does not tell against it as a play that might be acted, but as a play in which the parts were not written for the actors." The author having on another occasion stated that the unfavourable criticism on "La Vallière" was "written by one who, having himself an interest in a play the production of which was (as to time) incidental on the success of 'La Vallière,' had every motive of personal interest to induce him to assist and procure its failure, was assured by Mr. Dilke that he was mistaken, and apologised. He meant Chorley, but the criticism was probably written by George Darley, though Chorley was in the house on the first. night. Chorley certainly did not write it, but did write a private one equally unfavourable.

1839 offers few notes of interest. Mr. Dilke writes to his son: "Went to see the 'Tempest.' The play cannot be played -dramatic representation in these days is essentially for the enjoyment of the half-civilized. The spiritual, as represented in Ariel, was of course too gross, and the sensual, in Caliban, merely brutal-mere bad substitutes for beautiful imaginings. The music and the scenery are perfect, and confirmed my opinion that the drama in a high civilization must decline. Music is then run after, because it is a language the symbolic meaning of which cannot be strictly defined, and we are therefore free to give to it the colouring of our own imagination."

In 1840 Mr. Dilke writes to his son (of the London University conflicts): "Get your share registered at the London University. I am not sure that this is necessary, but I think it must be, and that you ought to sign the deed. There will be a grand field-day on the 24th, and it may be well to be prepared with a vote. A large and active party are resolved to turn out Tooke and substitute Taylor as treasurer. Now Taylor we know and like, and Tooke I know and dislike, not because he is a jobber, but because he is the patron of jobbers. At any other time I would have gone to Beersheba to vote against Tooke, and I think I must vote against him now. Everything I have heard points that course out as a duty. But I hate to join in

a hue and cry, and as I once committed myself by trying to take the tin kettle from the tail of a Socialist, so, acting on feeling, I am half inclined to make a snatch at the kettle on Tooke's tail, even though I should bring away an inch or two of the tail with it. Tooke again spoke to me to-day. I told him honestly that my opinions with respect to the Diffusion Society were well known, and that I had always found him the foremost man in doing what I disapproved, and that I was not prepared to say what course I should pursue. On my return I found a sixteen-paged letter from Dr. Kay, written to me specially, from which I infer-either that I am a much greater man than I, or you, or anyone had a suspicion of, or that parties are very nicely balanced."

In 1840, Mr. Dilke had been for ten years in sole control of the Athenæum. It was now a success, but not yet a financial success, if past losses were added to the wrong side of the account. It was paying well, but had not repaid the money which had been sunk on it at first. It was fifteen or twenty years-from 1830-before this was the case, and even then the account would allow for no salary to Mr. Dilke, who gave his whole time to the paper up to 1846, when he may be said to have ceased to edit. Another paper, which was started by his son, in conjunction with Sir Joseph Paxton and Professor Lindley, the great botanist, with his advice and aid, about this period, became a great financial success much sooner than did the Athenæum. This was the Gardener's Chronicle, to which was afterwards joined, during many years, The Agricultural Gazette, now (1875) once more become a separate journal. In reference to this new paper Mr. Dilke wrote to his son: "I do not think that the announcement of a new journal is to be considered as a mere advertisement. It ought to develope new views of Social Life on which its claims ought to rest, and to be read, therefore, with more or less pleasure by all persons. I think that the enclosed is in the right spirit-suggestive of much more than is said, and that it would be read with interest,

because it provokes, as it were, the reader to consider and to controvert it or admit its truth."

The public were by this time beginning to recognize the solidity of the independent principles on which the Athenæum was managed, but it was still often necessary for Mr. Dilke to explain them to individuals. Mr. Dilke during the earlier years pushed his principles to the extreme only because of the bad system which had grown up in other quarters. To Robert Montgomery, the poet, who had sent him his works to his private house, he writes, returning them: "I am sensible of your kindness, but it has ever been a rule with me since my first connexion with the Athenæum to decline presents of books from authors or publishers. Even duplicates have invariably been returned. There have been many occasions when the abiding by this rule has given me pain and has had the appearance of affectation and pretence." French editors seem to have had at this period a singular idea of the habits of the editors of literary journals in these respects. The editor in chief of the official journal of France wrote to Mr. Dilke in 1840 informing him that his name had been placed upon the free list, and begging Mr. Dilke to ask the English publishers for, and to send him, six English books which he needed! Mr. Dilke in wonder and amaze writes: "You are evidently not informed of our usage in such matters. During the ten years that I have been editor of the Athenæum I have never asked for a single copy of any work. Since the journal has attained its present rank copies of new works are generally sent to it-not always, and when they are not sent, and are important, they are purchased. It would be impossible for me to comply with your request, even had I no other reasons for not doing so." That Paris customs were indeed different from London ones in this respect appears also from a correspondence in 1842 with the Paris correspondent of the Athenæum: "I cannot let a single post pass without replying to your letter. You have, it appears, been in communication with the principal publishers in Paris.

66

Having accepted advance-sheets you are unable to condemn their works. What then is the value of your criticism? During the many years that I have had the Athenæum I have never asked a favour of a publisher. Favour and independence are incompatible. It is no use under these circumstances for you to send me reviews at present." This was during an interregnum in the Paris correspondence of the Athenæum: after Ste. Beuve and Janin, and before Philarète-Chasles and About. The following is a letter to a publisher who had spoken of a promise" that a book should be reviewed at length: "I gave you no other assurance than the assurance given to all publishers, that a good book will be spoken of as a good book in the Athenæum, let who will be the publisher." Another publishing firm was named by a writer, who was specially employed to write on the books of a particular foreign country, as having "made an arrangement" to lend him those he wanted, which produced another explosion. Another firm, again, wrote to complain of the review of a particular book, stating that they knew as a fact that it was by Mr. Alaric Watts who disliked the writer of the book: "It is utterly false that Mr. Alaric Watts is, or ever was, connected with the Athenæum" (this was in 1838): "After this, I need scarcely add, that he did not write the review of Mr. R.'s book. I now submit that I ought not to rest content with your stating this fact to Mr. R. for the purpose of disabusing his mind.' I care not in what ridiculous suspicions the mortified vanity of a weak man may find a consolation, but he has, it appears, stated these circumstances to others; circumstances which, if true, seriously affect the character of the journal, and, I think, I have a right to require, either that he give up his authority, or admit in writing, that he is satisfied there never was the slightest foundation for such an assertion."

To this period belongs the letter of Lady Morgan, from which the following is an extract:-"I have addressed a letter to the Pope, praying him to erase my name and my work on

VOL. I.

E

'Italy' from the Index, for if I was wrong, his Infallibility is not right." It is not easy to do much with the letters of Lady Morgan. The friendship of thirty years produced a letter a-day, but nearly all are undated; all are nearly illegible, and some quite. Here, however, are a few more bits: "Colburn came here to-day with the his arm, proposing to publish a new edition, and wanting a preface; but not coming to a decision as to what I was to get, I hesitated. Besides, I am afraid to let it re-appear. It is but a girl's sentimental nonsense."

Wild Irish Girl' under

"I have had a most curious

letter from old Lady Cork, announcing the death of her celebrated Macaw, and requesting that, as I wrote his life (Memoirs of the Macaw of a Lady of Quality'), I would write his epitaph. But I have no genius for the Elegiac." "I long much to have a chat with you, particularly on the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster, my old foeman, who got me put in the Index Expurgatorius. What do you think of my writing a letter at him first, to remind him of the obligation?" This idea Lady Morgan afterwards carried out in her famous "Letter to Cardinal Wiseman." She wrote, after it had appeared: "The first copy shall be laid at your feet. But it's time you threw yourself at mine."

In 1841 several letters of some little interest passed between Mr. Dilke and Haydon the painter; the latter writes of his "first attempt at fresco: "-"Restless and miserable at the idea of foreign assistance, I set to work night and day to ascertain the Italian process; had in an experienced plasterer; I had a portion of the outer coat of my painting-room wall chipped away; the groundwork laid in due proportions of sand, lime, and water, and when it began to set, I painted away. The subject is 'Uriel disturbed at meditation by the approach of Satan.' The figure is only as far as the waist: His radiant visage turned.'"

Soon afterwards Haydon again wrote :--