We cannot tell whether Mr. Godwin will have reason to be pleased with our opinion of him; at least, he may depend on our sincerity, and will know what it is.
NOTES
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE EDINBURGH REVIEW
Hazlitt was a regular, though not a frequent contributor to The Edinburgh Review from 1814 until 1830, the year of his death. How he came to be introduced so early to Jeffrey’s notice is not known. Possibly the introduction came through Longman & Co., who had published Hazlitt’s Reply to Malthus (1807), and who had been the London publishers of the Review since its foundation in 1802. Hazlitt at any rate was proud of the connection, and had a high regard for Jeffrey, whom he called ‘the prince of critics and the king of men.’ See vol. II., Liber Amoris, p. 314 and note, and cf. also vol. IV. The Spirit of the Age, pp. 310–318. In The Atlas for June 21, 1829, there is a short article, ‘Mr. Jeffrey’s Resignation of the Editorship of The Edinburgh Review,’ which is not unlike Hazlitt, but cannot be confidently attributed to him.
In the text of the present volume are printed all Hazlitt’s contributions to The Edinburgh Review as to the authorship of which there is no reasonable doubt. In the following notes two articles are included, Hazlitt’s authorship of which, though probable, cannot be regarded as certain. In addition to these, the following have been attributed to him: (1) Wat Tyler and Mr. Southey (1817, vol. XXVIII. p. 151); (2) The History of Painting in Italy (1819, vol. XXXII. p. 320); (3) Byron’s Sardanapalus (1822, vol. XXXVI. p. 413); and (4) an article or articles on the Scotch Novels. See Ireland’s List of the Writings of William Hazlitt and Leigh Hunt, p. 75, a letter from Mr. Ireland in Notes and Queries, 5th Series, XI. 165, and Mr. W. C. Hazlitt’s ‘Chronological Catalogue’ of Hazlitt’s writings published in the Memoirs of William Hazlitt, vol. I. pp. xxiv-xxx. It is almost certain that Hazlitt wrote none of these reviews, and they have therefore been excluded from the present edition. The first (Wat Tyler and Mr. Southey) is included in Lord Cockburn’s list of Jeffrey’s contributions to the Edinburgh (Life of Francis Jeffrey, 1874 ed. p. 407). This list, it must be admitted, is not thoroughly trustworthy, but the internal evidence against Hazlitt’s authorship is very strong. It is incredible that Hazlitt could have written a long article like this on such a subject (cf. Political Essays, vol. III. pp. 192 et seq.) without betraying his identity by a single phrase. The second of these articles, a review of Stendhal’s History of Painting in Italy, Mr. Ireland attributes to Hazlitt on merely internal evidence. Mr. W. C. Hazlitt does not include it in his Catalogue. That Hazlitt was acquainted with Stendhal and was fond of writing on Art are reasons why he might have wished to review the book, but they tell strongly against his having written this particular article, which is very dull indeed, and shows not a single trace of Hazlitt’s manner from beginning to end. The review of Byron’s Sardanapalus has been attributed to Hazlitt on the strength, no doubt, of a letter which he himself wrote to P. G. Patmore on March 30, 1822. In this letter he says, ‘My Sardanapalus is to be in [i.e. in the Edinburgh]. In my judgment Myrrha is most like S. W. [Sarah Walker], only I am not like Sardanapalus.’ See Mr. Le Gallienne’s edition of Liber Amoris (1894) p. 212. Whatever the explanation may be, the review of Sardanapalus which did appear in the Edinburgh was written by Jeffrey himself and is included in his Contributions to the Edinburgh Review (1844), vol. II. p. 333. There is no evidence that Hazlitt wrote any of the numerous reviews of the Scotch Novels. According to Patmore (My Friends and Acquaintance, III. 155–157), Hazlitt was anxious to review Bulwer in The Edinburgh Review, and proposed the matter, first to Jeffrey, and, on his retirement, to Napier, personally in London. The subject, however, was, in Patmore’s phrase, ‘interdicted.’
DUNLOP’S HISTORY OF FICTION
PAGE [5]. Dunlop’s History of Fiction. John Colin Dunlop’s (d. 1842) The History of Fiction: being a Critical Account of the most celebrated Prose Fictions, from the earliest Greek Romances to the novels of the Present Age, was published in 3 vols., 1814. [7]. Νείατον ἐς κενεῶνα. Iliad, V. 857. ‘Romulus,’ etc. Horace, Epistles, II. i. 5–6. [8]. Bossu. René Le Bossu (1631–1680), author of a Traité du poème épique (1675), referred to in Tristram Shandy, III. 12. Dryden calls him ‘the best of modern critics’ (Preface to Troilus and Cressida). [9]. Bandello. Matteo Bandello (1480–1562), whose Tales appeared in four volumes, 1554–1573. Ariosto. Ludovico Ariosto (1474–1533), whose Orlando Furioso (from which the ‘contrivance’ referred to by Hazlitt was borrowed) was published in 1516–1532. [11]. Middleton. Conyers Middleton (1683–1750). See his Letter from Rome, 1729. Bayes. See the Duke of Buckingham’s The Rehearsal, Act I. Sc. 1. [13]. Quidlibet audendi, etc. Horace, Ars Poetica, 10. [15]. Bell of Antermony. John Bell (1691–1780), whose Travels from St. Petersburg in Russia to various parts of Asia was published in 1763. [16]. Mr. Cumberland’s novels. Richard Cumberland (1732–1811), author of The West Indian (1771), published two novels, Arundel (1789) and Henry (1795). Marianne. By Claude Prosper Jolyot de Marivaux (1688–1763), published between 1731 and 1741. [18]. Warburton. Warburton’s argument is summarised by Dunlop (chap. ii.) from The Divine Legation of Moses. [19]. Bayes’s most expeditious recipe, etc. The Rehearsal, Act I. Sc. 1. [20]. Mr. Southey’s translation. Southey’s translation of Amadis of Gaul was published in four vols. 1803. M. de St. Palaye. Jean-Baptiste de la Curne de Sainte-Palaye (1697–1781), author of Mémoires sur l’Ancienne Chevalerie, 1759–1781. [24]. Mr. Ellis. Scott’s friend, George Ellis (1753–1815) published his Specimens of early English Metrical Romances in three vols. in 1805. D’Urfé. Thomas D’Urfey (1653–1723), the dramatist and song-writer. Betsy Thoughtless. Eliza Haywood’s (1693?–1756) The History of Miss Betsy Thoughtless, published in 1751. See Dunlop’s History of Fiction, chap. xiv.
STANDARD NOVELS AND ROMANCES
This is ostensibly a review of Madame D’Arblay’s The Wanderer, published in 1814. Nearly the whole of it was incorporated by Hazlitt in his Lecture on the English Novelists. Cf. vol. VIII. pp. 106 et seq. and notes. In his Essay ‘A Farewell to Essay-Writing,’ Hazlitt says that this review was the result of a discussion at Lamb’s, ‘sharply seasoned and well sustained till midnight.’ Though the review cannot be considered as harsh towards Madame D’Arblay, it led to Hazlitt being dropped out of Admiral Burney’s whist parties. See Crabb Robinson’s Diary, chap. xiii. This fact perhaps partly accounts for Hazlitt’s contemptuous reference to the Burneys in his Essay ‘On the Aristocracy of Letters,’ where, after praising Madame D’Arblay, he says, ‘The rest have done nothing, that I know of, but keep up the name.’ See vol. VI. (Table Talk), p. 209.
PAGE [25]. Crebillon. Claude Prosper Jolyot de Crébillon (1707–1777), son of the dramatist. The celebrated French philosopher. Hazlitt was perhaps thinking of Diderot’s well-known eulogy of Richardson (Œuvres, V. 212–227). [39]. The Story of Le Febre. See Tristram Shandy, Book VI. chap. vi. et seq.