Literary Reminiscences and Memoirs of Thomas Campbell
Chapter 5
138 |
LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND |
|
CHAPTER V.
Specimens of the British Poets undertaken.—The Essay on Poetry.—Censure of
Bowles.—Discussions it provoked.—Parties involved in the
contest.—Analysis of the “Invariable Principles.”—Joke on the term
by the Poet.—He revisits Germany and the
Schlegels.—Engages to become Editor of the New Monthly Magazine.—History of that
publication.—
Campbell’s
Editorship.—Takes London lodgings.—Commencement of his Editorial
duties.—His first contributions.
THE next literary undertaking of Campbell was the “Specimens of the British Poets,” published in 1819, in seven volumes.
Under this engagement Mr. Murray the publisher
engaged to pay him five hundred pounds, which sum he doubled upon the completion of the
undertaking, under one of those generous impulses to which he was no stranger. This, it
must be acknowledged, was honourable conduct in one of Mr.
Murray’s profession, and forms an appro-
| MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 139 |
priate
sequel to that of Messrs. Mundell already recorded.
The “Essay on English
Poetry,” which constitutes part of the foregoing work, might be
denominated the poet’s master-piece in prose composition, did it not here and there
exhibit in the style touches of affectation. Yet it is difficult to say which should have
the preference, the opening lectures on poetry, or this essay, for both combine the
excellences and peculiarities of the poet’s prose style. The lectures are, perhaps,
the best example, referring particularly to the first and second. They are more profound,
and are remarkable for their engaging simplicity. Much learned research is exhibited in
both, but the lectures are the more elaborate, while the essay is fresher, and displays
more of the graces of fancy. There is a genial feeling about the essay, a spirit of
kindness and cordiality, wholly untinctured with that enviousness of which the poet has
been in a solitary instance so groundlessly accused by Lord
Brougham. He was blamed for confining his selections to productions which
had been passed over by others, but he did this because he thought the best things had been
too frequently taken, and were in consequence become familiar and hacknied. His judgments
are given, as has been already noticed, even when he censures,
140 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
without
asperity, and with impartiality, his remarks on Churchill, perhaps, excepted, whose merits he has not fully acknowledged.
Campbell began his essay with the Saxon origin of
the English language and its displacement, except in the elements, by the introduction of
the Norman, through which the germs of romantic poetry were first introduced into the
island, and to which the English language was indebted for its copiousness of terms and
compass of expression. In this beautiful essay, in citing one of our older pieces of
poetry, he misquotes “Blow, blow, thou northern wind,” in place of
“Blow, blow, thou winter’s wind.” Errors of the commonest kind
were numerous throughout the seven volumes, some relating to biographical incidents, others
to dates, and books, which the author overlooked, not, indeed, other than any pen might
correct by reference to the book-shelf, and wholly unconnected with criticism or taste, but
such as ought not to have been suffered to pass uncorrected. On the appearance of the
second edition, so great was Campbell’s horror of revision that
he declined the task—a task very slight, and absolutely necessary. It was placed in
the hands of another, for the purpose of revision and superintending the printing, which
being done with attention, the poet thanked the
| MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 141 |
corrector for the mode
in which he had performed his task. Here was another characteristic example of
Campbell’s dislike of labour, almost insurmountable, even
during his better days, as indeed may be inferred from its overcoming the affection every
author is supposed to feel for the completeness of his own performances. “Read
Campbell’s Poets,” said Byron in his journal; “marked the errors of
Tom for correction.” Again, “Came
home—read. Corrected Tom Campbell’s slips of the
pen.” Farther, “His defence of Pope is glorious; to be sure it is his own cause
too—but no matter, it is very good, and does him much credit.”
In that part of this essay in which its author speaks of the
non-establishment of the literary character of England before the close of the sixteenth
century, the poet is particularly striking and elegant. His critical remarks on Spenser are sound, and in good taste, while those on
Shakspeare are worthy of his reputation.
Alluding to Shakspeare, he notices the opinions of Augustus William Schlegel, whose knowledge of the great
dramatic poet was so profound. The whole of the Elizabethan age, in its poetical character,
is finely discriminated. The third part of the essay begins with the reign of James I., and the influence of that reign upon poetry.
142 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
The classical and metaphysical poets are examined after the fine old
dramatists, of whom Campbell felt the full merit. He
ascribes their extinction to the civil wars. On Milton he expatiates with a full sense of the loftiness of his theme;
perhaps it is the happiest part of his essay, lucid, discriminating, redolent with the
feeling of his majestic subject. He censures Dryden’s Virgil, and alludes to the fact of the oet having produced so many fine things
in his old age, “renewed in his youth like the eagle.” He then proceeds
to Pope, and in touching upon his different editors,
says, “The last of these is the Rev. Mr.
Bowles, in speaking of whom I beg leave most distinctly to disclaim the
slightest intention of undervaluing his merit as a poet, however freely and fully I may
dissent from his critical estimate of the genius of Pope.
Mr. Bowles, in forming this estimate, lays great stress upon
the argument that Pope’s images are drawn more from art than
nature.”
From this passage arose the celebrated discussion. Campbell seemed here inclined to wander from his immediate
subject into an elaborate defence of Pope, disputing
the justice of Bowles’s argument at
considerable length, in proportion to the entire essay, in the same way as he wandered in
his lecture on poetry into an arraignment of
| MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 143 |
Mitford’s opinions regarding Sparta. With this
justification of Pope he concluded. It would seem as if between
Pope and the actual termination of the eighteenth century there
had been few other poets worthy of introduction into his dissertation. As he approached the
end of his task, and deviated into a justification of Pope against a
living writer, it is possible he finished with a sort of abruptness, because he thought in
discussions that might possibly arise out of his previous remarks, he should have enough on
his hands, without provoking more. Perhaps, as was his way, he felt tired of his labour,
and was glad to terminate it, though he had no valid reason for not rendering his work more
complete, by noticing the variations in style between Pope and the
different poets to the end of the eighteenth century.
The specimens begin
with Chaucer, and terminate with Anstey, who died in 1805, a period intervening of four
hundred and five years. In the specimens, which included each a
too brief memoir of a single poet, Campbell made
some further observations upon Bowles for his
severity upon the moral character of the bard of
Twickenham.
The same year (1819) was, in consequence, signalised by the publication of
a letter from the
144 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
Rev. Lisle Bowles to Campbell, in justification o his opinions on what were called his
“invariable principles of
poetry,” arising out of some remarks in defence of Pope in his “Essay,” already noticed. Byron, Campbell, Roscoe, Gilchrist, and the Quarterly Review, were all mixed up in the
question, and even Moore. The last remarks, in his
“Life of Byron”
“It may be sufficient to say of the use to which both Lord
Byron and Mr. Bowles thought it worth while to
apply my name in this controversy, that as far as my own knowledge of the subject
extended, I was disposed to agree with neither of the extreme
opinions into which, as it appeared to me, my distinguished friends had diverged,
&c.”
Everybody must remember Lord
Byron’s lines on Bowles and
Campbell, to the tune of “How now, Madame Flirt!”—
Bowles.—Why
how now, saucy Tom, If thus you must ramble, I will publish some “Remarks on Mr.
Campbell.” &c. &c. &c. |
The discussion was kept open from 1819 to 1822, in consequence of
Roscoe having agreed to be editor of the new edition of the works of
| MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 145 |
Pope. This duty had been undertaken for the
booksellers by Bowles on a previous occasion, in
which he had spoken of Pope in so slighting a manner, and had thus
provoked the remarks of Campbell.
This was a singular dispute;* Campbell may be said to have began the contest by his dissent from
Bowles’s theory of criticism.
Bowles addressed him a letter in consequence, but
Campbell was too idle to go further into the contest. He got rid
of it by a note which he attached to his third lecture, a perfect exemplification of his
mode of shifting off a task. He says, referring to Bowles’s
“invariable
principles”—“When the book”
* A character of this controversy was given in a northern
periodical thus:— “Mr. Bowles wrote
a book upon Pope. “Mr. Campbell
abused Mr. Bowles’s book on
Pope. “Mr. Bowles wrote an answer to
Mr. Campbell’s abuse of Mr.
Bowles’s book on Pope. “Lord Byron wrote a
letter to certain stars in Albemarle-street, in answer to Mr.
Bowles’s answer to Mr.
Campbell’s abuse of Mr.
Bowles’s book on Pope. “Jeremy Bentham,
Esq., wrote a letter to Lord Byron about
Lord Byron’s letter to certain stars in
Albemarle-street, in answer to Mr. Bowles’s answer
to Mr. Campbell’s abuse of Mr.
Bowles’s book on Pope. “Mr. Bowles wrote an answer, not to
Jeremy Bentham, but to Lord
Byron’s letter to certain stars in Albemarle-street, in
answer to Mr. Bowles’s answer to Mr.
Campbell’s abuse of Mr.
Bowles’s book on Pope.”
|
146 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
(meaning his “Specimens”) “in which I dissented from Mr.
Bowles’s theory of criticism comes to a second edition, I shall
have a good deal to say to my reverend friend. I have not misrepresented him, as he
imagines, but I have no leisure to write pamphlets about
him.” No writer of his day ever had so much leisure as the poet for such
a purpose. He was not idle in the common sense of the term; it is true he read and
studied—but he did nothing,—his reading and study producing no fruit beyond his
own gratification. The “Specimens” did not come to a
second edition until twenty years afterwards (1841), when the poet was past all ability for
writing. It is true he expected a second edition long before. Dr. Wolcot (Peter Pindar) died in 1819:
Campbell being aware that I had known the satirist, begged me to
put together a memoir of the doctor, as he intended to place him in the next edition of his
“Specimens,” Wolcot being,
in his opinion, one of the most original poets England had ever produced, and one having
the most perfect knowledge of human nature—but to return.
Campbell thus left others to fight out the battle he had commenced
himself, overlooking the contest between others like an unconcerned spectator. Warm at
first in behalf of Pope, he felt that to prolong the
controversy would be irksome, and the original | MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 147 |
burst of feeling
cooled, he could not screw himself to the sticking point again. This affair, which made so
much noise in the literary world, it may be proper to recall in the outline, as many may
have forgotten that celebrated discussion.
With the question of the “invariable principles of poetry,”
as laid down by Bowles, was involved the reputation
of Pope. If the notions of
Bowles were once admitted and established, their effect would be
to degrade Pope from the eminence on which for so long a period he had
stood, by the general consent of the world, our first poet after Milton’s time, as Johnson truly remarks. The importance and interest excited by the question
were increased by the high reputation of most of those who were engaged in it. Some said
that Bowles had the ambition of founding a new poetical creed. This
was not exactly the fact; the “principle,” or the “principles,” as
they were denominated, of that commentator had been the subject of long and animated
discussion in Germany and Italy several years before, as Campbell well knew, and in this country bore a manifest ascendency with a
particular class of critics and poets, those called “the Lakers,” in
particular, and their supporters. The “principles” of
Bowles were but the reiteration of opinions which had been
elsewhere
148 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
more emphatically expressed and exhibited in practice. But
the “canons” of Bowles were in any case laid down in his
criticism on Pope in a manner far too unqualified. His argument was,
that images drawn from the sublime and beautiful in nature are more poetical than any drawn
from art; and that those passions of the human heart which belong to nature in general, are
of themselves more adapted to the higher species of poetry than those which are derived
from incidental and transient manners. With the exceptions and qualifications belonging to
all critical opinions, this position might be admitted by the party of which
Campbell may be considered to have taken the lead. But
Bowles went further, and said in effect, that the mere presence of
such images was to determine the merits of a poet with little or no consideration of the
skill and power displayed in working up the materials.
This could not be agreed to by the author of the “Pleasures of Hope,” and he
accordingly showed himself an absolute dissenter from so imperfect and unfair a mode of
estimating poetical excellence. Campbell was of
opinion that this theory entirely destroyed the distinctions between capacities of the
loftiest and meanest order, and took away its very essence from the character of the poet.
No doubt from subjects sublime or
| MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 149 |
beautiful in themselves, genius will
produce more beautiful creations than from such as are apparently low, barren, and
insignificant; but even to these last it is the attribute of genius to lend some of its
splendour, and to invest them with the exquisite associations of poetry. Some natural
objects which, owing to the associations connected with them, may have a less degree of
adaptation, poetical skill may still render universally interesting; many in art on which
nothing but the highest ability can bestow an interest, having received it from the
poet’s genius, may become as fully endowed with the spirit of poetry as any natural
objects can be. The sublime in nature possesses associations and interests of its own,
which are more or less present to all observers, in all times and places, unchangeable and
universal. But artificial objects, capable of awakening intense interest, must have more
dependence on the contrivances of human aid, and arbitrary and conventional circumstances,
for their power of excitement. Here, then, appears the province of the true poet, the
sphere “within whose circle none durst walk but he.” To draw from
himself, and to create, by virtue of his magic power, all such associations as most deeply
influence and affect the heart of man—to employ all the resources of passion and
imagination with the 150 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
qualities of his own genius—so to shape and
clothe his subjects as to make them appear its inseparable relations, and thus to subdue,
by the mere exertions of his wit, those sensibilities and sympathies which without such art
would have remained indifferent and unmoved—all this was not, according to
Campbell, to be accounted a vain and unprofitable labour. Was the
enchanter who called up at his own will those beautiful visions, and peopled with his own
creations the “mighty void,” to be reduced to the level of him whose
only merit consisted in the selection of a happier theme? No system of exclusion could be
true. Whoever set about to maintain one alone must be convicted of much incongruous
reasoning and inconsistent opinion. Campbell withdrew early from the
contest, as already observed. Bowles continued to
support his opinions against fresh controversialists, who could not regard all the mighty
names time has spared from Greece and Rome, and all belonging to our own country up to a
certain period, with rare exceptions, as second-rate poets after the “lake
poets” appeared, because those poets had faith in the “invariable
principles” of Bowles. Under his principles the Venus de Medicis could not be natural, because that statue is
composed of perfect portions of the | MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 151 |
female form, too perfect for
existing nature, therefore, too, it could not be poetical.
Such seems to have been the sense of the question in the plainest form in
which I can put it from recollection, at the time Campbell entered upon the discussion. Long years have passed since, and I
might not be excused for the foregoing analysis upon what is now nearly forgotten, except
by a few literary men, but as being so celebrated, and one in which the part taken by
Campbell at the outset was so decided. His junction of the classic
and romantic schools of poetry in his own verse, sufficiently proves that he was not
exclusive in the matter, and deemed Nature and Art equal resources for poetical use, one
excelling the other in advantage, according to the skill exhibited in their management. In
this respect Moore was decidedly correct in agreeing
with neither of the disputants, if they held exclusive opinions, for so his observation,
must be understood.
That repugnance which Campbell
continually displayed to revert to anything he once had in hand, either of his own for the
purpose of correction and revision, or of any matter likely to involve discussion as in the
present case, was remarkably displayed on his finding a dispute he may be said to have
begun, continued for two or three years,
152 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
and yet refraining from
interfering further. So far did he carry this peculiar feeling, that he requested any
subsequent notices of works to be kept from the magazine, that touched upon the question of
the “invariable principles,” evidently lest they should revive the contest in
his own person, by being supposed his opinions, because he was
editor of the work in which they would appear.
He never talked of the contest, and scarcely ever alluded to it, to my
remembrance, except once to the historian of Leo X.,
who happened to be then in town. A joke of the poet’s upon the contest, however, I
remember, occurred. A man and his wife were quarrelling under the window of his lodgings in
Margaret Street: going from his chair, and looking out to discover the cause, he came back
saying, “O, it is nothing, but the ‘invariable principles’ of
matrimony!”
The contest about the invariable principles of poetry began in 1819, and
in the following year Campbell received an offer of
the Editorship of the “New Monthly
Magazine,” through Mr. Upcot, on
behalf of Mr. Colburn, the proprietor. He then paid
a visit to Germany, proceeding as far as Vienna, where he saw for the last time, after an
interval of many years, his friend Frederick
Schlegel, who was settled there, having married
| MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 153 |
the
daughter of Moses Mendelssohn, the Jewish
philosopher. They had first met at Gottingen. Schlegel had resided for
the twelve preceding years in the Austrian States, having been, part of the time, Aulic
secretary to the Arch-duke Charles. He had published
his lectures “On the History of Ancient
and Modern Literature” five years before, and was now Councillor of
Legation at the Germanic Diet: another proof of the honours paid to intellect by the more
civilised nations of the continent, furnishing an honourable contrast to the slight with
which it is treated in England. Campbell remained a brief time in the
Austrian capital, but long enough to note the changes which years had effected in many
things, and to be struck with the different aspect and the different impressions they
produced on his mind from those which they had done formerly. He returned by way of Bonn,
where Augustus William Schlegel resided, and where
for a time he left his son.
It was twenty-one years since he had published the “Pleasures of Hope,” and he was
forty-three. Upon glancing at what he had produced in the intervening term, we find only
his noble “Odes,” and “Gertrude of Wyoming.” These did not occupy any great portion of his time
during an interval so prolonged. “Gertrude of
Wyoming”
154 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
was composed in about a year, and this must not
be understood of continued labour. Several of his shorter pieces he had kept by him some
time for correction and revision, though in composition they had cost him only one or two
sittings each. He composed many of his poems while we were in habits of close intimacy.
Some of these went to press on the second proofs, some after the first, but then he had
altered them frequently in manuscript. The “lectures” he delivered, and the
“specimens” could
have occupied but a small part of the years which had elapsed. How then did he employ his
time, may naturally be inquired, since he was not an idle man? The reply must be found in
his attachment to abstract researches already alluded to in reading the classics, in
solving difficulties, in desultory translation, and in exploring the numerous side-paths
which branched from the immediate track of study in which he happened to be engaged, but
could be turned to no purpose.
He was deliberating at the moment upon a work in relation to some of the
German speculations upon ancient literature. He intended to lay the basis upon the views of
the subject afforded by the better knowledge of the antiquities and localities of the
scenes of ancient enterprise or celebrity which modern times afford. This task he would
| MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 155 |
never have completed, from the demand it necessarily implied upon a
patience of investigation foreign to his nature. It was while contemplating such a work, he
received the offer of the editorship of the Magazine. Upon the acceptance of the duty he had deliberated. He had as yet no
experience whatever in active periodical literature. All he had undertaken had been
executed at his own leisure, in the retirement of his study, unconnected with other
individuals. The continual contact with strangers, the necessity of saying
“No,” where he could wish to give an affirmative answer; the punctuality
required in handing over to the printer the last copy for the requisite number on the
appointed day, and the annoyance of a correspondence, were matters of serious consideration
to one who was by nature apt to “make mountains of mole-hills.”
Sensitive as the poet was to the slightest annoyance, he felt that it was a duty he owed to
himself, notwithstanding he was unacquainted with periodical literature, and had
conflicting doubts about the trouble his task would cost him—he felt it was a duty,
in his pecuniary circumstances, to accept the office.
The “New Monthly
Magazine” had been modelled very much after the “Gentleman’s,” or more correctly, after the
“Monthly Magazine,” owned by
Sir Richard Phillips, and begun by
156 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
that bibliopolist many years before. At this time arbitrary principles
were the fashion of the day. A whig was a nuisance in politics, and a radical was a
monster. High state and church principles alone were in favour among such as bought books,
but read scarcely any ranking above the circulating library sublimities of those days.
Phillips it was averred, in the new publication, had been bred in
the school of Jacobinism, as everyone was then said to be who dissented from the doctrines,
good, bad, or indifferent, of the domineering party in the state, and he was charged with
commencing his career as a criminal promulgator of that disloyal book the “Rights of Man.” The new magazine was
to put Phillips, the “Rights of
Man,” and all Jacobinism to the rout, by means of its own Jacobitism. The
poison of the “Old Monthly” was to be, happily for society, rendered harmless
by the “New,” at least in perspective. This last made its appearance on the
first of February, 1814. The address to the public was worthy of being treasured for its
modesty, self-laudation, and hard words. A useful register of incidents in town and
country, deaths, marriages, and similar matter was appended at the end of the number. The
original articles in Phillips’s were bold, uncompromising in
resistance to an arrogant ministry, and many | MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 157 |
of them ingenious
speculations. The new work was so far from an equal to the antagonist it assailed, that it
was spring-water to alcohol in comparison; but if it was weak in reason, it was on the side
of physical strength, in behalf of which it did not fail to show its sting.
In the foregoing mode the periodical had continued, with none of the
promised benefits to the cause it espoused, until 1820, when an improvement began to appear
in its double columns, which, towards the end of that year, took a decided tendency for the
better. In December fourteen volumes in double columns had appeared. The sagacity of the
proprietor just then had shown him that “old things were passing away,”
and that the salvation of England from the clutches of Sir
Richard Phillips had either been wrought out, or was become past all hope of
performance. The political tone became less decided; politics were less frequently touched
upon, and literary articles of merit and of a renovated cast made their appearance, though
still “a saint in crape was twice a saint in lawn.” Towards the close of
the year, the pen of Talfourd began to be observable
in articles of a theatrical and literary nature. It is presumed the success of the change
convinced the proprietor that his interest lay in an
entire alteration in the nature of his
158 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
publication. This determined
upon, no one knew better than he how to attain his purpose. He was not sparing of expense,
or of the means of making his plan extensively known, and of having secured Campbell for editor. There was soon, in consequence,
within his reach a mass of talent such as had never before been connected at starting with
any similar undertaking. The publisher paid well for contributions, and his house led, in
its connection with literary ability at that time, all the others in the metropolis.
Campbell engaged to commence the first number of the
new series of the magazine on the first of January, 1821. He was to perform the usual duty
of an editor, and to receive a salary of 500l. per annum. He was
also to contribute such articles to the pages of the work himself, as he might think
suitable. He was an utter stranger, as before observed, to the details of his new duties,
and had kept no communion with literary men associated for a common purpose. When not
employed in literary composition, he had continually followed up studies, the subjects of
which had been generally abstruse, and were, consequently, of small moment in aid of his
new labour, which rather required a knowledge of present things and the topics of the
passing hour. He had read deeply upon what caught his attention in lan-
| MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 159 |
guages, metaphysics, and political economy. He knew much of what few could reciprocate
with him, and less upon subjects about which numbers were well informed. From habit he
demanded retirement, even for the perusal of a book. A trifle threw his mind out of its
equilibrium, and distracted him from his immediate pursuit. The result of long habit is the
impossibility of change, when change is imperiously required. The habit of the student that
becomes the means to his absorbing subject, is unalterable. The racer might as well part
with his legs as the solitary man of letters separate himself from what has become
necessary to the more facile pursuit of his studies, even if it have no advantage in the
sight of others.
The poet was not one who secured confidence from strangers on a slight
acquaintance, or communicated it; not from want of heart or coldness of feeling, but from a
retiring sensitiveness that never put itself forward, and had to be overcome before
confidence was formed. It was easy to perceive, coming to the poet in those days if not as
a stranger, still with only a slight acquaintance, how reserved he was in talking upon the
commonest literary subjects where they involved giving an opinion. No more of his
peculiarities had then been known to the present writer
160 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
than anyone
might gather from a few casual interviews. Campbell’s manner at this time was affable, but somewhat formal to
strangers; he was extremely careful not to be guilty of saying anything to hurt the
feelings of those whom he met on literary business; even when he thought meanly of them,
bearing towards them a uniform urbanity, though his temper had been often tried in this way
by persons who intruded on his privacy at Sydenham.
Returning from Germany, he was overturned in the coach, and hurt his arm.
This accident retarded, in some measure, the preparations for the commencement of his new
duties. He took lodgings in town, at 62, Margaret Street, Cavendish Square, at the close of
1820, retaining his house at Sydenham. At that house in Margaret Street the first
interviews took place, for the purpose of making arrangements to commence the new series of
a work destined to be altered in every respect but the name. The poet, before any actual
business commenced, showed a nervous sort of apprehension of what was to come. The whole
universe might have been supposed to rest on his shoulders. He looked deeply thoughtful
towards the future. It was true that few or no contributions had been provided, and the
time was short. He was in fear, and that increased
| MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 161 |
his confusion; he
had thought little about the contributions that would be required—where could they
come from? The first week in December had commenced, and he was such a novice as to his
approaching task, that he imagined he should find them, and have no more to do than approve
or disapprove. In this respect his simplicity, or rather lack of correct perception in
regard to the nature of his task, was so great as to be almost insurmountable. Then he
began to think how he should submit himself to the trouble of perusing all the manuscripts
sent in the course of carrying on such a work. He tried, but declared it would be
impossible for him to bear the labour; and very soon exhibited his impatience, by further
declaring positively that he could not get through the task almost as soon as he made the
attempt Those who were acquainted with his habits might have foreseen this, but none who
were connected with the publication knew his peculiarities.
The poet wished the articles tendered to be read cursorily, or to be
described to him in such a way as to put him in full possession of their nature. Everything
in their arrangement, correction, and abridgment, this last labour including that of
reviews in the large print, was to be done by somebody else. He declared he could not
undertake so heavy a task—that such a
162 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
variety of labour confused
and bewildered him. There was nothing erroneous in this, for the poet was too sensitive and
fastidious to fulfil such a duty effectually; when he tried it, he began by endeavouring to
reconcile the expressions and opinions of others to his own mode of thinking. At such a
rate the day of the monthly publication would never have seen a number ready.
The work was to make three annual volumes. The two first were to consist
of original articles, to the extent of six sheets per month. The plan was new; in fact, it
commenced an era in magazine publishing, and changed the aspect of those publications
altogether. Thus, exclusive of his own articles, Campbell had only to select about five sheets and a half, from the papers
of his contributors, some of which were bespoke of writers regarding whom he could have no
need to exercise his critical judgment, as they were to be depended upon. Despite that
knowledge, he was fearful at first that people would suppose all the sentiments expressed
in the work were his own, and thus at starting he was as anxious about that point as he
afterwards became careless. The third volume, printed in double columns of three sheets per
month, was in very small type, and therefore in quantity of matter, original and selected,
nearly equalled in the mass the other six. It included political events, colonial and
foreign news, critical
| MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 163 |
notices of books, the drama, music, the fine
arts, varieties, home and foreign; rural economy, useful arts, patents, biography,
incidents, provincial occurrences, and similar matters for the month, printed so as to bind
in a volume at the end of the year. It is more than twenty years since this periodical, as
it was under the poet’s editorship, has been changed. Therefore, in referring to it
under Campbell, the subsequent abandonment of the plan under which it
so signally flourished, must be borne in mind. The poet was to have an assistant, whose
duty, of course, was confined, as first understood, to the management of the third volume,
and its original and compiled contents, and that third volume only it was the duty of the
present narrator to compile and bring out. Mr.
Colburn, supposing the poet, in duty bound as editor, would do the first
part.
As Campbell declared he could not
undertake the task which properly belonged to him as editor, and also declared he could
not, and would not, even read the proofs, Mr.
Colburn was compelled to procure him an assistant. Mr. H. Roscoe was mentioned, and then Mr. Dubois, and in breathless haste the latter, an old
acquaintance of the poet, well versed in periodical literature, and an excellent classical
scholar, was engaged—an expense unforeseen by the proprietor. Edward
164 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
Dubois had published, early in life, several
translations from the lesser Greek poets, and comparisons between some of the Latin
writers. To the public he was best known as the author of “My Pocket Book,” a satire upon that
shallow-witted traveller, Sir John Carr, who had been
knighted in Ireland for his travels in that island, whence he got the name of the
“Jaunting Car.” A bookseller refused to buy one of his
tours in consequence of Dubois’ ridicule, and Carr indicted the
publishers, Vernor and Hood, for
a libel. The affair made much fuss in the world, for Lord
Ellenborough treated the case as an unworthy one, and Sir John
Carr got no verdict. Thus the ridicule of Dubois, full
of keen satire, put an end to the nonsense of Carr for ever.
Dubois was president of the Court of Requests, in Westminster, and
used to make one of Thomas Hill’s Sydenham
guests, where he became intimate with Campbell.
Seeing the inexperience of the poet in periodical literature, and on the
strength of great previous experience and an intimacy of some standing, Dubois ventured to advise the poet on one or two points,
seeing him a perfect novice under the circumstances in which he was placed. The
poet’s pride took the alarm; for though he felt his inexperience and showed it by his
acts, he could
| MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 165 |
never admit it without wounding his amour propre. He sought out Colburn, and told him it was utterly impossible they could
harmonize. Sadly perplexed, Colburn asked the present writer if he
would undertake the task in addition to his existing engagement. With no great hope of
success, he consented, profited by what he observed had occurred, and succeeded not merely
in the duties he undertook, but in consolidating what was before a slight acquaintance into
a friendship which, for a long term of years in human life, remained unchanged. The primary
success of his attempt was mainly owing to the giving due consideration to one or two of
the poet’s peculiarities upon literary topics, and, it must be said, taking much more
of the task upon himself than in strictness he ought to have taken. On the other hand, the
success of the publication was unprecedented, and success levels all other considerations.
The public was pleased with what it obtained. Except the editor’s own, the articles
were for the most part published anonymously, their way being made by their own merit.
Among the poet’s peculiarities to others, was his carelessness
about their letters or articles which chanced to fall into his hands. Sheridan was not more careless, if indeed he were careless
166 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
at all, because when he got a letter, he feared it was from a dun,
and therefore would not open it. Campbell read the
notes he received, but if requiring an answer, he set about the task unwillingly, and
dismissed it with a brief reply at one time and at another, with exceeding formality. He
was continually losing letters or papers, and then fretting about their recovery. He would
read a letter and put it into his coat-pocket, intending to reply to it, and forget all
about the matter. Often wholly engrossed by any chance literary subject that occupied his
attention at the instant, he could scarcely be prevailed upon to divert it to another for
ever so short a time. Hence, whatever article came to him he would put it by, as he
intended, for future inspection, and not think of it again. He had no method, no
arrangement, his papers lay about in confusion, and if he wanted for a moment to put them
aside, he would jumble them into a heap, or cram them into a drawer. Subsequently, when he
desired to return to them, he incurred labour and lost time in hunting what he wanted. A
fragment would be missed altogether, or whole leaves misplaced. From this habit it happened
that when he received letters or papers at his residence, although everything for the work
it was requested might be directed to the publisher, he got con- | MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 167 |
fused
about them, had mislaid, and often declared he had never received them, till, pressed by
fresh applications, sometimes they were traced to his own door. This greatly annoyed him. I
have found letters, or an article, placed over his books on the shelves, unopened,
sometimes slipped down behind them. He would close a volume upon one, and restore the book
to its place, where a month or two afterwards it would come to view by accident, on his
wanting to consult the work again. Mrs. Campbell,
who used to smile at these things in her good-natured way, said at last, “How
should he take care of the papers, when he cannot take care of himself—I am
obliged to look after him—he had better not have them in the study at
all.” She was as good as her word, and kept back all belonging to the publication
that happened to go straight to the poet’s house, and order was at last established.
As many communications were from writers of merit, and from persons who had a just claim to
the conventional courtesies of society, there could be no slovenly avoidance of restoring
any except poetical contributions. Of these it was no labour for the writers to keep
copies. Of those who thus tendered contributions, seldom any but recognised writers were of
value to the work.
The first number of the publication appeared,
168 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
however, on the 1st of January, 1821, under the editorship of the poet, assisted by
Mr. Dubois. The celebrity of Campbell’s name would have produced contributions
enough, had a requisite time elapsed; but things were hurried forward, and it became
necessary to forage for articles. Campbell had met Ugo Foscolo a day or two before, at Lord Holland’s, when the magazine was spoken of as
forthcoming, and Foscolo asked Campbell for a
subject, but the poet could not tell of what he stood in need. Foscolo
went to work upon “An Account of the
Revolution in Naples;” he also proposed some memoirs of the less-known
Italian poets, which he afterwards
executed. One of the most gifted and amiable writers of that time, a great favourite of
Campbell, Henry Roscoe,
afterwards prematurely cut off by death, contributed; Talfourd, Horace Smith, Gray, the political economist, young Munden, whose knowledge of Spanish literature was opportune, were
also contributors. Mr. Bowring sent a translation of
some verses from the German. Several names at that time well-known in literary circles sent
articles, and filled up the number. The first was not indeed a pattern number, it is seldom
the case that a first number is ever truly so, even when time has been taken to obtain
every appliance for ensuring superior excellence; but such a | MEMOIRS OF THOMAS CAMPBELL. | 169 |
number
as, conjoined with an entire new modelling of the typographical part, and the name of a
celebrated and favourite poet as its editor, did not fail to be received by the public with
a kindness far beyond its literary merits.
Perry, of the “Morning Chronicle,” would not aid the new work, on
account of the stolen title. “He is more nice than wise,” I observed.
“I do not see how he could do anything for us. He fears the name of the
magazine will be a mischievous example, but that must depend upon what we make of
it.” He objected to the word “New,” while the “Old” Monthly existed. “He feels it was unhandsome to borrow the
title of Phillips in order to lead off the dance
against him—there was something ungracious in it.”
“What is that to me?” replied the poet; “it
was the act of Colburn; if it was once a
publication directed against my political party, I shall do good by putting an end to
it as an instrument of annoyance to my friends. My acceptance of it was good policy,
though I never had a thought upon the subject, for I did not know anything of its
character; I never saw a number of it until Colburn put it into my
hand. The bitterer it was against my political friends, the more useful it must be to
neutralize it.”
To this I assented, remarking to the poet that
170 | LITERARY REMINISCENCES AND | |
the
world very well knew the small value of publications set up in the mode the “New Monthly” was originally established, and
that its change of form and its new political tendencies would do the rest. Still there was
some soreness among Campbell’s Whig friends;
Sidney Smith and one or two others exhibited
their shyness. Moore kept aloof, for he was too much
alive to what this or that great man of his own side might say if he appeared in a garb
that led the Whig nobility to believe he was coquetting with their opponents, the mere idea
making him shrink even from the mere suspicion of contact with the party in power.
A few weeks only had elapsed before Campbell and Dubois separated.
Campbell was very reserved upon the subject, of which Mr. Colburn had duly informed me. The poet had now to
re-compose his lectures, having, I imagine, destroyed the manuscript of those he had once
delivered. He seemed pleased at perceiving there was some lessening of his labour, as a
number of articles were so much below par it was idle to make any allusion to him regarding
them. Dubois had tired him by arguing upon the merits of each article.
It was difficult to keep Campbell long together at business of any
kind. He would break away with a story, or fly off in a joke, and abandon the business on
the tapis, with “Well, that is enough for this time; don’t you think so? can
we keep the printer going?”
As we advanced, the poet became less fastidious. Scott wondered he did not maintain a better figure in the world than at
this period, and thought he wanted audacity, and feared “the shadow of his own
reputation.” The truth is, that Campbell was an idle man—an abstracted man; he was not capable of
leading long in anything; he had won a reputation, with which he was content; unless he
could increase it without hazard to what he possessed, and without protracted effort, this
must be again repeated.
Christopher Anstey (1724-1805)
English poet; author of the popular burlesque poem,
The New Bath
Guide (1766).
Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
The founder of Utilitarianism; author of
Principles of Morals and
Legislation (1789).
William Lisle Bowles (1762-1850)
English poet and critic; author of
Fourteen Sonnets, elegiac and
descriptive, written during a Tour (1789), editor of the
Works
of Alexander Pope, 10 vols (1806), and writer of pamphlets contributing to the
subsequent Pope controversy.
Sir John Bowring (1792-1872)
Poet, linguist, MP, and editor of the
Westminster Review. He was
the secretary of the London Greek Committee (1823) through which he was wrongly accused of
having enriched himself.
Henry Peter Brougham, first baron Brougham and Vaux (1778-1868)
Educated at Edinburgh University, he was a founder of the
Edinburgh
Review in which he chastised Byron's
Hours of Idleness; he
defended Queen Caroline in her trial for adultery (1820), established the London University
(1828), and was appointed lord chancellor (1830).
Thomas Campbell (1777-1844)
Scottish poet and man of letters; author of
The Pleasures of Hope
(1799),
Gertrude of Wyoming (1808) and lyric odes. He edited the
New Monthly Magazine (1821-30).
Sir John Carr (1772-1832)
English travel writer educated at Rugby School who, beginning with
The
Stranger in Paris (1803), published popular volumes on Ireland, Holland, Scotland,
and Spain.
King Charles I of England (1600-1649)
The son of James VI and I; as king of England (1625-1649) he contended with Parliament;
he was revered as a martyr after his execution.
Charles, Archduke of Austria (1771-1847)
Leader of the Austrian forces during the Napoleonic Wars; he was victorious at
Aspern-Essling, defeated at the Battle of Wagram.
Geoffrey Chaucer (1340 c.-1400)
English Poet, the author of
The Canterbury Tales (1390 c.).
Charles Churchill (1732-1764)
English satirist and libertine, a schoolmate of William Cowper; his brief but brilliant
career began with the publication of
The Rosciad (1761).
Henry Colburn (1785-1855)
English publisher who began business about 1806; he co-founded the
New
Monthly Magazine in 1814 and was publisher of the
Literary
Gazette from 1817.
John Dryden (1631-1700)
English poet laureate, dramatist, and critic; author of
Of Dramatick
Poesie (1667),
Absalom and Achitophel (1681),
Alexander's Feast; or the Power of Musique (1697),
The Works of Virgil translated into English Verse (1697), and
Fables (1700).
Edward Dubois (1774-1850)
A student at Christ's Hospital who later contributed to the
Morning
Chronicle and was editor of the
Monthly Mirror in
conjunction with Theodore Hook; he was for a time editor of the
European
Magazine.
Ugo Foscolo (1778-1827)
Italian poet and critic who settled in London in 1816 where he contributed essays on
Italian literature to the
Edinburgh and
Quarterly
Reviews.
Henry Richard Fox, third baron Holland (1773-1840)
Whig politician and literary patron; Holland House was for many years the meeting place
for reform-minded politicians and writers. He also published translations from the Spanish
and Italian;
Memoirs of the Whig Party was published in 1852.
Octavius Graham Gilchrist (1779-1823)
English antiquary, editor, and friend of William Gifford; he engaged in controversy with
William Lisle Bowles and brought John Clare to public attention.
Simon Gray (d. 1842)
Clerk in the War Office and friend of William Jerdan; he published on political economy
and wrote a tragedy,
The Spaniard (1839, composed 1788).
Thomas Hill (1760-1840)
English book-collector who entertained members of Leigh Hunt's circle at his cottage at
Sydenham in Kent. He was a proprietor of the
Monthly Mirror and
later a writer for the
Morning Chronicle. Charles Lamb described him
as “the wettest of dry salters.”
Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
English man of letters, among many other works he edited
A Dictionary
of the English Language (1755) and Shakespeare (1765), and wrote
Lives of the Poets (1779-81).
Moses Mendelssohn (1729-1786)
German philosopher and writer on aesthetics, friend of Lessing thought to be the
inspiration for
Nathan der Weise.
John Milton (1608-1674)
English poet and controversialist; author of
Comus (1634),
Lycidas (1638),
Areopagitica (1644),
Paradise Lost (1667), and other works.
William Mitford (1744-1827)
English historian, author of
The History of Greece, 5 vols
(1784-1818) and other works.
Thomas Moore (1779-1852)
Irish poet and biographer, author of the
Irish Melodies (1807-34),
The Fudge Family in Paris (1818), and
Lalla
Rookh (1817); he was Byron's close friend and designated biographer.
Alexander Mundell (1768-1837)
London solicitor, the son of Robert Mundell, Edinburgh printer. Walter Scott was among
his clients.
Thomas Shepherd Munden (1800 c.-1850)
The son and biographer of the actor Joseph Munden; he contributed to the
New Monthly Magazine.
John Murray II (1778-1843)
The second John Murray began the
Quarterly Review in 1809 and
published works by Scott, Byron, Austen, Crabbe, and other literary notables.
James Perry (1756-1821)
Whig journalist; founder and editor of the
European Magazine
(1782), editor of the
Morning Chronicle (1790-1821).
Sir Richard Phillips (1767-1840)
London bookseller, vegetarian, and political reformer; he published
The
Monthly Magazine, originally edited by John Aikin (1747-1822). John Wolcot was a
friend and neighbor.
Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
English poet and satirist; author of
The Rape of the Lock (1714)
and
The Dunciad (1728).
Henry Roscoe (1800-1836)
The youngest son of the historian William Roscoe; he was a barrister on the northern
circuit who contributed to the
New Monthly Magazine and published
the standard biography of his father (1833).
William Roscoe (1753-1831)
Historian, poet, and man of letters; author of
Life of Lorenzo di
Medici (1795) and
Life and Pontificate of Leo X (1805). He
was Whig MP for Liverpool (1806-1807) and edited the
Works of Pope,
10 vols (1824).
Karl Wilhelm Friedrich von Schlegel (1772-1829)
The younger brother of August von Schlegel, editor of the Athenaeum. His
Lectures on the History of Literature (1814) was translated by John
Gibson Lockhart.
Richard Brinsley Sheridan (1751-1816)
Anglo-Irish playwright, author of
The School for Scandal (1777),
Whig MP and ally of Charles James Fox (1780-1812).
Horace Smith (1779-1849)
English poet and novelist; with his brother James he wrote
Rejected
Addresses (1812) and
Horace in London (1813). Among his
novels was
Brambletye House (1826).
Sydney Smith (1771-1845)
Clergyman, wit, and one of the original projectors of the
Edinburgh
Review; afterwards lecturer in London and one of the Holland House
denizens.
Edmund Spenser (1552 c.-1599)
English poet, author of
The Shepheards Calender (1579) and
The Faerie Queene (1590, 1596).
Sir Thomas Noon Talfourd (1795-1854)
English judge, dramatist, and friend of Charles Lamb who contributed articles to the
London Magazine and
New Monthly
Magazine.
William Upcott (1779-1845)
English bookseller, collector, and librarian at the London Institution (1806-34). He
wrote for the
Literary Gazette.
John Wolcot [Peter Pindar] (1738-1819)
English satirist who made his reputation by ridiculing the Royal Academicians and the
royal family.
The Gentleman's Magazine. (1731-1905). A monthly literary miscellany founded by Edward Cave; edited by John Nichols 1778-1826,
and John Bowyer Nichols 1826-1833.
The Monthly Magazine. (1796-1843). The original editor of this liberal-leaning periodical was John Aikin (1747-1822); later
editors included Sir Richard Phillips (1767-1840), the poet John Abraham Heraud
(1779-1887), and Benson Earle Hill (1795-45).
Morning Chronicle. (1769-1862). James Perry was proprietor of this London daily newspaper from 1789-1821; among its many
notable poetical contributors were Coleridge, Southey, Lamb, Rogers, and Campbell.
New Monthly Magazine. (1814-1884). Founded in reaction to the radically-inclined
Monthly Magazine,
the
New Monthly was managed under the proprietorship of Henry
Colburn from 1814 to 1845. It was edited by Thomas Campbell and Cyrus Redding from
1821-1830.
The Quarterly Review. (1809-1967). Published by John Murray, the
Quarterly was instigated by Walter
Scott as a Tory rival to the
Edinburgh Review. It was edited by
William Gifford to 1824, and by John Gibson Lockhart from 1826 to 1853.