My Friends and Acquaintance
Thomas Campbell III
III.
MORE ANECDOTES OF HIS EDITORSHIP.—HAZLITT AND
NORTHCOTE.—BOSWELL REDIVIVUS.
Though Campbell’s nominal editorship of the New Monthly Magazine was pretty nearly a sinecure in respect of
the actual work it exacted from him, it was on that very account the source of frequent and
serious annoyance to him, from the scrapes it thus got him into with his personal friends
and acquaintance, arising out of that want of due watchfulness and care as to the personal
bearing of the articles admitted into it, which it was impossible for anybody but
Campbell himself to exercise, because none else could know the
precise points to which the necessary attention in this respect was required to be
directed. One of these scrapes, the particulars of which I was made acquainted with at the
time by the two persons chiefly interested in it, was so characteristic, in all its
features, of all the parties concerned, that I
will relate it here. It
refers to a series of papers which the late William
Hazlitt was writing at the time in the New
Monthly, entitled “Boswell
Redivivus,” and which professed to report his
(Hazlitt’s) conversations with Northcote the painter.
As I was more than once present at the conversations so professed to be
reported, and as Hazlitt has himself disclosed the
fact that these reports are by no means to be taken au pied de
la lettre as regards the precise portions to be attributed to the
speakers respectively, there can be no impropriety in stating my belief that, generally
speaking, very little dependence is to be placed on them in this particular, when they
relate to opinions and sentiments, and especially when they relate to personal feelings
about living individuals with whom Hazlitt was acquainted; and that
Hazlitt often puts his own feelings and opinions into the mouth of
Northcote, and vice
versâ. Sometimes this was done consciously and purposely, sometimes not; often merely
to give spirit and verisimilitude to the dialogue; not seldom to vent a little
malice prepense under a guise that would
give
it double pungency and force. I do not believe this was ever done with a view to escape the
odium and reprisals which a system of literary personality is sure to engender; for
Hazlitt never put the slightest curb upon his inclinations in this
respect. But in regard to the facts and anecdotes related in these conversations, I believe
Hazlitt to have been scrupulously exact in his reports.
Northcote, on his part, had an irrepressible
propensity to speak unpalatable truths of his acquaintance and friends, whether dead or
alive. In fact, it was his forte to say bitter and cutting things of every one—friend, foe,
or stranger—who came under his notice in the course of conversation; and he knew perfectly
well that Hazlitt listened to his talk with the view
of giving portions of it to the public. He knew also that Hazlitt was
wholly without scruple as to what he might put forth, provided it was either characteristic
of the speaker, or true of the person spoken of, and that the parts most personally
offensive would be those most acceptable to the reading public.
All this Northcote knew; and yet he
gave
Hazlitt full permission to make any use he pleased
of what might have passed between them in these desultory conversations—of course, with
this ostensible restriction, that he (Hazlitt) must take care to omit
anything that might get the speaker into disgrace with his personal friends; though
Northcote must have also known that this was virtually no
effectual restriction at all—or, if it would have been so to most men, it was none to
Hazlitt in a case of this nature. The truth is, that
Northcote chuckled over the wounds he thus inflicted by the hand
of another; and when the ill consequences (as in the instance I am about to relate)
threatened to come home to himself, he never scrupled to offer up his instrument as a
sacrifice, if that would serve, and then, if necessary, reconcile the matter to him in the
best manner he could, as he had done to the other suffering parties.
It has seemed necessary to premise thus much in explanation of what follows.
In one of the chapters of “Boswell Redivivus” there occur some passages
relating to the celebrated dissenting clergyman, Dr.
Mudge, one of the great ornaments of Sir
Joshua Reynolds’s coterie, which show him in a
light anything but favourable. They give him ample credit for his great talents and
learning, but place his sincerity and consistency as a teacher of religion in a very
questionable point of view, and relate personal anecdotes of him that are anything but
creditable. Now that Hazlitt, in setting down these
passages, did anything but repeat what Northcote had
told him, no one will doubt who was acquainted with his excellent memory and his mental
habits. As little can it be disputed that the facts, if such they be (of which I am wholly
uninformed), related of Dr. Mudge’s private life and habits,
were highly worthy of being placed on record, as matters of literary history in one of its
most interesting features—that of the private and personal character of celebrated literary
men. But the crime of Hazlitt, in
Northcote’s eyes, was not to have, known, as if by instinct,
what Hazlitt, so far from being bound to know, could not possibly have
been acquainted with, except through the direct information of
Northcote himself—namely, that he (Northcote)
had particular and per-sonal reasons for desiring not to be suspected
of being the expositor of these obnoxious truths, which, but for him, might have remained
unknown or forgotten.
The effect of this exposure, painful as it was, partook of the ludicrous, to
those who could not put much faith in the sincerity of the feelings exhibited by Northcote on the occasion. I remember calling on him a few
days after the appearance of the paper in question—No. VI. of the series. He knew that I
was in the habit of seeing Hazlitt almost daily; and
the moment I entered the room (he was not in his usual painting room, but had retreated
into the little inner room adjoining it, as if in dread of the personal consequences of
what had happened) I perceived that something serious was the matter.
“I am very ill, indeed,” said he, in reply to my inquiry
as to his health. “I did not think I should have lived. That monster has nearly
killed me.”
I inquired what he meant.
“Why, that diabolical Hazlitt. Have you seen what lies he has been telling about me in his
cursed ‘Boswell
Redivivus’? I have
been nearly dead ever since the
paper appeared. Why, the man is a demon. Nothing human was ever so wicked. Do you see
the dreadful hobble he has got me into with the Mudges? Not that I
said what he has put down about Mudge. But even if I had—who could have supposed that any one in a
human form would have come here to worm himself into my confidence, and get me to talk
as if I had been thinking aloud, and then go and publish it all to the world! Why, they
will think we go snacks in the paltry profits of his treachery. It will kill me. What
am I to do about it? I would give a hundred pounds to have the paper cancelled. But
that would do no good now. It has gone all over the world. I have never had a
moment’s rest since it appeared. I sent to Mr.
Colburn to come over to me about it; but he took no notice of my
message, so I went over to him. But they wou’dn’t let me see him; and all I
could get out of his people was, that they would tell him what I said. I told them to
tell him that it would be the death of me. But Campbell has been a little more civil about it. I
wrote him a letter—such a letter! I’ll show it you. And he
has replied very handsomely, and seems to be touched by my situation. At any
rate,” added he, bitterly, “I have put a spoke into the wheel of that
diabolical wretch Hazlitt.”
And then he showed me the letter he had written to Campbell, and Campbell’s reply.
I think I never read anything more striking in its way than his letter to
Campbell. Though brief, it was a consummate composition—pathetic
even to the excitement of tears—painting the dreadful state of his mind under the blow
which the (alleged) treachery of Hazlitt had given to it, and treating the thing as a deliberate attempt to
“bring his grey hairs in sorrow to the grave.” I particularly seem
to remember that these very words were used in it. The whole tendency of the letter was to
create an inference in Campbell’s mind that the thing had come
upon the writer like a thunder-clap, and that even in regard to those parts of the
Conversations which were truly reported (which he denied to be the case in the matter in
question), he was the most
betrayed and ill-used person in the world.
And all this in the face of the fact that the Paper of which he complained was the sixth of a series that had appeared in the (then) most popular
literary periodical of the day—that they had all appeared there with his full knowledge and
consent—that he had, ever since the commencement of them, been almost daily complimented on
the conspicuous figure he was cutting in his new character of the best converser of the
day—and that a considerable portion of what had appeared of the “Boswell Redivivus” up to that time had consisted
(on Northcote’s part, at least) of
depreciating estimates of many of the most conspicuous living
writers, artists, &c.
It is, of course, with reference to these facts that I have spoken of
Northcote’s feelings as
“ludicrous,” on this unlooked-for exposure of truths of which he did not wish
to be known as the author: for the astonishing force and pungency of the unpalatable truths that he put forth about every living
individual of whom he spoke (sometimes in their presence, and even to themselves),* and
* In talking to Hazlitt
once about the attacks on |
the double edge and effect that were given to his words by the
exquisitely simple and naive manner in which he uttered them—as if an inspired infant were speaking—was the characteristic of his talk. And he knew
all this better than anybody could tell him, and evidently prided himself upon it.
Campbell’s reply to Northcote was, I remember, in a tone precisely
correspondent with the letter which called for it. He declared his unmitigated horror at
the outrage that had been committed on Northcote’s feelings;
absolved himself from all participation in it by naively stating that he had not seen a
line of the Paper till its publication, having been absent from town on other business; and
declared that “the diabolical Hazlitt
should never write another line in the Magazine during his
management of it.” These, I think, were his very words.
“And so,” said Northcote, when I had
“The Cockney School,” in Blackwood’s (which, by the bye, he
greatly approved), he said to him,—“I think, Mister Hazlitt, you yourself are the most perfect specimen of
the Cockney School that I ever met with:” and then he went on to give
him “satisfying reasons” for this opinion! |
read Campbell’s
reply—“and so I am to be assassinated, a worthy family is to be outraged in
their dearest feelings, and a whole neighbourhood thrown into consternation, because he
(Campbell) chooses to neglect his duties, or
depute somebody else to do them who is incompetent to the task!”
Nothing could be more characteristic than this effusion, apropos to a letter which had every appearance of being written under feelings of
sincere and poignant regret at the occasion to which it referred. But all Northcote chose to see in it was the fact that somebody
else was in fault as well as the original culprit:—for as to he himself having had any hand
in the mischief—(at least in an objectionable point of view)—this seemed never to enter his
thoughts. He sowed the seeds of the most bitter personal truths in the most fertile soil
for their growth and propagation—namely, the current “table-talk” of the
hour—and then was lost in wonder and dismay at finding some of them bear the unexpected
fruit of a personal inconvenience to himself.
The sequel of the history of these Con-
versations
includes the most characteristic point of all. Not very long after the incident I have
referred to above, the Conversations were re-published in a separate form, with large and valuable
additions from the same source, and obtained through the same means and agent; and this
with the knowledge and tacit consent of Northcote
himself, and with all their obnoxious truths unexpunged, excepting those in which
Northcote’s own personal connexions were concerned; and the
“diabolical Hazlitt”
continued to write as usual in the New Monthly,
under Campbell’s (ostensible) editorship!
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).
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.
William Hazlitt (1778-1830)
English essayist and literary critic; author of
Characters of
Shakespeare's Plays (1817),
Lectures on the English Poets
(1818), and
The Spirit of the Age (1825).
Zachariah Mudge (1694-1769)
Exeter clergyman, writer, and friend of Joshua Reynolds.
James Northcote (1746-1831)
English portrait-painter and writer who exhibited at the Royal Academy; he wrote a
Life of Titian (1830).
Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792)
English portrait-painter and writer on art; he was the first president of the Royal
Academy (1768).
Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine. (1817-1980). Begun as the
Edinburgh Monthly Magazine,
Blackwood's assumed the name of its proprietor, William Blackwood after the sixth
number. Blackwood was the nominal editor until 1834.
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.