The Press. — London, England, 1857-01-17 00:00:00

JANUARY 17, 1857. itcratarr. The Letters of Horace Walpole, Earl of Orford. Edited by Peter Cunningham. Now First Chronologically Arranged. In Eight. Vols. Vol. I. London: Bentley. WHATEVER differences exist as to the character of Horace Walpole, and as to the estimate of his talents, all critics are agreed on his trans cendent merits as a letter-writer. In his correspondence we see his mind exactly pot frayed. His style is the nearest approach in English to the lightness and sharp•cutting clearness of Voltaire. He could condense and expand with equal ease ; his wit was poignant, find was his own ; and his vivacity was sustained. He lived in the great world, and he had constant access to first-hand know ledge; and thus his letters have the double advantages of matter and manner. The " character " of this most peculiar per son is not necessarily brought before us by this publication. We must remark, however, that as a man Horace \Valpole is not one of our literary favourites, though we think that he does not deserve the merciless bludgeoning inflicted on hint by Mr. Macaulay. Indeed. there has been too great a propensity to treat with s3orching severity the " characters " of authors, apart from their works. In a public man. aspiring to govern and sway his age, it is right to give great consideration to his " character," whether he be a king or an orator. In many of his literary judgments Mr. Macaulay has most injuriously applied a Parliamentary and political standard. \Valpole was a sickly valetudinarian ; he had much of the squeamish oadity common to men of intel lectual vivacity, whose constitution denies them the sports of the field, or the pleasure of the exciting passions of the Senate. His foibles have been lashed as vices, and his acquired mannerism—which was worthy of the modish manner of the times—branded as deliberate affectation. But we shall not in this placo expatiate on the peculiarities of Walpole; our immediate business is with the edition before us of his letters. The chief merit of this edition consists in its promised fulness and in its chronological arrangement. In many respects Mr. Peter Cunningham is highly qualified for his post as an editor, and he is thoroughly master of his subject. His aim is not too high, and he prin cipally endeavours to correct and supplemen talise Walpole's facts Whether anything more could be done for Walpole by "an editor " is doubtful. To attempt the exposure of his ' prejudices, or the reve►sal of his judgments, would be endless work. Every reader must take Walpole for what he is worth. We have been pleased with many of the notes before us, but Mr. Cunningham's system of annotation tends to excessive surplusage. His corroborative quotations are too frequent, and his excerpts from the peerage hooks are too copious. Several of the pages swarm with little notes, the majority of which are not necessary. The editor often confounds minute ness with accuracy ; and it is to be wished that the labour given by him on details had been applied to improving his composition, which repeatedly wants ordinary g►ammar, besides being habitually slipshod. Examples, how ever, will better than description show the defects of some of the editing before us. Neatness and precision of writing are rarely aimed at by Mr. Cunningham. Even his title page is careless. Horace Walpole was " fourth Earl of Orford ;" and " The letters of Philip Durwin Stanhope, fourth Earl of Chesterfield," or of ",John, fourth Duke of Bedford," is the proper style of entitling the correspondence of a peer. As the titlepage here reads, it would seem that Mr. Peter Cunningham is " now " first chronologically arranged." In such cases the editor's name should follow the indi cation of the speciality of the particular edition. These are small points, but it is on such matters that Mr. Cunningham most exer cises himself. The editor's table of contents is calculated to daunt. Before getting at the letters we must make acquaintance with— THE PRESS. Mr. Cunningham's Advertisement—Walpole's Advertise ment to his Letters addressed to Sir Horace Mann—Mr. Croker's Preface—Lord I►over's Preface—Mr. IVright's Preface—Miss Mary Berr.,'s Advertisement—Mr. Vernon Smith's l'reface—Mr. Vernon Smith's Second Preface— Mr. Bentley's Advertisement—Rev. John M itford's Preface. Now, surely a brief and well-penned essay, resuming the matter of these various pre faces, would be better than this parade of petty introductions. The pioneers are the most ill-favoured men in the regiment, and in this instance the precursory papers to Walpole's letters are the least attractive parts of the volume. An exception of course we gladly make in favour of Miss Mary BexTy's graceful defence of her deceased friend. We must also observe that the index to the con tents of the chapters is too sparse ; the enumeration of the topics should be more detailed. In his own " advertisement" Mr Cunningham says: — The uuptinted letters will be found to reveal much curious matter illustrative of the family quarrels of Horace with his brother Sir Edward, and with his uncle, old Horace, whom he bated so heartily; while the letters that collected in this edition, and addressed to men like Hume, Robertson, and Joseph IVarton, will he found to contain the best qualities of his style on other subjects than mas querades and marriages. " To contain the best qualities of his style " is a mode of expression at once inelegant and incorrect ; and we meet with much careless ness of a similar kind. Mr. Cunningham, however, has precedents amongst his prede cessors. That redoubtable critic, Mr. Croker, thus writes in the introduction to his edition of " Walpole's Letters " (1825) : Of the former collections, anecdote and chitchat formed the principal topics, and politics were introduced only as the) happened to be the news of the day. Of the series now offered to the public, politics are the groundwork, and the town talk is only the accidental embroidery. " Accidental embroidery " must clearly belong to some species of " Irish manufacture " not yet known in England ; and several other in elegancies may be seen in Mr. Croker's preface, such as " the very errom" for " the " errors themselves," or "even the errors." We doubt whether Mr. Cunningham should have consumed space by preserving such care less writings on account of the eminent names attached to them. _ . On coming, to " Lord Dover's prefaee " we are treated to a capital characterisation of that amiable nobleman. While perusing it we were struck by its writing, and we thought it the best that we had ever read from Mr. P. Cunningham ; and we felt that the flow of the sentences was very unlike the rhythm of the editor's rhetoric. On arriving at the end of it we read : Macaulay. (Edinburgh Review, vnl. lviii.) Lord Dover died 10th July, 1833, aged 30.--CumNisouAm. And so throughout the volume. After every quotation and trivial reference " CUNNINGHAM " in capitals arrests the eye. " Madam," said Sir Joshua to the " Tragic Muse," when he wrote "Josh. Reynolds, pinxt.," in the corner of his and her famous picture, " I wish " to descend to posterity on the hen: of your " garment." Mr. Cunningham is matchless in the art of " hemming " his name on to famous authors. _ We are rather amused at the way in which the editor "misters" the caustic " Mr. Croker," while he gives " Macaulay " his historic rather than his contemporary rank. Both these distinguished persons are Privy Councillors ; but there is another personage of equal official rank, though of far different literary standing, with whom Mr. Cunning ham takes an unpardonable lily2rty. At page lvi. of the prolegomena, the editor refers to Mr. Vernon Smith as the " Right Honourable " Richard (!!!) Vernon Smith " Oh! hapless Mr. Peter Cunningham, you have committed high treason against " the Whig familiPs." Mr. Smith is nephew-in-law to a Whig Mar quis, and he is son to a Robert Smith, immor talised by Mr. Canning's Etonism of " Bobus " pro Bob." We may forgive Mr. Cunning ham for not being familiar with the name of one of the most obscure Cabinet Ministers who ever dosed in Downing.street ; but at " Farming Woods " the mistake will never be forgotten. But Aruoto quertemus seria ludo. Continuing our examination of the prolego mena, we must quote a passage from Miss Berry's defence of her friend against the 63 invective of Mr. Macaulay. The editor should have had an emphatic note on this passage in " Miss Mary Berry's Advertise ment":— He had lost his mother, to whom he was fondly attached, early in life; and with his father, a man of coarse feelings and boisterous manners, he had few sentiments in common. Always feeble in constitution, he was unequal to the sports of the field, and to the drinking which then ac companied them ; so that during his father's retreat at Houghton, hriever much he respected his abilities and was devoted to his fume, he had little sympathy in his tastes or pleasure in his society. The cue to a critical defence of Walpole's un deniable eccentricity and alleged " affecta tion " lies in the feebleness of constitution here alluded to by Miss Berry. At page lviii. Mr. Cunningham writes, sub titulo, - Mr. Vernon Smith's Preface to the " Second Edition of Walpole's Letters to Lady " Ossory " I have here omitted Mr. Smith's successful vindicati( of himself, from an error attributed to him in the Quarterly Iteriew; Mr. Smith's information will, in this edition, be found in its more appropriate place, the letter to which it reIates.—CUNNINGHAM. The last sentence cannot l►e construed grammatically ; and we are sorry that when the matter of these notes is often so good, the manner should be so obviously hurried. On tl►o next page but one we are treated to this note : Other portions of Mr. Milford's preface will be found io this edition attached to the letters they more immediately relate to.—CUNNINGHAM. Precise old gentlemen and dainty young critics fresh from Oxford will often be ex cruciated at the editor ending his sentences, as in the foregoing notes, with prepositions reminding one of involved pedigrees termi nating in illegitimate " snobs." We are con stantly reminded of the country from which Bishop Burnet and Lord Campbell came. A writer of such literary resources, influential connections, and wide a3ceptance as Mr. P. Cunningham, ought really to take more pains. In " Short Notes of my I ife" Walpole writes : I gave my Lally Towlisliend an epitaph and design for a tomb for her youngest son, killed (25th July, 1759) at Ticonderoga ; neither were used. The editor subjoins, in a style that makes us smile : Audrey Harrison,daughter of Edward Harrison of Balls, in the county of Hertford, Esq. The monument was erected in Westminster Abbey—with an epitaph—poor enough. She was a wit, and was parted from her husband. Walpole has preserved many of her clever sayings.— CtrNSINOII AM. The matter is irrelevant, and the affectation of criticising the epitaph in Westminster Abbey —" poor enough' " (!)—is droll. In two pages further on Walpole; writes (page lxxiii.)—" As " I would not disoblige even a coxcomb un " provoked," and the editor remarks:— Odd enough, Warburton in a letter to Hurd, dated Nov. 16, 1766, calls Walpole "an insufferable coxcomb." CUNNtNOHAM. There is nothing " odd " in the remark of Warburton; but it reads "oddly" that the editor should write the vulgarism of " odd enough" after having in the previous page branded an epitaph as "poor enough." There is often room for tasteful remark in some of the points in Walpole's text. Walpole alludes to Lord Oxford's sale of furniture, virtu, and trumpery, particularising " head •' pieces and tail-pieces to Waller's works." The editor subjoins : Fenton's quarto edition of Waller was dedicated by Fenton in verse to the Lady Margaret Cavendish Ln . Another daughter of the house of Harley was immortalised as " Tanthe "in " head-piece " to a poem of a different stamp from Fenton's verses. Mr. Cunningham sometimes prints notes that should have been cancelled. When Wal pole refers to the second Earl of Albemarle, the editor quotes Lord Dover, as follows: — William-Anne Keppel, second Earl of Albemarle Died 1754]. An amiable prodigal, who filled various great offices, through the favour of Lady Yarmouth, and died insolvent. —Doyen. The excessive flippancy of that note borders on falsity of statement. The second Earl of Albemarle was by DO means the om person that would be inferred froi ceding note. He behaved with great at the battle of Dettingen; he mad • ID once ran uL ontemptible rom the pre- At gallantry de the cam-