My Friends and Acquaintance
William Hazlitt VIII
VIII.
HAZLITT’S FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCE.—THE MONTAGUES,
HUMES, LEIGH HUNT,
NORTHCOTE, &c.
I can call to mind only one person for whom Hazlitt seemed habitually to entertain a sentiment of
personal kindness and esteem, and one only (among his contemporaries) for whose
intellectual powers he felt and uniformly expressed a general deference and respect. The
first of these was Charles Lamb, the second was
Coleridge.
Hazlitt went about (Diogenes-like) looking, by the light of his acute and searching intellect,
for a man made by Nature in her happiest and simplest mould, and not afterwards marred and
curtailed of his fair proportions, on the Procrustes
bed of custom and society. He believed that there might be such a man, because he felt that
he himself retained much of the character, though blended with more that deformed and
defaced it. He sought such a man through the world—he sought
him in
books—he sought him in the ideal places of his own imagination; but he found him in
Charles Lamb alone. He found there all his own
exquisite sensibilities—all his own simplicity and sincerity of heart—his uncompromising
directness and singleness of spirit—his large and liberal sympathies with his kind—together
with all his own profound sagacity of intellect and boundless range of thought. He also
found there that in the absence of which he would scarcely have persuaded himself to
believe that the other qualities which he sought could exist: I mean, many of his own
intellectual weaknesses and deficiencies; much of that restless and impatient yearning
after good, which is the necessary consequence of perceiving without the power of
compassing it; not a little of that wilful mistaking of good for evil, and of evil for
good, which is the universal concomitant of such a condition of mind; and not a few of
those crotchets of the brain and heart that were never yet absent
from such a brain and heart, when placed in the social circumstances
which had accompanied Lamb and Hazlitt through
life. Hazlitt found all these in Charles Lamb;
and he found them almost wholly uncontaminated by that “baser matter” with
which he felt them to be so inextricably blended in his own nature, and from which he had
never found them dissevered in any other.
Moreover, from Lamb, and from
Lamb alone, among all his friends and associates, Hazlitt had never received, or even suspected, except on
one occasion, any of those personal slights and marks of disrespect which he did not feel
or fear the less because he was conscious of often deserving them—using the phrase in its
ordinary and social acceptation. From Lamb alone, his errors,
extravagancies, and inconsistencies, met with that wise and just consideration which his
fine sense of the weakness no less than the strength of our human nature dictated. There
was no one who spoke more freely of Hazlitt,
whether behind his back or before his face, than Lamb did; but
Lamb never spoke disparagingly of him.
Lamb, in canvassing the faults of his character, never failed to
bear in mind, and call to mind in others, the rare and admirable qualities by which they
were accompanied,
and with which, it may be, they were naturally and
therefore inextricably linked.
No wonder, then, that Hazlitt felt
towards Lamb a sentiment of personal kindness and esteem that was not extended, even in
kind, to any other individual.*
There was but one house to which Hazlitt seemed to go, or to contemplate going (which with him answered
almost the same purpose) with unalloyed pleasure; and that was Charles Lamb’s. Almost the only other houses to which he ever thought
of going, after my acquaintance with him, were the late Mr.
Basil Montague’s, in Bedford Square, the late Mr. Hume’s, at Notting Hill, Mr. Northcote’s, Mr. Leigh
Hunt’s, and my own. To
* I have sometimes felt that I might fairly extend this
exception to myself. But I have as often been prevented from doing so by the
consideration, that, in order to the existence of the sentiment in question, it was
necessary, in this particular instance, that the party feeling it should entertain
an admiration for the intellectual powers and pretensions of the object of it,
little, if at all short of that which was due to his own. And in my case there was
too little ground for this to induce me fairly to persuade myself that he felt more
esteem for me than he did for the rest of his friends. |
the first of these he continued to go, partly on account of early
associations, and in compliance with feelings which had been created by many acts of
kindness. But he seemed to go in fear and trembling, and never without an even chance of
coming away raging or sulking like a madman or a wild beast. There was a new footman,
perhaps, who, not knowing him, would leave him “kicking his heels” in the hall,
while he went to ascertain whether so “strange” looking a person could be
admissible to the drawing-room! And when anything of this sort happened,
Hazlitt was upset for the evening; he was dum-founded, and would
sit sulking and scowling silently for a quarter of an hour or so, and then get up and go
away, to vent his rage in the open air; or if he stayed, it was perhaps from sheer dread of
having to repass the ordeal of the ceremonious bell-ringing and the supercilious lacquey
that preceded his exit.
In fact, Hazlitt never felt himself
at ease for a moment, where the outward observances proper to a certain class of life were
strictly
maintained by those about him—much less when they were
expected from himself. Not that he overlooked or desired to depreciate their value and
convenience; on the contrary, they were, perhaps, never more justly, and therefore highly
estimated by any one. But it did not follow that he could himself conform to them; and the
impossibility of his doing so was the very cause of the anger and uneasiness he felt
whenever he found himself in the way of failing in it. The origin of this incapacity, and
of its sad results as regarded his personal comfort, would form a curious and interesting
subject of inquiry, in connexion with Hazlitt’s intellectual
character; and, in fathoming it, the most recondite features of that character would
develope themselves. But I must not venture to open the inquiry here. I must only observe
that none but the peculiar circumstances connected with his visits to the house in
question, could have induced Hazlitt to overcome the extreme
repugnance he felt at placing himself within the observation of any individuals, whether of
the meanest or the most exalted class, who were likely to look upon and treat him according
to his outward seeming. Nothing but the pleasure he took in looking
at the “coronet face” (as he has called it) of Mrs.
M., and the Psyche-like form and features of her daughter, and listening to
the accomplished talk of the one, and the quick wit and piquant satire of the other, could
have induced Hazlitt to undergo the ordeal of being formally ushered
into and out of a suite of spacious and well-appointed drawing-rooms, by a liveried lacquey
who was all the while (so at least Hazlitt persuaded himself) “Wondering how the devil he got there.” |
There were other circumstances, too, which had, during the last three or
four years of his life, prevented him from keeping up his former intercourse with the
enlightened and accomplished family I have referred to above. He had, in his growing
irritability, and the recklessness of consequences which attended it, and under the
influence of those unworthy suspicions which always beset him when in that state of mind,
committed some unpardonable outrages on one or more of the individual members of that
family, in the form of offensive personal references to them
in his
writings; at the same time adding to the outrage by everywhere pointing it out to the
attention of those who might otherwise have passed it over unnoticed; for his misdeeds of
this kind were of so vague, and often so utterly inapplicable a character, that nothing but
his own voluntary confession of them could have fixed them upon him. And this
self-accusation he never failed to furnish, and often (I am satisfied) from pure regret and
remorse at the outrage and injustice he had committed. But the effect of it was ruinous to
him nevertheless, and had latterly cut him off from almost all social intercourse, but that
which was indispensable to the supply of his daily wants.
It is due to Hazlitt’s memory,
that I here mention his repeated expressions of a regret, almost amounting to a remorse, at
one in particular of those insane outrages which he had, in a moment of ungovernable anger,
been induced to commit, on the chief member of the
family I have now referred to; a man to whom he was indebted for many acts of substantial
kindness and service, and (what Hazlitt was still more grateful for)
that
uniform evidence of personal esteem and consideration, which
showed itself in outward civility and respect.
To Mr. Hume’s, at Notting Hill,
Hazlitt was now and then attracted by the
cordial welcome he was sure to receive there, not merely from the “one fair
daughter” of the worthy host, but from the half dozen, who were just sufficiently
tinged with the literary hue to be aware of his pretensions. But an expedition of this kind
was always a service of danger with Hazlitt; and he knew it to be so,
and shrunk from it accordingly; for such was his John
Buncle-like susceptibility, touching the merits and virtues of any unmarried
lady between the ages of fifteen and fifty, who might chance to smile upon him, that even
while despairing over the loss of one idol, he was always prepared, at a moment’s
notice, to cast himself at the feet of another.
To Mr. Northcote’s, Hazlitt went frequently, and stayed long; at one time more
frequently than to any other place. But his visits to Northcote were
in some sort professional: and whatever he did with
a view to
business, or to any after consideration whatsoever—anything which did not immediately arise
out of the impulse directing it—he did reluctantly and with an ill grace. I have several
times been present when Hazlitt has been at
Northcote’s, and has taken part in those admirable Conversations with the venerable
artist, in which he (Hazlitt) professed that he used to take such
delight. But I never saw him for a moment at ease there, or anything like himself—that self
which he was when sitting in his favourite corner at the Southampton, or by
Lamb’s or my fireside, or (above all) his own. I do not mean
to say, that in what he has written on this subject, he has in the smallest degree
exaggerated his impressions of the intellectual qualities of
Northcote, or the charm of his conversation. But these were not the
things on which Hazlitt’s personal ease and comfort depended in his intercourse with
others. There were points in Northcote’s character, for which
Hazlitt felt the greatest dislike. But what was of much more
consequence to the mutual comfort of their intercourse, he knew perfectly well that
Northcote often dreaded, and therefore hated
him; and, when this feeling was acting, only tolerated his presence, and talked to him the
more entertainingly, on that very account. I speak of the period subsequent to
Hazlitt’s occasional publication, in the “New Monthly Magazine,” of portions of his
Conversations with Northcote, under the title of “Boswell Redivivus.”
Hazlitt’s mode of turning Northcote’s conversation to a business account, while the “Boswell Redivivus” was appearing in the “New Monthly Magazine,” was sufficiently curious and
characteristic. He used it more as a stimulus to his own powers than in any other
character, at least as related to opinions and sentiments; for, in reporting the curious
facts and personal anecdotes related to him by Northcote, he was (as I
have said elsewhere) correct, even to a literal setting down of
N.’s very words. When the time was at hand for preparing a
number of the papers, he used to ask me, “Have you seen
Northcote lately? Is he in talking cue? for I must go in a day
or two, and get an article out of him.” And, if you happened to meet him
anywhere on
the evening of the day on which he had paid one of these
visits of business, he was sure to be unusually entertaining. He would relate every word
that had passed on any noticeable topic; and almost any topic, however dry or common-place
or exhausted, was sure to furnish forth something novel and curious when he and
Northcote got together.
The simple truth on this matter is, that it was the astonishing acuteness
and sagacity of Hazlitt’s remarks that called
into active being, if they did not actually create, much of what was noticeable in
Northcote’s conversation. Almost
everything that he said in the way of critical opinion, on any topic that might be in
question, was at least suggested by something which
Hazlitt would either drop in furtively as the point arose, with a
humble and deprecatory “But don’t you think, sir”—or it was
superadded to some inconsequent or questionable observation of
Northcote’s, with an assenting “Yes, sir; and
perhaps—” adding the true statement of the case, whatever it might be. And
with these intellectual promptings, the truth
and acuteness of which
Northcote perceived and caught up immediately, he would go on
talking “like a book” (as Hazlitt used to describe it),
for half an hour together; and Hazlitt would sit listening in silent
admiration, like a loving pupil, to the precepts of his revered master—he the pupil, being
all the while capable of teaching or confounding the master, on almost every point of
inquiry that could by possibility come into discussion between them.
The overstrained admiration which Hazlitt felt and expressed for the conversational powers of Northcote, has always seemed to me one of the most curious
points in the personal history of distinguished men; and I could never satisfactorily
account for it, until now that I have set myself to recollect in detail the peculiar
circumstances under which the conversations between these two remarkable men took place.
But now I seem to see the explanation of it very clearly. Northcote,
by having preserved his intellectual faculties in all their freshness up to the very great
age at which Hazlitt first became acquainted with him, and those
faculties
having always included an unusual justness of tact in
observing the ordinary circumstances to which the daily occurrences of life directed them,
had acquired a vast superiority over Hazlitt in his actual personal
knowledge of society, and its visible and superficial results on individual men. He had
also an inexhaustible fund of curious facts stored in his memory, in relation to a great
number of persons about whom Hazlitt felt a degree of interest and
curiosity which he was wholly incapable of entertaining towards living persons, however distinguished. About Dr.
Johnson, Sir Joshua, Burke, Goldsmith,
and the whole of that coterie of distinguished men of the last age,
Northcote had things to tell that would have furnished forth half
a dozen “Boswells Redivivus,” in a much
more apt sense of the phrase than that in which Hazlitt used it; and
he told them with a degree of tact, spirit, and dramatic effect, that has never been
surpassed, if equalled, in any published detail of these true gems of literary and personal
history.
It was this which first attracted Hazlitt’s
attention towards Northcote,
and excited that interest in everything he said, which Hazlitt never
felt towards any other individual. He looked upon Northcote as a
connecting link—the only existing one that he knew of—between the last age and the present,
and attached to him a portion of that (so to speak) traditional respect and deference which
he could never persuade himself to feel for any contemporary, however distinguished, or
withhold from any to whom posterity had agreed to award them.
Another house to which Hazlitt
sometimes went, but with a degree of reluctance for which it would be difficult to account,
considering the partiality and personal interest which attracted him there, was that of
Mr. Leigh Hunt. And these opposing influences
(whatever they were) were so nearly balanced that I have often known him “of twenty
minds,” as the phrase is, whether he would go or not, for hours together, and not
able to settle the question at last, until it was settled by the acquiescence or refusal of
somebody else to go with him. Indeed this vis
inertiæ was so strong in Hazlitt that, frequently,
nothing
but the actual and near prospect of absolute destitution
could induce him to set about writing—except in the case of his having some subject in his
head on which he desired to write, for the mere pleasure of expressing his sentiments and
opinions on it: for in all other cases, the excitement derived from the mere distinction
and profit of his writings was fully counterbalanced by the habitually contemplative turn
of his mind, as opposed to its active qualities, and by his utter indifference to popular
opinion or applause, except in so far as he felt these to be important to his immediate
success as a writer by profession. No wonder then that the quality of mind I am alluding to
should overcome the impulses of a mere passing inclination or a pleasant association.
There was no man of whose social qualities Hazlitt thought so highly as he did of Leigh
Hunt’s; and no one with whom he had connected more pleasant
associations, arising out of the earlier and happier part of his intellectual life. In
fact, there was no man to whom Hazlitt felt himself more attracted, actively speaking, than towards Leigh
Hunt
—no one in whose society he enjoyed more of the
double pleasure arising from receiving and communicating intellectual excitement. Yet the
impulse to seek that pleasure where alone it was to be found, in the instance in question,
was never strong enough to overcome the negative disposition to stay where he was, wherever
that might be, added to the mere imagination of the repelling force that might possibly
have met him in the quarter whence the attractive one was also acting.
The truth I believe to be, that Hazlitt literally never quitted the chair on which he placed himself when
he rose in the morning, and, but for the absolute necessity of providing for the physical
wants of his nature by his own exertions, never would have quitted
it, in search of any social intercourse or excitement whatever,—unless moved to do so by
some inducement in which female attraction had a chief share. When
alone with his own thoughts—and I judge from having repeatedly and purposely suffered him
to remain alone with them for hours together, when I have been sitting with him after
some long and exciting batch of talk—when thus alone, I say, he would
sometimes subside into an entire self-absorption, an utter abstraction from all but his own
thoughts—or more probably into that vague, dreamy, and mysterious state of intellectual
existence, half repose, half enjoyment, which follows high intellectual excitement of any
kind in which the pleasurable has predominated—a calm, so pure and serene, that it seemed
like a sin to call him from it to that actual reality which had, for him, so little to
compensate for the change.
The only other house which Hazlitt
visited, which I can speak of from actual observation, was my own; and to that, if I am
entitled to judge at all, and may be supposed to have the materials for judging in an
uninterrupted intercourse of fourteen years, I should say that he came in less fear of
having to regret that he had come (for he never went anywhere without some fear of this
kind), stayed with more unmingled comfort and satisfaction, and went away in a better
humour with himself and the world, than he did in any other case whatever. And
the reasons for this were simple and obvious, and of such a nature
that they may be stated without the risk of their being supposed to include any invidious
comparisons as to the feelings and conduct of other people in their intercourse with this
extraordinary man—who assuredly brought upon himself all the ills that he was compelled to
endure in his intercourse with others, and perhaps (in the ordinary sense of the word) deserved them all. That I, and those belonging to me, did not think
so—in other words, that we honoured, admired, and loved the nobler and finer parts of his
character, and therefore could not hate or despise the weaker ones with which they were
inextricably mingled, affords the simple explanation of the fact I have stated, if I may
believe it to be one. We saw in William Hazlitt as noble a nature as
any with which even books had made us acquainted, and of which, in actual experience, we
saw few, if any other examples. And because the beautiful qualities of his mind and heart
(which we scarcely saw anywhere else) were allied with a few of those deteriorating and
debasing weaknesses which constitute the sum and substance of most
other hearts and minds, we saw the owners of these latter think,
and speak of, and treat him, as if he were of unmixed baseness, and they were immaculate!
Because, when angered in his personal feelings, or outraged in his sense of right and
justice, he spoke, or wrote, or acted under the natural impulse thus created, instead of
cunningly waiting till his actual feelings were cooled or passed away, and his sense of
personal wrong forgotten, and then speaking, or writing, or acting, so as to reconcile a
rankling desire for petty revenge with a due consideration for worldly interest, as is the
wont of nine-tenths of the world—because of this, we heard him
spoken of, and saw him treated, as one not fit to form a part of human society. Because,
with a finer sense of the graces and elegancies of personal manner and appearance, and a
juster estimation of the virtue and value of these, than almost any other man living, and a
knowledge of their causes, sources, and results, that would have put to shame the tact and
teaching of the most accomplished of May Fair Exclusives, he was, in his own person,
awkward, embarrassed, and strange, to a degree that, if represented
on the stage, would have been deemed a clever caricature of those qualities—because of
these deficiencies (which arose in a great measure from his exquisite sense of their
opposites, and the high but just value which he placed on them in a social point of view),
we saw him treated as a low-bred, vulgar cockney, or a savage and saturnine recluse.
Because he was (with perhaps no exception whatever, among men of first-rate talent at the
time I speak of) the only man who dared to hold by and express in plain and uncompromising
terms those political sentiments and opinions which, at the early part of the first French
Revolution, he had adopted in common with almost all the intellectual men of the day, his
friends, teachers, and seniors—the Wordsworths,
Coleridges, Southeys, &c.; because, holding by these opinions to the last, in spite
of their ill success and the politic putting of them off by those who helped to instil them
into him, he dared to express them in terms, if stronger, yet not more violent than those
in which half the world expresses them now that they can keep each other in countenance;
because of this, we saw him put out of the pale of critical and
social courtesy, denounced as an outlaw, not entitled to the usages of civilised warfare,
and only to be hunted down as a savage or a wild beast.
In pursuance of this latter plan, for instance, precisely because he was
the most original thinker of his day, we heard him held up as a mere waiter upon the
intellectual wealth of his literary acquaintance—a mere sucker of the brains of Charles Lamb and Coleridge. Precisely because his face was as pale
and clear as marble, we saw him pointed at as the “pimpled
Hazlitt.” Precisely became he
never tasted anything but water, we saw him held up as an habitual gin-drinker and a sot!
Not to multiply instances of this treatment of Hazlitt, we saw further, what is perhaps more to the point than all
else,—that these things, instead of passing by him unregarded or unnoticed (as they would
have done by many) were daily and hourly acting with the most deadly effect, not merely on
his feelings and habits, but on his personal character, half making him the monster that
they represented him.
We saw these things in regard to Hazlitt;
we saw and felt the miserable mischiefs they
were working in, his mind and temper; the intellectual martyrdom he was suffering from
them, but with anything but a martyr’s patience; and we sought, not to compensate him
for the injustice he was receiving elsewhere, but merely to avoid adding to the weight of
that injustice, by uniformly treating him in a manner to make it impossible for him to even
suspect that our feelings in regard to him were, in the smallest degree, affected by the
treatment he was constantly receiving in certain quarters.
Not indeed that he feared any such effect among the male literary friends with whom he associated; nor would he have cared much, even
had he seen cause for such fear among them. But he scarcely believed
it possible that women could fail to be influenced by the purely personal attacks that were
made on him. And the consequence was that for days, and even weeks after the appearance of
any of these pretended criticisms on the writings that he was so frequently putting forth
at the time I speak of, he scarcely dared to go near any one of even his most favourite
resorts, lest he should see, or fancy that he
saw, “Quarterly Review,” or “Blackwood’s Magazine,” written on the
very face on which he went to gaze in silent or in eloquent admiration.
Nay, he carried his dread of the supposed personal and private results of
these attacks to a pitch that, while it lasted, amounted to a sort of monomania,—many of
the effects of which would have been perfectly ludicrous, had they not been so painfully
the opposite to the object of them. For instance,—during the first week or fortnight after
the appearance of (let us suppose) one of “Blackwood’s” articles about him, if he entered a coffee-house where
he was known, to get his dinner, it was impossible (he thought) that the waiters could be
doing anything else all the time he was there, but pointing him out to other guests, as
“the gentleman who was so abused last month in ‘Blackwood’s Magazine.’” If he knocked at the door of
a friend, the look and reply of the servant (whatever they might be), made it evident to
him that he or she had been reading “Blackwood’s
Magazine” before the family were up in the morning! If he had occasion to
call at any of the publishers for whom he might be
writing at the
time, the case was still worse,—inasmuch as there his bread was at stake, as well as that
personal civility, which he valued no less. Mr.
Colburn would be “not within,” as a matter of course; for his
clerks to even ascertain his pleasure on that point beforehand would be wholly superfluous:
had they not all chuckled over the article at their tea the evening before? Even the
instinct of the shop-boys would catch the cue from the significant looks of those above
them, and refuse to take his name to Mr. Ollier.
They would “believe he was gone to dinner.” He could not, they thought, want to
have anything to say to a person who, as it were, went about with a sheet of “Blackwood’s” pinned to his coattail, like a dish-clout!
Then at home at his lodgings, if the servant who waited upon him did not
answer his bell the first time—ah! ’twas clear—she had read “Blackwood’s,” or heard talk of it at the bar of the
public-house when she went for the beer! Did the landlady send up his bill a day earlier
than usual, or ask for payment of it less civilly than was her custom—how could he wonder
at it? It was
“Blackwood’s” doing. But if she gave him notice to quit (on the score,
perhaps, of his inordinately late hours) he was a lost man! for would anybody take him in
after having read “Blackwood’s?” Even the
strangers that he met in the street seemed to look at him askance, “with jealous
leer malign,” as if they knew him by intuition for a man on whom was set the
double seal of public and private infamy; the doomed and denounced of “Blackwood’s Magazine.”
This may seem like exaggeration to the reader of 1854. But I assure him
that it falls as far short of the truth as it may seem to go beyond it; that not one of the
cases to which I have alluded above but has been in substance detailed to me by Hazlitt himself, as (according to his interpretation of it) a simple matter-of-fact result of the attacks in
question!
Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Irish politician and opposition leader in Parliament, author of
On the
Sublime and Beautiful (1757) and
Reflections on the Revolution
in France (1790).
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.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)
English poet and philosopher who projected
Lyrical Ballads (1798)
with William Wordsworth; author of
Biographia Literaria (1817),
On the Constitution of the Church and State (1829) and other
works.
Diogenes (412 BC c.-323 BC)
Athenian cynic philosopher who demonstrated his preference for simplicity by living in a
tub.
Oliver Goldsmith (1728 c.-1774)
Irish miscellaneous writer; his works include
The Vicar of
Wakefield (1766),
The Deserted Village (1770), and
She Stoops to Conquer (1773).
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).
Joseph Hume (1767-1844)
A clerk in the Victualling Office at Somerset House; he was a translator of Dante and
friend of Godwin, Lamb, Hazlitt, and Henry Crabb Robinson.
James Henry Leigh Hunt (1784-1859)
English poet, journalist, and man of letters; editor of
The
Examiner and
The Liberal; friend of Byron, Keats, and
Shelley.
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).
Charles Lamb [Elia] (1775-1834)
English essayist and boyhood friend of Coleridge at Christ's Hospital; author of
Essays of Elia published in the
London
Magazine (collected 1823, 1833) and other works.
Anne Dorothea Bridget Montagu [née Benson] (1774-1856)
The daughter of Edward Benson; after a marriage to Thomas Skepper she became the third
wife of Basil Montagu in 1808; her daughter Anne Benson Skepper married the poet Bryan
Waller Procter.
Basil Montagu (1770-1851)
An illegitimate son of the fourth earl of Sandwich, he was educated at Charterhouse and
Christ's College, Cambridge, and afterwards was a lawyer, editor, and friend of Samuel
Romilly, William Godwin, and William Wordsworth.
James Northcote (1746-1831)
English portrait-painter and writer who exhibited at the Royal Academy; he wrote a
Life of Titian (1830).
Charles Ollier (1788-1859)
London bookseller and novelist who in partnership with his brother James published Keats,
Shelley, Lamb, and Hazlitt; after the firm went bankrupt in 1823 he worked for the
publisher Henry Colburn. He was a sub-editor at the
New Monthly
Magazine.
Sir Joshua Reynolds (1723-1792)
English portrait-painter and writer on art; he was the first president of the Royal
Academy (1768).
Robert Southey (1774-1843)
Poet laureate and man of letters whose contemporary reputation depended upon his prose
works, among them the
Life of Nelson, 2 vols (1813),
History of the Peninsular War, 3 vols (1823-32) and
The Doctor, 7 vols (1834-47).
William Wordsworth (1770-1850)
With Coleridge, author of
Lyrical Ballads (1798), Wordsworth
survived his early unpopularity to succeed Robert Southey as poet laureate in 1843.
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.
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.