconsistent  with  the 
character  of  a  friend,  and  unworthy  that  of  a  Clergyman  and 
Christian." 

Now  I  cannot  believe  that  any  politician  of  that  day  and 
hour  would  have  thought  this  personal  quarrel  worth  blazoning 
amongst  the  offences — the  crimes — of  the  Dean,  -except  Dick 
Steele  himself.  Then,  again,  there  was  one  subject  on  which 
Steele  was  unusually  earnest  and  emphatic,  and  wrote  and 
laboured  with  fanatical  zeal :  this  was  the  demolition  of  Dun- 
kirk :  and  Dunkirk  furnishes  a  ground  of  attack. 

"  As  for  the  demolishing  of  Dunkirk,  I  have  done  all  I 
could  to  prevent  it.  I  have  ridicul'd  the  importance  of  it,  but 
it  won't  do ;  the  clamour  still  continues,  and  I  fear  it  must  be 
demolish'd  at  last."  (p.  xiii.) 

So  begins  the  attack,  and  so  it  ends.  Thus,  in  the  Essay 
on  Friendship,  Swift  is  assumed  to  write  : 

"  The  name  of  Friend  in  such  cases  is  of  signal  service,  and 
here  it  is  only  that  Friendship,  or  the  pretence  of  it,  is 
valuable.  A  man  who  believes  you  his  friend  is  quite  un- 
guarded, and  never  suspects  an  attack  from  your  quarter  ;  his 
bosom  is  open  to  you ;  and  when  he  finds  himself  touched,  it's 
odd  but  you  are  call'd  into  the  consultation.  You  wound 
him  as  you  please,  and  suffer  him  only  to  apply  such  remedies 
as  you  think  advisable.  After  this  manner  I  acted  with 
Mr.  Steele  (which  is  the  second  instance  I  promis'd).  And 
tho'  at  last  he  has  discovered  me  to  be  his  enemy,  yet  I  led 
him  into  so  many  steps  of  ruin,  whilst  he  was  my  friend,  that 
it's  now  impossible  for  him  to  extricate  himself.  My  reputation 
now  rises  superior  to  his,  and  is  quite  of  a  different  nature  :  so 


Ill]  XWIFT,  ETC.  369 

that  the  name  of  friend  is  of  no  further  use,  and  I  can  trampb 
on  him  with  a  better  grace  as  a  declared  enemy." 

In  this  style  the  Dean's  treatment  of  Steele  occupies  four  or 
five  pages.  Again,  his  conduct  to  Steele  is  brought  forward 
(p.  5-1),  and  there  we  have  another  Dunkirk  charge. 

While  on  this  subject,  I  would  submit  for  consideration 

whether  Steele  did  not  write  Dr.  S 's  real  Diary,  Bur- 

leigh,  1715.  It  contains  like  allusions  to  Swift's  quarrel,  and 
a  description  of  Steele's  demerits  much  more  in  the  style  of 
Steele  than  of  Swift.  Thus  — 

"  Wrote  Friday's  bitter  Examiner  against  St e.     Ha! 

Dick,  thou'rt  down,  I  think.  What  a  d — d  harden  d  honesty 
that  fellow  has  !  And  how  little  wise  in  his  generation.  To 
work  against  tide,  to  be  recompenc'd  the  Lord  knows  when,  or 
by  the  Lord  knows  who  ! " 

These  angry  personalities,  remember,  were  not  all  on  one 
side.  Swift  had  his  revenge  in  "Horace  Paraphrased,  ad- 
dressed to  Richard  Steele  ;  "  in  John  Dennis's  Invitation  to 
Richard  Steele ;  in,  as  I  think  probable,  The  Character  of 

Richard  St le,  By    Toby  ;    and,    possibly,  in   numberless 

other  venomous  things,  which  our  literary  olngists  have  not  yet 
either  caught  or  named.  Toby  is  indeed  printed  amongst  Dr. 
Wa^taffe's  Works  ;  but  no  reason  is  given  ;  unless,  indeed,  it 
be  that  Wagstaffe  "  was  so  far  from  having  any  personal  peak 
or  enmity  "  against  Steele,  "  that  at  the  time  of  his  writing  he 
did  not  so  much  as  know  him  even  by  sight ;  "  yet  that  the  very 
first  sentence  of  The  Character  is  a  sneer  at  Steele's  "  short 
face."  Notes  and  Queries,  2  S.  v.  206.— E.  B.  T.  [Mr.  Dilke.] 


DEAN  SWIFT  AND  THE  SCRIBLERIANS  v.  DR.  WAGSTAFFE. 
From  Notes  and  Queries,  3  S.  i.  381. 

WHO  wrote,  or  who  compiled,  the  Miscellaneous  Works  of 
Dr.  William  Wayxta/e  ?  and  who  wrote  the  Memoir  pivfixed 
to  the  volume  ?  The  question  may  at  first  appear  somewhat 


370  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  III. 

absurd,  seeing  that  we  have  a  long  account  of  the  Doctor  and 
his  writings  in  Chalmers's  Biographical  Dictionary ;  but  that 
account  is  taken  substantially  from  Nichols's  Anecdotes,  and 
Nichols's  Anecdotes  is  avowedly  from  the  Memoir.  Nichols 
indeed  adds  one  not  unimportant  paragraph :  for  he  tells  us 
that  "  his  [Wagstaffe's]  character  was  thus  given  by  an  emi- 
nent physician,  soon  after  his  death :  '  He  was  no  less  valued 
for  his  skill  in  his  profession,  which  he  showed  in  several  useful 
treatises,  than  admired  for  his  wit  and  facetiousness  in  conver- 
sation' "  This,  which  looks  like  an  independent  testimony,  is 
however  taken,  italics  and  all,  from  the  title-page  of  the  same 
miscellaneous  volume  :  so  that  all  we  have  for  authority  is  the 
anonymous  collector,  the  anonymous  Memoir-writer,  and  the 
anonymous  physician. 

Now,  without  reference  to  the  Memoir,  all  the  information  I 
can  collect  is,  that  William  Wagstaffe  took  the  degree  of  M.D. 
at  Oxford  in  1714 ;  that  William  Wagstaffe  appears,  in  1723, 
in  Chamberlayne's  List  of  the  College  of  Physicians,  and  as  one 
of  the  physicians  to  St.  Bartholomew's  Hospital ;  and  The 
Political  State  records  that,  on  the  27th  May,  1725,  there  was 
an  election  for  a  physician  at  St.  Bartholomew's  "  in  the  room 
of  the  late  Dr.  Wagstaffe,  who  died  not  long  before  at  the 
Bath."  Thus  far  we  are  on  safe  ground ;  but  there  is  not  a 
word  here  that  helps  to  establish  the  paternity  of  any  one  of 
the  pieces  included  in  the  volume  of  Wagstaffe's  Miscellanies, 
nor  any  hint  from  which  we  can  conjecture  what  were  his  other 
"  Works,"  which,  from  the  publication  of  his  "  Miscellaneous 
Works,"  it  might  be  inferred  that  he  had  written  ;  nor  the 
name  of  any  one  of  the  "  several  useful  treatises  ;  " — indeed  all 
I  can  learn  from  Dr.  Munk's  Roll  of  the  College  of  Physicians, 
and  from  a  search  in  the  British  Museum,  is,  that  Wm.  Wag- 
staffe published  A  Letter  to  Dr.  Friend  showing  the  Danger 
and  Uncertainty  of  Inoculating  for  the  Smallpox,  the  third 
edition  of  which  was  published  in  1722  by  Samuel  Butler,  in 
Holborn.  A  postscript  is  dated  "  Salisbury  Court,  Oct.  2, 
1722."  * 

*  Both  in  British  Museum. 


in.]  SWIFT,   ETC.  371 

But  it  may  be  asked,  by  those  who  have  not  the  volume  to 
refer  to,  Does  not  the  writer  of  the  Memoir  say  anything  from 
which  we  may  infer  his  authority  ?  I  think  he  does,  and  the 
explanation  is  curious :  for  he  tells  us  that  the  several  pieces 
were  originally  "  published  without  a  name  ;  so  it  is  presumed 
the  Doctor  never  did  intend  it  should  be  known  who  wrote 
them  ;  but  the  person  who  had  the  copies  of  them,  thinking  it 
worth  his  while  to  reprint  them  at  this  time,  it  was  judged 
proper  to  give  the  public  this  account  both  of  the  author  and 
his  writings." 

It  is  strange,  if  the  Doctor  "  never  did  intend  it  should  be 
known  who  wrote  "  these  several  tracts  and  pamphlets,  that 
some  one,  (another  anonymous  be  it  observed,)  should  know 
him  to  be  the  writer,  should  have  preserved  copies  of  all,  and, 
in  defiance  of  the  Doctor's  wish,  be  ready  for  a  republication 
so  soon  as  the  Doctor  should  die.  This,  at  least,  is  obvious, 
— that  the  public  were  at  the  mercy  of  this  anonymous  col- 
lector, who  might  have  doubled  the  collection  had  he  thought 
it  "worth  his  while." 

It  is  more  strange,  that  it  is  impossible  to  read  many  of  the 
papers  contained  in  the  collection  without  a  conviction,  amount- 
ing almost  to  certainty,  that  Swift  was  the  writer.  Sir  Walter 
Scott  said  of  one,  that  it  contained  internal  marks  of  Swift ;  of 
another,  that  it  was  probably  written  under  his  direction ;  of  ;i 
third,  that  it  has  strong  marks  of  Swift :  but  puzzled  by  the 
Memoir-writer,  he  assumed  that  Wagstaffe  must  have  been 
"  an  under- spur  leather"  of  Swift.  What  shadow  of  evidence 
is  there,  beyond  the  Memoir,  tending  to  show  that  there  was 
any  "  under-spur  leather  "  at  all  ? 

The  Wagstaffe  Miscellanies  were  published  in  1726 — the 
very  time  that  Swift  was  collecting  and  selecting  the  tracts, 
squibs,  and  pamphlets  which  he  was  about  to  issue  as  tin1 
Miscellanies  in  prose  and  verse  of  Swift  and  Pope,  published 
in  1727.  There  must  have  been  many  squibs  and  pamphkts 
written,  between  1710  and  1714,  in  his  days  of  political 
savagery,  which  Swift  might  not  choose  to  own ;  and  it  is  cir- 
tainly  extraordinary  that,  so  far  as  I  can  discover,  these  Wau- 
staffe  Miscellanies,  with  one  exception,  which  I  will  hereafter 

B  B   2 


372  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [III. 

notice,  were  written  within  these  exact  limits  of  time  ;  though 
Wagstaffe  lived  more  than  a  dozen  years  afterwards,  and  then 
died  at  the  early  age  of  forty  ;  and  they  were  all  published  by 
Morphew,  Swift's  publisher  at  that  time.  Swift  and  Pope 
acknowledged  in  the  Preface  to  their  avowed  Miscellanies,  that 
it  contained  personalities  which  they  now  regret : — 

"  In  regard  to  two  persons  only  we  wish  our  raillery,  though 
ever  so  tender,  or  resentment,  though  ever  so  just,  had  not 
been  indulged.  We  speak  of  Sir  John  Vanbrugh,  who  was  a 
man  of  wit  and  of  honour  ;  and  of  Mr.  Addison,*  whose  name 
deserves  all  respect  from  every  lover  of  learning." 

But  the  attacks  on  Steele,t  which  are  the  marking  charac- 
teristics of  some  of  these  Wagstaffe  Miscellanies,  were  beyond 
tender  raillery ;  they  were  coarse,  and  in  some  instances 
brutal — written  with  a  personal  knowledge  of  the  man  and  his 
most  private  concernments  ;  from  which  personal  acquaintance, 
if  not  friendship,  must  be  inferred.  There  is  reference  to  his 
personal  appearance,  his  manners,  morals,  imprisonment,  and 
to  the  nature  of  the  claims  of  the  creditors,  who,  we  are  told, 
arrested  him  for  the  maintenance  of  his  illegitimate  children. 
Toby  insults  him  as  an  upstart  Irishman,  who  has  set  up  for  a 
gentleman  on  some  little  estate  he  had  got  in  Wales  by  his 
wife's  mother's  death.  He  is  called  a  jay,  made  up  of  feathers 
from  other  birds — told  that  "he  borrowed  his  humour  of 
Estcourt,  his  criticism  of  Addison,  his  poetry  of  Pope  ;  " — no 
mention  of  his  obligations  to  Swift  ;• — that  his  chief  assistants 
had  deserted  him,  though  I  doubt  if,  at  that  time,  any  had  de- 
serted him  except  Swift  and  Pope ;  says  his  reputation  is  as 
dead  as  Partridge  ;  that  he  has  undertaken  to  overturn  the 
Ministry  in  one  session,  which  "my  Lord  Wharton  and  Somers 
have  been  foiled  at  for  years."  Swift  declared  himself  to  have 
been  ill-treated  by  both  these  noblemen,  and  avowedly  hated 
them  both  ;  but  why  should  Wagstaffe  select  them  specially  ? 
Steele  is  accused  of  ingratitude  :  of  "  throwing  dirt  and  abusing 
the  unblemished  character  of  a  Minister  of  State,  by  whose 

*  Both  dead.  t  Was  living. 


III.]  SWIFT,   ETC.  373 

interest  alone  he  has  been  continued  in  the  Stamp  Office  " — 
"  a  man  of  such  public  and  enlarged  spirit  is  as  well  qualified 
as  any  Judas  of  them  all  to  betray  his  friend."  Now  what  per- 
sonal wrongs  had  Wagstaffe  to  complain  of  ?  Why  should  he 
protest  against  this  Judas,  and  this  vile  betrayal  of  a  friend  ? 
How  should  he  know  of  this  special  favour  of  Harley's  ?  But 
these  are  the  very  charges  preferred  against  Steele  in  Swift's 
letter  to  Addison  of  13th  May,  1713  :  "  Mr.  Steele  knows  very 
well  that  my  Lord  Treasurer  has  kept  him  in  his  employment 
upon  my  treaty  and  intercession  ...  I  was  reproached  by 
my  Lord  Treasurer  upon  the  ill-returns  Mr.  Steele  made  to  his 
Lordship's  indulgence."  The  same  feeling  is  more  than  once 
shown  in  the  Journal  to  Stella,  where  he  notices  Steele's 
"  devilish  ingratitude."  * 

It  may  be  asked,  and  very  reasonably,  why,  if  Swift  had  a 
twinge  of  conscience  about  having  written  these  virulent 
attacks  on  his  old  friend,  did  he  republish  them  ?  I  reply,  to 
prevent  other  people  doing  so  ;  and  he  republished,  under  the 
name  of  Wagstaffe,  to  prevent  the  name  of  Swift  from  being 
prefixed  "as  it  had  been,"  he  said,  "to  works  he  did  not 
write ;  "  and,  no  doubt,  to  works  which  he  did  write,  had 
written,  but  did  not  choose  to  acknowledge.  In  fact,  Swift's 
name  was  prefixed  to  Tob}r's  "  Character  of  Richard  Steele/' 
in  Guttlveriana ,  where  we  are  told  : — 

"  This  success  of  Sir  Richard  Steele  so  incensed  the  party, 
that  they  took  every  measure  to  distress  him.  They  turned 
him  out  of  liis  employment,  and  they  expelled  him  the  House 
of  Commons.  His  fortune  was  broke,  and  his  person  and  life 
were  reckoned  to  be  in  danger ;  and  it  was  under  these  pros- 
perous circumstances  that  the  pious  and  humane  Captain 
[Swift]  sends  Toby,  in  his  ridiculous  way,  to  support  and 
comfort  him.  That  very  Captain,  who  was  Steele's  old  friend 
and  fellow-writer.  That  Captain  !  whom  Steele  loved,  and 

*  An  early  tract  in  the  Swift  and  Steele  controversy  was  "A  Town  Eclogue  : 
or  a  Poetical  Contest  between  Toby  [Swift]  and  a  Minor- Po«t  [Steele]  of  B— tt— n's 
Coffee-House." 


374  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [III. 

never  disobliged  unless  it  could  be  by  his  writing  in  favour  of 
our  Constitution  against  the  Pretender. 

"  But  I'll  detain  you  no  longer  from  the  entertainment  of 
Master  Toby  alias  Gulliver,  alias  Sw — t,  alias  Examiner, 

alias  D — n  of  St.    P 's,  alias  Draper,  alias   Bickerstaff, 

alias    Kemarker,    alias    Journalist,    alias     Sonnetteer,    alias 
Scriblerus." 

Even  the  Wagstaife  Memoir-writer  has  a  touch  of  tenderness 
such  as  might  have  been  felt  by  Swift,  so  many  years  after  the 
fever  of  controversy  had  subsided ;  and  he  acknowledges,  as 
Swift  had  acknowledged,  in  the  Preface  to  the  avowed  Miscel- 
lanies, that — 

"  The  character  of  Richard  St — le,  Esq.,  does  indeed  want 
some  apology  to  be  made  for  it ;  because  it  seems  to  bear  too 
hard  upon  a  gentleman  of  known  parts  and  abilities,  though  of 
contrary  principles  to  the  Doctor  ....  The  Doctor,  who  had 
some  friends  in  the  Ministry,  thought  he  could  not  take  a 
better  way  to  oblige  them  than  by  thus  showing  his  dislike  to 
a  gentleman  who  had  so  much  endeavoured  on  all  occasions 
to  oppose  them.  Though  this  I  may  say  for  him,  that  he  was 
so  far  from  having  any  personal  peak  or  enmity  against  the 
gentleman  whose  character  he  wrote,  that,  at  the  time  of  his 
writing  it,  I  do  believe,  he  did  not  so  much  as  know  him  even 
by  sight,  whatever  he  might  afterwards." 

Let  any  one  read  the  "  Character  "  thus  referred  to,  and  say 
whether  the  writer  did  or  did  not  know  Steele  personally, — 
not  "  even  by  sight."  Steele,  in  the  very  last  number  of  The 
Englishman,  refers  to  the  many  invectives  which  that  paper 
had  brought  on  him;  and,  amongst  others,  "to  a  very 
notable  piece  called  '  Toby's  Character  of  Mr.  Steele ; '  "  and 
he  adds : — 

' '  I  think  I  know  the  author  of  this  ;  and  to  show  him  I 
know  no  revenge  but  in  the  method  of  heaping  coals  on  his 
head  by  benefits,  I  forbear  giving  him  what  he  deserves  ;  for 
no  other  reason,  but  that  I  know  his  sensibility  of  reproach  is 


m-]  SWIFT,  ETC.  375 

such,  as  that  he  would  be  unable  to  bear  life  itself,  under  half 
the  ill-language  he  has  given  me." 

Did  this  apply  to  the  illustrious  obscure,  Dr.  Wagstaff, 
"  who  did  not  so  much  as  know  him  ;  "  or  to  his  old  friend  and 
former  fellow-labourer,  Dean  Swift  ? 

Swift  delighted  in  mystification.  We  all  know  the  famous 
papers  he  wrote  under  the  name  of  Bickerstaff:  that  we  are 
indebted  to  his  suggestion  for  the  "  Lucubrations  of  Isaac 
Bickerstaff,"  who  claimed  kindred  with  "  all  the  family  of  the 
Staffs,"  including  Jacobstaff,  Longstaff,  Wagstaff,  Quarterstaff, 
Whitestaff,  Falstaff,  Tipstaff,  Distaff,  Pikestaff,  Mopstaff, 
Broomstaff,  Raggedstaff;  and  was  subsequently  graciously 
pleased  to  receive  "as  kinsman  "  Mr.  Proctorstaff  of  Cam- 
bridge, and  others  ;  and  that  he  published  his  own  Polite  Con- 
versation under  the  name  of  "  Simon  Wagstaffe." 

This  Character  of  Richard  Steele,  as  I  before  observed,  was 
published  by  Morphew,  at  that  time  Swift's  publisher.  As 
Swift  suggested  the  name  of  Bickerstaffe  for  the  writer  of  The 
Tatler,  he  may  have  suggested  Morphew  as  the  publisher. 
Steele,  however,  quarrelled  with  Morphew;  The  Tatler  was 
given  up,  and  The  Spectator  started  with  another  publisher : 
but  Morphew  remained  silent  until  Swift  openly  quarrelled 
with  Steele,  and  forthwith  Morphew  became  active  in  his  hos- 
tility. He  not  only  published  Toby's  Character  of  Richard 
Steele,  but  A  Letter  from  the  facetious  Dr.  A  ndrew  Tripe,  at 
Bath,  to  the  Venerable  Nestor  Ironsides  (the  name  under  which 
Steele  wrote  The  Guardian] — a  bitter  satire  on  Steele,  as 
Scott  acknowledges ;  and  one  of  which,  no  doubt,  on  reflection, 
Swift  was  ashamed.  Now  if  the  strange  name  of  Tripe  be  not 
so  intimately  associated  with  Swift  as  that  of  Wagstaffe,  it  was 
more  so  at  that  time  than  with  any  other.  The  poem  called 
The  Swan  Tripe  Club,  published  in  Dublin,  1704,  had  been 
republished  in  London  by  Tonson  as  by  "'  the  author  of  The 
Tale  of  a  Tub." 

The  reasons  I  have  suggested  for  the  publication  of  the 
Wagstaffe  Miscellanies  would  scarcely  excuse  the  republication 
of  Tripe's  letter ;  yet,  among  these  Miscellanies  we  find  "  A 


376  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [III. 

Letter  from  the  facetious  Dr.  Andrew  Tripe,  at  Bath";  and 
Pope,  in  the  Testimonies  prefixed  to  The  Dunciad,  makes 
profitable  use  of  the  fact.  He,  it  appears,  knew  of  the  publi- 
cation of  the  Wagstaffe  volume  ;  and  he  tells  us,  as  we  had 
been  told  before  in  the  Preface  to  the  Swift  and  Pope  Mi*- 
cellanies,  that  the  Grub  Street  people,  to  lower  the  author's 
success,  persevere  in  attributing  to  him  works  he  never  wrote 
— even  works  "  owned  by  others  "  ;  and  then  instances  The 
What  d'ye  Call  It,  "  which  is  Mr.  Gay's,"  and  "the  pamphlet 
called  '  Dr.  Andrew  Tripe,'  which  proves  to  be  one  Dr.  Waq- 
staffe's"  By  this  reference  it  appears,  that  though  Pope 
knew  of  this  obscure  volume,  the  public  could  have  known 
very  little  of  the  writer  who  is  here  described  as  "  one  Dr. 
Wagstaffe."  Yet  a  more  remarkable  fact  is,  that  the  "  Letter 
from  Dr.  Andrew  Tripe  of  Bath,"  published  among  Wagstaffe's 
Miscellanies,  and  which  publication  was  turned  to  such  pro- 
fitable use,  is  a  wholly  different  work  from  The  Letter  from  Dr. 
Andrew  Tripe  of  Bath — the  bitter  satire  on  Steele,  which  the 
Scriblerians  were  accused  of  having  written.  I  give  here  the 
full  title  of  the  tract  in  this  Wagstaffe  volume  : — - 

"  A  Letter  from  the  facetious  Dr.  Andrew  Tripe,  at  Bath,  to 
his  loving  Brother,  the  Profound  Greshamite,  showing  that  the 
Seribendi  Cacoethes  is  a  Distemper  arising  from  a  redundancy 
of  Biliose  Salts ;  and  not  to  be  eradicated  but  by  a  diurnal 
Course  of  Oils  and  Vomits.  With  an  Appendix  concerning 
the  Application  of  Socrates  his  Clyster,  and  the  use  of  clean 
L,inen  in  Controversy," 

I  have  not  succeeded  in  finding  a  copy  of  the  original  pub- 
lication, and  the  reprint  has  not  that  "  Appendix  "  which  is  so 
full  of  humorous  promise  in  the  title-page.  There  is  no  copy 
iu  the  British  Museum ;  and  though  the  title  figures  in  the 
Catalogue  of  the  Library  of  the  Medical  Society,  prepared  in 
1829,  no  copy  is  to  be  found  in  the  library,*  It  is  a  medical 
satire,  and  could  not  have  been  written  before  1719  or  1720, 
many  years  after  the  Morphew  battery  had  been  silent,  but 

*  I  doubt  if  it  ever  existed  in  the  library.  Catalogues  have  been  compiled  on 
the  principle  of  including  not  only  what  is  in  the  library,  but  what  it  is  desired 


HI.]  SWIFT,   ETC.  377 

when  Arbuthnot  and  Pope,  and  the  Scriblerians,  were  active 
in  their  attack  on  "  the  profound  Greshamite,"  Dr.  Wood- 
ward ;  and  I  should  say  it-  probably  originated  with  the 
Scriblerians,  and  was  written  by  Arbuthnot.* 

It  would  be  impossible,  within  any  reasonable  limits,  to  enter 
into  a  like  examination  of  the  other  contents  of  this  Wagstaffe 
volume;  but  I  may  briefly  observe  that  The  Story  of  the- St. 
Allan's  Ghost,  a  skit  on  the  Duchess  of  Marlborough,  was 
thought  by  Scott,  "from  the  style,"  and  the  severity  with 
which  Dr.  Garth  was  treated,  to  have  been  the  joint  work  of 
Swift  and  Arbuthnot.  But  if  Dr.  Arbuthnot  was  assisting, 
why  did  Swift  require  the  further  assistance  of  Dr.  Wagstaife  ? 

The  Comment  on  the  History  of  Tom  Thumb,  a  parody  on 
Addison's  criticism  on  Chevy  Chase,  is  an  amusing  trifle,  which 
might  have  been  written  by  anyone  ;  and  it  is  not  improbable, 
and  is  very  much  after  the  fashion  of  the  Scriblerians,  that 
they  introduced  some  trifles  of  this  character  into  the  Wag- 
staffe volume  as  a  misleading  light.  But  the  parody  contains 
more  than  one  skit  at  Swift's  old  antagonist  Dr.  Bentley — on 
Blackmore  and  his  Arthur:  and  the  writer  refers  certain  dis- 
puted points  to  the  decision  of  the  author  of  The  Tale  of  a 
Tub.  It  was  evidently  thrown  off  at  a  moment ;  and  though 
there  is  no  ill  feeling  in  it,  I  do  not  think  it  would  have  been 
written  by  anyone  in  perfect  good  humour  with  Addison. 
Now  Addison's  papers  appeared  in  The  Spectator  in  May, 
1711,  when  Swift  was  very  angry  with  Addison  as  well  as  with 
Steele,  as  appears  from  his  Journal  to  Stella ;  and  it  was  pub- 
lished by  Morphew  in  1711,  followed  in  the  autumn  by  the 
same  publisher  with  Swift's  famous  pamphlet  on  The  Conduct 

to  have  in  the  library,  what  they  want.  This  was  done  at  the  Royal  Institution. 
See  Catalogue,  1809.  (See  Cat.  Pref.,  p.  7.)  If  this  was  good  policy  with  re- 
ference to  a  journal  it  was  better  with  a  special  catalogue  like  that  of  a  Medi.-.-il 
Society,  and  it  is  fairly  to  be  inferred  that  the  Compiler  know  nothing  of  the 
work,  but  that  it  professed  to  be  a  mdical  work,  that  he  included  not  only  Dr. 
Andrew  Tripe,  &c.,  but  "  Tripe  (Dr.)  Letter  to  Dr.  Ironsides,  1713,"  and  "  Letter 
from  the  same  to  the  Learned  Gresham  (8vo.)  Lond.,  1719."  The  first,  as  I  have 
shown,  is  not  a  medical  tract. 

*  Arbuthuot  won  his  reputation  by  his  reply  to  Woodward  in  1695.     See 
Hunk's  Roll  of  Col.  of  Phy.  ii.  26. 


378  PAPERS  OF  A   CRITIC.  [III. 

of  the  Allies.  Another  of  the  same  class,  without  any  dis- 
tinctive character,  is  The  Plain  Dealer,  also  published  by 
Morphew. 

The  Testimonies  of  the  Citizens  of  Fickleborough  concerning 
the  Life  and  Character  of  Robert  Hush,  commonly  called  Bob, 
is  another  of  the  squibs  which  have  no  such  literary  cha- 
racteristics as  might  help  to  determine  who  was  the  writer. 
Two  letters  *  appeared  in  September,  1712,  in  The  Flying 
Post,  conducted  by  Ridpath,  signed  "Bob  Hush  of  Fickle- 
borough,"  which  excited  public  attention.  They  were  noticed 
at  the  time  in  the  Tory  Examiner,  with  which  Swift  was  in- 
timately associated  as  well  as  in  these  Testimonies.  Swift,  we 
find,  was  at  that  time  more  than  usually  violent  against  Rid- 
path. On  the  28th  of  October,  he  wrote  to  Stella  about 
"  these  devils  of  Grub  Street  Rogues  that  write  The  Flying 
Post  .  .  .  are  always  mauling  Lord  Treasurer,  Lord  Boling- 
broke,  and  me.  .  .  .  We  have  the  dogs  under  persecution, 
but  Bolingbroke  is  not  active  enough ;  but  I  hope  to  swinge 
him.  He  is  a  Scotch  rogue,  one  Ridpath."  This  pamphlet 
also  was  published  by  Morphew. 

I  submit  these  speculations,  as  speculations,  to  the  judg- 
ment of  the  readers  of  "  N.  &  Q."— D.  S.  A.— [Mr.  Dilke.] 


SWIFT   v.  WAGSTAFFE. 

MY  letter  (3rd  S.  i.  381)  was  a  reply,  by  anticipation,  to 
MR.  CROSSLEY  (ii.  34).  That  gentleman  states  the  case  in 
favour  of  Wagstaffe  as  I  found  it,  and  as  it  had  passed  current 
for  more  than  a  hundred  years.  His  authorities  I  showed 
were  no  authorities,  and  traced  them  all  up  to  the  anonymous 
biography  prefixed  to  the  Wagstaffe  volume. 

MR.  CROSSLEY  thinks  the  hypothesis   strange,  almost   in- 

*  It  is  not  impossible  that  these  letters  were  republished  with  others,  and 
called  "  The  Present  State  of  Fairy  I^and  in  several  letters  from  Esquire  Hush,  an 
eminent  citizen  of  Fickleborongh,"  &c.  Loud.,  Warner,  1713. 


IIL1  SWIFT,   ETC.  379 

credible.  I  thought  so  too,  and  therefore  it  was  that  I  drew 
attention  to  the  subject.  I  still  think  it  strange,  though  less 
incredible,  now  that  MR.  CROSSLEY,  with  a  sensible  distrust  of 
it,  and  a  nearly  complete  collection  of  all  the  pamphlets 
published  between  1711  and  1718  at  his  command,  has  not 
found  one  single  fact  tending  to  disprove  it — not  one  "  inde- 
pendent testimony  "  in  favour  of  the  Wagstaffe  theory. 

MR.  CROSSLEY  observes  that  not  more  than  fifteen  years — 
1711  to  1726 — passed  between  the  publication  of  the  first  tract 
and  the  republication  in  the  volume  ;  and  he  asks : — 

'  Were  all  the  contemporaries,  friends  of  Dr.  Wagstaffe, 
and  acquainted  with  his  early  habits  and  character,  or  who 
were  conversant  in  the  history  of  the  press  and  its  workings 
during  the  latter  years  of  Queen  Anne,  utterly  perished  from 
the  face  of  the  earth,  so  as  to  afford  an  opportunity  of  dealing 
with  the  deceased  doctor's  antecedents  in  any  way  which  the 
whim  of  the  most  whimsical  humourists  might  dictate  without 
fear  or  scruple  ?  " 

The  humourists  would  not  so  often  have  mystified  the 
public,  if  they  had  not  anticipated  and  provided  against  such 
very  natural  questions.  Has  MR.  CROSSLEY  forgotten  what 
the  memoir- writer  tells  us  —  all  the  tracts  were  originally 
"  published  without  a  name  " — that  the  Doctor  "  never  did 
intend  it  should  be  known  who  wrote  them."  Under  these 
circumstances  I  see  no  necessity  for  this  fearful  mortality. 
The  wonder  I  expressed  (3rd  S.  i.  381)  seems  to  me  more 
natural ;  as  did  another  wonder  I  then  recorded,  that  all  the 
important  tracts  published  were  published  by  Swift's  publisher; 
and  were  all  written  between  1711  and  1714,  while  Swift  was 
in  London,  carrying  on  his  fierce  literary  and  political  warfare, 
and  not  one  after  Swift  went  to  Ireland,  though  Wagstaffe 
continued  to  live  in  London  for  ten  years — up  to  1724  or 
1725. 

The  hypothesis,  MR.  CROSSLEY  says,  "  must  fall  through,  if 
any  of  the  pieces  contained  in  the  volume  are  clearly  shown  to 
be  Wagstaffe's."  Here  again  he  seems  greatly  to  underrate 


380  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [III. 

the  skill  of  the  artists.  I,  on  the  contrar}r,  assumed  (3rd  S.  i. 
383)  as  "  not  improbable,  and  very  much  after  the  fashion  of 
the  Scriblerians,"  that  they  had  "introduced  some  trifles" 
written  by  others  "  into  the  Wagstaffe  volume  as  a  misleading 
light  " — written  by  Wagstaffe,  if  MR.  CROSSLEY  pleases,  after 
he  has  shown  that  Wagstaffe  ever  wrote  a  line  on  any  literary 
or  political  subject.  However,  we  are  agreed  that  "  the  mis- 
leading lights  "  I  named,  have  none  of  "  the  distinctive  charac- 
teristics "  of  Swift ;  and  therefore,  as  I  said,  were  probably  not 
written  by  Swift — not  by  the  same  person  who  wrote  Toby's 
Character  of  Steele,  The  Memoirs  of  Charity  Hush,  or  The 
Story  of  the  St.  Allan's  Ghost.  Here,  however,  we  differ;  for 
MR.  CROSSLEY  sees  none  of  Swift's  characteristics  even  in 
Toby's  Letter.  Be  it  so  ;  I  never  dispute  about  mere  opinions, 
and  mine  are  on  record,  with  curious  facts  to  strengthen  them, 
of  which  MR.  CROSSLEY  takes  no  notice.  I  shall,  therefore* 
only  observe  that  Steele  himself  agreed  with  me  ;  that  the 
Cliaracter  was  attributed  to  Swift  in  1728  in  Gulliveriana,  and 
reprinted  in  the  edition  of  Swift's  Works  by  Sir  Walter  Scott, 
who  remarks  in  reference  to  the  disputed  authorship,  that  "  it 
must  be  allowed  to  contain  some  strokes  of  Swift's  peculiar 
humour." 

MR.  CROSSLEY  proceeds  to  show  that  the  "  Letter  from  the 
facetious  Dr.  Andrew  Tripe,  at  Bath,"  has  marks  of  having 
been  written  "  by  a  member  of  the  medical  profession."  Why, 
I  said  so:  called  it  "a  medical  satire;"  observed,  which  is 
more  to  the  purpose,  that  it  was  published  many  years  later 
than  the  other  tracts  in  the  volume,  and  just  when  the 
Scriblerians  were  at  open  war  with  Dr.  Woodward,  and  sug- 
gested that  it  was  probably  written  by  Dr.  Arbuthnot.  Further, 
I  drew  attention  to  the  curious  and  significant  fact,  that  the 
"  Letter  from  the  facetious  Dr.  Andrew  Tripe,  at  Bath,"  the 
medical  satire,  published  in  the  Wagstaffe  volume,  was  a 
wholly  different  work  from  the  "  Letter  from  the  facetious 
Dr.  Andrew  Tripe,  at  Bath,"  the  satire  on  Steele.  I  also 
pointed  out  the  ingenious  use  which  has  been  made  by  the 
Scriblerians  of  this  re -publication  of  the  medical  satire  ;  for 
hey  took  occasion  to  warn  the  public  against  the  rascally 


HI.]  SWIFT,  ETC.  :>^\ 

Grub  Street  people ;  who,  among  other  misdeeds,  charge  them 
with  writing  works  actually  owned  by  others ;  and,  among  illus- 
trations, refer  to  "  a  pamphlet  by  Dr.  Andrew  Tripe,  which 
proved  to  be  one  Dr.  Wagstaffe."  Those  who  agree  with 
MR.  CROSSLEY  must  believe  that  the  Scriblerians,  though  they 
knew  of  the  publication  of  this  obscure  volume,  by  "  one  Dr. 
Wagstaffe  " — knew  the  contents  of  the  volume — did  not  know 
Wagstaffe  himself ;  did  not  know  that  the  Tripe  Letter,  which 
they  were  accused  of  having  written,  was  published  in  1714, 
and  addressed  to  Nestor  Ironsides,  the  name  under  which 
Steele  wrote  The  Guardian ;  whereas  the  other  was  not  pub- 
lished before  1719  or  1720,  and  was  addressed  to  "  the  pro- 
found Greshamite,"  Dr.  Woodward.  I  wish  your  correspondent 
would  concern  himself  with  facts  like  these  and  others  pointed 
out  in  my  letter.  Has  he,  for  instance,  among  his  collection 
of  pamphlets,  a  copy  of  the  original  Letter  addressed  to  the 
Greshamite  ?  And  does  it  contain  the  amusing  Appendix 
promised  in  the  title-page  of  the  reprint,  but  not  given  ? 

I  said  nothing  in  my  former  letter  about  the  portrait  prefixed 
to  the  Toby  pamphlet,  and  can  say  nothing  now  ;  for,  in  truth, 
I  do  not  understand  MR.  CROSSLEY'S  argument.  I  certainly 
never  supposed  that  it  was  a  portrait  of  anybody ;  but  a  vera 
effigies  such  as  the  great  master  of  this  sort  of  matter-of-fact 
fiction,  De  Foe,  occasionally  made  use  of  to  mystify  his  public 
— with  a  touch  of  satire  superadded.  One  word,  however,  on 
this  point,  to  avoid  future  difference  : — MR.  CROSSLEY  speaks 
of  the  plate  in  the  volume  as  of  a  re-issue.  I  believe  it  to  be  a 
new  engraving. 

MR.  CROSSLEY  should  not  forget,  that  strange  as  the  hypo- 
thesis may  be,  it  is  not  more  strange  than  some  known  facts. 
It  is  not  ten  years  since  most  persons  believed  that  the  lir>t 
edition  of  TheDunciml  was  published  in  Dublin  :  it  is  not  half 
that  time  since  all  believed  that  the  Swift  Letters  were  first 
published  there,  and  published  by  Swift. — D.  S.  A.  [Mr. 
Dilke.] 

THE  LETTER  FROM  DR.  ANDREW  TRIPE  (3rd  S.  i.  381).— 
It  may  be  just  worth  notice,  with  reference  to  the  speculations 


382  PAPERS  OF  A    CRITIC.  [III. 

of  your  correspondent  as  to  the  writer  of  the  Tripe  letter 
addressed  to  Nestor  Ironsides,  and  published  in  London  by 
Morphew,  Swift's  publisher,  in  1714,  that  it  was  immediately 
reprinted  in  Dublin,  and  has  on  the  title  1714.  Reprinting  in 
Dublin  was  a  matter  of  concse  with  works  of  interest,  but  I 
doubt  whether  Nestor  Ironsides  was  sufficiently  known  there  to 
suggest  a  reprint  to  a  Dublin  bookseller. — Notes  and  Queries, 
3  S.  ii.  396.— T.  L.  F.  [Mr.  Dilke.] 


END    OF    VOL.    I. 


BRADBURY,  AGNEW,  &  CO.,  PRINTERS,   WIHTKFRURS. 


ME.   MURRAY'S 
LIST    OF    NEW    WORKS. 


THE  QUAETERLY  REVIEW,  No.  276. 

CONTENTS. 

I.  MACREADY'S  REMINISCENCES. 
II.  INDIAN  MISSIONS. 

III.  LORD  SHELBURNE,  FIRST  MARQUESS  OF  LANSDOWNE. 

IV.  NATIONAL  EDUCATION  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES. 

V.  DR.  NEWMAN,  CARDINAL  MANNING,  &  MUNSIGNOR  CAPEL 
VI.  LAST  JOURNALS  OF  DAVID  LIVINGSTONE. 
VII.  THE  STATUE  OF  MEMNON. 

VIII.  THE  TRANSITION  FROM  MEDIEVAL  TO  MODERN  POLITICS 
IX.  ENGLAND  AND  RUSSIA  IN  THE  EAST. 

MEMOIR  OF  SIR  RODERICK  MURCHISON.    Based 

upon  his  Journals  and  Letters.  With  Notices  of  his  Scientific  Contemporaries, 
and  a  Sketch  of  the  Rise  and  Growth  of  Palaeozoic  Geology  in  Britain.  By 
ARCHIBALD  GEIKIE,  F.R.S.  With  Portraits,  2  vols.  8vo.  30*. 

TRAVELS  OF  MARCO  POLO,  THE  VENETIAN.  Con- 
cerning the  KINGDOMS  AND  MARVELS  OF  THE  EAST.  A  New  English  Version. 
Illustrated  by  the  light  of  Oriental  Writers  and  Modern  Travels.  By  COL. 
HENRY  YULE,  C.B.  Revised  and  Enlarged  Edition.  With  19  Maps  and 
Plans,  and  130  Illustrations.  2  vols.  Medium  8vo.  63s. 

DR.   LIVINGSTONE'S   LAST  JOURNALS  IN  CEN- 

TRAL  AFRICA.  With  a  Narrative  of  his  last  moments  and  sufferings,  obtained 
from  his  faithful  Servants,  CUUMAH  and  Susi.  By  Rev.  HORACE  WALLER, 
F.R.G.S.  With  Portrait  and  Illustrations.  2  vols.  8vo.  285. 

TROY  AND  ITS  REMAINS;  DISCOVERIES  AND  RE- 
SEARCHES MADE  ON  THE  SlTE  OF  Il.ITM  AND  IN  THE  TROJAN  PLAIN.  By 

D.I.  SCHLIEMANN.  Edited  by  PHILIP  SMITH,  B.A.  With  Maps  and  500 
Illustrations.  Royal  8vo.  42s. 

ENGLAND  AND  RUSSIA  IN  THE  EAST.    A  Series 

of  Papers  on  the  POLITICAL  and  GEOGRAPHICAL  CONDITION  OF  CENTRAL  ASIA. 
By  MAJ. -GEN.  SIR  HENRY  RAWLINSON,  K.C.B.  Map.  8vo.  12*. 

THE   LAND  OF  THE  NORTH  WIND  ;    or,  TRAVELS 

among  the  LAPLANDERS  and  the  SAMOYEDES.  By  EDWARD  RAE,  F.R.G.S. 
With  Map  and  Illustrations.  Crown  8vo.  10s.  6d. 

THE  VATICAN  DECREES  IN  THEIR  BEARING  ON  CIVIL, 

ALLEGIANCE  ;— and  VATICAN  ISM.  AN  ANSWF.R  TO  REPROOFS  AXI>  KKPUKS. 
By  THE  RIGHT  HON.  W.  E,  GLADSTONE,  M.P.  8vo.  2*.  &d.  each  ;  or, 
Cheap  Edition,  6d.  each. 

OLD  TIMES  AND  DISTANT  PLACES  :  A  SERIES  OF 

SKETCHES.     By  ARCHDEACON  SINCLAIR,  M. A.     Crown  8vo.     93. 

WORSHIP  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  ENGLAND.  By 

A.  J.  B.  BERESFORD-HOPE,  M.P.     Second  Edition.     8vo.     9*. 

LECTURES  ON  THE  EARLY  HISTORY  OF  INSTI- 
TUTIONS. By  SIR  HENRY  SUMNER  MAINE,  K.C.S.I.  Second  Edition, 
8vo.  12*. 


MR.   MURE  ATS  LIST  OF  NEW   WORKS. 
METALLURGY ;    The  Art  "of  Extracting    Metals    from 

their  Ores.  By  JOHN  PERCY,  F.R.S.  Contents -Firm,.:  Wood,  Peat,  d.al, 
Charcoal,  Coke,  Fireclays,  &c.  Revised  ami  Enlarged  Edition.  With  9  Litho- 
graphs and  Illustrations.  8vo.  30s. 

THE  HAWAIIAN  ARCHIPELAGO  ;  Six  MONTHS 
AMONG  THE  PALM  GROVES,  CORAL  REEFS,  AND  VOLCANOES  OF  THE  SANDWICH 
ISLANDS.  By  ISABELLA  BIRD.  With  Illustrati  ,ns  Crown  8 vo.  12s. 

THE    NICENE   A.ND   APOSTLES'    CREEDS.      Tlieir 

Literary  History,  together  with  some  account  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Faith,  com- 
monly'called  ""The  Creed  of  St.  Athanasius."  By  C.  A.  SWAINSON,  D.D., 
Canon  of  Chich ester.  8vo.  16s. 

THE   COMMUNISTIC  SOCIETIES  OF  THE  UNITED 

STATES.  From  Personal  Visits  and  Observations  ;  with  Detailed  Accounts  of 
their  Religious  Creeds,  Socia'  Practices,  Numbers,  Industries,  and  Present  Con- 
dition. By  CHARLES  NORDHOFF.  With  Illustrations.  8vo.  15s. 

THE    DIARY    OF    THE    SHAH   OF  PERSIA  during 

his  TOUR  in  1873.  Translated  by  J.  W.  REDHOUSE,  F.R  A.S.  With  Por- 
trait. Crown  8vo.  12s. 

THE    SPEAKER'S    COMMENTARY    on    the     HOLY 

BIBLE  ;  with  an  Explanatory  and  Critical  Commentary,  ani  a  Revision  of  the 
Translation.  By  BISHOPS  and  CLERGY  of  the  ANC  LIOAN  CHURCH.  Edited  by 
CANON  COOK,  M.A.  Vols.  I.  to  IV.  Medium  8vo. 

REMINISCENCES  OF  FORTY  YEARS'  SERVICE  in 

INDIA.  By  SIR  GEORGE  LAWRENCE,  C.B.  Including  the  Cabul  Dis- 
asters, Captivities  in  Afghanistan  and  the  Pun  j  a  lib,  and  a  Narrative  of  the 
Mutinies  in  Rajputana.  Crown  8vo.  10s.  6d. 

THE  SHADOWS  OF  A  SICK  ROOM.  Second  Edition. 

With  Preface  by  Canon  LIDDON.     16mo.     2s.  6d. 

THE  SONNET ;  ITS  ORIGIN,  STRUCTURE,  AND  PLACE  IN 
POETRY.  With  Original  TRANSLATIONS  FROM  DANTE  AND  PETRARCH.  By 
CHARLES  TOMLINSON,  F.K.S.  Post  8vo.  9s. 

THE  LOIRE  AND  SOUTH  OF  FRANCE  :    A  SERIES 

OF  TWENTY  ETCHINGS.  By  ERNEST  GEORGE.  With  Descriptive  Text. 
Folio.  42s. 

THE  GNOSTIC  HERESIES  OF  THE  IST   AND  2xo 

CENTURIES.  By  DEAN  MANSEL,  D.D.  With  a  Sketch  of  his  Life  :md 
Character.  By  LORD  CARNARVON,  Edited  by  CANON  L1GHTFOOT,  D.D. 
8m  10s.  6d. 

ARCHEOLOGY,  ART,  AND  TRAVEL.  Being 
SKETCHES  AND  STUDIES,  HISTORICAL  AND  DESCRIPTIVE.  By  RICHARD  J. 
KING,  B.A.  8vo.  12s. 

SCHOOL  ARCHITECTURE.     Being  Practical  Remarks 

on  the  Planning,  Designing,  Bui'ding,  and  Furnishing  of  School-Houses.  By 
E.  K.  ROBSON,  Architect.  With  300  Illustrations  of  School-Buildings. 
Medium  8vo.  31s.  6d. 

ALPINE  FLOWERS  FOR  ENGLISH  GARDENS ;  the 

P  inciples  on  which  they  may  be  grown  in  all  Parts  of  the  British  Islands.  By 
W.  ROBINSON,  F.L.8.  Second  Edition.  With  Woodcuts.  Crown  8vo.  12s. 


JOHN  MURRAY,  ALBEMARLE  STREET.