« PoprzedniaDalej »
those of Lord Somers and Mr. Addison; and, accordingly, we find our editor admirably well informed on the lives of those eniinent persons. He tells us :
"That about 1681 Somers took his degree of M. A. At this time some compositions in the belles lettres (to which he occasionally resorted as a relaxation from graver pursuits), introduced him to the favorable notice of Addison. With talents so superior, and the good offices of such friends to aid and promote their developement, it was not unnatural that Somers's fortunes should have risen rapidly into prosperity.'-p.125.
Addison was, no doubt, an extraordinary man; but this is the most extraordinary instance of the precocity of his powers that we ever heard of; for this judicious patron of young Somers was himself at this time only nine years old, and at school at Litchfield. As Somers was about thirty, and probably residing in London, we wish our author had told us how master Addison happened to meet and take such a fancy to this rising lawyer, to whom, however, he seems to have continued his good offices with a constancy above his age, for the very same year that Addison took his degree of batchelor of arts, at Oxford, his protegé, Somers, was made lord keeper of the great seal. '
This is pretty well : but we have a more complicated instance of the editor's inaccuracy and ignorance in his account of Richard Boyle, Viscount STANNON...
The only account extant of this nobleman (for the title of Stannon is totally omitted, even in the late improved edition of Collins's Peerage) is to be found in Noble's Continuation of Granger, from which we have derived the leading facts of the following brief notice.'-p. 131.
We are less surprized at the deficiency of Collins, than at the assistance afforded by Noble; for—will our readers believe it? there never existed any such person as Viscount STANNON! There was indeed, as every body knows, a Lord Shannon, and the difference of names might have passed for a printer's error, if the author had not taken uncommon care to let us see that the error is of his own head, and not of the press. This we shall prove abundantly:
Ist. In page 96, speaking prospectively of the thirtieth portrait, which is in an unfinished state, he calls it that of Viscount Stannon.
2dly, The name occurs in subsequent parts of the work at least four other times, and is always printed Stannon.
3dly, He says the title of Stannon is wholly omitted in the late edition of the peerage; it certainly is—but the title Shannon is to be found there, twenty times over."
By what good fortune he lighted upon the name in Noble we cannot guess; but it is quite clear that he never suspected, that
the the Lord Shannon of the Peerage was the Viscount Stannon of his list. Having thus shown how completely this little error had • thrown him into the dark, it is amusing to see how he blunders and bullies to carry off his ignorance and get through his difficulty. .
'Lord Stannon is spoken of in terms of high respect by ALL who have had occasion to mention his name. He is described as having been equally distinguished in the senate as in the field ; and in the relations of private life is said to have conducted himself so as to make his loss a. matter of serious and universal regret.'<p. 131.
We beg our readers to observe, that he here says " by all who mention his name,'having just told us that he never could find any. mention of him except in Noble. In the senate and the fieldWe beg our author to point out to us where the name of Viscount Stannon is mentioned, either in the senate or the field. It will not serve to tell us, now that we have pointed out the blunder,-that the character fits Lord Shannon, because Lord Shannon's name is to be found in all the peerages, and the whole history of that nobleman was as accessible to the index-hunter as that of any of his other victims.
The life of Sir Robert Walpole has been so often, so fully, and so recently written, that it seems miraculous how an editor, with all bis ingenious alacrity in blundering, could have made a mistake on that subject; but he has contrived to fall into two or three of the most palpable and ridiculous errors in the whole work. Sir Robert died in 1745; and yet our editor attributes to him a pamphlet in 1748! another 1752! and a third in 1763! He also gives us a list of Sir Robert's literary works, to which he adds this sagacious observation ;~' other political productions have been attributed to him, but without satisfactory uuthority.' (p. 146.) Now it happens that not one of the works thus enumerated was written by Sir Robert; and that he was the author of 12 other political works, not alluded to by the author; and we state all this on pretty satisfactory uuthority,' namely, that of Horace Walpole himself, in This father's article of the Royal and Noble Authors; a book which our author quotes in every second page, and which he either never. has read, or cannot understand. · It seems incredible, but it is unhappily the fact, that the year 1821 should have produced a critic, historian, and biographer, capable of writing the following passage, on the subject of Sir Robert Walpole and his celebrated rival Pulteney, Earl of Bath.
• During the whole reign of Queen Anne, Pulteney warmly espoused the side of the Whigs, and rendered himself particularly conspicuous by his determined opposition to Sir Robert Walpole.'-p. 178. . - We need not insult our readers with any animadversions on the
historical truth of this statement, but if they could have the patience to turn to the work itself, they would see the whole of this absurd blunder in a still stronger light. : · There is no end to the instances we could adduce of his barbarisms, his ignorance, and his inaccuracy. The Duke of Devonshire
was constituted a member of the House of Commons,' (p. 21.) while the Duke of Marlbro' was chosen a lord of the bedchamber.' (p. 30.)-Lord Godolphin' was collated to be a teller of the exche quer,' (p. 105.) and the Duke of Kingston' was promoted to be tord of the privy seal!' (p.51.) Faber's Plates, he tells us, (p. iv.) were published in 1723, and in (p. 14.) he states the publication to have been in 1735. Had he looked at them, he must have seen that they were printed ten year later than his first date, and two earlier than his last. He informs us that the old Duke of Dorset died in 1765—but in a subsequent passage (p. 68.) we find his grace risen from the dead, and leading Miss Colyer to the hymeneal altar in 1789. Admiral Lord Berkeley, in Sir George Rooke's engagement, commanded, we are informed, a two-decker called the Byrne, (p. 100./there never was such a ship. Lord Cornwallis niarried Charlotte daugther of Butler, Earl of Anan (p. 123.)—there never was such an earl. The Duke of Marlborough took Lecowce in 1704 (p. 37.)-théré never was such a town. Sir George Rooke's expedition took a fort called (p. 112.) Rendendallo,—there never was such a fort. He says that the 40th portrait cannot be that of Lieut. Col. Dormer, because he was killed in 1707; yet the next portrait but one, is of Stepney, who died also in 1707; and there is also the portrait of the Earl of Dorset, who died in 1705. We could fill our Journal with mistakes of the same nature, but we apprehend our readers are more than satisfied already. · It is not surprizing that an author, possessing such a superfluity of information on the subject he was writing about, should occasionally take an opportunity of digressing to others, in which he is equally well versed. He accordingly enters deeply into the controversy between Mr. Bowles, Lord Byron, and the Quarterly Re. view, on the subject of Pope's poetical character: and this he does out of pure generosity, for neither Pope, nor Lord Byron, nor ourselves, had, we can assure him, any connexion whatsoever with the Kit-Cat Club-our vanity, however, cannot resist the pleasure of stating that the author entirely differs from us; but we feel so little enmity towards Mr. Bowles, that we will not quote one syllable of what his friend says in his defence and praise.
We must now say a word or two on the prints, and we regret that as portraits we cannot give them any great approbation. The mere engraving is indeed good, and the style in which they are finished-(the faces being highly worked, while the outlines and
drapery drapery are lightly stippled in) is at once agreeable and effective; but this merit of execution is not enough. In the first place it is evident that the drawings have not been made, as they profess to have been, from the original PICTURES, which neither the Editor nor the artists appear ever to have seen. Secondly, they are copied from Faber's copies so servilely, that some petty errors and mis-' takes in the titles of the plates bave been preserved. And thirdly," they are reduced from Faber's large mezzotintos; and we need hardly add that, to preserve so fugacious a quality as resemblance by copying from a copy—(the original and the copies being all of different sizes, styles, and modes of process)—is next to impossible. Accordingly the new portraits seem to us very deficient in characteristic resemblance. It is so generally admitted, that even the simple editor has heard of it, that one of Sir Godfrey's chief faults as a portrait painter was the family look which he gave to all his persons. In the original pictures there is a sameness—not diminished, of course, in Faber's mezzotinto-but in these new. plates so far increased, that some of the portraits have lost all
individuality. There are, we think, nearly one-fourth of the whole, · which, if you cover the names, you would find some difficulty in dis
tinguishing from one another. For instances, we will mention Sir Godfrey himself, the Duke of Somerset, the Duke of Devonshire, Duke of Kingston, Duke of Manchester, the old Lord Dorset, Lord Godolphin, Lord Halifax, Lord Cornwallis, Lord Somers, Sir Robert Walpole, Sir J. Vanbrugh, Addison, and Stanyan. A great deal of this fault arises no doubt from the sameness of the overwhelming costume in which they are buried; something also. is to be attributed to a kind of mechanical process, which Sir Godfrey seems to have adopted; but what we have a right to complain of is, that these errors are aggravated in the new plates. We will add a comparison of a few of them with a few of. Faber's, in which we think the latter have a manifest advantage in force and character. We begin with the portrait of Charles Lenox, first Duke of Richmond. In the new plate, we see a plump man, of no' very peculiar countenance, who might as well be the Duke of Devon or Sir Richard Steele. • Turn to Faber--and you are struck at once with an image of Charles, the Second, to whom, Mackay tells us, the Duke was strikingly like. The new portraits of the Dukes of Devon and Newcastle, Lords Carlisle and Stanhope, we turn over without observation; while Faber's plates of these noblemen remind us forcibly of the present representatives of the blood and honours of these noble persons : this may be, in some degree, fancy; but it is certainly no fancy to think the old portraits the most forcible and characteristic. The new plates of the Duke of Grafton, of Lords Berkeley and
Capel, and of Addison, and Congreve, have little resemblance to the old; the distinctive character of the faces is wholly lost. .
The best of the portraits to our taste are those of Lord Godolphin,-noble and elevated; of Sir Samuel Garth,somewhat affected, but sharp and characteristic; and of Dartneuf, very peculiar and individual, and, in Faber's print, decidedly foreign. This latter point is the more remarkable, because we know nothing of the extraction of this celebrated epicure. He is said to have been an illegitimate son of Charles the Second, but the portrait bears no resemblance to that monarch; and there is something in the air and form of the countenance which is peculiarly aud entirely French. If Dartneuf was the son of Charles, his mother, no doubt, was French. : On the whole, the plates with their faults, such as we have stated, are incomparably too good for the wretched letter-press to which they are attached; and we may repeat to the editor, with a very slight change of his own elegant words, that, as Virgil reports of Mezentius, he is,-amongst other enormities,-guilty of binding good prints and bad letter-press together, and thus dooming the former to the most dreadful of all punishments, that of rotting to destruction by a prenature conjunction with putrescence.'
Art. XI.-1. Travels in Georgia, Persia, Armenia, Ancient
Babylonia, &c. &c. during the Years 1817, 18, 19, and 20. By Sir Robert Ker Porter. With numerous engravings of portraits,
costumes, and antiquities, &c. Vol. I. 4to. London. 1821. 2. A Second Journey through Persia, Armenia, and Asia Minor,
to Constantinople, between the Years 1810 and 1816. With
an Account of the Proceedings of His Majesty's Embassy under :· His Excellency Sir. Gore Duseley, Bart. K.L.S. By James
Morier, Esq. late Minister Plenipotentiary to the Court of Persia. With Maps, and Engravings from the Designs of
the Author. 4to. London. THE author of the first of these works is neither a geographer,
nor an antiquary, nor a botanist, nor a mineralogist: the manners of the people and the face of the country through which he travelled are almost all that he attempts to describe; and even this he has but indifferently executed: but as Journies in Persia are not every-day occurrences, it is impossible not to feel some interest in the perusal of his narrative. There is besides the additional novelty arising from his having entered the country at its northern extremity, passing through the defiles of Mount Caucasus, whereas most of our recent accounts are from persons who have proceeded from the shores of the Persian Gulph to Shiraz, Ispahan, and the present capital Taheran.. . Vol. XXVI. No. LII. FF