Hill left behind him an a.s.semblage of literary rarities, which it occupied a clear week to sell by auction. Among them was Garrick"s cup, formed from the mulberry tree planted by Shakespeare in his garden at New Place, Stratford-upon-Avon; this produced forty guineas. A small vase and pedestal, carved from the same mulberry-tree, and presented to Garrick, was sold with a coloured drawing of it, for ten guineas. And a block of wood, cut from the celebrated willow planted by Pope, at his villa at Twickenham, brought one guinea.
TYCHO BRAHE"S NOSE.
Sir David Brewster relates that in the year 1566, an accident occurred to Tycho Brahe, at Wittenberg, which had nearly deprived him of his life. On the 10th of December, Tycho had a quarrel with a n.o.ble countryman, Manderupius Rasbergius, and they parted ill friends. On the 27th of the same month, they met again; and having renewed their quarrel, they agreed to settle their differences by the sword. They accordingly met at seven o"clock in the evening of the 29th, and fought in total darkness. In this blind combat, Manderupius cut off the whole of the front of Tycho"s nose, and it was fortunate for astronomy that his more valuable organs were defended by so faithful an outpost. The quarrel, which is said to have originated in a difference of opinion respecting their mathematical attainments, terminated here; and Tycho repaired his loss by cementing upon his face a nose of gold and silver, which is said to have formed a good imitation of the original. Thus, Tycho was, indeed, a "Martyr of Science."
FOOTE"S WOODEN LEG.
George Colman, the younger, notes:--"There is no Shakspeare or Roscius upon record who, like Foote, supported a theatre for a series of years by his own acting, in his own writings; and for ten years of the time, upon a wooden leg! This prop to his person I once saw standing by his bedside, ready dressed in a handsome silk stocking, with a polished shoe and gold buckle, awaiting the owner"s getting up: it had a kind of tragic, comical appearance, and I leave to inveterate wags the ingenuity of punning upon a Foote in bed, and a leg out of it. The proxy for a limb thus decorated, though ludicrous, is too strong a reminder of amputation to be very laughable. His undressed supporter was the common wooden stick, which was not a little injurious to a well-kept pleasure-ground. I remember following him after a shower of rain, upon a nicely rolled terrace, in which he stumped a deep round hole at every other step he took, till it appeared as if the gardener had been there with his dibble, preparing, against all horticultural practice, to plant a long row of cabbages in a gravel walk."
RIVAL REMEMBRANCE.
_Mr. Gifford to Mr. Hazlitt._
"What we read from your pen, we remember no more."
_Mr. Hazlitt to Mr. Gifford._
"What we read from your pen, we remember before."
WHO WROTE "JUNIUS"S LETTERS"?
This question has not yet been satisfactorily answered. In 1812, Dr.
Mason Good, in an essay he wrote on the question, pa.s.sed in review all the persons who had then been suspected of writing these celebrated letters. They are, Charles Lloyd and John Roberts, originally treasury clerks; Samuel Dyer, a learned man, and a friend of Burke and Johnson; William Gerard Hamilton, familiarly known as "Single-speech Hamilton;"
Mr. Burke; Dr. Butler, late Bishop of Hereford; the Rev. Philip Rosenhagen; Major-General Lee, who went over to the Americans, and took an active part in their contest with the mother-country; John Wilkes; Hugh Macaulay Boyd; John Dunning, Lord Ashburton; Henry Flood; and Lord George Sackville.
Since this date, in 1813, John Roche published an Inquiry, in which he persuaded himself that Burke was the author. In the same year there appeared three other publications on Junius: these were, the Attempt of the Rev. J. B. Blakeway, to trace them to John Horne Tooke; next were the "Facts" of Thomas Girdlestone, M.D., to prove that General Lee was the author; and, thirdly, a work put forth by Mrs. Olivia Wilmot Serres, in the following confident terms:--"Life of the Author of _Junius"s Letters_,--the Rev. J. Wilmot, D.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford;"
and, like most bold attempts, this work attracted some notice and discussion.
In 1815, the Letters were attributed to Richard Glover, the poet of _Leonidas_; and this improbable idea was followed by another, a.s.signing the authorship of the Letters to the Duke of Portland, in 1816. In the same year appeared "Arguments and Facts," to show that John Louis de Lolme, author of the famous Essay on the Const.i.tution of England, was the writer of these anonymous epistles. In 1816, too, appeared Mr.
John Taylor"s "Junius Identified," advocating the claims of Sir Philip Francis so successfully that the question was generally considered to be settled. Mr. Taylor"s opinion was supported by Edward Dubois, Esq., formerly the confidential friend and private secretary of Sir Philip, who, in common with Lady Francis, constantly entertained the conviction that his deceased patron was identical with Junius.
In 1817, George Chalmers, F.S.A., advocated the pretensions of Hugh Macaulay Boyd to the authorship of Junius. In 1825, Mr. George Coventry maintained with great ability that Lord George Sackville was Junius; and two writers in America adopted this theory.
Thus was the whole question re-opened; and, in 1828, Mr. E. H. Barker, of Thetford, refuted the claims of Lord George Sackville and Sir Philip Francis, and advocated those of Charles Lloyd, private secretary to the Hon. George Grenville.[4]
In 1841, Mr. N. W. Simons, of the British Museum, refuted the supposition that Sir Philip Francis was directly or indirectly concerned in the writing; and, in the same year, appeared M. Jaques"s review of the controversy, in which he arrived at the conclusion that Lord George Sackville composed the Letters, and that Sir Philip Francis was his amanuensis, thus combining the theory of Mr. Taylor with that of Mr. Coventry.
The question was reviewed and revived in a volume published by Mr.
Britton, F.S.A., in June 1848, ent.i.tled "The Authorship of the Letters of Junius Elucidated;" in which is advocated with great care the opinion that the Letters were, to a certain extent, the joint productions of Lieut.-Colonel Isaac Barre, M.P., Lord Shelburne, (afterwards Marquess of Lansdowne,) and Dunning, Lord Ashburton. Of these three persons the late Sir Francis Baring commissioned Sir Joshua Reynolds, in 1784-5, to paint portraits in one picture, which is regarded as evidence of joint authorship.
Only a week before his death, 1804, the Marquess of Lansdowne was personally appealed to on the subject of _Junius_, by Sir Richard Phillips. In conversation, the Marquess said, "No, no, I am not equal to _Junius_; I could not be the author; but the grounds of secrecy are now so far removed by death (Dunning and Barre were at that time dead), and change of circ.u.mstances, that it is unnecessary the author of _Junius_ should much longer be unknown. The world is curious about him, and I could make a very interesting publication on the subject. I knew Junius, and _I know all about_ the writing and production of these Letters."
The Marquess added, "If I live over the summer, which, however, I don"t expect, I promise you a very interesting pamphlet about Junius. I will put my name to it; I will set the question at rest for ever." The death of the Marquess, however, occurred in a week. In a letter to the _Monthly Magazine_, July 1813, the son of the Marquess of Lansdowne says:--"It is not impossible my father may have been acquainted with the fact; but perhaps he was under some obligation to secrecy, as he never made any communication to me on the subject."
Lord Mahon (now Earl Stanhope) at length and with minuteness enters, in his History, into a vindication of the claims of Sir Philip Francis, grounding his partisanship on the close similarity of handwriting established by careful comparison of facsimiles; the likeness of the style of Sir Philip"s speeches in Parliament to that of _Junius_--biting, pithy, full of ant.i.thesis and invective; the tenderness and bitterness displayed by _Junius_ towards persons to whom Sir Philip stood well or ill affected; the correspondence of the dates of the letters with those of certain movements of Sir Philip; and the evidence of _Junius_" close acquaintance with the War Office, where Sir Philip held a post. It seems generally agreed that the weight of proof is on the side of Sir Philip Francis; but there will always be found adherents of other names--as O"Connell, in the following pa.s.sage, of Burke:--
"It is my decided opinion," said O"Connell, "that Edmund Burke was the author of the "Letters of Junius." There are many considerations which compel me to form that opinion. Burke was the only man who made that figure in the world which the author of "Junius" _must_ have made, if engaged in public life; and the entire of "Junius"s Letters" evinces that close acquaintance with the springs of political machinery which no man could possess unless actively engaged in politics. Again, Burke was fond of chemical similes; now chemical similes are frequent in Junius.
Again; Burke was an Irishman; now Junius, speaking of the Government of Ireland, twice calls it "the Castle," a familiar phrase amongst Irish politicians, but one which an Englishman, in those days, would never have used. Again; Burke had this peculiarity in writing, that he often wrote many words without taking the pen from the paper. The very same peculiarity existed in the ma.n.u.scripts of Junius, although they were written in a feigned hand. Again; it may be said that the style is not Burke"s.
In reply, I would say that Burke was master of many styles. His work on natural society, in imitation of Lord Bolingbroke, is as different in point of style from his work on the French Revolution, as _both_ are from the "Letters of Junius." Again; Junius speaks of the King"s insanity as a divine visitation; Burke said the very same thing in the House of Commons. Again; had any one of the other men to whom the "Letters" are, with any show of probability, ascribed, been really the author, such author would have had no reason for disowning the book, or remaining incognito. Any one of them but Burke would have claimed the authorship and fame--and proud fame. But Burke had a very cogent reason for remaining incognito. In claiming Junius he would have claimed his own condemnation and dishonour, for Burke died a pensioner. Burke was, moreover, the only pensioner who had the commanding talent displayed in the writings of Junius. Now, when I lay all these considerations together, and especially when I reflect that a cogent reason exists for Burke"s silence as to his own authorship, I confess I think I have got a presumptive proof of the very strongest nature, that Burke was the writer."[5]
[4] Supported by the following note, written by Dr. Parr, in his copy of "The Letters of Junius:"--"The writer of "Junius" was Mr. Lloyd, secretary to George Grenville, and brother to Philip Lloyd, Dean of Norwich. This will one day or other be generally acknowledged.--S. P."
[5] Personal Recollections of the late Daniel O"Connell, M.P. By William J. O"N. Daunt.
LITERARY COFFEE-HOUSES IN THE LAST CENTURY.
Three of the most celebrated resorts of the _literati_ of the last century were _Will"s Coffee-house_, No. 23, on the north side of Great Russell-street, Covent Garden, at the end of Bow-street. This was the favourite resort of Dryden, who had here his own chair, in winter by the fireside, in summer in the balcony: the company met in the first floor, and there smoked; and the young beaux and wits were sometimes honoured with a pinch out of Dryden"s snuff-box. Will"s was the resort of men of genius till 1710: it was subsequently occupied by a perfumer.
_Tom"s_, No. 17, Great Russell-street, had nearly 700 subscribers, at a guinea a-head, from 1764 to 1768, and had its card, conversation, and coffee-rooms, where a.s.sembled Dr. Johnson, Carrick, Murphy, Goldsmith, Sir Joshua Reynolds, Foote, and other men of talent: the tables and books of the club were not many years since preserved in the house, the first floor of which was then occupied by Mr. Webster, the medallist.
_b.u.t.ton"s_, "over against" Tom"s, was the receiving-house for contributions to _The Guardian_, in a lion-head box, the aperture for which remains in the wall to mark the place. b.u.t.ton had been servant to Lady Warwick, whom Addison married; and the house was frequented by Pope, Steele, Swift, Arbuthnot, and Addison. The lion"s head for a letter-box, "the best head in England," was set up in imitation of the celebrated lion at Venice: it was removed from b.u.t.ton"s to the Shakspeare"s Head, under the arcade in Covent Garden; and in 1751, was placed in the Bedford, next door. This lion"s head is now treasured as a relic by the Bedford family.
LORD BYRON AND "MY GRANDMOTHER"S REVIEW."
At the close of the first canto of _Don Juan_, its n.o.ble author, by way of propitiating the reader for the morality of his poem, says:--
"The public approbation I expect, And beg they"ll take my word about the moral, Which I with their amus.e.m.e.nt will connect, As children cutting teeth receive a coral; Meantime, they"ll doubtless please to recollect My epical pretensions to the laurel; For fear some prudish reader should grow skittish, I"ve bribed my Grandmother"s Review--the British.
I sent it in a letter to the editor, Who thank"d me duly by return of post-- I"m for a handsome article his creditor; Yet if my gentle muse he please to roast, And break a promise after having made it her, Denying the receipt of what it cost, And smear his page with gall instead of honey, All I can say is--that he had the money."
_Canto I. st._ ccix. ccx.
Now, "the British" was a certain staid and grave high-church review, the editor of which received the poet"s imputation of bribery as a serious accusation; and, accordingly, in his next number after the publication of _Don Juan_, there appeared a postscript, in which the receipt of any bribe was stoutly denied, and the idea of such connivance altogether repudiated; the editor adding that he should continue to exercise his own judgment as to the merits of Lord Byron, as he had hitherto done in every instance! However, the affair was too ludicrous to be at once altogether dropped; and, so long as the prudish publication was in existence, it enjoyed the _sobriquet_ of "My Grandmother"s Review."
By the way, there is another hoax connected with this poem. One day an old gentleman gravely inquired of a printseller for a portrait of "Admiral Noah"--to ill.u.s.trate _Don Juan_!
WALPOLE"S WAY TO WIN THEM.
Sir Robert Walpole, in one of his letters, thus describes the relations of a skilful Minister with an accommodating Parliament--the description, it may be said, having, by lapse of time, acquired the merit of general inapplicability to the present state of things:--"My dear friend, there is scarcely a member whose purse I do not know to a sixpence, and whose very soul almost I could not purchase at the offer. The reason former Ministers have been deceived in this matter is evident--they never considered the temper of the people they had to deal with. I have known a minister so weak as to offer an avaricious old rascal a star and garter, and attempt to bribe a young rogue, who set no value upon money, with a lucrative employment. I pursue methods as opposite as the poles, and therefore my administration has been attended with a different effect." "Patriots," elsewhere says Walpole, "spring up like mushrooms.