The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-12-02
VI.

"A letter written IN Aug ust, lS62, 10 george
Smith, the publisher, is of interest to Thack-
erayans. 1t may possibly be remembered
hal two volumeso of previously uncollected
papers were added to the STANDARD Edi-
tion" Of Thackeray Of 1ss3-s5, and thereafter
to other editions. An unauthorized col
lection OF Thackeray's fragments had been
recently broug hit out, and Smith had evil
IDENTIFY asked stephen to edit a fuller and
authorized collection, and to supplement
it with a life of Thackeray. Stephen de-
olined both proposals, reminding the pub
Usher that Il said in the Edition de Luxe
essay that Thackeray's representatives
thought themselves bound not TO publish
"a Life. ! consulted Mrs. Richie [Thack-
eray's daughterl before writing this, and
l feel myself bound by it not to do anything
more in a biog raphical direction. Indeed,
fdr every ~reason..I am quite clear upon that
point. I do not know how far you agree
with me, but my mind is so far made up
Stephen went on TO say that he was in
more doubt as to the hitherto unsolicited
fra9 ments: Il nave the strong est OBJ
lection to the publication Of such papers
50 long as one can avoid il; and so far you
will agree with me. l only doubt how far
the case will be altered by Mr.. X.'s per-
Torrance. There are, Of course, cases in
which publication in self-defence becomes
necessary, AZ hen writings are inaccurately
printed or falsely attributed. But that
does not quite apply to the present CASE
Stephen also pointed out that il he we're to
edit Thackeray's frag ments, he, as being
Thackeray's s~on-in-law, would be Civ ing
them some additional authority. He might
also be able, and II SO he would be bound,
to publish some which had escaped Mr..
X, the unauthorized compiler. IF so, j
should be doing the same thing which !
complained of him for doing. !
feel, too, that l should like TO nave my
hand quite free with reg ard 20 Mr.. Y. ]
should like 10 be able TO publish an article
saying that I thoroug hly disapprove Of his
proceedings and that ! thought it disgrace
full for him. and unfair to Thackeray."
II is obvious that il stephen had undertaken
20 edit the fragments himself the force OF his
protest would nave been weakened.
1t seems to have been In the summer OF
1881 that George Smith conceived the idea
of publishing a universal biographical die
tionary. Stephen convinced him that to
produce a satisfactory work of the kind
would be impracticable, and that he would
nave quite enough on his hands by under
taking q biography Of Englishmen deserv-
ing OF remembrance. So II was decided
that Stephen should edit the Dictionary of
National Biography and in ordef to leave
his hands free for the purpose he resigned
the editorship OF the CornhW Magazine. BY
Christmas, 1882, the foundation of the monu-
mental work was laid, but two years were
10 elapse before the first volume could be
launched. II was while he was at work
upon the first volume of the dictionary that
he produced his life OF Fawcett, which is
often thought the most attractive of his
books, and which, at any rate, was soon in
its fifth edition.
To his long and exhausting struggle with
the dictionary, which lasted Until 1891. the
biographer allots a chapter. One effect Of
the dictionary work soon became painfully
visible. Stephens handwriting deterio-
rated rapidly. As he wished TO keep down
Office expenses, he himself, until his health
gave way, did all the work that had 10 be
lone in the curtailment Of the contributors
articles, making with his own hand the
changes in the manuscripts, often groan-
ing terribly the while over the superfiuous
verbiage, bad handwriting and uncongenial
mental attitude Of the writers. Proof
COTTtCIllks lDos was always LIyllK 10 MINI.
II is evident that at times the magnitude of
the task appalled, him. Although the die
tionary was 10 consist OF British names
exclusively, he tells Norton that he had
found that there were nine hundred As
10 begin with, and God knows how manv
more" We shall come out In volumes
four in a year, 1t is proposed, and If we get
IL lone in fifty volumes i shall be surprised.
Elsewhere he says: MY greatest trouble
Is in struggling against the insane verbosity
Of the average contributor. l never knew
before how many words might be used TO
express a given fact. / read piles OF manu.
script. cutting right and left, and reducing
some copy TO a third OF its original mass"
In December, 1884, Stephen tells Norton:
Said dictionary is reaching the critical
stage OF first appearance. II il thrives
commercially j can answer for two things:
First, that IL shall come out regularly.
and be finished within a definite time:
secondly, that 1 shall get more help, and,
therefore escape the drudgery which I
now endure; but if IL languishes / cannot
tell what may happen"
As n matter of fact, during the first years
Of the dictionary the editor would not ask
for all the help he sorely needed. Not thar
he had been oversanguine with regard 10
the prospect of immediate success. On the
contrary, no thought it highly probable
that the projected work would never get
beyond the letter c. What he was not pre-
pared for was just the measure of success
and failure which was achieved. The
biographer would not ~exaggerate, he says,
the amount Of drudgery that stephen per-
formed, and he concedes.that POSSIBLY a
more phleg matic man cd8ld bsye done il
without Oollapsing. But Step.en was not
phlegmatic, and the task of training his
crew Of Contributors was exasperatinx.
There were good oarsmen in his boat. buC
at first the rowing was very ragged" It
says something for certain qualities OF his
that distinguished men submitted to his
discipline. He announced in a circular
that he must be an artocrat hut honoa ~.