Изображения страниц

dark old papers of which mention has been letters of Cromwell were sent to Mr. Carlyle in one made.

packet, with accompanying intimation that the They proved to be a journal, interspersed with originals were reduced to ashes. Vain was all letters of Cromwell and others, but mostly written passionate clamor for them. They were gone. by one Samuel Squire, a subaltern in the famed Now, we repeat that we do not find it difficult Regiment of Ironsides, who belonged to the “ Stil to understand this transaction throughout. Irraton Troop,” and had served with Oliver from the tional as it is, it seems to us not at all hard to first mount of that indomitable corps, as cornet, comprehend. A. B. is not a book-man, in the and then as auditor. Looking closely into this least; in no respect a writer, it is very obvious ; journal, with the light thrown by Mr. Carlyle's the least possible of a reader, we should say. To volumes, very strange unknown aspects of affairs proceed to judge of the matter as if he had ever seem to have presented themselves to A. B.; on- contemplated the publication of these letters ; as slaughts, seizures, surprises ; endless activity, if a necessity for their authentication had at all audacity, rapidity, strict general integrity, rhada- presented itself to him; as if it were even likely manthine justice, and traits of implacable severity that his own good faith could in any respect be on the part of Oliver ;” connected for the most questioned ; as if, in short, the world contained part with such moving accidents and adventures, any probable or possible parties to that affair but hitherto wholly absent from the histories, as the simply himself and Mr. Carlyle ; would be miserfortune of war in that “Eastern Association” ably to misjudge it, as we think, from first to last. where Cromwell began his military career, and we will not say that he may not have thought it enriched with thirty-five original letters of the remotely possible he should see the letters again hero.

in a printed form, just as he had seen Mr. Carlyle's Here was a discovery indeed! Yet was it nat- book of letters : but in the like unquestionable ural that A. B., being as we have described him, shape, and under cover of the same not-to-be disshould straightway hand it over without condition puted authority. He had guarded against himself or questioning to the collector of Cromwell's let- appearing in connection with them, by solemn exters?

We think not. We find what he really actions of secrecy from Mr. Carlyle ; and he had did to be in no respect surprising. He broke satisfied his family fears and traditions by washing ground by sending a fact obtained from the journal, his hands of ancestor Squire altogether. Who of which Mr. Carlyle had proclaimed himself much knows what formal family injunctions even, he in need ; and then “in simple, rugged, and trust- may not religiously have obeyed, in not suffering worthy, though rather peculiar dialect,” (a “ little that journal to be seen by any stranger? Nayastonished to find that Oliver Cromwell was actu- in burning it even as it stood, with its Cromwell ally not a miscreant, hypocrite, &c., as heretofore letters and all? With Mr. Carlyle's emphatic represented,”) related what he was in possession testimony to character we will now leave A. B. of. For the correspondence that followed, the “ Let me add, for my own sake and his, that, with reader must go to Mr. Carlyle's statement. It is all my regrets and condemnations, I cannot but all very credible to us, very natural, and very dimly construe him as a man of much real worth ; lamentable ; but extremely difficult to tell. Given and even (though strangely inarticulate, and sunk the earnest, eager, passionate Cromwell worship- in strange environments) of a certain honest intelper and champion, on the one hand—and the con- ligence, energy, generosity; which ought not to scientious, honest, single-hearted, but strangely escape recognition, while passing sentence." shadow-hunted A. B., with what Mr. Carlyle This is from Mr. Carlyle's preface to the Letwould call his fatuous mysteries, fatuous vandal-ters published in Fraser's Magazine. To these isms, and general half-mad procedure, on the we now turn. Endorsed by so high an authority, other-nor can we well see how the affair was to they at first appeared to be trustfully received on issue in any better result. This result was what all hands, and to be read as genuine by subtle as we may call, on A. B.'s part, an honorable capit- well as simple hearts, with a kind of mild interest ulation or compromise. Unable wholly to reject and regretful pleasure, nothing doubting. It was what had been for centuries a family religion, as not to be expected, however, that this should last little able utterly to reject Mr. Carlyle's claim to a long. Thirty-five letters with no originals in exsort of property in what remained of Cromwell, istence were too tempting an enigma for what Mr. he resolved scrupulously to copy whatever letters Carlyle calls the “dryasdust mind” not to expend written by the latter he could find in his ancestor's itself upon. The idlest enigmas have a charm; journal, whatever brief notes by his ancestor were and to answer your D'ye give it up? in the affirmneeded to explain them, and then destroy journal, ative, as should in general at once be done, is letters, and all. The over-tremulous are often, of all things in the world the most difficult for for that reason, also the over-resolute ; and A. B. some persons. Accordingly there came questions, carried out his terrible“ sacrificial” resolve. The publicly put here and there ; questions by the very letters, invaluable as mere autograph ; the journal nature of them insoluble to the enigma-loving of which they were a part, perhaps the most pre- mind, yet giving rise to the hungriest sagacity in cious fragment saved from the wreck or the great- enigma-loving quarters. But necessarily repelled est period of our English History; perished. in that direction, certain finer noses began next to Copies of thirty-five masterly and most life-like detect joking, treachery, imposition, and what not. And thus round the small fixed point of A. B., | hollow and vacant, as of “damp wind in empty doubt, on the back of doubt, to an inconceivable churches."

That a forger," trying his apprenextent, accumulated and is accumulating, in the tice-hand, and with so small an object, should or idle enigma-loving mind. Out of which sprang could have achieved such a master-piece as these at length the letter of the good Mr. Blakely which Cromwell Letters, we shall esteem, as soon as it Mr. Carlyle felt himself obliged to answer, and is made out, to be nothing short of a miracle ! which with the answer we have printed above. We have said that the object was small. Indeed

Before we contribute what we may to set at it seems to us quite insignificant, and the question rest this discussion, we will proceed to give ex- it raises not less so. Insignificant-because the tracts from the letters themselves ; carefully giv- letters are mere historical curiosities ; remarkable, ing, among other selections, all those points which very notable, extremely interesting ; but of no conthe sceptics have already marked with doubt. sequence whatever for altering or confirming any The new historical facts they illustrate are minute person's notions or convictions respecting Cromenough ; but by their very minuteness, and the well's life or character, or any point in his or any nearer view the letters necessarily give of the man other history. Grant them to be all true, Crumengaged in such details, the interest of them is well's history remains precisely what it was while extraordinary. It is important to observe, how- they were not discovered ; precisely what it would ever, that they give no new view of Cromwell. be if they were wholly annihilated, and swept away Mr. Carlyle's idea of his hero as a sublime embod- to the last syllable as proved falsities. Let us add iment of belief and justice, was built upon no that what we have hitherto seen of the grounds set fantasy, but upon historical fact; and of the same forth for the suspected forgery seem to us altogether quality of fact, though“ enlarged to the gigantic worthless. by unexpected nearness," are these thirty-five let- They rest upon surmises that particular words ters. It is not the all-famous Cromwell, keeping are modern, and so forth. One suggests that together a kingdom, and fencing against a world “stand no nonsense” is modern slang. Another self-divided and in arms; it is the obscure Crom- that “ Miss Andrews” is an obvious anachronism. well, keeping together a regiment, holding forth A third that “ a new cravat" was an article of very needful example, and fighting himself reso- dress first introduced at the Restoration. A fourth lutely up into strength and fame. “ It is Oliver," that Keziah is a woman's, not a man's name. We says Mr. Carlyle, “ left to himself; stript bare of could ourselves, if necessary, suggest others. all conventional draperies ; toiling, wrestling as Some words, one or two subscriptions to the letters, for life and death, in his obscure element; none a few names of things, we have little doubt are looking over him but Heaven only."

incorrect transcriptions from the originals; but that [Having printed all the letters in No. 194 of the Lir- A. B., in all probability the least learned man in

England in such matters, should have avoided all ing Age, we omit them here.)

such mistakes in his difficult task, would in our Now to the question of authenticity. We will opinion have tended far more than any other cirpreface what we have to offer with the remark, cumstance, to suggest a forgery. The truth is that if, instead of receiving these letters with the that we attach no importance to this “word-grubwarrant of Mr. Carlyle's belief in them, we had bing” in any such inquiry. It is a kind of critipicked them up in the street, it would not have cism which may tend much to perplex the minds occurred to us to doubt them. We take the inter- of the ignorant, and to increase doubt that very nal evidence in their favor to be decisive. They questionable commodity ; but which cannot, by the prove themselves, we think, to any man of uncloud- nature of it, in almost any case, issue in certaintyed apprehension, and competent acquaintance with the alone desirable result. No man knows the the time and man of which they treat. Our own exact date at which a given word was used for the acquaintance with both, we beg to add, is not of first time in human speech or writing. · How can recent date, nor obtained without careful and con- he, or ever could he—the dustiest Dryasdust of scientious study.

them all ? “Twaddle,” (the word occurs naturally,) In the first place, then, let us say that if these which might" prove" an alleged page of Goldsmith letters are a forgery, they stand quite alone of their to be spurious, turns out to be as old as King kind in the world. Nothing so daring or extraor- Alfred.

" for endure, is well nigh as old dinary has ever been attempted. They are stuck as language itself. “ Miss,” which it is held to full of points for detection ; studded all over with be impossible that Cornet Squire should have writliabilities or possibilities of that kind, such as no ten in 1643, is possibly enough a mis-copy of Mrs.; forged writing ever was since the world began. but quite possibly not, too. Nobody knows that Look at any Eikon, Basilike, Ossian, Epistles of Miss, the colloquial diminution of Mistress, was Phalaris, or Modern French Mémoires de la Con- not used in speech at that time, and even occavention, or what not; and in nothing is the forgery sionally written by half-educated, unpunctilious so careful as to avoid anything in the shape of people, as the designation of young or less impornarrative, of statements, of facts, and such like. tant persons. In Butler's day, not long after, the It fills its pages with mere sentiment; there is not word got into print ; and that, too, in a sense which a date to be got out of it, not a name of person or perhaps rather countenances this opinion. The place that can help being given; its sound is all same writer has crabat, which was the modern



cravat ; and we have little doubt that A. B. had character of an imaginary footman ; in another mis-copied here.

case, an apocryphal amanuensis, or an ideal serIn short, we have seen nothing yet urged that vant-maid. With some his correspondence was is worthy of grave consideration, against the authen- literary, with others philosophical ; a tinge of politicity of these Cromwell Letters, or our own unhes-tics colored some, a touch of benevolent curiosity itating belief in them; and we do not speak from distinguished others. From all he reccived ana hastily formed acquaintance with the subject, or swers; and they have been forwarded to us by a an imperfect knowledge of the time. If we can kindness of a nature so distinct and peculiar, that conceive a doubt, it would have been of a very we do not think it possible for us to describe in opposite kind indeed to any of which we have terms at all adequate to the sublimity of its feeling. spoken. But even that doubt could only have [N. B. We borrowed this last clause from a speech arisen, to resolve itself into a more decisive cer- of Patrick Robertson.] tainty. The letters are written throughout on the We have about five hundred of the letters lying strain ; in circumstances of swift movement; for before us; but as they in their total bulk would the most part of eager necessity. Hence they are fill the Magazine, we are compelled to make a all more characteristic than might have been looked selection. It is highly possible that we shall confor in such a series, otherwise composed.

tinue the series. In the mean time we present our

readers with the letters of (It is all very well, for people who have not had experience, to say that this and that is too daring a forgery to be Bayly, Thomas Haynes. one, and that the object is insignificant. Fraser's Magazine

Bulwer, Edward Lylton, M. P. may be innocent in this matter ; at least it is clear that it Bury, Lady Charlotte. has not forged Mr. Carlyle's letter. But as to what it is

Carlile, Richard. capable of, we subjoin an article from it of 1833 or 1834. 5. Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. Look, tender reader, at this Miller Correspondence, and Croker, Right Hon. John Wilson, LL. D. make up your mind whether the distinguished authors

Croker, Thomas Crofton, A. S. S. were so hoaxed by the deceitful letters of inquiry as to Croly, Rev. George, LL. D. answer them, thus falling victims of an autograph-hunter ;

Cunningham, Allan. -or whether the whole affair is a forgery.— Living Age.] 10. Edgeworth, Maria.

Eldon, Right Hon. the Earl of. . THE MILLER CORRESPONDENCE.

Hallam, Henry. Who the Reverend George Miller, from whom

Hogg, James. the correspondence we are about to publish takes 15. Hook, Theodore Edward.

Holines, William, W. I. its name, may be, is a question which we for the

Hunt, Henry. present decline answering. It must be left to the Irving, Washington. sagacity of those ingenious persons, who amuse Landon, Letitia Elizabeth, L. E. L. themselves or the public in the attempt to discover Lockhart, John Gibson, LL. B. the author of Junius' Letters. We feel ourselves 20. Maginn, William, LL. D. just now only at liberty to say that the Rev. Geo.

Martineau, Harriet. Miller is a lineal descendant of the great Joe Miller,


Mary Russell.

Moore, Thomas. whose now time-honored tomb is to be found in the

Norton, Hon. Caroline. burying-ground of St. Clement's Danes, close in 25. Porter, Anna Maria. the neighborhood of Tom Wood's hotel.

Proctor, Bryan William, alias Barry Cornwall. Waiving, however, further inquiry into the his- Rogers, Samuel. tory of Mr. George Miller, we are about to intro

Shee, Sir Martin Archer, P. R. A. duce to public notice the results of his valuable 30. Wilson, Professor John.

Scott, Sir Walter, Bart. labors. Smitten with a desire of collecting the autographs of the illustrious personages, in the

A tolerably extensive list—from Lord Eldon to author line, existing in his time, he bent all the Henry Hunt, from Sir Walter Scott to Lytton energies of his capacious mind to that important Bulwer, from Coleridge to Carlile. We publish object. It was said long ago, that no more com- them as they come to hand, with scarcely any pendious way of procuring such curiosities could attempt at classification ; and the first that, as it be imagined than discounting the bills of literary

were instinctively, clings to our fingers is that of men, because you might in that case be perfectly

L. E. L. certain of retaining their autographs, accompanied by notes. This, however, is somewhat too expen- The document of the fair L. E. L.-on this sive, as the friends of literary gentlemen are well occasion really the Improvvisatrice—is as follows: aware ; and the Rev. George Miller (who, by the

22 Hans Place. way, is not the Irish doctor of that name) felt it Miss L. E. Landon's compliments to Mr. Miller, much easier to have recourse to a bland and agree- and thinks there must be some mistake in the note able artifice whereby to extort the desiderated sig- she received, as she knows nothing of the young natures. Under shapes as various as “old Proteus person he mentioned. from the sea,” he warily approached his distin

But there is another Miss Landon in Sloane guished correspondents, and suited his bait accord- the notes.

street, and to her Miss L. E. Landon has enclosed ing to the swallow of the illustrious gudgeon for

SaturdayMiss Landon only returned home this which he angled. To some he wrote for the morning.






obliged ;" she “loses no time in replying :” Compare this with the vulgarian twaddle of the and, with the most Christian charity, suggests the old Blacking-man. By the name !-in-door ser

probability of a mistake, for the sake of the young vant!—and, O ye gods ! yours respectfully! He woman herself. How strange is all this squeainish did not know but Miller might have a vote for conscientiousness for the grand humbugger of the Preston.

Seagrave narrative! Such is human inconsistency. 36, Stamford Street, Jan. 15, 183-,

Esher, January 23. Sir,-In reply to your favor by twopenny-post,

Sir,- I lose no time in replying to your polite I beg to observe that I have no recollection of any letter inquiring the character of a young woman, person by the name of Thomas Stevens ever having who calls herself Amelia Rogers, and describes herlived with me in any capacity; but I am quite sure self as having once lived with me as a lady’s-maid. no such person has ever lived with me as in-door I must suppose that she has made some strange

mistake, as I never had a servant of that name in I am, sir,

any capacity; therefore am led to imagine, that one Yours respectfully,

of the Miss Porters who live at Twickenham is the H. Hunt. person she may have served. I trust, for the young

woman's sake, that she has made such a mistake

and that she has not designedly represented herself Haynes Bayly has a pair of notes. By the first, falsely. we learn that his benevolent desire of communicat- It would have given me pleasure, could I have ing the required information kept him a day in replied satisfactorily to your inquiry as to the truth

of her statement. town, which, perhaps, might not have been con

I beg to remain, sir, venient.

Yours obliged, Sir,-I have just received your note dated the

ANNA MARIA PORTER. 22d, in which you seem to allude to a former application to me respecting the character of some man. Your former note I never received, nor can I hear Our Village comes out of the scrape very well. of any note at the Athenæum.

The reference to “my father” is perfectly in I beg you will therefore let me know the partic-keeping. ulars; and as I leave town in the middle of the day

Three-Mile Cross, Monday, to-morrow, (Tuesday,) I hope you will contrive to

Sir,-I have no recollection whatever of any perlet me hear from you before iwelve o'clock. Your obedient servant,

son of the name of Amelia Rily having lived with THOMAS HAYNES BAYLY.

us as lady`s-maid: my father also says that he can Athenæum Club, Monday.

remember no such name, and it is unlikely that a

person filling such a situation should have been enBy the second, we learn that Mr. Bayly has had tirely forgotten in the family. I cannot but suspect a relay of footmen. Eheu!

some mistake in the affair, and should recommend

a reference to the lady with whom the young woman Mr. Haynes Bayly presents his compliments to in question lived last. Mrs. Miller, regrets he can give her no information

I am, sir, respecting James Deacon. He has had occasion to

Your obedient servant, change footmen but once, and can therefore state

M. R. MITFORD. without the possibility of mistake, that no person of that name ever lived with him.

VII.-MISS MARTINEAU. Athenæum, Tuesday.

The only “ anonymous name," as an Irish M. P. once phrased it, in the whole collection, is that

of Miss Martineau's amanuensis. She will not Dr. Croly judiciously recollects the apparent

write, and her scribe cannot venture beyond G. M. identity of his name with Crawley. There is

What is the "preventive check" in this solitary something capital and characteristic in the slapdash

case? Are the folks ashamed of their names? manner in which he exonerates himself from the That Miss Martineau never visited the Continent trouble of attempting to decipher the address of is evident enough to those have read any of her his correspondent.

stories about the French.

Monday, January. SIR,-No servant by the name of Thomas Dea- Sir, I am directed by Miss Harriet Martineau, con has lived with me. But there may have been to inform you that there is some mistake on the sub some mistake in the name, and there is a Mr. Crawo-ject of Berthier's representation, as she never had ley who lives in the neighborhood, in Guilford street, the pleasure of visiting the Continent. who may be the person in question. I have not

(For Miss H. Martineau,) been quite able to ascertain your address, but have

I am, sir, set down the name of your street at hazard.

Respectfully yours,
I remain sir,
17, Fludyer Street, October 5.

G. M.
Your obedient servant,

Shee writes as he paints—very tame indeed.

Cavendish Square, Miss Porter is gentle and considerate. The

Monday, January 24, 183—. letter she answers is designated as “polite;" to Sir,-If I had received any former leiter from her unknown correspondent she professes herself you, I should certainly not have left it unnoticed.




The "



I have no recollection of a person of the name of lady's-maid. But as Lady Charlotte Bury would Thomas Eldridge having cver lived in my service, be sorry to hurt anybody's character, she hopes Mr. and I should suppose there must be some mistake in Miller has been exact in the name. his statement.

3, Park Square, Regent's Park,
I have the honor to be, sir,

January 21, 183–
Your most obedient, humble servant,

In round the second—for Miller would never allow such a combatant to get off with one-this

charming lady's aristocratical refusal to enter furThere is a hardness and solidity about Allan ther into the subject is equally delightful. Cunningham's style that reminds us of his original vocation. It is pleasant to find Scotia unadorned

Lady Charlotte Bury presents her compliments breaking out so beautifully as in the last sentence. recollection of anybody of the name of Sarah Dea

to Mrs. Miller, and can only repeat that she has no wrong directed” [it would have been better con having ever lived in her family; but if the woif it had been wrang] and the “ seeking to impose,' man persists in saying so, she had better call at the are redolent of Caledonia stern and wild. It is Rev. E. Bury's, 3, Park Square, where the truth pastoral, too, to find the date Monday morning. of what she alleges about the change of name will

easily be proved. Further than this Lady Charlotte Mr. Allan Cunningham's compliments to Mr. Bury cannot enter upon the subject. George Miller, and assures him that he never re

Monday, Jan. 23, 183–, ceived any other letter than the enclosed from him,

3, Park Square, Regent's Park. and that he is not aware of having applied to any person on the subject alluded to-certainly not to Mr. Miller. Either the enclosed note has been wrong directed,

Sweet Caroline Norton! The future antiquary, or some one is seeking to impose on Mr. M. in Mr. when the time comes that even you will be antiqSo's name.

uity-when to you will be applied the song sung 27, Lower Belgrave Place,

with such gusto by your glorious and Gillrayed Monday Morning.

“Though her lightness and brightness

Do shine wiih such splendor,
Dr. Johnson being asked how it happened that

That nought but the stars the smallest note he wrote or dictated was always

Are thought fit to attend her ; correct, and even elegant in the turn of its phra- Though now she is fragrant, seology, replied, “I made it my rule, early in life,

And soft to the sense, always to do my best when I had my pen in my

She'll be damnably mouldy fingers.” It appears to us that the “Simius

A hundred years hence ;" Maximus" of English literature has not adopted

-in that unhappy time it will be known, that in the salutary rule of the “ Ursa Major ;" at all January, 1831, you had commenced housekeeping events, a more boobyish; spoonish specimen of slip- but for three years, and that your then actual estabslop was never submitted to the sagacious eye of lishment (or as you call it, your present establishMiller than the following.

ment) had not undergone alteration for twelve Richmond, Tuesday Morning. months or more. Sir,-I am extremely sorry that you should have

Let us remark here, once for all, that the ladies experienced any delay in receiving an answer to of this correspondence are most curious to see the your inquiries. Your note dated the 22d, and just received, is the only one I have received.

persons—"the young persons”-about whom the I have not the smallest recollection of the name inquiries are made. Miss Edgeworth, Mrs. Norof William Jeffreys—I am quite convinced that no ton, Lady C. Bury, Miss Porter, all express their servant of that name ever lived with me two years, anxiety for the personal appearance of the women or a period of any length whatsoever, even if I who are described as their former attendants. The should be mistaken in my present persuasion that gentlemen exhibit no such fancy for seeing their no servant of that name ever entered my service.

discarded footmen. I therefore conclude that the man has made some mistake. He may very probably have lived with

Oh, Gossip! Gossip! what a god thou art my brother, Mr. Henry Bulwer, whose address is among the goddesses of the earth! 38, Hill Street, Berkely Square.

2, Story's Gate, Westminster, I have the honor to be, sir,

1916 January, 1831. Your obedient servant,

Sir,-In answer to your note of to-day, I beg to E. LYTTON Bulwer. inform you that no person of the name of Amelia

Deacon ever lived with me as lady's-maid ; nor, to XI.-LADY CHARLOTTE BURY.

my recollection, in any other capacity. It is at any It is particularly edifying to find that Lady rate impossible she could have lived with me two Charlotte Bury is very sorry, in letter the first, years, as it is but three since I commenced housethat any lady's-maid's character should be dubious. keeping, and my present establishment has under

gone no alteration for the last twelve months, or Lady Charlotte Bury, in reply to Mr. George more. Miller's application respecting Sarah Deacon, can

I am, sir, only say that such a person has never lived in her

Your obedient servant, service, in any capacity-certainly not in that of


« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »