No More Learning

The supply of
Walpole's letters seems to be well-nigh inexhaustible, and a still
fuller collection will, probably, appear in its turn.
We have here a body of important material which forms both
an autobiography and a full history of sixty years of the eighteenth
century. Although the letters contain Walpole's opinions on events
as they occurred day by day, he communicated them to his different
correspondents from varied points of view. It is a remarkable
fact, which proves the orderly and constructive character of the
writer's mind, that the entire collection of the letters, ranging over
a very long period, forms a well connected whole, with all the
appearance of having been systematically planned.
The first letter we possess is to ‘My dearest Charles' (C.
Lyttelton), and was written when Walpole was fifteen years of age
(7 August 1732). In it he says:
I can reflect with great joy on the moments we passed together at Eton,
and long to talk 'em over, as I think we could recollect a thousand passages
which were something above the common rate of schoolboy's diversions.
In the last known letter from his hand, written to the countess of
Upper Ossory, to protest against her showing his ‘idle notes' to
others, Walpole refers to his fourscore nephews and nieces of
various ages, who are brought to him about once a year to stare
at him 'as the Methusalem of the family. He wants no laurels :
I shall be quite content with a sprig of rosemary thrown after me, when
the parson of the parish commits my dust to dust. Till then pray Madam
accept the resignation of your ancient servant, Orford.
The same spirit runs through the entire correspondence. It
constantly displays his affectionate feelings towards his friends and
the lightness with which he is able to touch on his own misfortunes.
Throughout his life, he was troubled by 'invalidity’; yet he could
repudiate any claim to patience, and ask Mann (8 January 1786)
1 See bibliography.
2 16 January 1797.
6


## p. 248 (#274) ############################################

248
Letter-Writers
6
if people of easy fortunes cannot bear illness with temper what are the poor
to do, who have none of our alleviations? The affluent, I fear, do not consider
what a benefit ticket has fallen to their lot, out of millions not so fortunate;
yet less do they reflect that chance, not merit, drew the prize out of the
wheel.
He suffered from gout throughout his life; but he always made
light of the affliction. He told Mason (Christmas day 1779) that
he had had a relapse, though a slight one, and 'called it only a
codicil to my gout. Mr Gibbon said “very well ; but I fancy it is
not in consequence of your will. ” There was no mistake about
the reality of his attacks; for chalk-stones were continually
breaking out from his fingers, and he told Lady Ossory that, if he
could not wait upon her, he hoped she would have the charity 'to
come and visit the chalk-pits in Berkeley Square. '
Walpole studied letter-writing as an art and understood its
distinctive features. There is no violent change in his style from
beginning to end of his correspondence ; but a gradual growth
may be observed in his artistic treatment of his matter. He could
criticise other letter-writers with judgment and good taste; but
there was one, above all, who was only to be worshipped, and that
was Madame de Sévigné. He tells Richard Bentley that
?
My Lady Hervey has made me most happy by bringing me from Paris an
admirable copy of the very portrait (of Mme de Sévigné] that was Madame
de Simiane's (her granddaughter). I am going to build an altar for it, under
the title of Notre Dame des Rochers!
Walpole addresses the same Lady Hervey from Paris (8 October
1765) to the effect that he had called upon Madame Chabot.
She was not at home, but the Hotel de Carnavalet was; and I stopped on
purpose to say an Ave Maria before it. It is a very singular building, not
at all in the French style, and looks like an ex voto raised to her honour by
some of her votaries (Mme de Sévigné's]. I don't think her honoured half
enough in her own country? .
Mrs Toynbee's edition contains a total of three thousand and
sixty-one letters, addressed by Walpole to one hundred and sixty
1 24 December 1754.
? This interesting old house is now well known as the home of the Carnavalet
Eleven years after this, Madame Du Deffand hoaxed Walpole by sending
him a snuffbox with a portrait of Mme de Sévigné copied from one he greatly admired.
This was sent with a letter signed · Rabutin de Sévigné' and beginning thus: 'Je
connois votre folle passion pour moi ; votre enthousiasme pour mes lettres, votre vénération
pour les lieus que j'ai habités. ' In acknowledging the gift from judge Hardinge of
four drawings of the château de Grignan, in a letter dated 4 July 1779, Walpole
wrote: 'I own that Grignan is grander, and in a much finer situation than I had
imagined ; as I concluded the witchery of Madame de Sévigné's ideas and style had
spread the same leaf-gold over places with which she gilded her friends. ' (See Nichols's
Literary Anecdotes, vol. VIII, p. 526. )
museum,


## p. 249 (#275) ############################################

His Chief Correspondents 249
correspondents, many of them men and women of mark. The
number of letters to some of these personages are very few, but
among them are seven, to each of whom over one hundred letters
were written by him. Sir Horace Mann heads the list with 820,
then comes the countess of Upper Ossory with 400. The other
five have smaller numbers, as George Montagu 263, William
Mason 217, William Cole 180, Henry Conway 179 and Mary
Berry 159. The lifelong correspondence with Mann exhibits a
unique instance of friendship, maintained without personal inter-
course for forty-five years. Walpole might well say to his friend
(4 December 1785), “You and I have long out-friendshipped Orestes
and Pylades. '
Mann was an early friend of Walpole, and his appointment in
1737 as assistant to Charles Fane (afterwards second viscount
Fane), envoy extraordinary at the court of Florence, by Sir Robert
Walpole, was entirely owing to this intimacy. In 1740, Mann be-
came Fane's successor, and Walpole visited him at Florence in the
same year. After returning to England in September 1741, Walpole
never saw his friend again. Mann never left Italy, although, in
1755, he succeeded his elder brother in the possession of the
family estate at Linton, Kent. His chief duties were to look after
the two 'pretenders' and to entertain distinguished English
travellers in Italy. He was kept informed by Walpole of all that
was going on in England, and he returned the favour by writing
continuously in reply, though, it must be said, giving Walpole lead
in return for his gold? It should, however, not be overlooked,
that, when writing to Mann and other friends abroad, Walpole
always feared the opening of his letters at the post office. He
complains to the earl of Hertford? :
As my letters are seldom proper for the post now I begin them at any time,
and am forced to trust to chance for a conveyance. This difficulty renders
my news very stale.
Walpole, writing to Lady Ossorys, praised women as far better
letter-writers than men. When he wrote 'I could lay down as an
infallible truth in the words of my god-father, Pennis non homini
datis, the English of which is, “It was not given to man to write
letters," it is just possible that it occurred to him how the dictum
might apply to his friend Mann. Some of Walpole's best letters
1 Peter Cunningham described Mann's letters as utterly unreadable. ' A selection
of them was published by Doran in 1876, under the irritating title Mann and Manners
at the Court of Florence.
3 3 August 1764.
3 Christmas day 1773.
6
"


## p. 250 (#276) ############################################

250
Letter-Writers
were addressed to his frequent correspondent Lady Ossory. Mary
Berry would have stood higher in the numerical list; but Walpole
did not become intimate with her and her father and sister until
late in his life in the winter of 1788). Madame Du Deffand's
letters to Walpole were first printed by Miss Berry and afterwards
reprinted in Paris? A complete edition of these letters, edited
.
by the late Mrs Toynbee, was published in 1912. Walpole's letters
to Madame Du Deffand were burnt at his particular request. It
is supposed that he did not wish them to be published, lest his
French should be criticised. He wrote to Mason? : 'Mme Du
Deffand has told me that I speak French worse than any English-
man she knows. ' A little too much has been made of Walpole's
gallicisms, although there certainly is a remarkable one in the
preface to Historic Doubts on Richard III :
It is almost a question whether if the dead of past ages could revive, they
would be able to reconnoitre3 the events of their own times as transmitted
to us.
Thomas Pitt, first Lord Camelford (nephew of the great Chatham),
writing to judge Hardinge in 1789, refers to the translation of
Walpole's Essay on Gardening by the duc de Nivernais :
I shall be glad to see the work of M. de Nivernois, if it answers at all to
the specimens you have sent me. The truth is that, as Mr Horace Walpole
always thinks in French he ought never to write in English; and I dare be
sworn Nivernois' translation will appear the more original work of the two4.
Did Hannah More venture to ‘chaff' Walpole when she sent him
anonymously a clever letter dated' Alamode Castle, June 20, 1840'
and headed it ‘A Specimen of the English language, as it will be
written and spoken in the next century. In a letter from a lady
to her friend in the reign of George V'? Walpole acknowledged
this letter (5 April 1785) with cordiality and much praise, to show
that ‘his withers were unwrung. Walpole expressed to Lady
'
Ossory (Christmas day 1781) his opinion that 'Letters ought to be
nothing but extempore conversation upon paper,' and, doubtless,
his conversation was much like his letters, and as excellent. His
wit was ready and brilliant in both forms of communication. He
was himself proud of the witty apophthegm which he seems to
have first imparted to Mann by word of mouth :
Recollect what I have said to you, that this world is a comedy to those
who think, a tragedy to those who feel. This is the quintessence of all I
have learnt in fifty years5!
1 See bibliography.
2 5 July 1773.
3 This use of the word 'reconnoitre’ in English was quite obsolete in Walpole's day.
Nichols's Literary Illustrations, vol. vii, p. 118. 5 5 March 1772.
5


## p. 251 (#277) ############################################

His Experiences and Anecdotes 251
At any rate, the saying has found its way into books of familiar
quotations.
Numerous instances might be given of the value of the letters
in illustration of history; but, in spite of the popular notion as to
the frivolity of a large part of their contents, it may safely be said
that matters of moment are dealt with throughout the series, and
sidelights are to be found on every page. There is, first, the
Jacobite rising of 1745. Then, we have the trials of the Jacobites,
and, for a time, there is peace, broken by the excitement of
Wilkes's publication of The North Briton and subsequent riots.
Walpole was attacked in no. 2 of The North Briton; and Wilkes
was annoyed that he did not seem to mind the attack. In a letter
to Mann? , Walpole laments the state of the nation, and, after
giving instances of the grievous increase of gambling, he writes
'We are not a great age, but surely we are tending to some
great revolution. The American war was the next great event
to supply Walpole with material for invective and complaints of
bad government. At the end of his life came the great con-
vulsion of the French revolution and, in September 1789, he
congratulated Hannah More on the demolition of the Bastille,
the reform of which he related fourteen years before? The
enormities of the revolutionaries changed his political views, as
they did those of the majority of Englishmen, and he welcomed
with enthusiasm Burke's Reflections. He said that it painted the
queen 'exactly as she appeared to me the first time I saw her
when Dauphiness 3. '
Many of Walpole's anecdotes are valuable as illustrations of
the manners of the time and contain information not to be found
elsewhere; but the chief interest of his correspondence remains
autobiographical. The first hundred pages of Mrs Toynbee's
edition contain letters, from 1732 to 1741, to Charles Lyttelton,
Gray, West, George Montagu, Thomas Ashton and Henry Conway,
for the most part written during Walpole's travels. The first letter
to Mann was written on 11 September 1741. From this time, the
complete autobiography may be said to begin, and it continues to
the end. Walpole wrote an interesting advertisement prefixed to
the Letters to Mann, explaining his reasons for preserving them,
which is too long to quote here, but will be found in a note to the
first letter. For the incidents of his early life we must search
1 2 February 1770.
2 25 October 1775.
3 See, also, his anecdote of Marie-Antoinette as queen, in his letter to Mary Berry,
3 July 1790.


## p. 252 (#278) ############################################

252
Letter-Writers
elsewhere, and he has left us the main particulars in the Short
Notes of My Life.
Walpole's character may be easily understood by anyone who
studies his correspondence. In early life, he was not very different
from a large number of the highbred men of the eighteenth century
who took pride in their social position, for it is necessary to
remember that there were two classes of men in the English society
of this age-the jovial and the coarse, and the reserved and
refined. Sir Robert Walpole belonged to the former, and his son
Horace to the latter. Horace was never very young, and his
father said of himself that he was the younger of the two. Horace
adds 1: 'Indeed I think so in spite of his forty years more. ' The
son began life with a character for frankness and enthusiasm; but,
as he grew into the cynical man of the world, he became colder in
manner to mere acquaintances, reserving his true self only for his
bosom friends. He cultivated an extreme fastidiousness and severe
refinement, which caused him to exhibit a distaste for a robust
humour that he considered vulgar. This powerful prejudice caused
him to propound much absurd criticism. He could not admire
Fielding because he kept 'low company, and condemned the
'vulgarity of his character. ' For the beautiful and pathetic
Voyage to Lisbon he could find no praise, and he refers to
'Fielding's Travels or rather an account of how his dropsy was
treated,' and how he was teased by an innkeeper's wife in the Isle
of Wight? He could not appreciate the genius of Richardson and
refers to
those tedious lamentations - Clarissa, and Sir Charles Grandison, which are
pictures of high life as conceived by a bookseller, and romances as they would
be spiritualised by a Methodist preacher.
Sterne was no more fortunate in obtaining the good opinion of
Walpole, who writes to Henry Zouch :
The second and third volumes of Tristram Shandy, the dregs of nonsense,
have universally met the contempt they deserve: genius may be exhausted ;-
I see that folly's invention may be so too4.
He could appreciate Johnson's great qualities; but he was repelled
by his roughness. He said wittily :
Johnson made the most brutal speeches to living persons, for though he
was goodnatured at bottom he was very ill-natured at top.
In considering Walpole's affected remarks on his own literary
character, we should bear in mind the expressed opinions of so
| 22 January 1742.
2 27 March 1755.
3 20 December 1760.
4 7 March 1761.


## p. 253 (#279) ############################################

Walpole's Earlier Works
253
aristocratic an author as Byron, at a much later date. Walpole
thought it would disgrace him to be known as a learned author,
although, in his heart, he was proud of his books. He discloses his
true character with a fine instinct more frequently when writing
to Mann than to any other correspondent. At a quite early date,
he takes Mann to task for over-estimating his abilities.
I must answer for your brother a paragraph that he showed me in one of
your letters 'Mr W's letters are full of wit; don't they adore them in Eng-
land? ' Not at all--and I don't wonder at them; for if I have any wit in my
letters, which I do not at all take for granted, it is ten to one I have none out of
my letters. . . . Then as to adoring; you now see only my letters, and you may be
sure I take care not to write you word of any of my bad qualities, which other
people must see in the gross; and that may be a great hindrance to their
adoration. Oh! there are a thousand other reasons I could give you, why I
am not the least in fashion. I came over in an ill season: it is a million to
one that nobody thinks a declining old minister's son has wit. At any time
men in opposition have always most; but now it would be absurd for a courtier
to have even common sensel.
The history of the growth of Walpole's works is fully detailed
in the Correspondence; and, apparently, nearly all his books were
written at high pressure. He particularly notes how long a time
was occupied in their production. He was a dabbler in literature
from his early life. He wrote, in 1742, a sermon on painting for
the amusement of his father, which was afterwards published in
Ædes Walpoliance, and he was continually writing occasional
verses, a practice in which he persevered when he possessed a
private printing-press. It was not, however, until 1753 that he
may be said to have begun his literary career with the writing
of some clever papers in The World, a periodical written by men
of fashion for men of fashion. His first substantive work was
A Catalogue of the Royal and Noble Authors of England, printed
at the Strawberry hill press in 1758. It is of no great value as a
bibliography, but, dealing as it does with a distinctive subject, is
of occasional use as well as of some interest. The next work,
Anecdotes of Painting in England, also printed at the Strawberry
hill press, in 1762, is the only one of Walpole's works which has
really held its position. It was reprinted several times by its
author and twice reedited. The publication originated in the
purchase of Vertue's valuable collections from his widow in
1756. Walpole, ten years before, had visited Vertue with the
purpose of learning something about the MSS, of the existence of
which he had previously heard. Vertue's notes, which are now
preserved at the British museum, are disjointed and difficult to
17 January 1742.


## p. 254 (#280) ############################################

254
Letter-Writers
decipher, and, therefore, it was much to Walpole's credit that he
was able to produce from them a useful book, which has been
constantly reprinted. Unfortunately, although a competent con-
noisseur, he had not sufficient knowledge to enable him to write
a satisfactory history of painting, and his editors had not suffi-
cient courage to correct his errors at all thoroughly, for he had
a wonderful craze respecting the historical value of some old
pictures which he had bought and incorrectly described in his
Anecdotes? . It can hardly be doubted that the existence of
Walpole's book has prevented the publication of a complete and
trustworthy history of English painting.
Walpole's next works were The Castle of Otranto (1764–5)
and The Mysterious Mother (1768). Byron affirmed that Walpole
was 'the father of the first romance and the last tragedy in our
language,' and he praised highly both romance and tragedy ; but
very few modern readers are likely to agree with him. The Castle
of Otranto was originally published as a translation from an
Italian original which appeared at Naples in 1529; but, when
success was assured, it was acknowledged by its author. Of this
story, which has become a sort of a classic of English literature,
though few now care to read it, some account has been given
in an earlier chapter? The Mysterious Mother was printed at
Strawberry hill in 1768; and, although Walpole perceived the
unfitness for the stage of a tragedy with so repulsive a subject, he
seems to have cherished a lingering hope of its production there,
as he wrote an epilogue to it for Mrs Clive to speak. In reading
the play we see that the slowness of the action was of itself
sufficient to exclude it from performance; for, even an eighteenth
century audience could not be expected to sit out four acts of
the ravings of a woman the cause of whose remorse and agony
is not disclosed until the end of the fifth act. Fanny Burney,
being on friendly terms with Walpole, was anxious to read the
play; but, after reading it, she felt a sort of indignant aversion rise'
in her mind against the wilful author of a story so horrible; all
the entertainment and pleasure I had received from Mr Walpole
seemed extinguished. Fanny's friend Mr Turbulent (Guiffardière)
said : ‘Mr Walpole has chosen a plan of which nothing can equal
the abomination but the absurdity. '
Historic Doubts on the Life and Reign of Richard III,
1 Cf. , for instance, his self-delusion as to his 'suit of the house of Lancaster,' long
since corrected by Sir George Scharf.
2 See chap. II, pp. 60–61, ante.


## p. 255 (#281) ############################################

Walpole on his Literary Work. Chesterfield 255
>
written about the same time as The Mysterious Mother, offers a
good example of Walpole’s literary work. He chose an interesting
subject and treated it with spirit. He was not, however, prepared
to undertake the necessary research, and thus laid himself open to
much severe criticism! As two of his chief opponents were Milles,
president, and Masters, a fellow, of the Society of Antiquaries, he
resigned his fellowship of the society and swore hostility to most
antiquaries, although a few, such as Cole and Gough, retained his
favour. He never forgave his critics ; but he had succumbed to
their censures after a short fight.
Walpole's own feelings respecting his literary productions were
very mixed. He wrote to Lady Ossory (15 September 1787):
I have several reasons for lamenting daily that I ever was author or
editor. . . . Were I to recommence my life, and thought as I do now I do not
believe that any consideration could induce me to be an author. . . . It is pride
not humility, that is the source of my present sentiments. I have a great
contempt for middling authors. We have not only betrayed want of genius
but want of judgement.
These confessions have been treated as untrue, and as an affected
condemnation of his writings. But this is unjust. He valued them
as containing his own opinions, well expressed, on subjects which
required elucidation ; but he knew that they were not sound
enough to bear learned criticism-and he quite sincerely repudiated
his possession of special learning.
From Horace Walpole’s we pass to some other names of
renown in the form of literature in which he excelled.
Philip, fourth earl of Chesterfield, was one of the foremost
English statesmen of his age ; but he was so unlike an ordinary
Englishman that his character has been much misunderstood by
his countrymen. He thoroughly appreciated the French, and was
appreciated by them in return. Sainte-Beuve considers him to
have united the good qualities of the two nations, and he describes
the Letters to his Son as a rich book, which, in spite of some
objectionable passages, contains not a page without some happy
observation worthy of being kept in remembrance. In any case,
Chesterfield must be considered a unique personality. He was
particularly unfortunate in his relations with Johnson, who was cer-
tainly not fair to him; and the cruel caricature in Barnaby Rudge
of him as Sir John Chester, described as an elegant and polite,
but heartless and unprincipled gentleman,' must have seriously
1 Cf. as to this essay chap. XII, post.


## p. 256 (#282) ############################################

256
Letter-Writers
injured his fame among many of those unacquainted with history.
He was not unprincipled or heartless, and selfishness was by no
means a marked feature of his character. His shining mental
qualities were universally acknowledged, and he was accepted
as a shrewd man of the world, with engaging manners; but
we can learn something more than this about him from his
letters.
Of Chesterfield's abilities as a statesman, his country did not
obtain the full benefit, largely in consequence of court intrigues ;
for, though the ablest statesman of his time, after Walpole (if Pitt
be left out), he was persistently set aside. His time came when
he was appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland in 1745. He held
office for less than a year, but proved his power of governing
in a dangerous time, by the measures which he took to prevent
disturbances. He gained the gratitude of the people, and the
memory of his rule during a critical period remained fresh for
more than a century. He retained his interest in Ireland, and
always considered the Irish as his countrymen, because he had
ruled over them. He withdrew from public life, partly on account
of ill health ; and, in 1752, his deafness had become very serious.
In 1757, he emerged from his retirement in order to effect a re-
conciliation between the duke of Newcastle and Pitt.
Chesterfield has the reputation of eloquence; but his was
not unstudied. Horace Walpole denied that Chesterfield was an
orator, because his speeches were written ; yet, in a letter to Mann
(15 December 1743), he declared that the finest oration (he) ever
did hear' was one from Chesterfield—and this was delivered
against Sir Robert Walpole. Chesterfield's wit, like his speeches,
was, to a certain extent, prepared ; but it was the kind of wit
which is the most agreeable form of wisdom.
Although he had many enemies, he had a genius for friendship.
His greatest friend was Richard, second earl of Scarborough,
whose character he drew-a man held in so high a general esteem
that Chesterfield declares:
He was the best man I ever knew, the dearest friend I ever had. . . . We
lived in intimate and unreserved friendship for twenty years, and to that I
owe much more than my pride will let my gratitude own.
On Scarborough’s melancholy death, Chesterfield wrote to his
protégé Dr Chenevix': 'We have both lost a good friend in Scar-
borough ; nobody can replace him to me; I wish I could replace
1 13 February 1740.


## p. 257 (#283) ############################################

Chesterfield's Letters
257
him to you; but as things stand I see no great hopes of it. ' Chester-
field appointed Chenevix to the first Irish bishopric in his gift
(Killaloe) and, shortly afterwards, translated him to Waterford. He
retained the bishop as a lifelong friend, and in the printed correspon-
dence there are many bright letters to him which are full of kindly
feeling, and to which he subscribed himself 'with the greatest truth
and affection. ' Another lifelong friend was the diplomatist Solomon
Dayrolles, a godson of Chesterfield, whose letters to him are of an
intimate character and full of the most natural feelings, expressed
in an altogether charming manner. The name of Dayrolles will al-
ways be associated with that of Chesterfield, because of the dying
statesman's considerate order, ‘Give Dayrolles a chair. ' Many other
interesting letters are to be found in the correspondence, such as
those to the Dublin bookseller, alderman Faulkener, whose friend-
ship Chesterfield secured when in Ireland and retained through
life; and Lady Suffolk, a much esteemed friend. This general
correspondence is extremely interesting, and the letters it contains
are models of what letters should be natural, kindly and witty.
But Chesterfield's fame as a letter-writer must rest on his
Letters to his Son and those to his Godson. His devotion to these
two young men is a very remarkable indication of his true
character. From 1737 (when his age was forty-three years) to the
year of his death, it became little less than an obsession. He
began writing letters of advice to his illegitimate son Philip
Stanhope when the child was only five years old. When he had
reached twenty-five, another Philip Stanhope (of Mansfield Wood-
house) was born. This was Chesterfield's godson and successor,
whose education he undertook, and to whom he began to write
educational letters when he was four years old. He, doubtless, was
led to undertake these letters by the recollection of the neglect he
had experienced from his own father, and his sense of its conse-
quences.
When sitting in judgment on Chesterfield's letters to his son,
we should not omit to remember that they were never intended for
any eye but that of the receiver. He wrote (21 January 1751):
You and I must now write to each other as friends and without the least
reserve; there will for the future be a thousand things in my letters which I
would not have any mortal living but yourself see or know.
The Letters are written in English, Latin and French, and con-
tain a large amount of valuable information on history, geography,
and so forth, put in an easy and convenient form for the pupil.
Philip Stanhope was censured for bad writing and bad spelling
17
E, L. X.
CH. XI.


## p. 258 (#284) ############################################

258
Letter-Writers
and for inattention. His father told him that nothing was too
small for attentive consideration and that concentrated attention
on one subject at a time was of paramount importance : There is
time enough for everything in the course of the day if you do one
thing at once, but there is not time enough in the year if you will
do two things at once. '
Honour and morality, the need of which is strongly urged in
the Letters, do not include sexual morality: the writer recom-
mends his son to seek intimate association with married women
of fashion, in order to improve his manners, which, by nature,
were somewhat boorish. The general principles of good breeding
continually urged in the Letters have been strangely misunder-
stood. The object of life is to be pleased, and, in order to attain
this, we must please others; but it is quite evident that more
than surface pleasing is here intended. Both respect for the
feelings of others and sympathy with them are enjoined. The
young man is told 'never to be ashamed of doing what is right,
but to use his own judgment instead of blindly following others
in what the fashionable world considers to be pleasure. Such is
a sample of Chesterfield's wise saws, many of which have become
familiar quotations, and which show his recollection of his own
bitterly repented mistakes in early life. When Philip Stanhope
went out into the world and his early education was completed,
his father continued to send him letters of advice; but, in 1768,
the young man died, and the father learned that he had been
married and had two sons. Chesterfield received this unexpected
news with composure, and wrote kindly to the widow, Eugenia
Stanhope, saying that he would undertake all the expenses con-
nected with the bringing up of her boys. He did not remove
them from her care, but took much interest in them, and became
attached to them, observing their different characters and advising
as to them.
Chesterfield's literary fame rests upon his Letters to his Son,
which were never intended for publication ; but it has been
augmented by his Letters to his Godson, which, also, were not
intended to see the light of publicity. Fourteen of the letters on
the art of pleasing, or, as the writer entitled them, "The Duty,
Utility and Means of Pleasing,' were first published in 1774 in four
numbers of The Edinburgh Magazine and Review. In 1776, they
were added to a Dublin edition of Letters to his Son, and were
incorrectly described as written to the son-instead of to the
godson. In 1778, they were reproduced as a supplement to


## p. 259 (#285) ############################################

Chesterfield's Letters. Fanny Burney 259
Maty's Memoirs of Lord Chesterfield. The complete series of
Chesterfield's Letters to his Godson was not printed until 1890,
when it was edited by the fourth earl of Carnarvon. Lord Car-
narvon, by means of the charming Life which he prefixed to the
Letters, placed Chesterfield's good name on a more substantial
basis than that upon which it had hitherto rested.
These Letters follow very much the plan of their predecessors.
They are sometimes in English, and more often in French. They
contain the same form of instruction and anecdote, are written
with the same mixture of wit and wisdom, and breathe the same
affectionate interest of the writer in the doings of his correspon-
dent. One of the letters may be specially mentioned, since it
inculcates the spirit of two commandments, on which, according
to the highest authority, 'hang all the law and the prophets. '
Chesterfield writes :
I must from time to time remind you of two much more important dutys,
which I hope you will never forget nor neglect. I mean your duty to God
and your duty to Man. . . . Your duty to Man is very short and clear, it is only to
do to him whatever you would be willing that he should do to you. And
remember in all the business of your life to ask your conscience this question
Should I be willing that this should be done to me? If your conscience
which will always tell you truth answer No, do not do that thing.
Chesterfield took immense pains to show his two pupils how to
live; and it evidently gave him great pleasure to watch over them,
and to express to each of them bis satisfaction in their progress.
He must, however, have suffered disappointment when he found
that, in point of manners, neither of them did justice to his in-
tentions. His son, we learn from others, was ‘loutish,' and Fanny
Burney says of his godson that 'with much share of humour, and
of good humour also, [he] has as little good breeding as any man I
ever met with. '
Fanny Burney bore two surnames in succession; but her maiden
name is that by which all true lovers know her, because it was when
she had no right to any but this that she wrote and gained her fame.
She may be Madame d'Arblay on certain formal occasions ; but the
author of Evelina is far too English for a foreign name to sit easy
upon her'. The pictures of important events and the intimate re-
cords of Fanny's distinguished friends in her diaries and letters place
these writings on a very high plane, entitling them to rank as re-
productions of eighteenth century life not very far below the volumes
of Walpole and Boswell. She relates all she saw and did with so
As to Fanny Burney as a novelist, see chap. II, pp. 63 ff. ante.
17-2


## p. 260 (#286) ############################################

260
-
Letter-Writers
much spirit and vivacity, filling in the blanks of other writers, that
the reading of the various incidents is an inexhaustible pleasure.
It may, indeed, be said that she discloses the inner life of three
different worlds. In her Early Diary (1768–78), edited by Mrs
Ellis (1889), the doings of her family are fully displayed, and the
professional world of Dr Burney (that clever dog,' as Johnson
called him) is brightly sketched ; Garrick, too, is constantly gliding
over the scene and playing the fool in his inimitable way. But the
most popular character of all is the eccentric ‘daddy' Crisp—Samuel
Crisp, the recluse of Chessington hall near Epsom-who was the
special friend and correspondent of his 'Fannikin. ' In the later
Diary and Letters (1778–1840), edited by Mrs Charlotte Barrett
(1842–6), there is more about the larger literary and political
world, including the great event of the Hastings trial. The full
and particular account of court life is of the greatest interest and
value. On 6 July 1786, Fanny Burney was appointed second
keeper of the robes to queen Charlotte, a position she held for
five years. She received much kindness from the king and queen,
who were fond of her; and, although, by reason of the rigid eti-
quette, the service was hard, she had much pleasant intercourse
with her companions in the palace, whose portraits she painted
with spirit. Her great and incessant trouble, however, was her
inevitable long and close association with the terrible Mrs Schwel-
lenberg, otherwise Cerbera. In course of time, the confinement
which Fanny had to undergo affected her health, and her friends
cried out for her release, even Walpole uttering complaints.
Windham threatened to set ‘The Club' on Dr Burney to induce
him to obtain her freedom, and Boswell threatened to interfere
-much to Fanny's annoyance, for she did not love the 'memoran-
dummer' as she called him. Eventually, arrangements were made,
and she finally left court in July 1791, the queen granting out of
her own privy purse a pension or retiring allowance.
A most interesting feature of these diaries and letters is the
introduction of clear-cut portraits of the people whom the writer
knew and met. Johnson alluded to her powers in this respect
when he addressed her as 'You little character-monger'; and, here,
her early novel writing stood her in good stead. The description
of Boswell's persecution of her at Windsor, while pressing un-
successfully for the use of Johnson's letters, and reading to her, at
the gates of the castle which she would not let him enter, bits
from the forthcoming Life, is a fine bit of high comedy. Among
Fanny Burney's later friends were the Lockes, owners of Norbury


## p. 261 (#287) ############################################

Mrs Elizabeth Montagu
261
-
-
park, above the vale of Mickleham. On her frequent visits to her
hospitable friends, she became intimate with the French émigrés
at Juniper hall; and, on 31 July 1793, she was married to one of
them-d'Arblay-at Mickleham church. The pair had but little
upon which to set up house; but Locke gave them a site, and
the handsome subscription of generous friends for the novel
Camilla produced sufficient funds for building a cottage, which
was named Camilla Lacey. The marriage was a happy one in
spite of lack of means; but, in 1801, d'Arblay determined to
return to France, and his wife followed him. The restoration
of Louis XVIII brought better times, but, in July 1815, general
d'Arblay met with an accident and was placed on the retired
list of the French army. Austin Dobson describes him as one of
the most delightful figures in his wife's Diary. On 3 May 1818,
he died at Bath. This sad event virtually closes the work, and,
although Madame d'Arblay lived until 1840, there are few letters
left after her husband's death,
Mrs Elizabeth Montagu was one of a bright company of
brilliant women'; and, in spite of rivals, she reigned supreme for
fifty years as the chosen hostess of the intellectual society of
London. Mrs Vesey, for a time, was a prominent rival, because, as
wife of Agmondesham Vesey, a member of 'The Club,' she came
forward as the special hostess of that select company. The fame
of Mrs Montagu has much waned, and, probably, her letters,
published by her nephew Matthew Montagu in 1809–13, are little
read now. This collection does not reach a date later than 1761 ;
of the remainder of the correspondence from that date to the end
of Mrs Montagu's life, consisting, for the most part, of letters to
Mrs Robinson and a few other friends, Doran made a selection,
which he printed with remarks of his own in biographical form, in
1873, under the title A Lady of the last Century (Mrs Elizabeth
Montagu) illustrated in her unpublished Letters. Although this
lady was surrounded by the intellect of her time (she informed
Garrick that she never invited idiots to her house), she did not suc-
ceed in emulating Fanny Burney in the portraiture of her friends.
Windham praised her letters highly, but more for their style than
for the particular interest of the subjects discussed. The flow of
her style,' he writes, 'is not less natural, because it is fully charged
with shining particles, and sparkles as it flows. ' Her correspondent
1 For & general account of the Blue Stockings, see vol. XI. The word first occurg
in Mrs Montagu's correspondence, in 1757.


## p. 262 (#288) ############################################

262
Letter-Writers
during fifty years was Lady Margaret Harley, daughter of the
second earl of Oxford and wife of the second duke of Portland,
who was also a life long friend of Mrs Delany.
Elizabeth Robinson was the elder daughter of Matthew Robinson,
a Yorkshire squire, and her early education was advanced by the
instruction of Dr Conyers Middleton, the second husband of her
maternal grandmother, who lived at Cambridge. Her father, also,
was fond of encouraging her to make smart repartees to his witty
and caustic remarks, until he was beaten in these encounters and
had to discontinue them. She became rather a formidable young
lady and from her volatile disposition she acquired the sobriquet
'Fidget. ' She married, in 1742, Edward Montagu, a grandson of
the first earl of Sandwich, a quiet man who was contented that his
wife should rule in her own drawing-room. Doran describes him
as 'a mathematician of great eminence and a coal-owner of great
wealth. ' The match appears to have been a happy one, although
the tastes of the two parties were very different.
Mrs Montagu was fond of society, and the pleasures of
the town had a great attraction for her ; but she was also
a great reader and somewhat of a student, so she was often
glad to exchange the gaieties of London for the quiet pleasures
of the country. She formed a sort of salon at her house in Hill
street and gathered a brilliant company round her. Johnson
was glad to be one of her honoured guests; but his feelings
towards her seem to have been mixed. He acknowledged that
she was 'a very extraordinary woman,' adding ‘she has a constant
stream of conversation, and it is always iinpregnated, it has
always meaning. At other times, he said some disagreeable
things of her and to her. Something in her talk seems to have
annoyed him-possibly her sharp repartees may not have pleased
the dogmatic doctor. Lyttelton, Burke, Wilberforce and Reynolds
were also among her favourite guests. Mrs Montagu's husband
died in 1775 and left all his property to his wife; but, though
Horace Walpole at once jumped to the conclusion that she would
marry again, she preferred to adopt a nephew, who succeeded to
her possessions. She continued to be a hostess and built herself
a mansion on the north-west corner of Portman square; but the
glory had, to a great extent, departed, and the large parties that
could be accommodated in the new house were dull compared with
the smaller gatherings in Hill street. In her later letters, she
gives much information respecting the management of her large
estates, in which she proved herself a good economist. Her Essay


## p. 263 (#289) ############################################

David Garrick
263
on the Writings and Genius of Shakespeare with Remarks upon
the Misrepresentations of Mons. De Voltaire (1769) has been
noticed elsewhere.
David Garrick was a brilliant and agreeable letter-writer, and,
even when angry with those correspondents who worried him
exceedingly, he continued to be bright and lively in his replies.
His letters give an admirable idea of his mercurial disposition, and
it has been said that he was never second in the keenest encounter
of wits. The two quarto volumes of his correspondence, published
by James Boaden in 1831-2, are of great value and interest, con-
sisting of letters from many distinguished persons, and his answers
to them. The miscellaneous letters were collected by Garrick
himself, and copies of his own letters added to them. It has
been suggested that he may have had the intention of using
them as the groundwork of an autobiography; at any rate, he
must have considered it important to keep the originals of his
various controversies for his own justification. The correspondence
is now preserved, together with family letters (not printed by
Boaden) and some others, in the Forster collection at the Victoria
and Albert museum. They form thirty-five bound volumes and
are of considerable value. Boaden, however, arranged the letters
carelessly, without putting his materials in a satisfactory chrono-
logical order or providing a much-needed index ; but he added a
good life of the actor, largely founded upon the materials printed
by him. An improved, and more convenient, edition containing a
fairly complete collection of Garrick's letters, while condensing
those of his correspondents, would be a valuable addition to our
literature. As it is, however, Boaden's collection shows how
important a figure Garrick filled in the intellectual world of the
eighteenth century.
The list of his correspondents contains the names of most of the
distinguished men of his time, such as Lords Camden, Chatham
and Lyttelton, Johnson, Burke, Reynolds, Goldsmith, Boswell,
Burney, Hogarth, Hume, Sheridan and Steevens. Burke, who enter-
tained the highest opinion of Garrick, was one of his best friends.
He addressed him as 'My dear David,' 'My dear Garrick' and
sometimes ‘My dearest Garrick,' and concluded his letters in terms
of affection. Johnson and Garrick, notwithstanding their early
relations, never got further than 'Dear sir,' and ended their letters
1 See ante, vol. v, p. 293 ; and of. vol. XI.
For Garrick as an actor, manager and dramatist, see chap, iv, pp. 85–86, ante.
6


## p. 264 (#290) ############################################

264
Letter-Writers
in formal style. Mrs Montagu was a frequent correspondent and
the writer of some of the best letters in the collection. On one
occasion, she is found entreating Garrick, on behalf of her friend
Mrs Vesey, to obtain the election of that lady's husband Agmondes-
ham Vesey, into the select circle of The Club. ' The bulk of the
''
correspondence relates to theatrical affairs, as to which Garrick
was in constant trouble, by reason of his strenuous attention to his
duties as manager. The actors are constantly complaining, and the
actresses, who were jealous of him and of each other, sometimes
almost drove him mad. Mrs Cibber, Mrs Yates, Mrs Abington
and Mrs Clive-all gave trouble in various ways; but Garrick's
feelings were essentially different as to the last two ladies in the
list. Mrs Abington permanently annoyed him. He added to a
letter, written by her in 1776 : ‘The above is a true copy of the
letter, examined word by word, of that worst of bad women Mrs
Abington, to ask my playing for her benefit, and why? ' On the
other hand, Kitty Clive and he were always quarrelling and
making it up, since they thoroughly esteemed each other. In
1765, Kitty wrote an angry letter: 'Sir, I beg you would do me
the favour to let me know if it was by your order that my money
was stopped last Saturday. ' In 1776, she wrote a letter which
Garrick endorsed 'My Pivy-excellent. It was not only the
‘'
actors and actresses who annoyed Garrick-the playwrights were
equally, if not more, troublesome. There is a long series of letters
between Murphy and Garrick, which shows that they were con-
tinually at war with one another. The latter part of the second
volume of Boaden's work is full of interesting letters from French-
men and Frenchwomen of distinction, proving how highly Garrick's
genius was appreciated in France. Diderot, Marmontel, Mme
Necker, Fréron, Mlle Clairon and Le Kain were among his corre-
spondents.
The letters of Garrick do not throw much light upon his training
for the stage. He seems to have been born an actor, with all the
qualities of a first-rate comedian, while his achievements as a
tragedian were the result of his genius and the powers of his
imagination. He was of no school, and he had no master. He was
well educated and possessed a singular charm of manner; but he
obtained his great position by incessant study, persistent practice
and wide observation. Burke described him as one of the deepest
observers of man. Well might Quin say that, if Garrick was right,
he and his school were all wrong! He liked to astonish spectators
by his sudden change from the all-inspiring tragedian to the


## p. 265 (#291) ############################################

Reynolds's Discourses
265
laughter-forcing comedian. His Lear and his Abel Drugger were
equally amazing. It was the freshness, the brightness and life of
his style that made the instant acceptance of him as the greatest
of living actors secure. At thirty, he was joint lessee of Drury lane
theatre. In 1776, he retired from the stage and sold his moiety of
the theatre to Sheridan, Linley and Ford. He kept up his interest in
the stage; but he had little time to enjoy his well earned rest,
and died in 1779, universally regretted. Burke wrote an epitaph,
which unfortunately was rejected in favour of a foolish inscription
by Pratt, for the monument in Westminster abbey. It was in a
passage of the former that Garrick was said to have raised the
character of his profession to the rank of a liberal art. '
a
6
It may not seem inappropriate to add in this place a few words
concerning the series of Discourses delivered by Sir Joshua
Reynolds, from 1769 to 1790, to the students of the Royal Academy.
These Discourses have become a classic of our language, because
they are justly regarded as a model of art criticism, devoted
as they are to essentials and written in a style of great beauty
and distinction, and exhibiting in every page Reynolds's love and
knowledge of his art, as well as the literary powers of his mind. The
advice of a master grounded on his own knowledge and practice
must always possess a real value, and Reynolds is severe in his
condemnation of the futility of much art criticism by amateurs.