Citation
Trollope's Thackeray

Material Information

Title:
Trollope's Thackeray one phase of Victorian biography.
Creator:
Hawthorne, Mark Douglas, 1938-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
v, 247, [1] leaves. : ill. ; 28 cm.

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Autobiographies ( jstor )
Biography ( jstor )
Death ( jstor )
Fathers ( jstor )
Magazines ( jstor )
News content ( jstor )
Novelists ( jstor )
Post offices ( jstor )
Writers ( jstor )
Writing ( jstor )
Biography as a literary form ( lcsh )
Dissertations, Academic -- English -- UF
English thesis Ph. D
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis--University of Florida.
Bibliography:
Bibliography: leaves 242-247.
Additional Physical Form:
Also available online.
General Note:
Manuscript copy.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Mark Douglas Hawthorne

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
This item is presumed in the public domain according to the terms of the Retrospective Dissertation Scanning (RDS) policy, which may be viewed at http://ufdc.ufl.edu/AA00007596/00001. The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
12985998 ( OCLC )
0021316537 ( ALEPH )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text













TROLLOPE'S THACKERAY:

ONE PHASE OF VICTORIAN BIOGRAPHY












By
MARK DOUGLAS HAWTHORNE











A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY











UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
August, 1964

















I would like to dedics this dissertation to my wife

whose patience has been the grea single factor in its

composition.













ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the interest

and patience of Dr. William Ruff, who directed this dissertation.

Without his continual encouragement and his help in procuring other-

wise inaccessible material, this dissertation would not have been

completed. I also wish to express my appreciation for the help that

I have received from Dr, August Staub and Dr. Alton C. Morris, who

were members of the Supervisory Committee.
































iii














TABLE OF CONTENTS


ABBREVIATIONS i . v

INTRODUCTION . 1 . 1

I THE FORMATION O TROLLOPE'S PREJUDICE .. 8

II THACKERAY'S GORNHILL MAGAZINE AND
TROLLOPE'S CONTRIBUTION .. . 48

III 1860-THE YEAR OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS .. 84

IV TROLLOOPE'S OPINION OF THACKERAY FROM
1861 UNTIL 1876 .. . 109

V TROLLOPE'S THACIERAY: THE MANIPULATION OF
FACT ,, . . 150

EPILOGUE . .. 217

APPENDIX A: A CkRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF
THACKERAY AND TOLLOPE, 1857-1863 228

APPENDIX B: THE TEXT OF YATES'S TOM
TALK ARTICLE . 234

APPENDIX C: A PAGRGRAPH ANALYSIS OF
THACKERAY SHOWING TROLLOPE'S CONTENT
AND SOURCES . ,. 236

BIBLIOGRAPY . 242
















iv













ABBREIATIONS


Adversity. Gordon N. Ray, Thackeray: Thg gBRgs A Adversity,
1811-1846 (Nei York, 1955).
4Autobioagphy. Anthony Trollope, & Auitobio.raPhy (Garden City,
New Yorkt, n.d.i),

Gerge Eliot Letters. Gordon S. Haight (ed.), The Geore Eliot
Letters (New Haven, 1954-1955)w

Recolleetions Mad Experiences. Edmund Yates, Edmund Yateis: H
Recolleetions ad Experiencee (London, 1884).

Thackera Anthony Trollope, Thackeray ("English Men of Letters"
London, 1879).
Thackera Letters, Gordon N. Ray (ed.), gg Letters and Pivate
Papers lli iam Makepeace Thackeray (Cambridge,
1945-1946).
Trollope Letters. Bradford A, Booth, Te Lettr of Anthony
Trollo e (London, 1958).

Wsdm Gordon N. Ray, Thackeray; Th Ae of Wisdaom, 18
8)63 (New York, 1958).

Wgrks. Anne Thackeray Ritchie (ed.), The iogahical Edition
of the Wor k of William Makepeace Thackeray (London,
1898-1899-).
















V













INTRODUCTION


A biography written by a novelist about a contemporary

novelist presents a unique phenomenon, but when that biography appears

against the wishes of its subject, the result is a work that raises

questions about its origin in the lives of the men concerned and its

importance in literary history. On the evening of November 20, 1862,

Henry Silver wrote in his diary that Thackeray, disliking Mary

Gordon's life of John Wilson, said, "JW did nothing worth record.-and

the effect of the life upon him, Thy, was to make him tell his

daughters 'Mind, no biography' of himself."i Even though Mr. Gordon N.

Ray attributes Thackeray's strictures to an anxiety caused by the fear

of scandalous rumors that his enemies might circulate after his

death,2 Thackeray's reticence was a typical reaction of a Mid-Victorian

writer. As early as March 24, 1840, Tennyson condemned biographical

writing in h Exmine1 :

For now the Poet cannot die,
Nor leave his music as of old,
But round him ere he scarce be cold
Begins the scandal and the cry:

"Proclaim the faults he would not show;
Break loek and seal, betray the trust;
Keep nothing sacred, 'tis but just
The many-headed beast should knows"

("To After Reading a Life and Letters," 13-20)







1








2


After the first edition of Paline (1833) and John Stuart Mill's

criticism, Browning sought obscurity behind the many characters of his

dramatic monologues, and in 1876, he attacked the biographical approach

to his work in such poems as "House" and "Shop." Thomas Huxley wrote

his Autobiography in order to prevent the inaccuracies that a biographer

would inevitably make* This strange reluctance of a public figure, or

of the family of a public figure, to have biographical materials pre-

sented to the public prevented an authorized version of William

Makepeace Thackeray's life until Mr. Ray's admirable work, Thackeray:

The Uses of Adversity (1955) and Thackerayt e Age of Wisdom (1958).

But sixteen years after Thackeray's death, and after several unauthor-

ized lives, Anthony Trollope was commissioned to write a volume on

Thackeray for Morley's English Men of Letters series. This little

volume, Thackeray (1879), was apparently the first biography for which

the Thackeray family, and especially his daughter Lady Ritchie, offered

any help and is, therefore, important in the development of Thackeray

biography.

While Mr. Ray is quite justified in brushing Trollope's

little volume aside by remarking "his book is of little biographi-

cal importance,"3 the volume is indispensable in reaching an under-

standing of Trollope's relation to his more prominent contemporary.

Documents remain that reveal Lady Ritchie's aid and approval, however

slight. But, apart from the accuracy of Trollope's account, the

Thackeray volume presents a departure from those trends of biographical

writing that tie the major nineteenth century biographies, such as











Lockhart's Life of Sir lte Scott (1836-1838), Stanley's Life of

Thomas Arnold (1844), or Froude's Life o hoag Carlyle (1882-1884),

to the high point of eighteenth century biography, Boswell's Life of

Joansa (1791). In Thackeray, Trollope presents his subject as

honestly as he can, as Boswell and Lockhart had honestly presented

their subjects, but unlike these predecessors Trollope's honesty

resulted in a picture of Thackeray that caused the very people who had

aided him to denounce the work. This honesty and its consequent

denunciation puts Thackera in a unique positiont the book which was

intended to praise its subject attacks Thackeray's personality.

With Thackeray's express desire not to be the subject of a

biography and with his family's attempt to preserve his wish,4 it was

no wonder that Trollope's book was rejected and the family disclaimed

any reference to the materials used in it. Yet Trollope's approach

had already been manifested in the ambivalent view taken toward Sir

Rowland Hill, the founder of the penny post and secretary of the Post

Office, In An Autobiognahy written between October, 1875, and

April 30, 1876 (though published posthumously in 1883), Trollope delin-

eated his dislike for his superior:

How I loved, when I was contradicted,--as I was
very often and no doubt very properly,-to do
instantly as I was bid, and then to prove that
what I was doing was fatuous, dishonest, expen-
sive, and impracticable! And then there were
feuds,-such delicious feudst I was always an
anti-Hillite, acknowledging, indeed, the great
thing which Sir Rowland Hill had done for the
country, but believing him to be entirely unfit
to manage men or to arrange labour. It was a
pleasure to me to differ from him on all
occasions;-and looking back now, I think that
in all such differences I was right.5











Despite this unflattering account, Trollope had written a letter on

March 2, 1864, to Sir Rowland. Here his view was quite different:

As there is no longer any official connexion
between us, I may perhaps say a few words which
I could not have said while you were our secre-
tary. o I cannot let your resignation from
office pass without assuring you of may thorough
admiration for the great work of your life. I
have admired you for many years as one of the
essential benefactors, not only of your own
country, but of all the civilized world. I
think that the thing you have done has had in
it more of general utility than any other measure
which has been achieved in my time.

Mr. Pearson Hill, Sir Rowland's son, might have seen "in this praise

either a refutation of the tanti-Hillite' statement or a piece of

insincere and fulsome flattery,"7 and the Posag, Telegraphic, and

Telephonic Gazette might have published the letter on November 30,

1883, to belittle Trollope's Autobiography which appeared during the

previous month. But, as Professor Bradford A. Booth has pointed out,8

the two views are compatible: Trollope admired Sir Rowland's public

services, but he heartily disliked the Secretary's private character.

Trollope's view of Thackeray incorporates this same ambivalence,

Through George Smith9 and through a careless reading of the Autobiograhy

and ThgaL y, a legend of a friendship between Trollope and Thackeray

has permeated accounts of both men. However, by scrutinizing the doeu-

ments that have been published and by attempting to reach a clear and

unbiased conception of the relation between these figures, we can further

understand the Thackeray and assess its value, not as a literary monument,

but as an important factor in the historical development of English

biographical writing. The conclusion to which we shall be led will








5

reveal Trollope's unqualified praise of Thackeray's literary achieve-

ments and his dislike for or personal antagonism to Thackeray the man.

In general, the same basic view that Trollope held concerning Sir

Rowland is true of his relation with Thackeray.

In order to see the biography in its full significance, we

shall approach it chronologically, beginning our study several years

before the two men met. At this point, two or three years before

Trollope and Thackeray met, Trollope's opinion of his more famous rival

was already being prejudiced. Trollope's work in the Post Office

brought him into a relationship with Edmund Yates, the young journalist

who was destined to become Thackeray's most hated and most active

antagonist. Meanwhile, Yates was before 1858 on rather intimate terms

with Thackeray since they belonged to the same clubs. Since Trollope

did not know Thackeray until January, 1860, the opinion he received of

Thackeray derived from Yates; therefore, since Yates and Thackeray

clashed in the Garrick Club Affair of 1858, Trollopets opinion became

at that time prejudiced against Thackerayts personality while he con-

tinued to admire Thackeray's literary works. This divided opinion

might well have been united when the two men were brought together by

the founding of the Gornhill Magazine, but Trollope's adverse opinion

was strengthened when Thackeray, who was subject to suddenly painful

attacks of ill health, snubbed him. Having been snubbed and seeking

revenge, Trollope gave Yates in April, 1860, material that enabled the

journalist to attack Thackeray once again; after this, the relation

between Thackeray and Trollope remained on a strained basis until








6

December, 1863, when Thackeray died. With the removal of Thackeray's

personality, Trollope's devotion to Thackeray's artistic achievement

appeared to be a hero-worship to Thackeray's daughter Lady Ritchie.

Thus when John Morley wished to include a volume on Thackeray in the

English Men of Letters series, Lady Ritchie agreed and answered to the

best of her ability the questions sent by Trollope. Trollope used

these answers, but he filled in the spaces between them with his own

opinion. The result was a biography that placed the subject's works

at the top of the literary ladder but that projected a portrait of a

weak, indolent, inept, and melancholy personality. Since this was

obviously not what Lady Ritchie anticipated, she broke her relations

with Trollope and denied having helped him in any manner. It was not

until 1891 that she softened in her attitude, probably because the

1880's saw the publication of several attacks that were more violent

than Trollope's had been. The little biography is important, there-

fore, because in it we can see the attack of a major Victorian figure

by another Victorian, foreshadowing the approach to Victorian biography

introduced by Lytton Strachey in his book Eminent Victorians (1918).

But more than merely foreshadowing Strachey, Trollope's volume breaks

with the Boseellian-Forster tradition by presenting a picture that

attempts to establish a certain truth, even though we shall see that

Trollope's "truth" in this matter was not based on verifiable data,

Finally the book is important, for it foreshadows the split between

biography and criticism that underlies much twentieth century scholar-

ship, especially in the school of the New Critics. Therefore,







7

Thacker:ss has a rather clearly defined place in English literary history

and deserves our attention because it is a pivotal point in the develop-

ment of biographical writing.

Notes


lGordon T. Ray, Thackerar The Uses o Adversit 1811-1846
(New York, 1955), p. 1. Hereafter referred to as Adversity.

21b., p. 2.
LM, p. 3.
4See, for example, Anne Thackeray Ritchie, "Thackeray and his
Biographers,, Illustrated London Nes, XCVIII (June 20, 1891), 811; or
Adversity, pp. 1-9.

5Anthony Trollope, A_ A iutobiograoh (Garden City, New York,
n.d.), p. 215. Also see p. 109: "With Sir Rowland Hillj I never had
any sympathy, nor he with me. In figures and facts he was most accu-
rate, but I never came across any one who so little understood the ways
of men, ." Hereafter referred to as Autobiography. All quotations
will be presented without alteration of wording, spelling, or punctua-
tion.

6radford A. Booth, Thi Letters of Anthont Trollope (London,
1951), p, 148. Hereafter referred to as Trollope Letters.
Edmund H, Yates, Edmund Yates: His Recollections and Exerience
(London, 1884), II, 223. Hereafter referred to as Recollections and
Experiences.

'Tollop Letters, pp. 148-149, fn.2. Also see Recollections
L Shcperiencesa II, 223.

9Eeonard Huxley3, Th oae iouths, of (London, 1923),
p. 104.













CHAPTER I

THE FORMATION OF TROLLOPES PREJUDICE


The man who was to prejudice Trollope against Thackeray was

Edmund Yates. Trollope and Yates, who was sixteen years younger, not

only knew one another but were closely enough associated by 1858 that

the younger asked the older for friendly, indeed brotherly, help,

The common bond that the Post Office gave the men and the common

sympathy for Sir Rowland Hill's plans of postal reform brought the two

men together and after 1853 provided the grounds upon which an acquaint-

ance could be founded. This acquaintance had developed, despite the

infrequent association of the men, into a more personal bond before

Trollope's trip to Egypt in 1858, It will be important for us to

ascertain this relation in order to understand the formation of

Trollope's viewpoint of Thackeray and the circumstances of their first

meeting. At this time Trollope did not know Thackeray other than as a

literary figure, but, as we shall see, Yates did. Since Trollope's

first knowledge of Thackeray's personality was dependent upon Yates's

opinion, we need to establish the relations between Trollope and Yates

and Yates and Thackeray before we can understand the one that came to

exist between Trollope and Thackeray. Given to writing scandalous

personal gossip columns, a journalistic feature that he claimed to

have originated,1 Yates was not one of those writers who helped to

lift journalism from its low status of the first part of the century.2



8








9


Yet he was important in the development of Trollope's viewpoint before

the 1860's, because during this time he knew Thackeray while Trollope

did not. Although the comments made by each concerning the other are

almost consistently pejorative, the active dislike that came to exist

between them did not originate until the early months of 1860 when

Yates betrayed a trust Trollope placed upon him and consequently shoved

him into an embarrassing situation. The relation of the two men prior

to that situation must be pieced together from the hints that seep

through their later antagonism and from their work in the Post Office

if Trollope's view of Thackeray is to be understood.

In 1834, Trollope was introduced into the Secretary's Office

of the General Post Office at St, Martin's le Grand by his friend

Clayton ?reeling, the brother of the Secretary, Sir Francis Freeling.3

Trollope tells us in An Atobiography that during the first seven

years, "I was always on the eve of being dismissed, and yet was always

striving to show how good a public servant I could become, if only a

chance were given me."4 Sir Francis, a man who outlived his useful-

ness because he could not adapt to the necessary reforms of the postal

system demanded by the public, died in June, 1836,5 depriving the

twenty year old Trollope of his strongest ally in "The Grand," as the

headquarters of the Post Office were called. Until August, 1841, when

he was transferred to Ireland, Trollope worked under Colonel Maberly,

who immediately formed such a low opinion of him that Trollope's days

were made miserable:








10


Years have gone by, and I can write now, and
almost feel, without anger; but I can remember
well the keenness of my anguish when I was
treated as though I were unfit for any useful
work 6

After seven years he could stand the situation no longer and boldly

volunteered for a post in Banagher in the far west of Ireland, a

position that was thought fit only for "a man absurdly incapable";

when he reported to the Secretary of the Irish Post Office on the

morning of September 16, 1841, he found that "Colonel Maberly had sent

a very bad character."7 His own hard work and evidently his brother-

in-law's efforts in London kept him from being lost in the obscurity of

an Irish post, and he mounted steadily "from deputy surveyor to surveyor,

from surveyor to special commissioner charged with the planning of a

rural postal service."

Meanwhile, an ambitious postal reformer by the name of

Rowland Hill had published a surprising pamphlet, Post Office Reform

Its Imortance and Practicability in 1837; this pamphlet advocated

the basic charge of a penny "on all letters received in a post-town

and delivered in the same or any other post-town of the British Isles."1

The public agitation resulting from Hill's suggestion led to the penny

postage and to the birth of the adhesive stamp on May 6, 1840.11

Having proven the efficiency of these reforms to the public, Hill tried

to have Colonel Maberly removed to provide for his appointment as

Secretary of the Post Office, but in December, 1846, he took the newly

created post of Secretary to the Poasmaster-General. Until 1854, when

Maberly "had been ssqueezed into, and his place was filled by Mr.










Rowland Hill,"12 the Post Office was controlled by a dual secretary-

ship "with Hill making constant efforts to displace Col, Maberly'13

and Maberly waiting "for time to prove that Hill was a false prophet."14

When Trollope was sent, early in 1851, to western England to

"create a postal network which should catch all rural~ recipients of

letters,"15 he was probably acting under orders from Rowland Hill, who

had advocated an extension of rural delivery as early as 1843.16 The

enthusiasm that he showed for his work might well have been the reason

for his steady promotion under Hill's command:

It is amusing to watch how a passion will grow
upon a man. During those two years it was the
ambition of my life to cover the country with
rural letter-carriers. I do not remember that
in any case a rural post proposed by me was
negatived by the authorities ., .7

Although Trollope may not have been popular at "The Grand,"18 head-

quarters valued him for his effectiveness and energy.19 Despite

Trollope's dislike for Rowland Hill,20 the two men wanted the same

results-an efficient and inexpensive postal system.

The antagonism between Hill and Trollope might easily have

originated, with personal incompatibility, from the issue of pillar

boxes in the mid-1850's. In his autobiography Trollope claims the

credit for pillar letter-boxes, "of which accommodation in the streets

and ways of England I was the originator, having, however, got the

authority for the erection of the first at St. Heliers in Jersey."21

Trollope, who had been sent to the Channel Islands to analyze the

local needs, recommended road-side letter-boxes in a letter of

November, 1851, to G. H. Cresswell, the Surveyor of the District:








12


Iron posts suited for this purpose may be
erected at the corners of the streets .
or perhaps it may be found more desirable to
fix iron letter-boxes about five feet from the
ground wherever there are permanently built
walls,

When Cresswell proposed that these be erected, Colonel Maberly granted

permission; the pillar boxes were in use by the end of November, 1852.22

But Rowland Hill also claimed to have originated the pillar box in

1840; however, it was not until January, 1851, that he reported that

they might be tried in London and not until October 11, 1854, that an

official announcement of their use was published. The first in London

appeared finally in March, 1855.23 Although Hill, who was in the

superior position, took the public credit for this innovation, the

correspondence on pillar boxes in the General Post Office refers to

the plan as "Mr. Trollope's suggestion.24 To the inferior this

"stealing" of credit due to him was infuriating enough for him to

recall some twenty years later; therefore, Trollope had good reason

personally to dislike Rowland Hill on grounds other than a personality

clash.

In spite of personal animosity the reliability that Trollope

displayed in propagating Hill's suggestions during the dual secretary-

ship led to his being chosen for the special mission to the Pasha of

Egypt in 1858. Hill, now Sir Rowland, having successfully pushed the

Colonel from the Secretaryship, had taken control of the Post Office in

1854;25 therefore, Trollope's trip to Egypt must have come as a direct

order from Sir Rowland, the man under whom Trollope's career as a civil








13

servant reached its peak. The importance of the mission, to secure a

new treaty with the Pasha for the transportation of the mails through

Egypt, made it one that would not have been entrusted to a man whose

ability or character was doubted by his superior. Trollope's

dedication to the betterment of the Post Office won him the confidence

of Sir Rowland, even if it did not enhance the personal feelings on

either side.26 The same confidence is shown in Trollope's missions to

revise the Glasgow Post Office, to "cleanse the Augean stables" of the

postal system in the West Indies, and to make postal treaties with the

governments of Cuba and New Grenada.27

Yates's career as a civil servant up to 1860 is quite bleak

when compared to Trollope's, Entering the Post Office service at St,

Martin's le Grand on March 11, 1847,28 he began under the dual secre-

taryship, His first encounter with Rowland Hill, who later became his

friend,29 was the result of his "peppering, with peas and pellets of

saturated blotting-paper, of the passers-by from the windows of his

office.3 He characterized his public service in 1890 on the fiftieth

anniversary of penny postage:

His memories went back to the days of Col.
Maberly, his "first chief," who used to
impress upon him the necessity of not over-
working himself. Mr. Yates assured the
group that he had given the Colonel the pledge
that he would not, and he had solemnly adhered
to that sacred obligation.31

Yates's public service, however, w.s not the trait that brought him

into contact with Trollope; rather the positions that he held in rela-

tion to Colonel Maberly and Rowland Hill caused him to associate with

his more industrious fellow-worker.








14

Two years after he began working,32 Yates was transferred to

the Colonel's outer office. In this capacity he was brought into close

contact with Lord Clanricarde33 and criticised for having beer on the

premises by Lord Hardwicke.34 He was, therefore, in Colonel Maberly's

outer office during the time in which Trollope was working under

orders from Rowland Hill. It would be unlikely that any personal con-

tact was made during this time, although Yates might have known

Trollope's work through office gossip. The acquaintance of the two

men would have to be dated after 1853, the year Lord Hardwicke lost

his position as Postmaster-General, unless Trollope's mission to western

England in 1851 brought him under Colonel Maberly. Yates's first job

at "The Grand" was in the Money Order Department of the Secretary's

Office so that from 1847 to 1849, he was under Hill's command:

Mr. Hill with two or three clerks, prepared
statistical returns, suggested economics, and
also had the supervision of that secretarial
money-order department in which I worked.35

If Trollope worked directly under the orders of Hill, whose program of

reform was identical with his own work during these years, Yates very

well could have heard of him as early as 1847 When he was trans-

ferred to Colonel Maberly's outer office, this knowledge possibly led

to a closer acquaintance. Hill acted during this time to forward his

reforms so that the otherwise awkward "arrangement of two secretaries

worked only because there was a separation of duties."36 Since the

situation was extremely delicate, Trollope, working under Hill's super-

vision, also worked to some extent through the Colonel's office.37








15


On the other hand, Yates, who began in Hill's Money Order Department,

was much more in sympathy with the Secretary to the Postmaster-General

than with the Secretary of the Post Office.3 With both men working,

at least in part, under the Colonel but favoring the reforms of Rowland

Hill, a common bond existed between them; therefore, when the two men

were brought into closer affinity between 1853 and 1854 by Yates's

return to Hill's direct supervision, there was ample opportunity for a

personal acquaintance to begin.

When Rowland Hill rose to Colonel Maberly's position in 1854,

he made John Tilley, a man whom the Colonel had already chosen for a

chief executive position, the first Assistant Secretary.39 John

Tilley, one of Trollopets "oldest and dearest friends," had married

Cecilia Trollope, the novelist's sister, prior to Trollope's transfer

to Ireland;40 therefore, Trollope had a family connection with the top

hierarchy of the General Post Office.41 From this tie to the Secre-

tary's office, Trollope came into closer affiliation with Sir Rowland

and the Secretary's personal friend and official ally Edmund Yates.

Having pr'oven himself compatible with Sir Rowland's reformation,

Trollope was in such a position that his brother-in-law could place his

name before the Secretary for any important mission. Yates, an

inferior, was in a position to become associated with him; his work

directly under Sir Rowland's orders brought him into association with

both Hill and Trollope,








16


*. with both of whom I was more or less
associated; and, as a bystander is said in
the old proverb to see most of the game, it
is probable that I, who interfered with
neither, had better opportunities for observing
their various peculiarities than if I had
occupied a less subordinate position.42

Between 1853 and 1858, the period that most interests us, Trollope was

seldon. in London except for short trips; thus the acquaintance of the

two men vas their meeting in Sir Rowland's office. After December,

1859, Trollope had more occasion to meet Yates, as we shall see later,

but the definite ties which can be established in the spring of 1858

and the early months of 1860 had their origin in the years before 1858

when both men, though in different ranks of the Post Office, met in

Sir Rowland's office where Yates's position with his superior gave him

a firm standing.

To assume that a personal animosity existed between Yates

and Trollope at this time is to read the events of 1860 into the period

prior to 1858, a historical mistake. Trollope nay well have disliked

Yates because he was Sir Rowland's henchman,43 but his infrequent

visits to "The Grand" and the improbability of his knowing Yates in an

intimate relation indicate that the association was not colored by the

later antagonism. In fact, Trollope's letter of March 11, 1858,

implies an informal association in which the older Trollope freely

helped the younger man. In the early months of 1858, Trollope, as we

saw, was sent on an important postal mission to Egypt; while he was

there, Yates made a special, though much less important, trip to the

same country:








17


My first special journey, however-first and
most important-was merely due to my position
in the Secretary's office. It was in the year
1858, and the terrible Indian Mutiny was at its
height. Submarine telegraphy was in its
infancy then, and the number of letters passing
between this country and India was so enormously
increased that supplementary mails were con-
tinually being dispatched. The ordinary Indian
mail, made up in air-tight cases, was always
sent in charge of special officers appointed
for the purpose, and discharging no other duty
than that of travelling, with the mails in their
custody, from London to Marseilles, and from
Marseilles, on board one of the steamers of the
P. and 0. Company to Alexandria, where the
charge was transferred to the officers of the
Indian Post Office, who had travelled so far,
bringing the homeward letters.44

As soon as he heard that he was to make this trip, he wrote "to

Anthony Trollope telling him I was coming, and asking him to

look out for me."45 The nature of this request appears to be such

that the younger man knew Trollope and that some degree of friendship,

however slight, existed between them. Trollope left a letter in which

he tried to give Yates the information necessary for an enjoyable and

profitable stay in Egypt since e was unable to meet him:

Alexandria
11 March 1858
My dear Yates,
It is a matter of great regret to me that I
should miss you. But were I to stay now I should
lose my only opportunity of going to Jerusalem. I
had hoped to have got there and back before you
came out, but it has been impossible for me to
start till to-day. I shall probably still see you
on the 22nd. At Cairo see (above all) the newly-
opened catacombs of Sakkara--by taking a horse and
mounted guide you may see that and the Pyramids of
Ghizeh in one day. Hear the howling dervishes of
Cairo at one on Friday. They howl but once a week,
go to the citadel of Cairo, and the mosque of
Sultan Hassan. See, also, the tombs of the Caliphs.








18

Heliopolis is a humbug, so also is the petrified
forest. At Alexandria see the new Greek church
they have just excavated. Go to the Oriental
Hotel at Alexandria, and Shephard's at Cairo.
Yours ever,
ANTHONY TROLLOfE

The letter was an "admirable product of tabloid tourism,"47 because

Trollope was intent upon helping his acquaintance in every possible way

in lieu of his presence. This letter, the single evidence from

Trollope's pen from this period, asserts the relation between the men:

they knew and hoped to associated with each other with only already made

plans preventing their meeting.


One of the most obscure relationships to untangle, and one of

the most important, is that of Yates and Thackeray prior to 1858. While

Yates cannot be regarded as the most faithful and unbiased of recorders,

the account in his autobiography may elucidate a certain degree of famili-

arity. In the letter of June 13, 1858, which protested Yates's Ton Talk

article, Thackeray asserted, "I don't remember that out of that Club I

ever exchanged 6 words with you."48 That this statement was written in

anger is evident from the circumstances of its composition; therefore,

we cannot depend upon its reliability. If Thackeray exaggerated, a

fault that is only human in such a situation, the discrepancy between

this statement and Yates s testimony may be to some degree resolved,

In the world of London social and club life, Thackeray and

Yates were evidently thrown together both before and after the success

of Vanity far more than Thackeray would have wished to admit. Yates

reports that "Thackeray was constantly" present at Evan's cellar

supper-and-music rooms, which were alsofrequented by Albert and Arthur








19


Smith, Horace Mayhew, Douglas Jerrold, James Hannay, and Augustus

Sala,49 men who never rose above journalism and later resented

Thackeray's rise to literary and social prominence.50 Of those Yates

remembers enjoying Evan's "annexe-a comfortable kind of hall, hung

with theatrical portraits, &c--where conversation could be carried

on" 51 were several whom Thackeray knew from the early 1840's when he

was first connected with Zmch; in fact, Thackeray earned a position on

the staff after Jerrold and Mark Lemon procured Albert Smith's dismissal

in December, 1843,52 Hence after 1843 there would have been some

friction between Thackeray and the Smiths; if Yates's account was meant

to include persons who might be seen at Evan's at one time, there would

already be antagonisms hidden beneath the surface harmony, Since

Thackeray's feud with Jerrold for supremacy at Punch took place in

1846, the most logical time in which Thackeray could have frequented

Evan's with these men would have been prior to this literary battle,

at a time in which Yates would have been about fifteen years old and

unknown except as the son of a fairly prominent family of actors,54

If Thackeray (who was about thirty-five in 1846) knew Edmund Yates, the

relation must have been, even at the most, more the recognition of the

son of a late fellow member of the Garrick Club55 than the friendship

of peers. This obscure reference, however, does mean that each of these

figures may have known of the existence of the other from a time prior

to Thackeray's rise to fame,








20


Having traveled on the continent after the completion of

Vanity Ear (July 2, 1848) and having begun the monthly publication of

The HioC _f Pendennis in November,56 Thackeray was free "from the

day-to-day struggle for existence.'57 Already he had subdued Jerrold,

whom he saw as "a living warning of the dangers into which ungoverned

radicalism could lead."58 In November, 1836, however, Dickens had

written to Jerrold, whom he knew only as the author of the popular

comedy, Black-eyed Susan, to obtain an article for Bentley s

Miscellan,59 and by September, 1838, Jerrold was visiting in Dickens's

home.60 Thus by 1846, Jerrold was intimate enough with Dickens to join

in protest against Thackeray's attack on radicalism and personally on

Jerrold's writings in lnmch,61 and on July 2, 1847, Thackeray expressed

his approhension of this alliance in a letter to Mrs. Carmichael-Smyth,

"Jerrold hates me, Ainsworth hates me, Dickens mistrusts me, Forster

says I an false as hell, and Bulwer curses me--."62 This division of

the literary figures and journalists into two camps, those favoring

Dickens and those favoring Thackeray, began as early as 1846 and was

rather definite by the time that Vanity Fair established Thackeray's

prominence.63 In the Garrick Club Dickens, Forster and Jerrold formed

a circle which included Albert and Arthur Smith, Andrew Arcedeckne,

and Wilkie Collins64 as well as the comedian John Pritt Harley.65

Dickens seldom went to the Club even though the Bohemian group regarded

him as their leader.66 By December, 1848, Thackeray had inadvertently

alienated not only Douglas Jerrold but also the man vho was to be

Dickens's biographer, John Forster,67 with the result that, at least to








21


some extent, the Club must have begun taking sides. The coincidence

of Thackeray's being at Brighton68 hen Edmund Yates's name was pro-

posed for membership in the Garrick Club, therefore, seems to have been

premeditated rathor than accidental.

Although Yates dates his acquaintance with Dickens as begin-

ning in 1854, his account of this "first" meeting is highly improbable.

Since both had been members of the same club for at least five years,

Yates's insinuation that he had not seen the novelist becomes question-

able. Although they may have been only chance acquaintances before

1854, Yates must have been intimate enough with Dickens for the

novelist to attend his son's christening dinner on October 14, 1854,

with more incentive than a conversation on one Sunday afternoon and the

gift of a book69 It might very well have been that, while Yates was

not on intimate terms with Dickens until early 1854, the two knew one

another through mutual friends and through a speaking acquaintance at

the Club. If this is true, the circumstances surrounding Yates's

election to the Club and those surrounding his dismissal ten years

later are much more closely united than has hitherto been seen,

In his autobiography Yates left an account of his election:

As soon as I was fairly launched in London, it
was my mother's great wish that I should belong
to the Garrick Club, of which my father had been
an original member; and though I was much under
the age prescribed by the regulations, my appear-
ance was that of a full-grown man, and there was
little reason to fear that the fact of my having
attained my majority would be questioned. Accord-
ingly, I was proposed by the veteran comedian
Mr. Harley, and seconded by Andrew Arcedeckne; and
being well supported by members who had known my
father, I was elected into the Garrick in December,
1848, fully six months before I attained my eight-
eenth year 70







22

Mr. Ray describes "Albert Smith's set," the Bohemians in the Club, as

antagonistic to "the nerves of the quieter and more sedate members*1"1

Again Yates misdates the origin of his friendship with Albert Smith:

About this time, towards the close of the
year 1851, I made the personal acquaintance
of Albert Smith, with whom I speedily con-
tracted an intimate friendship, I had
met him twice previous to this, Early in '47,
just after my appointment to the Post Office,
and while I was still the rawest of youths. 72

His silence concerning Albert's membership in the Garrick Club,73 as

in the case of Dickens, seems to have been motivated by a desire to

obscure his early affinity with the circle that favored Dickens and

opposed Thackeray. Since Yates wrote ie RSecollections agd

aeriaces in 1884 to justify his youthful behavior, he would hardly

admit his friendship with persons known to be antagonistic to

Thackeray. But Mr. Harley was a close friend of Dickens, at least

close enough for Dickens to dedicate The Villae Coettes to him in

1837,4 and Mr. Arcedeckne (whom Thackeray was characterizing as

Henry Foker in Pnendnis)75 enjoyed a "comic persecution" of Thackeray's

dignity at the Club. Despite how good naturedly Areedeckne might have

taken his portrait in Pendennis ,7 the coincidence of his being in the

Dickens' circle when he seconded Yates's nomination and Thackeray's

being absent appears auspicious. It almost seems as if Yatess elee*

tion into the Garrick Club was some kind of power play that put Yates

in opposition to Thackeray from long before 1858.








23


Beside the Garrick Club, Yates more than likely met Thackeray

at the Fielding Club:

Just about this time, too-the spring of 1852--
was established the original Fielding Club, of
which I was a constant attendant, and where I
spent many happy hours and made many pleasant
and useful acquaintances. The establish-
ment of a night club-the "Fielding" was the
name selected by Thackeray, to whom the choice
of title was delegated--as decided on in conse-
quence of the impossibility of getting supper
at the Garrick, or, indeed, of infusing anything
like liveliness into that temple, after midnight.77

Thackeray, whose great admiration for Henry Fielding caused him to

identify himself with the eighteenth century novelist,7" evidently did

more than merely select the name for the new club; Mr. Elwin gives him

credit for founding it in April, 1852,79 a date which corresponds with

Yates's account. If Yates can be trusted, he may have known Thackeray

at this club as well as at the Garrick. That he was relatively well

acquainted with Thackeray in 1852 accounts for Peter Cunningham's

inclusion of Yates in Dickens's dinner for Thackeray in October:

I had seen Dickens twice before his departure
for Paris--once when he presided over a dinner
given to Thackeray, immediately before his
departure for America, at which through the
kindness of Peter Cunningham, who acted as
honorary secretary, I managed to be present.
It was a most interesting occasion, and
Dickens, in proposing the toast of the evening,
spoke with much eloquence. Thackeray, too, was
plainly moved, so much so that his reply was
very short; he tried to pass off his emotion
with some joke about the coming voyage and
the steward, but it was too much for him.80

If further proof is needed to discount Yates's date for meeting Dickens,

this statement clearly offers it, since Thackeray departed for America

on October 30, 1852. Yates's misrepresentation of factual material








24


becomes understandable, not only in the light of his desire in 1884 to

justify his behavior, but even more so, if his acquaintance with

Thackeray extended over several years and if throughout this time he

was closely aligned with Dickens. These two occasions in 1852 point

to a more intimate acquaintance than Thackerayts angry letter of

June 13, 1858, indicates. If Yates can be trusted at all in these

references, he seems to have maintained a strange role: he consciously

favored Dickens, but to Thackeray he appeared to be neutral, if not

slightly leaning to his side.

Yates has only four additional references to Thackeray that

can be placed between 1852 and 1858 which are important to the under-

standing of their relation. The first, an anecdote that puts Thackeray

in an unfavorable light, can most easily be discarded:

I was walking with him JThackeray] one evening
from the club, and, passing a fish-shop in
New Street, he noticed two different tubs of
oysters, one marked "ls. a dozen," the other
"ls. 3d. a dozen." "How they must hate each
otherl" said Thackeray, pointing them out.-l

The second presents a greater problem: Yates describes the receptions

of Mrs, Milner Gibson, mentioning Thackeray as one of the persons who

frequented them and adding that she "never had a reception without

sending us a card."2 Mr. Ray gives credence to the first part of this

assertion by stating that Thackeray "was frequently seen at the recep-

tions of Mrs. Milner Gibson (or 'Mrs. Milliner Gibson, as that

somewhat overdressed lady was called'), who gave offence in some

quarters by her excessive enterprise in attracting intellectual lions








25

to her ggisn."t Since she may very well have invited the Edmund Yates

because of his father's fame, Yates's presence at Mrs. Gibson's ggg

is likely. If so, Yates and Thackeray, who were both members of the

Garrick and the Fielding Clubs, would have further occasion to meet one

another. The third reference Yates makes to a familiarity with

Thackeray occurred on September 29, 1855, two days after Mrs. Yates was

delivered of twins:

S. being at the Garrick and seeing Thackeray
there, I asked him for an autograph for a book
which I had just established. He sat down at once,
and wrote the following:
"Michaelmas Day, 1855.
My dear Yates,--Am I to condole with, or congratu-
late, you, on the announcement in to-day's paper?
May every year increase your happiness, and good
fortune attend your increasel I know I am
writing in an affected manner, as you are pleased
to desire my autograph. I assure the friend for
whom it is destined that I am quite incapable of
being funny on a sudden, easily abashed, of a
modest retiring disposition, forty-four old, and-
Yours truly, my dear Yates,
W, M, Thackeray.
P.S.--The T of the signature I do not think is
near so elegant as my ordinary T's are; in fact,
my attention was drawn off just as I was turning
it.
E. YATES, Esq. (Private and confidential.)"84

Here Thackeray's joviality and self-humor indicate a degree of acquaint-

ance that cannot be explained without reference to the relation of the

two men both in the clubs and in social association outside the clubs.

Even in a man with Thackeray's disposition to joke,85 such familiarity

in a letter for an autograph book is unusual unless deriving from a

personal knowledge of the receiver. Thackeray's remarks on The Tragn,

a periodical that Yates and Sala tried to float in 1856,6 reveal the

same type of familiarity:







26


You have a new artist on The Train~ I see,
my dear Yates! I have been looking at his
work, and I have solved a problem. I find
there is a man alive who draws worse than
myselfT,7

In both cases, Thackeray's humor is the ability of a sensitive man to

laugh at himself. That he would so expose himself to a mere acquaint-

ance whom he saw only at the Garrick Club is dubious.

The relation between Yates and Thackeray prior to 1858, then,

was far from simple. First, Thackeray, twenty years older than Yates,

frequented Evans's when Yates was still a boy, but might have known him

as the son of Frederick Henry Yates, one of the original members of the

Garrick Club. Second, Yates's election to the Garrick was proposed by

persons antagonistic to Thackeray at a time when Thackeray was not

present. The same group that proposed Yates was aligned with Dickens,

and Yates's apparently conscious misrepresentation of his friendship

with Dickens indicates his unwillingness to admit that he was in the

Smith-Dickens-Jerrold circle prior to, or at the same time as, his

election to the Club. Third, Yates was an original member of the

Fielding Club that Thackeray helped to found and would have known the

older man in this club as well as in the Garrick. Fourth, the attend-

ance of both Yates and Thackeray at social affairs after 1852 indicates

the possibility of a greater degree of familiarity than an acquaintance

only in clubs. The relation of Yates and Thackeray, therefore, seems

to have been on terms far different from those Thackeray insinuates

in his letter of June 13, 1858, The most logical approach to Thackeray's

affirmation is to say that his discovery of Yates's duplicity came as a








27

shock to him~ apparently he had regarded the younger man as a friend

only to discover that Yates's real affinity was with Dickens and to

those whom he knew to be his enemies. If the relation between these

men was on this basis, Thackeray's motivation in the Garrick Club

Affair beoomes clearer.


Since it is important for us to trace the origins of

Trollope's prejudice against Thackeray's personality, we have estab-

lished tVo relations. In the first, we saw that Yates and Trollope

were acquainted and by 1858 were on rather intimate relations; in the

second, we saw that Thackeray and Yates were dran closely together

by their clubs and social affairs, If Trollope's opinion of Thackeray

in the biography of 1879 originated from Edmund Yates, the Garrick

Club Affair of 1858 was the dispute that caused Yates, and hence

Trollope, to dislike Thackeray's personality. Trollope would have

learned the negative opinion either from Yates himself or from the

press that supported him; regardless of how the opinion came to him,

Trollope's prejudice against Thackeray's personality clearly derives

from this period,

On September 9, 1853, Carlyle described Thackeray's character

to Emerson after the novelist returned to England from his first

American tour:

Thackeray has very rarely come athwart me since
his returns he is a big fellow, soul and body;
of many gifts and qualities (particularly in the
Hogarth line, with a dash of Sterne superadded),
of enormous apetite withal, and very uncertain
and chaotic in all points except his outer








28

breeding, which is fixed enough, and perfect
according to modern English style. I rather
dread explosions in his history. A big,
fierce, weeping, hungry man; not a strong one.88

The "explosion" that Carlyle dreaded might well have been similar to

Thackeray's indignation over the article in a small paper, Town Talk,

written about him by Edmund Yates. Because this verbal battle, "The

Garrick Club Affair," helps us to understand the later relation of

Trollope, Thackeray, and Yates, we need to analyse the dispute and

its repercussions during the succeeding years. Since Trollope knew

Yates and did not know Thackeray at this time and since, except for a

short visit to London in July, Trollope was in Scotland, northern

England, or Ireland from May 11 until October, 1858, he had no active

part in the dispute; however, his image of Thackeray was, as we will

see, formed by the Yates-Dickens's side of the quarrel and by the

periodical accounts antagonistic to Thackeray.

To set Yates's article into a historical context, it is

necessary to understand Thackeray's public image as propagated by the

Journalists. This image was not drawn totally by those who favored

Dickens's, because the turd Review, for example, condemned both

writers, complaining about Dickens's "vulgarity and emotional radical-

ism" and Thackeray's "shallowness of 'philosophy.t"89 Thackeray,

nevertheless, had already offended Disraeli in the Morning Chronicle,90

Bulwer in Fraser's Maasine,91 Jerrold at the Punch table,92 Forster

in caricatures in private letters, and Charles Lever in Fraser's:93

hence a considerable number of persons, misunderstanding his humor or

his philosophy, were not exactly fond of him. These two groups, those








29


who disliked Thackeray's literary abilities and those who disliked him

for personal reasons, were united in their campaign against him in the

periodicals of the 1850's; therefore, the image of Thackeray presented

to the public was often unflattering. Thackeray's admirers must not

be forgotten, for they also made themselves heard: Charlotte Bronte

preferred him to the Crystal Palace,94 Caroline Fox praised one of his

lectures with only slight reservation,95 and Dr. John Brown condemned

Jenny Lind, the Brownings, and Dickens in order to praise him.96 But,

by far, the reviews in the pennyaliners and the cheaper periodicals

placed before the public were unfavorable.

The New York Ti&es for October 29, 1855, extensively compared

Dickens and Thackeray, exhibiting a rather detailed knowledge of

Thackeray's life and a preference for his rival.97 The writer pre-

sented a biased view of Thackeray's art, making such statements as

"A highly respectable, gentlemanly selfishness is the alpha and omega

of Mr. T1ACIERAY's code of ethics, THACKERY's great fault is

his total absence of poesy. Mr. THACKERAY has, like most literary

men, his peculiar prejudice, His is Anti-Irish." Then the article

concluded with an announcement of Thackeray's lectures on The Four

Georges:

We look forward with the keenest relish to his
Anatomy of the Four Royal Brutes, he is to have
next week under his dissection* They are
worthy of his knife, and will doubtless draw
crowds of admiring students.98








30


H. S, Maine registered an objection in The Saturday Review of

December 15 to the reports of Thackeray's lectures in the American

papers: "it is not the act of a good eitizen to vituperate with

measureless acrimony a King who has been thirty years dead, before an

audience which firmly believes that the difference between an English-

man and an American is exclusively caused by the influence exerted

over the former by the institution of Kingship." He continues by

saying that Thackeray, in his lecture on George IV, "panders, probably

without knowing it, to a very popular prejudice.99 The Saturday

Review continued its attack on The Four Georges on January 3, 1857,

in an article by T. C. Sandars, who suggests that the lecturer of the

future, wishing to give "an effective, if one-sided picture of

Victorian England," will only need to tell

how the greatest humorist of his day- a man
in the highest rank of English literature, a
gentleman by birth-went from town to town,
and rehearsed his admirable productions at
the small charge of five shillings a head-how
he jested in the most lively way about royalty
and episcopacy, and future punishment-and how
he was rapturously applauded by a fashionable
audience, who privately piqued themselves on
nothing more than on being invited, or being
nearly invited, to the Queen's balls, and on
regular attendance at church, and sound views
as to the eternity of damnation,100

The reviewer for The Literary Gazette of February 7, 1857, insinuates

that Thackeray planned his lectures for the American, "whose abject

prostration before the very semblance of rank amazes us of aristocratic

Europe" and who either seeks to be descended from nobility or "to snap

his fingers at kings and knights, and to find out that they are after








31

all but pitiful shams.,101 On April 11, 1857, the same periodical

claimed that it "cannot be classed among Mr. Thackeray's detractors"

but admitted that "we own to have felt somewhat tired and bored by the

perpetual flow of sarcasm and vehement denunciation which Mr. Thackeray

poured upon the devoted head of the defunct voluptuary George IV ."102

On November 7, 1857, however, the reviewer for e Literary Gazette

found the first number of The Virginians promising,103 but in January

through March, 1858, the periodical took a firm stand against

Thackeray's recommendation that a special school be provided for the

children of literary men. This type of opposition104 made him increas-

ingly uneasy and only too glad to give up The ggg Geores in June,

1857?105 that he lost to his Whig opponent when he stood for Parliament

in July06 was, at least to some degree, a result of the unfavorable

image of him that these journalists placed before the publicE These

gleanings help us to perceive the undereurrent of feeling antagonistic

to Thackeray at a time when his prominence was firmly established by

VanityLar The FHistory s endennis, T Hto o Henry Easmnd, and

The Newcomes. Thackeray was helpless against this continual attack;

he could not strike at his reviewers as long as they remained hidden in

the comfortable security of the unsigned columns

In 1855, Edmund Yates developed a scheme that won the approval

of the publisher Henry Vizetelly, and on June 30, The Illustrated Timeg

carried the article, "The Lounger at the Clubs," the first personal

gossip column.107 When the staff divided the most prominent men of

letters among themselves, Sala wrote on Dickens, James Hannay on








32

Thackeray, and Yates on Albert Smith; Hannay, however, made "a

scathing summary of the merits of the three little essays of famous

men-

Thackeray. By a Scholar.
Dickens. By a Dickensian.
Albert Smith. By an Ape."

The union of Hannay (who wrote one of the earliest unauthorized biog-

raphies of Thackeray) and Thackeray could only have infuriated the

young Yates, and he "paid Hannay in his own coin, and with interest, on

a good many occasions.08 One of these occasions might very well have

been Yates's article on Thackeray in Town Talk on June 12, 1858.

While Yates had ample motivation to write the column on

Thackeray as a result of his alliance with Dickens, aorster, and

Jerrold and because of a personal feud with James eannay, one of

Thackeray's admirers, his version of the composition of the article is

probably true:

About the third week of my engagement [on To Talk3
I went over to the printer's, which was in Aldersgate
Street, close by the Post Office, at the close of my
official work, to "make up" the paper. All my contri-
bution was in type, and I thought I should only have t
to remain for half an hour to "see all straight," when
I was horrified at hearing from the head-printer that
in consequence of illness Mr. Watts Phillips had not
sent in his usual amount, and that another column of
original matter was absolutely requisite. There was
no help for it; I took off my coat-literally, I
remember, for it was a warm evening-mounted a high
stool at a high desk, and commenced to cudgel my
brains,
It happened that in the previous week's number I
had written a pen-and-ink sketch of Dickens, which
had given satisfaction; I thought I could not do
better than follow on with a similar portrait of his
great rival.109








33

The image of Thackeray in the article, while very unflattering, reflects

the view of those opposed to him; it is a mixture of exaggerations,

half-truths, and malicious slander similar to the adverse reviews and

comments about Thackeray propagated by his enemies. But Yates is

probably truthful in his account of its composition,l10 and in his

naive asumption that the article was not "offensive or objectionable,

or likely to bring me into trouble."'11 Associating with people

antagonistic to Thackeray, despite the acquaintance with the novelist,

Yates hastily threw together the impressions that he had picked up both

from his relation with Thackeray and from his friends who disliked him.

He knew the image of the novelist propagated by this circle and wrote

in the vein of the other journalists. That he might well have been

attacking James Hannay through Thackeray is possible, but he was covered

by the obscurity of anonymity and such an attack could scarcely hurt.

Yet Hannay's thrust and Yates's desire to stab back must have been a

part of the elaborate chain of events that led to the article. It does

not seem probable to assert that Yates's attack on Thackeray was

motivated by personal dislike or envy on Yates's part, even though

these qualities can be read into the sketch, because Yates is silent

concerning events in Thackeray's private life which even the New York

Times published and which Yates would surely have known from his rela-

tion with Thackeray.112 It is much more logical to assume that the

article is a careless recording of impressions received from periodicals

and from persons antagonistic to Thackeray mixed with the remembrance

of James Hannay's biting sarcasm. The mistake that Yates made was








34

innocently to confide in a man at the Garrick Club whom he considered

a friend, This unknown man told Thackeray the identity of the author,

and for the first time Thackeray definitely knew the man who attacked

him.

It is easy to imagine Thackeray's shock and indignation when

he discovered that a man he had known, and probably trusted for several

years, was the author of a slanderous column about him. As we have

seen, the relation of the two men was such that Thackeray was probably

quite friendly to his younger contemporary. It is not necessary to

assume either that "Yates was moved by an overzealous partisanship for

Dickens" or that Thackeray was compelled to place the matter before

the Committee of the Garrick Club "by his surmise that Dickens was

Yates's active ally."113' Thackeray's anger at discovering that an

acquaintance whom he regarded as a friend had ridiculed him was motive

enough for his action:

Had your remarks been written by a person
unknown to me, I should have noticed them no
more than other calumnies: but as we have
shaken hands more than once, and met hitherto
on friendly terms, (You may write to one of
your employers, M? Carruthers of Edinburgh,
& ask whether very lately I did not speak of
you in the most friendly manner) I am obliged
to take notice of articles wv I consider to
be, not offensive & unfriendly merely, but
slanderous and untrue.114

Only after discovering that his identity was known, did Yates solicit

Dickens's aid,l-5 yet there is no need to suppose that Thackeray knew

or surmised Yates's helper. It was not until November 24 that Dickens

confessed to Thackeray his part in the feud,116 and Thackeray's letter

of November 26 expresses his surprise:








35


I grieve to gather from your letter that you
were Mr. Yates's adviser in the dispute between
me and him. His letter was the cause of my
appeal to the Garrick Club for protection from
insults against which I had no other remedy.117

On December 2 Thackeray communicates his shock at Dickens's treachery

to Blackwood:

But the Beauty of Beauties now comes out
that Dickens advised Yates throughut Edwin
James says wrote every word of Yates's letters.
Isn't it a noble creature?118

Even if Yates was one of the Dickens's circle, then, it is not neces-

sary to regard Thackeray's anger and persecution of the journalist as

"a struggle for supremacy, or an outburst of jealousy between Thackeray

and Dickens" in which Yates was merely "the scapegoat or shuttlecock."119

Yates had acted freely, though naively, in writing the article, not

seeking aid from Dickens until Thackeray had discovered his identity,

and Thackeray acted from justly hurt feelings because a man he had

trusted had proven a traitor to him, not knowing of Dickens's part until

after Yates was expelled from the Club and was seeking reinstatement.20

John Forster's single mention of the Garrick Club Affair in his biography

of Dickens seems to be the most just summary of the dispute between

Dickens and Thackeray engendered from this clash: "Neither was wholly

right, nor was either altogether in the wrong.'E121

This club dispute would be unimportant in a study of Trollope's

opinion of Thackeray if it did not have wide publicity at the time.

Trollope, it must be remembered, knew Yates but did not know Thackeray;

moreover, his absence from London during most of 1858 and early 1859










means that his first knowledge of the affair was through periodicals.

Thackeray inadvertently helped the publicity of the scandal by

ridiculing Yates as "Young Grubstreet" in the ninth number of The

Virgians in July, and the penny press so persecuted Thackeray that

finally he spent much of his time on the continent.122 As early as

September 4, 1858, the Aerican miscellany Littell's The Living A

picked up a feature from The Satuday Review, spreading an unfavorable

picture of Thackeray across the Atlantic; in this article, sarcastically

entitled "Gentlemen Authors," the writer attacks Thackeray, not because

Yates was in the right, but because Yates merely printed a "photograph"

of a man whc earned money selling his features at public lectures.

Since the writer sees the entire dispute as Thackeray's objection to a

personal description, especially to references to his "bloodless face"

and "broken nose," he argued that Thackeray had no grounds for anger-

he had already fallen below the level of a gentleman by selling what

Yates tried to peddle,123 In November, The Eclecic Magazine reprinted

part of Yates's article,124 and on Maarch 15, 1859, Littell's_ h Living

Ag_ reprinted a squib from the Home Journal:

Punch is now not much good, and Thackeray, their
next best, is rapidly going down hill as a
saleable writer. His "Virginians" has a very
small sale--sosmall that from sheer shame he
actually returns some of the stipulated sum paid
him by the publishers. The trial brought by
Ediund Yates against the Garrick Club for
illegally expelling him, as an act of servile
flunkeyism to Thackeray, comes on the beginning
of next month. In legal circles there is no
doubt of Yates's success. The trial will be








37


before Lord Campbell, and Edwin James, the
queen's counsel, will represent Yates. It is
said he intends to put Thackeray into the
witness box; and, if so, the charming Titmarsh may
expect a ferocious mauling.2

Thackeray, of course knowing the limits to which the unflat-

tering publicity was going, made numerous references in his letters to

the volume of squibs and articles printed against him:

August 25, 1858:
The little papers are still going on abusing
me about it I hear--and don't care as I never
read one. The public does not care about the
story. 12

December 2, 1858:
I wonder who possibly can have written that
article in the Scotsman? The other side has
been having it all their way for 6 months during
wt I have not been allowed to speak one word.127

December 4, 1858:
The Yates and Thackeray affair still roars on
bravely. Three articles this week. Two against
me and accusing me of persecuting Yates-private
letter from Higgins to tell me I am utterly in
the wrong, that Yates's article aS'_j malicious.. .128

March 12, 1859:
Scores of the pennyaline fraternity have written
on his side, and a great number of them are agreed
that it's the description of gg~e ea v makes me
so furious-Not one of them seems to understand
that to be accused of hypocrisy of base motives
for public & private conduct & so forth-are the
points wa makes me angry-and I look for more press
libels immediately showing how I have ruthlessly
persecuted an excellent & harmless young man. .1.

March 29, 1859:
the more dignified and I may say sweller
course is to hold my tongue, and let the penny-
aliners fire away their abuse till the subject
dies out.130








38

The trouble with the public image of a man propagated by the press is

the difference between that image and the actual man. If there is a

discrepancy between the two, as is apparent in this case, we cannot

assume that the person, who knew of Thackeray y only through the periodi-

cal accounts of him, will be able to perceive Thackeray the actual man.

Because Thackeray was a great writer, his public image has been

redeemed; however, to the contemporary person who knew and admired

Thackeray's novels this publicity would have caused a split concept of

the novelist: he could be regarded in very favorable light as a

literary figure, but disliked as a man. This is precisely the view

that Trollope had of Sir Rowland Hill, and, as we shall see, developed

concerning Thackeray.

From May 11 until July Trollope was on official postal

business in northern England and Scotland, and from August to October

he was at home in Ireland; since he left London on November 16 on an

official postal mission to the West Indies from which he did not return

until the summer of 1859,131 his knowledge of the Garrick Club Affair

could come from only two sources: a chance meeting with Yates when in

London in July and November or the periodical account which we just

surveyed. Since both sources are highly probable, Trollope was unable

to see Thackeray's side of the dispute. The Irish had no love for

Thackeray, and since Trollope spent much of his time there, he was more

than likely familiar with the Irish view of Thackeray's behavior. In

1839, Thackeray published Oatherine, an "Old Bailey novel," in Fraser's

Magazine, and in the fifteenth number of Pendennis for April, 1850, he








39


innocently alluded to the same woman, Catherine Hayes, the murderess.

However, a popular Irish soprano, Miss Catherine Hayes, was then

performing at the Haymarket Theatre, and the Irish were quite proud

of her and of her spotless character.

A howl of indignation arose from the Hiberian
Press, which by-the-way, had not forgotten
Thackeray's "Irish Sketch-Book,'" and his
scathing satire in Punch, "The Battle of
Limerick." They wholly ignored Catherine Hayes
the murderess, and they charged "the Big Blubber
Man"--as, with other abusive epithets, they
called Thackeray-with wilfully and scandalously
libelling the fair fame of Miss Catherine Hayes
the vocalist.132

The Irish press joined to abuse Thackeray for what it regarded to be

an insult to its national pride, and Thackeray was forced to realize

as early as 1851 that he was surrounded by enemies.133 That the Irish

press would enjoy a further strike at the novelist naturally follows,

so Trollope would see an unflattering picture of Thackeray. If the

Irish papers backed Yates and if Trollope knew only Yates's side, any

chance meeting with Yates in the Post Office in London would strengthen

Trollope's preconception. Trollope's image of Thackeray's personality

at this time, therefore, could hardly be fair to the more prominent

author; instead Trollope saw Thackeray through the eyes of his opponents,

a view that is important if his later relation with Thackeray is to be

understood.

The particular coloring of Trollope's view of Thackeray is

the result of Trollope's having been influenced by Edmund Yates and

those opposed to Thackeray. Because Yates was the middle man who knew

both Trollope and Thackeray when they did not know each other, it is not







40

surprising to find that Trollope based his own opinion of Thackeray on

what the younger man said. The surprising thing is that Trollope did

not alter his opinion after he knew Thackeray, yet even this is not so
surprising when we see the friction that existed between them after

they met,

Notes

1Recollections and xperiences, I, 278.

2Merle Mowbray Bevington, The Saturday Revie, 1855-1868:
Regesentatiyv Educated Opiion in Victorian England (New York, 1941),
pp. 1-2.
3Autobiography, p. 38.

4Sid., pp. 45-46,
5Howard Robinson, The British Post Office, A History (Princeton,
1948), pp. 255-256.
6Autobiography, pp. 44-45.
Ibid, p. 54.

Michael Sadleir, TrQoloe, A Coomenta (rev. ed.: New York,
1947), pp. 144-145.
Robinson, British Post Office, p. 257,

10Quoted from Hill's t Office Reform in ibid., p. 267.
1 j.x, p. 303.

12Autobiography, pp. 108-109.

13Robinson, British Pg Office, p. 327.
14Howard Robinson, BritainI' Post Offie: A Histr of Develop-ent
from Lh Be&innings to th~ Pesent Day (London, 1953), p. 154.
15Autobiography, pp. 75-76.










Robinson, British Pot Office, p. 356,
17Autobiography 77.

18Recollections and Eeriences, II, 222-229.

19Sadleir, p. 145.

20Trollope was not alone in having difficulty with him: Hill
lacked tact and quarreled with a number of Postmaster-Generals under
whom he held office. See Robinson, Britif h Zgt Office, pp. 177-178.

21Autobiography, p. 215.

22Robinson, Britain's Posd Office, pp. 167-168.

23Robinson, British Pg Office, pp. 333-334.

24'rolop Letters, p. 13, fn.3.
25Robinson, British Post fice, p. 336,
261 iave indicated Trollope's opinion of Sir Rowland's character
above; Yates must be exaggerating when he describes the Secretary's
attitude toward Trollope: .* he hated Trollope very cordially and
could not avoid showing it when they were brought into contact,"
Recollections and E periegces, II, 225. Since both men sought the same
goal and since Sir Rowland trusted Trollope to make him a special agent
in important matters, the "hatred" that existed between the men was not
one to be confused with their ability to work together toward a common
vision of postal efficiency, even though they obviously differed on
the methods that should be employed to obtain that vision.
27Autobiography, pp. 104-105,

28Recollections and Eoeriences, I, 83.

29Robinson, British bost Office, p. 362, fn.21, and p. 365, fn.28.

3ecollections and Ex rienees, 89.
31Robinson, British Pos Office, p. 418.

32Recollections and Exriences, I, 93.

33bmd. 101. The Marquis of Clanricarde was Postmaster-General
from 1846-1852.

3 idA p. 103. The Earl of Hardwicke was Postmaster-General
from 1852-1853.










35jIbi. II, 90-91.
3Robinson, Britain's Pot Office, p. 163.
37As in the matter of the pillar-boxes cited above.
38This sympathy accounts for his unflattering and gently satirical
picture of Colonel Maberly in Recollections and Ex~eriences, I, 96-100;
it is interesting to note that, while Yates differed from Trollope in
his estimate of the man, he yet points out the Colonel's indifference
and ridicules his behavior.
39obinson, British P.ot Office, p. 365.
40Atobiography, p. 53.

4ITilley became Secretary of the Post Office in 1864 /when Sir
Rowland retired. Robinson, British Post Office, p. 445.
2Recollections angd cEeriences, II, 222.
3Sadleir, p. 204.
Recolleetione a hnd Exeriences, I, 110.
4 Ld., I, 111.
46T1rolloe Letters, p. 41. This letter is also quoted in Sadleir,
p. 198, and Recollections gad Eperiences, 113-114.
4TSadleir, p. 198.
Gordon N. Ray(ed.), T~ Letters and Private Papers of William
Makepeace Thackera; Gollected dited G y: n aj (Cambridge,
1945-1946), IV, 90. Hereafter referred to as Thakeray Letters.
49Recollections ad EIeriences, I, 170.
50ee Gordon N. Ray, Thackeray: The A~e of isdom, 82-186
(New York, 1958), chapter two. Hereafter referred to as Widom.
51Recollections and Eariences, I, 170. Also see aWsdm, pp.
343-344.
52Adversity, p. 349.

53 S., p. 367.







43

54Edmund Yates was born on July 3, 1831, the son of Frederick
Henry Yates (1795-1842), an actor and part owner of the Adelphi Theatre.
55Thackeray joined the Garrick Club on July 22, 1833. Aversity,
pp. 167-168.
5Mcleolm Elwin, Thackeray: A Personality (London, 1932), p. 368.
5Wisdom, p. 109.

58Aversity, p. 367.
9Edgar Johnson, Charles Dckens s His Tfragge Triumph (New
York, 1952), I, 182.

601b1d., p. 220.
61aversit, pp. 372-373.

62hhackeray Letters, II, 308.

63Adrsy, pp, 285-286.

64La.m, p. 274.

65Jonson, I, 211.

64isdom, p. 275.
67Aversity, p. 288,
6hIwin, pp. 203 and 269.

6Recollections and Exprienes, I, 256-259,

70Ibi, II, 2.
71Wisdgm, p. 274.

T7ecoelections and eriences, I, 224-225.
73Albert Smith was a candidate for the Garrick Club in 1850, so
Yates must have known him from this time. Ibid,, p, 49.
74Jo mson, I, 185.
75Isedore Gilbert Mudge and M. Earl Sears, A Thackera Dictionar:
The Characters and Scenes g the Novels ani Short Stories Alphabetically
Arran ed (London, 1910), p. 100.







44

7 ,i_ pp. 274-275.
7Recollections and Exeriences, I, 235-236,

Adversity, p, 226,
79lwin, p. 369.
8ecollections ad Ex~priences, I, 281-282. George Hodder gives
the following account of the dinner: "The project being initiated, Mr.
Peter Cuaningham undertook the duties of secretary, and all the pre-
liminary arrangements were of the most satisfactory kind, care being
taken that the party should be entirely private, and that it should
consist exclusively of Mr. Thackeray's intimates.: Memories of M Time
Including Personal Reminiseenes of Fminent Mea (London, 1870), p. 257.
81RRecollections a nd Txperiences, II, 153.

88i&, I, 253-254.
Wis3dom, p. 52.

Recollections and Ixeriences, I, 280.
85e
Aversity, p. 291.
George Augustus Sala, The Life and Adventures of George Aug.stus
Sala, Written b Himself (London, 1896, pp. 275 and 278.
Recollections and Eiperiences, I, 336-337.
88Th Corresoondence of Thomas Carlve d Ralph Waldo Fmerson,
S183. Bostson, 1883), 1, 262.
9Bevington, pp. 182-183.
90See his reviews of Coninmsby (May 13, 1844) and il (May 13,
1845) reprinted in Gordon K. Ray (ed.), William IMakeeace ThackeraY
Contributions to th_ ~Er Chronicle (Urbana, 1955).
91Advsity, pp. 241-245.
92IA., pp. 367-373.

93=qig., pp. 286-289.
94Letter of May 30, 1851. Muriel Spark (ed.), The Bronte Letters
(London, 1954), pp. 185-186.








45

90n June 12, 1851, she entered in the diarys "Went to Thackeray's
lecture on the 'Humoristst at Willis's Rooms. It was a very large
assembly, including Mrs. Carlyle, Dickens, and unnumerable noteworthy
people. Thackeray is a much older-looking man than I had expected; a
square, powerful face, and most acute and sparkling eyes, greyish hair
and eye brows. He reads in a definite, rather dry manner, but makes
you understand thoroughly what he is about. The lecture was full of
point, but the subject was not a very interesting one, and he tried to
fix our sympathy on his good-natured, volatile, and frivolous Hero
rather more than was meet. 'Poor Dick Steele,p one ends with, as one
began; and I cannot see, more than I did before, the element of great-
ness in him," Horace N. Pym (ed.), Meoirs of 9 Pd Friends, Being
Extracts fom Journals an Letters of Caroline Fox of Penierrick,
Cornwall 13 1 .o (London, 1882), p. 269.
96#. I heard Jenny Lind and cared nothing for her, I detest
Mrs. Broming and and pFe a refer Thackeray 10 times over to
Dickens., .." Letter of June 23, 1851, to Lady Trevelyan. John
Brown, Letters of Dr. J n r n With Letters from RusE Thackeray
and Oth e (London, 1907), p. 8.

97Apparently the author knew enough about Thackeray to be able to
give a sketch of his birth, adolescence, and family; the writer may
have been informed of this material by English associates because his
being an American is clear from the view point of the article. If the
information cited (e.g., Thackeray's gambling and his study for the
bar) was common knowledge, the writer's obvious preference for Dickens
accounts for the misrepresentation; if the information was not common
knowledge, he must have learned of the factual details antagonistic to
Thackeray and from English periodicals directed against him.

98"Thackeray," The Nf w ork Daily i2gs, V (October 29, 1855), 2.
This article was reprinted in Littell s The Living Age, XLVII
(December 1, 1855), 562-565,
99Quoted from The Saturday Review for December 15, 1855, in
Bevington, pp. 1681-69.
10Quoted from The Saturday Rri for January 2, 1859, in bd.,
p. 170.
101Mr. Thackeray at the Surrey Gardens," h Lierary Gazette,
and Journal of Archaeolo, Science, and Art, No. 2090 (February 7,
1857), p. 137.
102"Mr. Thackeray in Edinburgh," The Literary Gaette, d
of Archaeolog, Science, ad At, No. 2099 (April 11, 1857), p. 351,






46


103"The Virginians," Th Literary Gazette, a Jounal of B e
Lettres, Science, an_ d t, No. 2129 (November 7, 1857), pp. 1065-1066,

104I have concentrated only on the reviews of Thackeray's lectures;
the reviews of his novels are, on the whole, more favorable. This
emphasis on the lectures, however, elucidates Yates's viewpoint con-
cerning Thackeray's ability as a public lecturer in the final paragraph
of his TM Talk article.
105 do, p. 267.

106 bi., pp, 269-270,
107Recollections and Eperiece, I, 277-279.

108Sala, SLie and Adveurs, pp. 269-271.

19Reeollections and Experiences, II, 10.

10In a letter of May 25, 1889, Yates tells the same story to
Herman Merivale, who was writing a biography of Thackeray: "While the
press waited, to supply 'short copy,' at a desk in a printing office,
with the master-printer at my elbow, urging me on, slip by slip being
carried off to the compositors, as it was written." Thackeray eJgtgrs,
IV, 133, fn.17.

lecollections ad periences, II, 13.
112"In my wretched nonsense, there is no single reference to
Thackeray's home-life, no mention of his Club, no 'gossip* of any kind,
no hint-God forbidt--at his domestic trouble, no word of anything
that was not thoroughly patent & sell known at the time." Letter to
Herman Merivale, Thackeray etters, IV, 133, fn.17.

113jsjg, pp. 278-281,
~Letter to Edmund Yates of June 13, 1858. Thakeray Letters
IV, 90.

l5Recollections ad EJperiences, II, 18.

116hackerav Letters, IV, 117.
117
P1* p. 118.
1t eLnasdom p. 285.
119Recollections and Experiences, II, 32.










120or the chronology of the Garrick Club Affair, see Appendix A.

121John Forster, The Lf of Charles Dickens (London, 1899), II, 697.

122_aoz, pp. 282-284.
123"Gentlemen Authors," Littell's The Livng Ag, LVIII (September 4,
1858), 742-744.
124he Eclectic MagaXie S Foreign itera e, Science, ad AEr,
XLV (November, 1858), 434.
125"Dickens and His Publishers," Littell's = Living Age, LX
(March 5, 1858), 624,
12etter to the Baxters. Thackeray etters, IV, 109-110.

127Letter to Blackwood. Lisdom, p. 285.
128Letter to his daughters. Thackerga Letters, NI, 121.
129Le-tter to Charles Kingsley. Ib., pp. 133-135.
130
1Letter to Duer Robinson. Ibid., p. 135*
131Sadleir, p. 407.
132Sala, Lif aLnd Advnture2s, p. 82.
133Wisi pp. 133-135.














CHAPTER II

THACKERAY'S CORNHIIL MAGAZINE AND TROLLOPE'S CONTRIBUTION


The thing that brought Thackeray and Trollope together was

The Cornhill Magazine, a shilling monthly founded by George Smith.

When Thackeray accepted the editorship of the new magazine, he did not

know the amount of work that it would demand, but during the latter

part of 1859 he threw himself into the task of creating a substantial

quality periodical. The news of the forthcoming magazine and Thackeray's

request for contributions attracted Trollope's attention, and because

he saw in the magazine a chance to break into London's social and

literary life when he moved there, Trollope offered some short stories

to Thackeray. These stories were not wanted, but Smith and Thackeray

immediately accepted him on the staff and asked for a novel. This

exchange of letters marks the first personal contact of the two novelists;

however, since Trollope approached Thackeray from a subordinate position,

he later belittled Thackeray's editorial abilities, claiming that

Thackeray was an inferior editor with little talent for the job, in

order to build up his own abilities as editor of the ill-fated St, Paul's

Magazine,

Before Trollope returned from his postal mission to the West

Indies, plans were already underway for this project that was to bring

him into association with Thackeray: The Cornh1il Magazine, under

Thackeray's editorship, was to be published by George Smith beginning




48








49

in January, 1860. Since this magazine was the first step toward

Trollope's relation with Thackeray, the events of 1859 that led to its

birth form the bridge between the view that Trollope received from

Yates and that which he developed by 1863, the year of Thackeray's

death. The Cornhill, one of the first shilling magazines,1 owed its

inception indirectly to Sir Rowland. In 1848 he had convinced the

government that the mails should be opened to books because no other

method of delivery effectively reached the rural districts. At first

the cost of the Book Post was 64. a pound with no package containing

more than one volume or any writing whatsoever.2 Meanwhile, the news-

paper stamp, the heavy taxation that handicapped the newspapers of the

first third of the nineteenth century, had increased from l-d. in 1780

to 44, in 1836, and until 1833 a duty of 3s.g 6d., was assessed for each

advertisement. By 1853 the advertisement duty was abolished, and in

1855 the stamp was discontinued.3 Sir Rowland's 1848 reform included

the newspapers so that by 1855 any newspaper that paid the postage rate

was handled by the Book Post. When the rate was lowered in 1855 to

four ounces for a penny,4 the feasibility of a shilling magazine was

created, George Smith, an enterprising young publisher who had just

prevented his firm's bankrupay on account of his partner's embezzlement

of over L30,000,5 led Smith, Elder into its first ownership of a news-

paper in the same year.6 But it was not until the early months of

1859 that the idea of a good quality magazine to sell for one shilling

"flashed suddenly" into his mind,7 and the yet-to-be-named Cornhill

was born.








50


Thackeray had first become acquainted with Smith, who hoped

to publish his works, when the young publisher invited him to dine with

Charlotte Bronte in November, 1849. Even though Miss Bronte and

Thackeray failed to become intimate, Smith's bid for Thackeray's work

paid off: he published The Kickleburvs n jghe Rhine (1850), _aB y

Esmond (1852), The English Humorists (1853), and The Rose and h, ag

(1855). At the same time Thackeray issued the monthly numbers of Th

Newcomes (October, 1853-August, 1855) and ThJ Virinians (November,

1857-September, 1859) through his usual publishers, Bradbury & Evans,

at one shilling a number. When the idea of a shilling magazine came

to Smith, it was accompanied by the shrewd plan to have Thackeray

publish an installment of a novel in each issue; therefore, the public

would be paying the accustomed price for the monthly numbers of

Thackeray's novels and would also be purchasing the magazine.9

Having planned the format of the new magazine, George Smith

gave Thackeray the following proposals:

Smith, Elder, & Co. have it in contemplation
to commence the publication of a Monthly Magazine
on January 1st, 1860. They are desirous of
inducing Mr. Thackeray to contribute to their
periodical, and they make the following proposal
to Mr. Thackeray:
1. That he shall write either one or two
novels of the ordinary size for publication in
the magazine-*one-twelfth portion of each novel
(estimated to be about equal to one number of a
serial) to appear in each number of the Magazine.
2. That Mr. Thackeray shall assign to Smith,
Elder, & Co. the right to publish the novels in
their magazine and in a separate form afterwards,
and to all sums to be received for the work from
American and Continental Publishers.








51

3. That Smith, Elder, & Co, shall pay Mr.
Thackeray 350L. each month.
4. That the profits of all editions of the
novels published at a lower price than the
first edition shall be equally divided between Mr.
Thackeray and Smith, Elder, & Co.
65 Cornhill: February 19th, 1859.10

Thackeray accepted the offer, and in a letter to his mother of the same

month mentioned that he will earn "8500 in the next 2 years from Smith &

Elder."ll Because Thackeray was still being harassed by the Garrick

Club Affair, which Yates planned to take to court in March,12 this

generous offer was welcomed; his excitement continued to run high on

March 29s

Then, for next year, I am engaged to write a
story C[hili] in 16 numbers for wv I am to
receive--well, more than I have ever received
yet by 100 a number. Think of that! and
after a little pause another story. I may
want to give up novel-writing but how refuse
when I am paid such prodigious sums? Why
didn't they buy me at 30, not the tired old
horse at 50713

George Smith, however, found himself in a quandary: he had

engaged Thackeray to write for the new magazine before he had located

an editor. He considered several people, but none responded to his

offers. Thomas Hughes, for example, was already obligated to Macmillan

and refused. Finally when he had been driven to his "wit's end,114

the idea came: "Why not Mr. Thackeray, and you yourself do what is

necessary to supplement any deficiencies on his part as a man of

business? Think of the writers who would be proud to contribute under

his editorship.l15 In a letter of April 14 Thackeray accepted the








52

position at a salary of L1,000 a year. As evident from his calculations

in a letter of October 1 to Mrs. Carmichael-Smyth, he was pleased that

he finally had risen to a financially comfortable position:

If I can work for 3 years now, I shall have
put back my patrimony and a little over-
after 30 years of ups and downs. I made a
calculation the other day of receipts in the
last 20 years and can only sum up about 3200L
of moneys actually received-for vw I have
values or disbursements of 13000--so that I
havent spent at the rate of more than 1000 a
year for 20 years. The profits of the
lectures figure as the greatest of the
receipts 9500T--Virginians 6-Vanity Fair only
2. 3 years more please the Fates-and the
girls will then have the 8 or 10000 a piece
that I want for them: and we mustn't say a
word against filthy lucre, for I see the use
& comfort of it every day more and more.
What a blessing not to mind about billsll6

Before accepting this lucrative position, Thackeray was hesitant: "My

Father," Lady Ritchie wJote, "demurred at first to the suggestion of

editing the 'Cornhill'. Such work did not lie within his scope, but then

Mr. George Smith arranged that he himself was to undertake all business

transactions, and my Father was only to go on writing and criticising

and suggesting."17 Under the final arrangement both Smith and

Thackeray had to agree on an article before it could be published,18

a situation that was to irritate Trollope in 1861 and to lead to his

comment, "What I wrote for the Cornhill Magazine, I always wrote at the

instigation of Mr. Smith,"19 On the whole, the agreement was satis-

factory, and Smith was later able to comment, "This relation between

publisher and editor would have worked ill in the case of some men,

but Thackeray's nature was generous, and my regard for him was so

sincere that no misunderstanding ever occurred."20








53


One of the next major problems that confronted Smith and his

new editor was the selection of a name for the magazine. On September 29

a name had not yet been founds

Coire, Switzerland, September 29, 1859.
Have you found a title? St. Lucius, who
founded jh church of St. Petegy Cornhill, is
buried here. Help us, good St. Luciust and
I will be your faithful W. M. T.21

Since the offices of Smith, Elder, & Co. were located at 65 Cornhill,

the name, Cornhill Maazine, was appropriate and stuck in Thackeray's

mind: "'The only name I can think of as yet is 'The Cornhill Magazine,'

It has a sound of jollity and abundance about it.122 By November 1

Smith had agreed upon the name, and in "A LETTER FRCM THE EDITOR TO A

FRIEND AND CONTRIBUTOR" Thackeray stated his reasons for it:

Our Store-House being in Cornhill, we date
and name our Magazine from its place of publica-
tion. We might have assumed a title much more
startling: for example, 'The Thames on Fire'
was a name suggested; and, placarded in red
letters about the City, and Country, it would
no doubt have excited some curiosity. But, on
going to London Bridge, the expectant rustic
would have found the stream rolling on its
accustomed course, and would have turned away
angry at being hoaxed. Sensible people are not
to be misled by fine prospectuses and sounding
names; the present Writer has been for five-and-
twenty years before the world, which has taken
his measure pretty accurately. We are too long
acquainted to try and deceive one another; and
were I to propose any such astounding feat as
that above announced, I know quite well how the
schemer would be received, and the scheme would
end.23

The name of the magazine has remained unchanged up to the present day,

even though George Simpson thought, "The title of Thackeray's Magazine

conveys to me the idea of Banks, Stockbrokers, and Assurance Companies

not of Literature"24 and some critics sneered at it.25








54


Not only did Thackeray and Smith need to settle the name of

the magazine, they had to reach a conception of what the Cornhill was

to represent and to find contributors. In both problems, Thackeray

was as active as a man in poor health could be. In-early September he

thought that "the Magazine must bear my cachet .. and be a man of

the world Magazine.'26 Sir Henry Thompson told Lady Ritchie that

Thackeray "told me that he intended to develop a new principle--that

he thought everyman, whatever his profession, might be able to tell

something about it which no one else could say, provided the writer

could write at all; and he wanted to utilize this element."27 To

Trollope, Thackeray wrote, "One of our chief objects in this magazine

is the getting out of novel spinning, and back into the world.t28 In

the circular to prospective contributors, he was more explicit:

We hope for a large number of readers, and
must seek, in the first place, to amuse and
interest them, Fortunately for some folks,
novels are as daily bread to others; and
fiction of course must form a part, but only
a part, of our entertainment, Ve want, on the
other hand, as much reality as possible-
discussion and narrative of events interesting
to the public, personal adventures and observa-
tions, familiar reports of scientific discoveries,
descriptions of Social Institutions--Sgieguid
ag t hognes-a 'Great Eastern,t a battle in
China, a Race-Course, a popular Preacher--there
is hardly any subject we dgt want to hear about,
from lettered and instructed men who are compe-
tent to speak on it. There are points on
which agreement is impossible, and on these we
need not touch, At our social table, we shall
suppose the ladies and children always present;
we shall not set up rival politicians by the
ears; we shall listen to every guest who has an
apt word to say; and, I hope, induce clergymen
of various denominations to say grace in their
turn.29







55

Under these directions the Cornhill became a monthly family magazine

directed toward an upper-middle class reader.

Thackeray, immediately after accepting the editorship, set

to work finding suitable contributors. According to Lady Ritchie, he

"thought of articles and wrote letters and made suggestions; he asked

people to write for him; he went here and there on purpose to meet

likely contributors."30 Since Thackeray was responsible for a number

of The Virgnians each month until September,31 had begun writing

Phiip for the Cornhill before he became editor,32 took his daughters

on a tour of the continent,33 and was in poor health,34 his work on the

magazine was only a little less than prodigious. As early as June 27

he was negotiating with Charles Lever,35 and he "soon had commitments

for the early numbers of the Cornhill from such celebrities as Arnold,

Mrs. Browning, Bulwer Lytton, Mrs. Gaskell, Lever, Lewes, Ruskin, and

Tennyson."36 As Lady Ritchie has pointed out, "Messrs. Smith & Elder

also worked hard and converted their editor's suggestions into facts

and reality, with an energy and a liberality very remarkable."37 In a

letter to his sons one of Thackeray's early contributors, G. H. Lewes,

described the manner in which the editor solicited his contributor and

and the publisher negotiated the payment:

You have heard I dare say that Mr. Thackeray
is about to edit a new Magazine. Well, as soon
as he had begun to make arrangements, he wrote
to ask me if I would help him. I replied that
I should be very willing indeed, if I saw
clearly that I could do so, and if the payment
was tempting. Whereupon Mr. Smith, the
publisher, drove here in his carriage, and
made me a tempting offer, which I accepted.-3








56


The arduous arrangements, under the circumstances of his illness and

other obligations, forced Thackeray to abandon Philip, the novel he was

writing for monthly installments in the Cornhill; on August 23 he and

Smith had reached an alternative plant

For the new Magazine we are going to turn the
Comedy into a story in 6 numbers to be followed
by the 4 Georges in 4 numbers-and not begin
the long story until July.39

As agreed, Thackeray turned e Wolves and Uh Iib into the short,

"comparatively unimportant story, 'Lovel the Widower.'"40 He knew the

weakness of the story and was, therefore, glad to welcome Anthony

Trollope to his staff if the latter could supply a novel before the

copy for the first number went to the printer in December.


When he returned to England from the West Indies in the

summer of 1859, Trollope requested a transfer to England. His work was

of such a nature that he was often away from Dublin, his home, and a

transfer to the vicinity of London would unite his family and place

him "within the reach of the publishers, the clubs, and the dinner-

parties of the metropolis "4 When his request was granted, he searched

for a place to live that could be close to London and still preserve

the rural atmosphere of Ireland. By August 2 he was able to tell his

wife that a place had been leased:

To ye ladie of Waltham House in ye Countie of
Herts. These--
Deareste Madame
Havinge withe infinite trouble & pain inspected
& surveyed and pokd manie and diverse holes in ye
aforesaid mansion, I have at ye laste hired and
taken it for yr moste excellente ladieship--to have
and to hold from ye term of St Michaels mass next








57

comynge. The whiche Waltham House is now the
property of one Mistress Wilklis, who has let
it to your lovynge lord & husband for 7-14-
or 21 years, with manie and diverse clauses
which shall hereafter as time may serve be
explained to your excellente ladieship--42

Mr. Sadleir has described Waltham House, at Waltham Cross in Hertford-

shire, as "a fine Georgian house of weathered brick, which had in

those days a large garden, good stabling and surroundings of great

rural beauty." 3 In his autobiography Trollope described the advantages

that the new residence was to bring him:

In December 1859, while I was still very hard at
work on my novel Framler Parsonage I came
over to take charge of the Eastern District,
and settled myself at a residence about twelve
miles from London, in Hertfordshire, but on
the borders both of Essex and Middlesex,-
which was somewhat too grandly called Waltham
House. This I took on lease, and subsequently
bought after I spent about 00 on improve-
ments. From hence I was able to make myself
frequent both in Cornhill and Piccadilly, and
to live, when the opportunity came, among men
of my own pursuit.~4

The move to Waltham House opened the London world to Trollope, while

he continued to have the rustic pleasures that Ireland had offeredt

I was now settled at Waltham Cross, in a house
in which I could entertain a few friends
modestly, where we grew our cabbages and
strawberries, made our own butter, and killed
our own pigs* I occupied it for twelve
years, and they were years to me of great
prosperity,45

But this new world was not dependent alone upon the change

of residence; much of it derived from his acquaintance with Thackeray.

With characteristic energy Trollope filed official reports, made

arrangements to move from Ireland, and on August 4 began composing a








58


new novel for Chapman & Hall, his publishers. After the transfer was

definite and the lease on Waltham House had been obtained, Trollope

heard of Thackeray's new magazine:

even in Ireland, where I was still living
in October, 1859, I had heard of the Cornhill
Magazine, which was to come out on the slt of
January 1860, under the editorship of Thackeray.

To be on the staff of a new and promising London periodical meant to

Trollope an entrance into the hitherto closed literary world. He

had "written from time to time certain short stories, which had been

published in different periodicals," and hoping to make an acquaint-

ance with one of the top literary figures, he offered some stories to

Thackeray, whom he had never seen.46 On ctober 23 he wrote Thackeray

from Dublin modestly offering his services to the magazine:

Dear Sir,
I do not know how far the staff of your new
periodical may be complete. Perhaps you will
excuse my taking the liberty of offering to
make one of the number if it may be not so.
I will tell you exactly what would be my
views, and you will as frankly tell me whether
they would suit you.
I am writing a series of stories to be
called--unless I change the name, Tales of all
countries. I began them last summer with the
view of publishing them first in Harpers
magazine, & then of republishing them here.
He has two of them already in his hands.
My idea is to publish one a month, & to
republish the 12 in a single vol at the end
of a year. They wd run in this way for two
years, They would occupy, each, from 8 to
13 pages of a big-paged magazine-such as
yours may probably be.
If it suited you to take one each alternate
month, I would send one for each alternate
month to Harpers. It does not suit him to
have to take one monthly--or I would send them
all to you, if you so wished.








59


If this idea would suit you, you would
probably let me know your rate of pay. Harper
gives me L20 for each story-or L2 a page for
10 pages, Of course I have the right of
republication whenever it may suit me.
I have five of these stories now by me.
Each refers to or is intended to be redolent
of some different country-but they apply
only to localities with which I am myself
conversant,
You will I hope at any rate excuse my
writing to you in this manner.
Yours faithfully
ANTHONY TROLLOPE
As I have before me a letter from Harper
respecting these stories which I must answer,
perhaps you will let me have a reply as soon
as may be convenient to youh47

When Trollope's letter reached London, his proposal instantly

received attention. Thackeray and Smith, however, needed a novel to

supplement Lvel the Widower, not the short articles Trollope offered.

Since Thackeray's reply was dated October 28, five days after Trollope's

had been written, and followed Smith's proposals, the idea to ask

Trollope for a lead novel must have been instantaneous. Thackeray,

since he also was to feature a novel, tactfully allowed time for Smith's

letter to be in the mail before he wrote. According to Trollope, the

letter from Smith offered "10l00 for the copyright of a three-volume

novel: to come out in the new magazine,-on condition that the first

portion of it should be in their hands by December 12th.148 Thackeray's

letter immediately followed, welcoming Trollope to the staff and con-

taining the printed circular, A LETTER FROM THE EDITOR TO A FRIEND AND

CONTRIBUTOR:








60


My dear Mr. Trollope,--Smith & Elder have sent
you their proposals; and the business part
done, let me come to the pleasure, and say how
very glad indeed I shall be to have you as
co-operator in our new magazine. And looking
over the annexed programme, you will see
whether you can't help us in many other ways
besides tale-telling. Whatever a man knows
about life and its doing, that let us hear
about. You must have tossed a good deal about
the world, and have countless sketches in your
memory and your portfolio. Please to think
if you can furbish up any of these besides a
novel. When events occur, and you have a
good lively tale, bear us in mind. One of
our chief objects in this magazine is the
getting out of novel spinning, and back into
the world. Don't understand me to disparage
our eraft, especially you wares. I often say
I am like the pastry-cook, and don't care for
tarts, but prefer bread and cheese; but the
public love the tarts (luckily for us), and we
must bake and sell them. There was quite an
excitement in my family one evening when
Paterfamilias (who goes to sleep on a novel
almost always when he tries it after dinner)
came upstairs into the drawing-room wide awake
and calling for the second volume of The
Three Clerks. I hope the Cornhill Magazine
will have as pleasant a story. And the
Chapmans, if they are the honest men I take
them to be, I've no doubt have told you with
what sincere liking your works have been read
by yours very faithfully,
W. M. Thackeray.49

Trollope was delighted, but the "suddenness of the call" found him

unprepared

It was already the end of October, and a
portion of the work was required to be in the
printer's hands within six weeks. Castle
Richmond was indeed half written, but that
was sold to Chapman. And it had already been
a principle with me in my art, that no part of
a novel should be published till the entire
story was completed. I knew, from what I read
froan month to month, that this hurried publica-
tion of incompleted work was frequently, I
might perhaps say always, adopted by the
leading novelists of the day.,








61

When he had decided to break his principle, he went to

London to make final arrangements. Arriving on the morning of

November 3, he had finished plotting Castle r nd and went first to

Edward Chapman to break his arrangement with Chapman & Hall in the case

that this Irish novel suited the Cornhill. With an agreement made,

Trollope had his "first interview with Mr. George Smith," who wanted

"an English tale, on English life, with a clerical flavour."51

Smith's rejection of a novel dealing with Ireland reflected his concern

with the English public, Trollope's early Irish novels, The Maederots

2f Ballycloram (1847) and she Kells and the 'Klly or Landlords

a Tenants (1848), as well as Castle Richmond (1860), "brought to the

Irish novel an objectivity which not even Maria Edgeworth could match,

yet he was almost as close to the peasants as Garleton or the Banims''52

The intellectual climate in England, however, formed the basis for

Smith's refusal of Castle Richmond; the Stebbinses describe the attitude

toward the Irish in England in the following paragraph:

Such bitter food was not relished in England.
Had Ireland been in a less unhappy state when
Castle Richmond was published, English readers
could have been comfortable in the thought that
twelve years had passed since these poor wretches
starved to death. As it was, they could not pick
up a daily paper without seeing reference to
current evils in that luckless country. Rents
had continued to rise, landlords to be extortionate,
taxes to increase, and the endless quarrel between
Catholics and Protestants had waxed in bitterness.
A strong police force was ineffectual in subduing
malcontents. Across the Atlantic, especially in
New York, Irish emigrants who had left the country
in the dreadful years of dearth had grown rich and
were sending money home to foment disorder. The
Fenian Society had declared its purpose of setting
up an independent Irish republic. Victorians dis-
liked depressing novels based on truths which
pricked at conscience.53








62


Wanting to accept Smith's generous offer ("The price was more than

double what I had yet received"),54 Trollope began Framley Parsonage on

the night of November 4 on the "journey back to Ireland, in the railway

carriage,"55

Although Trollope had never written for serialization before

and had initial misgivings over the change of style that it demanded,56

he stopped work on Castle Richmond until Eramley Parsonage was half-

finished.57 Since he resumed work on the Irish novel on January 1,

1860,58 the portion that he placed in Smith's hands must have been

considerable. Smith himself could hardly be anything but surprised at

the speed of Trollope's work, but Trollope, who was as methodical a

writer as England has yet produced, had prepared a plan for the writing

of novels before his mission to Egypt:

When I have commenced a new book, I have always
prepared a diary, divided into weeks, and
carried it on for the period which I have
allowed myself for the completion of the work.
In this I have entered, day by day, the number
of pages I have written, so that if at any time
I have slipped into idleness for a day or two,
the record of that idleness has been there,
staring me in the face, and demanding of me
increased labour, so that the deficiency might
be supplied. According to the circumstances of
the time,--whether my other business might be
then heavy or light, or whether the book which
I was writing was or was not wanted with speed,-
I have allotted myself so many pages a week. The
average number has been about 40. It has been
placed as low as 20, and has risen to 112. And
as a page is an ambiguous term, my page has been
made to contain 250 words; and as words, if not
watched, will have a tendency to straggle, I
have had every word counted as I went. In the
bargains I have made with publishers I have,-
not, of course, with their knowledge, but in my











own mind,-undertaken always to supply them
with so many words, and I have never put a
book out of hand short of the number by a
single word. I may also say that the excess has
been very small. I have prided myself on con-
pleting my work exactly within the proposed
dimensions, But I have prided myself especially
in completing it within the proposed time,-and
I have always done so. There has ever been the
record before me, and a week passed with an in-
sufficient number of pages has been a blister
to my eye, and a month so disgraced would have
been a sorrow to my heart.59

Elsewhere he confided that he had the custom "to write with a watch

before me, and to require from myself 250 words every quarter of an

hour. I have found that the 250 words have been forthcoming as

regularly as my watch went."60 Between the details of his postal

work and the confusion of the move to Waltham House, therefore,

Trollope managed to have copy in Smith's hands early enough that he

could return the proofs on November 25.61

Thackeray and Smith had a hectic time as the dead line for

the first number neared,62 but on December 15 Thackeray wrote to Mrs.

Tennyson,, "Hip Hip Hurray. Our number is gone to press. 63 of

December 25 Trollope, now living at Waltham Cross, had already received

his payment and asked Smith whether the check was not too large, adding

his congratulations on the first number.64 Thackeray was pleased when

he received an early copy on December 20,65 as were the contributors

who also received advanced copies. Richard Monckton Milnes, for

example, wrote Thackeray on December 27 to congratulate him for a

magazine "almost too good for the public it is written for and the money

it has to earn."66 Trollope wrote to the editor on December 28, adding

his praises to the others:








64


My dear Sir,
Allow me to congratulate you on the first
number of the magazine. Putting aside my own
contribution, as to which I am of course bound
to say nothing laudatory whatever I may think,
I certainly do conceive that nothing equal to it
of its kind was ever hitherto put forth-
The great aim in such a work should be, I
think, to make it readable, an aim which has been
so constantly lost sight of in a great portion of
the pages of all magazines. In your first number
there is nothing that is not readable-with the
single exception above mentioned;-and very little
that is not thoroughly worth reading.
Very faithfully yours
ANTHOH? TROLLOPE
W. M. Thackeray Esq67

The first number of the Cornhijl, that excited such laudatory

exclamations, was a modest little magazine with a yellow cover designed

by Godfrey Sykes, a student at the school of art which had recently

been established under the protection of the Prince Consort at South

Kensington.68 The cover was not decided upon until November after

Thackeray had tried in vain to find an artist or to design one himself:

I have been with IMr. Keene [eartoonist for Punchl
and pressed him in vain, His hands he says are
quite too full. I spent a great part of yester-
day at the Museum trying if I could devise a title
page myself but this morning bethought that my
friend Mr. Cole at the Boilers [South Kensington
Schools of Art] might find an artist to my purpose.
He introduced me to a gentleman there of the very
highest skill to whom I explained the design we
wanted, who took immediately my view of it and
will bring me a drawing as soon as done.69

Although another design had been tentatively chosen, Syke's drawing was

immediately selected: "What a fine engravingi what a beautiful

drawing!" Thackeray wrote; "there has bepn nothing so ornamentally
good done anywhere that I know of."70 If the cover was pleasing to the








65

eye, the contents were delightful to the mind. In the 128 pages of

the large, extremely readable type was a liberal feast fit for any

palate, prepared by amateurs and professionals alike, and presented to

the public without signatures. The contents alone reveal the fulfill-

ment of Thackeray's desire to make the Cornhll "a man of the world

Magazine":

[Anthony Trollope.3 Framley Parsonage.
Chapter 1. "anes omnia b1na dicere." Chapter 2,
The Framaey Set and the Chaldicotes Set,
Chapter 3. Chaldicotes. .. . . 1
[Sir John Bowring] The Chinese and the Outer
Barbarians . # .. 26
[J. M. Thackeray.] Lovel the Widower.--Chapter 1,
The Bachelor of Beak Street. . .44
[G. H. Lewes.] Studies in Animal Life-Chapter 1. .61
Father Prout's Inauguration Ode to the Author
of "Vanity Fair.", .. . .75
Sir John Burgoyne.] Our Volunteers . .77
CThornton Hunt A Man of Letters of the Last
Generation . .. . 85
len Young.] The Search for Sir John
Franklin (from the Private Journal of an
Officer of the Fox). . . 96
[Mrs. Archer Clive] The First Morning of 1860. 122
[W. M. Thackeray.] Roundabout Papers.-No. 1
On a Idle B. .. .. a 12471

In this table of contents the Cornhill offered fiction, poetry, the

personal essay, the scientific essay, the adventure narrative, and a

patriotic appeal to oppose the French, Between Thackeray and Smith the

new magazine had become not just a reality but a periodical of out-

standing promise.

The public reception was imiediate and far excelled the wildest

dreams of its editor or publisher:








66


The day when the first number was published-
January 1860-messengers arrived to tell the
editor of the new thousands being wanted by
the public; then more messengers came, and we
were told how the printers were kept working
till all hours. Mr. George Smith72 told
me that the calculations were all put out by
the enormous sale, which reached to some
120,00.73

No more than 80,000 copies had been ordered, but the great sale was

"without precedent in English periodical literature"74 and meant that

half a million people read the first number.75 Financially, however,

this unexpected success caused the publisher to lose money:

The calculations for the advertisements were
all put out by the enormous sale. The price
which pays for 10,000 announcements and the
paper and the printing ceases to be remunerative
when 120,000 notices are put forth. The pro-
prietors actually lost upon the transactions
after a certain number had been reached.76

Despite this initial loss Smith had the foresight to rejoice over the

prospects of the magazine. The entry for January 3, 1860, in his

diary succinctly stated, "Called on Thackeray on my way to the City;

signed agreement respecting 'Roundabout Papers.' Mr. Thackeray in

very good spirits at the success of the 'Cornhill.I"7 Perhaps, this

meeting ias also the time when Smith doubled Thackeray's salary, an

offer that caused Thackeray's income from the magazine to rise to

1600 a month.78 At the end of the month Smith knew better how to

estimate sales: on January 27 he "ordered 80,000 to be printed.

Galled in Bride Lane to see hov they were selling the second number of

the tmagazine.' The demand very rapid," and on January 30 he "ordered

100,000 to be printed. ."79 The editor and the publisher could








67


hardly be anything but elated over the fruits of their toil in 1859,

and even when the circulation dropped to an average of 85,000 copies a

month, they could still pride themselves at surpassing the rival shilling

magazine Macgillan's.80

Because the editorship of an unexpectedly popular magazine

was a new experience for Thackeray, his role was often difficult. On

the one hand, Thackeray's suggestions to would-be contributors were

parried by such replies as Motley's refusal:

I feel sure that I should be voted a bore were
I to try my hand as you desire. Believe me that
it is from no affectation or modesty, nor indis-
position to oblige you, that. I thus refuse your
invitation, but from an honest inward conviction
of imbecilityS81

On the other hand, the sensitive Thackeray squirmed in his position when

he was faced to reject material submitted but not suitable for the

magazine, For example, when Mrs. Browning contributed "Lord Walter's

Wife,"82 Thackeray cried, "Who am I to refuse the poems of Elizabeth

Browning, and set myself up as a judge over her?" In his letter to her,

he painfully described the reasons for his rejection:

You see that our Magazine is written not only for
men and women, but for boys, girls, infants,
Ssucklings almost, and one of the best wives
mothers, women in the world, writes some verses,
wN I feel certain would be objected to by many
of our readers--Not that the writer is not pure,
and the moral most pure chaste and right-but
there are things my squeamish public will not
hear on Mondays though on Sundays they listen to
them without scruple. In your poem you know
there is an account of unlawful passion felt by
a man for a woman--and though you write pure
doctrine and real modesty and pure ethics, I
am sure our readers would make an outcry, and
so I have not published this poem.83







68


While Mrs. Browning sent another contribution, "Little Mattie," "to

prove that I am not sulky," she defended herself by adding,

I am not a tfast woman'-- dont like coarse
subjects, or the coarse treatment of any
subject--But I am deeply convinced that the
corruption of our society requires, not shut
doors and windows, but light and air-and
that it is exactly because pure & prosperous
women choose to ignore vice, that miserable
women suffer wrong by it everywhere. Has
paterfamilias, with his Oriental traditions
and veiled female faces, very successfully
dealt with a certain class of evil? What if
materfamilias, with her quick pure instincts
and honest innocent eyes, do more towards
their exulsion by simply looging at them &
calling them by their names--4

But Mrs. Browning's reaction would have been a relief compared to

Thackeray's continual uneasiness when he rejected material, especially

material submitted by young ladies.85 Thackeray himself characterized

"the thorn in the cushion of the editorial chair" in his fifth

Roundabout Paper (July, 1860):

Ah! It stings me now as I write. It comes
with almost every morning's post. At night I
come home, and take my letters up to bed (not
daring to open them), and in the morning I
find one, two, three thorns on my pillow.
Three I extracted yesterday; two I found this
morning. They don't sting quite so sharply as
they did; but a skin is a skin, and they bite,
after all, most wickedly. It is all very fine
to advertise on the Magazine, "Contributions
are only to be sent to Messrs. Smith, Elder, &
Co., and not the Editor's private residence."
My dear sir, how little can you know man- or
woman-kind, if you fancy they will take that
sort of warning! How am I to know (though, to
be sure, I begin to know now), as I take the
letters off the tray, which of those envelopes
contains a real bon fide letter, and which a
thorn? One of the best invitations this year
I mistook for a thorn-letter, and kept it
without opening. This is what I call a thorn-
letter--










"AmERELL: Jue 4
"SIR,-May I hope, may I entreat, that you
will favour me by perusing the enclosed lines,
and that they may be found worthy of insertion
in the CorPhill M4azine? We have known better
days, sir. I have a sick and widowed mother to
maintain, and little brothers and sisters who
look to me. I do my utmost as a governess to
support them. I toil at night when they are at
rest, and my own hand and brain are alike tired.
If I could add but a little to our means by my
pen, many of my invalid's wants might be supplied,
and I could procure for her comforts to which she
is now a stranger. Heaven knows it is not for
want of g or for want of energy on my part
that she is now in ill-health, and our little
household almost without bread. Do-do cast a
kind glance over my poem, and if you can help
us, the widow, the orphans will bless you! I
remain, sir, in anxious expectancy, your
faithful servant,
S.S.S."
And enclosed is a little poem or two, and an
envelope with its penny stamp-Heaven help ust--
and the writer's name and address.
Now you see what I mean by a thorn.86

As Thackeray's health failed, this part of the work became more and more

irksome to him.87 Smith could not even call him a good editor when it

came to rejections, because Thackeray was "uncertain and wayward, far

too tender-hearted--could not say 'No' to a contributor*"88

Beside the troubles he faced soliciting articles and rejecting

unsuitable material, Thackeray had two other procedures that harmed his

efficiency as an editor, Lady Ritchie relates that, after he asked Sir

Henry Thompson "to describe cutting off a leg as a surgical operation,"

he lost the manuscript for three months so that it did not appear until

the fourth number with the mild title "Under Chloroform."89 An editor

who misplaces a manuscript, especially one that was solicited, can

scarcely be regarded as efficient. Also as Robertson Scott has pointed








70

out Thackeray's method of correcting contributions was not designed to

save his publisherts profits: he corrected, not the manuscripts or

the galley proofs, but the page proofs, the most costly to work with,

for if a sizable passage were deleted, the pagination and the contents

of each following page in the feature would have to shift position.90

Even if Thackeray fell down in the mechanical part of his

work, his artistic contribution to the Cornhill balances, if not over-

shadows, his faults. Beside his contributions of the two novels, Lovel

the and The Adventures o Philip,91 twenty-eight Roundabout

Papers, h Lour Georaes, and seven other articles,92 Thackeray often

revised the material of his contributors. In the jubilee edition of

the G2gohill (January, 1910) was printed a facsimile of three pages of

a story which Thackeray has revised and altered. Thackeray's pen has

touched extensive passages, concentrating on diction and word choice

as well as on grammar and word order. Because he was not always compe-

tent to do the revision himself, he sometimes suggested to the contribu-

tor the manner in which the material should be altered:

The verses are so good that they ought to be
better. Why leave careless and loose rhymes
such as those marked? Why not polish the verses
more and more and make them as bright as they
possibly can be? .
vows so dear and
Not hear the passionate words so fondly told
(2)
For all my soul goes sorrowing to behold
How much &c.
5 x grasping pen? & mine & thine are but poor rhymes
7 stars, futurity
10, sea, me, see, be. The whole stanza is obscure,
earthly sea specially obscure.
17 Go then! & take with thee &c
7 Dimmed with a mist of tears my eyes I raise
Two tearful stars are all my eye3 can see
But thine into futurity should gaze7







71

The careful work that is exhibited here seems to overbalance the faults

Thackeray exhibited in the more mechanical aspects of editorship. In

a modern magazine staff he would probably be a very good literary

editor, leaving the other side of the work to a managing editor, but in

the nineteenth century one man was expected to fulfill both roles.

Despite the initial high sales and the care he exerted to make

the Cornhil a quality magazine, Thackeray was beset by troubles more

serious than having to reject young ladiest contributions or revise poor

material to make it suitable. His enemies of the Garrick Club Affair

continued to harass him. On November 17, 1859o9 Yates, apparently

hoping to end the animosity that had been generated by his earlier

indiscretion, sent Thackeray a poem. This rash movement led to what

Yates should have expected when his poem was mailed: "It came back by

return of post, with a line of his secretary, who was 'desired by Mr.

Thackeray to return the enclosed." "95 This was probably the easiest

rejection Thackeray was able to make. But Yates was not the only

person whom Thackeray feared; the powerful coalition of the Dickensts

clique and the penny papers presented a united front against him, In

1859 he had been afraid that "Forster will try to prevent Tennyson

from writing for [Samuel Lucas, who was apparently employed by Smith,

Elder when the first number of the Cornhill was being prepared]."96

Then the greatest attack came, not from individual enemies, but from

the Saturday Review. The first two members of the Saturday Review

staff to desert the staff were Henry Sumner Maine and Fitzjames Stephen,

elder brother of Leslie Stephen. Stephen "contributed two articles to








72


The Gornhii agaszine in 1860 and eight or nine during each of the next

three years.97 Beresford Hope of the SatrdaY Review commented about

hiem

Maine and Stephen enticed over to the gornhil
by Thackeray, like a jobber as he is. Stephen,
who is avid of money, agreed without Cook's
knowledge to write a continuous series for the
CornhilL which is obviously treason, and he
has got his dismissal accordingly.9

Earlier the Saturday Reveg had favored Thackeray over Dickens, but in

1860 they joined the nebulous group that opposed the editor of the

Cornhl99 When Thackeray mentioned the Satday Revie in "Nil Nisi

Bonum" (February, 1860) he was highly complimentary: "It is a good

sign of the times when such articles as these (I mean the articles in

the i nesI and Saturday evew) appear in our public prints about our

public men. They educate us, as it were, to admire rightly."100 In

another Roundabout Paper, "De Juventute" (October, 1860), however,

Thackeray, who had by now enough of the Sagrggd Review's attacks,

struck back by satirizing their position:

It is the Siperfine Review. It inclines to
think that Mr, Dickens is not a true gentleman,
that Mr. Thackeray is not a true gentleman, and
they when the one is pert and the other is
arch, we, the gentlemen of the Superfine Reviw,
think, and think rightly, that we have some
cause to be indignant. The great cause why
modern humour and modern sentimentalism repel
us, is that they are unwarrantably familiar.
Now, Mr. Sterne, the Superfine Reviewer thinks,
"was a true gentleman, because he was above all
things a true gentleman." The flattering
inference is obvious: let us be thankful for
having an elegant moralist watching over us,
and learn, if not too old, to imitate his high-








73

bred politeness and catch his unobtrusive
grace. If we are unwarrantably famrliar, we
know who is not. If we repel by pertness, we
know who never does. If our language offends,
we know whose is always modest -iu

In "Small Beer Chronicle" (July, 1861) Thackeray hit again:

A short while since, a certain Reviewer
announced that I gave myself great pretensions
as a philosopher. I a philosopher! I advance
pretensions! My dear Saturday friend, And you?
Don't you teach everything to everybody? and
punish the naughty boys if they don't learn as
you bid them?102

While such thrusts might appear in Thackeray's skilled hands to be

humorous, the adverse attacks were among the "thorns in the cushions"

that he could best stop through slighting; as early as July,1860, he

declared:

it is not the fire of adverse critics
which affects or frightens the editorial bosom.
They may be right; they may be rogues who have
a personal spite; they may be dullards who kick
and bray as their nature is to do, and prefer
thistles to pineapples; they may be conscientious,
acute, deeply learned, delightful judges, who see
your joke in a moment, and the profound wisdom
lying underneath. Wise or dull, laudatory or
otherwise, we put their opinions aside.103

The Sa2tuLd Rview and Thackeray, however, both held as an ideal the

middle class gentleman; it was the Bohemian circle that had sided with

Yates that was particularly offensive.104 The relation between the

Sau2rday Review and the editor of the Cornhill had a basis other than

this personal animosity, but when it finally entered the fight between

the obscure papers and Thackeray, it was to raise the great Titmarsh

to his full wrath.








74


Since the Cornhill was the medium that brought Trollope and

Thackeray together, Trollope's views on Thackeray as an editor are

especially interesting. We have seen how Trollope earned, much to his

surprise, a major place on the magazine's staff and how his relation to

the C~aghill was primarily through George Smith. Furthermore, we have

seen that Trollope was in a position more to hear of Yates's side of

the Garrick Club Affair than to sympathize with Thackeray. From these

premises we can assume that Trollope, who did not yet know Thackeray,

may already have formulated the divided image of him that was to become

apparent in the biography of 1879. In his autobiography (written

between October, 1875, and April 30, 1876), when Trollope accounts for

the manner in which Frai"e Parsonage came to be placed first in a

magazine originally intended to have its main stay in a serialization

by Thackeray:

the answer to this question must be
found in the habits of procrastination which
had at that time grown upon the editor. He
had, I imagine, undertaken the work himself,
and had postponed its commencement till there
was left to him no time for commencing. There
was still, it may be said, as much time for
him as for me. I think there was,--for though
he had his magazine to look after, I had the
Post Office, But he thought, when unable to
trust his own energy, that he might rely upon
that of a new recruit-.105

Obviously Trollope, while praising his own unusual capacity for work,

never learned the burdens under which Thackeray worked in 1859. He has

forgotten that while Thackeray had to finish The Virginins for

Bradbury & Evans, he was working on the Cornhill, and on top of this








75


work was in chronically poor health. In Thackeray (1879) Trollope is

more lenient in his charges, perhaps because unlike An AutobioahEy

it was to be published during the author's lifetime:

I was astonished that work should be required
in such haste, knowing that much preparation
had been made, and that the service of almost
any English novelist might have been obtained
if asked for in due time. It was my readiness
that was needed, rather than any other gift!
The riddle was read to me after a time.
Thackeray had himself intended to begin with one
of his own great novels, but had put it off till
it was too late. Lovel the Widower was commenced
at the same time with iy own story, but Lovel the
Widower was not substantial enough to appear as
the principal joint at the banquet. Though your
guests will undoubtedly dine off the little
delicacies you provide for them, there must be
a heavy saddle of mutton among the viands pre-
pared. I was the saddle of mutton, Thackeray
having omitted to get his joint down to the fire
in time enough. My fitness lay in my capacity
for quick roasting.106

Apparently Trollope did not know, or chose to forget, Thackerayls begin-

ning of Philip and the alteration of The Wolves and the LaRm into Lovel

the Widower. His ignorance concerning Thackeray's occupations in 1859

and Thackeray's plan to run Lojel the Widower as his novel has caused

him to slant the accounts in such a way that Thackeray comes out on the

small end while he takes the praise upon himself. Lewis Melville

attacks Trollope's position by asserting

Thackeray had made no default, for "Lovel
the Widower" was the story he had intended to
contribute, and the invitation to Trollope arose
from the proprietor's belief that a second serial
would strengthen the magazine. "Framley Parsonage"
was given the place of honour in the new periodical,
indeed, and it was this that led Trollope to a
mistaken conclusion; but that was by Thackeray's







76


own arrangement on grounds of courtesy. "He
would not claim the first place in his own
magazine," George Smith has explained, "He
looked upon himself as a host, and upon
Trollope as his guest."l07

The point to be made is that Trollope did not know Thackeray's side of

the question nineteen years later, after they had supposedly been close

friends for years. Had their friendship been "one of the finest and

most generous friendships in English letters,"08 it is, to say the

least, surprising that Trollope never understood why he had been chosen

to write a novel for the gornhill, the magazine that introduced him to

Thackeray.

Trollope's opinion of Thackerayts abilities as an editor are

also pertinent. By the time that he wrote the biography, Trollope

himself had experienced the editor's "throne," On October 1, 1867, S.

auls Magazine was launched with Trollope in "complete freedom of

editorial control,"109 and in March, 1870, he resigned, In his auto.

biography he excused the failure of St, lPau's

It did fail, for it never paid its way. It
reached, if I remember right, a circulation
of nearly 10,000-perhaps on one or two
occasions may have gone beyond that, But the
enterprise had been set on foot on a system
too expensive to be made lucrative by anything
short of a very large circulation. Literary merit
will hardly set a magazine afloat, though when
afloat it will sustain it. Merit and time
together may be effective but they must be backed
by economy and patience.li0

Sadleir, however, has pointed out that in St. fgg 'g, Trollope tried, on

the one hand, to reduce "work written from purely literary impulse to

his own artificial conception of the capacities of a magazine public"







77


and, on the other, "to improve magazine-riting proper into at an

imitation of literature,' The result was mediocrity.111 Trollope,

of course, failed to realize this and instead asserted that "publishers

themselves have been the best editors of magazines":

The CoE~h after Thackeray had left
it and before Leslie Stephen had taken it,
seemed to be in quite efficient hands,--those
being the hands of proprietor and publisher.112

In the biography of Thackeray, this personal awareness of the problems

of the editor led Trollopeinto a biased view of Thackeray's editorship:

The magazine was a great success, but justice
compels me to say that Thackeray was not a good
editor. As he would have beeanan indifferent
civil servant, an indifferent member of
Parliament, so was he perfunctory as an editor. .
I think it may be doubtful whether Thackeray
did bring himself to read the basketsful of
manuscripts with which he was deluged, but he
probably did, sooner or later, read the touching
little private notes by which they were
accompanied. ,113

With the editor of a magazine that had failed writing adverse criticism

of the editor of a magazine that was one of the most successful maga-

zines of the nineteenth century and accusing the latter of being a

poor editor, a weird situation is set up. Trollope apparently had

reasons for condemning Thackeray's editorship--he ade a point of saying

that he worked only for Smith and another point of saying that editors

should be the publishers--and the main reason is his development of a

picture of Thackeray originally through Yates's eyes. That this picture

colored their early months of acquaintance will be apparent when we look

at their relation in the spring of 1860; that it remained until 1879 is

apparent in Trollope's double view of his great rival.







78




1Anne Thackeray Ritchie, "The First Nuober of 'The Cornhill,'"
The Cgrnhill Maazine, n.s. I (July, 1896), 3. Also see Anne
Thackeray Ritchie, "Biographical Introductions," 3h Bioarachica
Edition 2f the Works of Wal i Makepeace T keray (London, 1898-1899),
I, xviii.
2Robinson, Brit hPt Office, p. 328.
3Bevington, p. 3.
4Robinson, British .st Office, p. 355.
W. Robertson Scott, The Story g f1 P Gazette, M G
its ~irst Aditor, Freri eeno, s F ouner, Geore
a (London, 1950), pp. 40-41*

cg *. P. 47.
7[Leonard Huxleyl jh ouse Sa ith, (London, 1923), p. 89.
8See the bibliography in Lewis Melville, illiam Makepeace
Thackera: BiB raph1 naoeluding Hithert Uollect Letters
Speechee a A BibliogJap g 1300 Iejms (London, 1910), II, 260-289.
9Robertson Scott, p. 63, and Elwin, pp. 344-345.
10Quoted from Geore Lihh., & Memoir in T keray Ltter, IV, 130,
fn.10. It also appears with slight textual variations in Huxley, p. 94.
1Thhackery Letters, IV, 130.

12Yates was prevented from pressing charges at the last moment by
the Club's legal maneuver to force the case into the Court of Chancery,
the cost of which he "was not prepared to undertake and the
proposed action was eventually abandoned." Reo lections gad
Experiences, II, 30-31.
13Letter to William Duer Robinson. Thakery Letters I, I 136.
14Peter Smith, "The Conhill Magazine-Number I," A Reviey f
Enlish Literature, IV (April, 1963), 24.
15,obertson Scott, pi 65.
16Thackeray Letters, IV, 155.







79

17Anne Thackeray Ritchie, "The First Editor: And the Founder,"
he ornhill Maazin, n.. XXVIII (January, 1910), 2,
18See Letter of January 23, 1860, from Thackeray to George Smith.
Thakeray Letters, IV, 172,
19Autobionrapsh, p. 138
20Quoted in Robertson Scott, pp. 67-68.

21Letter to George Smith. Thackeray Letter IV, 154.
22Letter of October 4 to George Smith. bid., p. 156.

2 *R p. 159.
24oron S. Haight (ed.), The eore Eg t Let ters (New Haven,
1954-1955), III, 210. Hereafter referred to as Gr 2lit Letters.
25Robertson Scott, p. 67.
26Letter of September 7 to George Smith. Thackery Letters, IV 150.
27Ritehie, "The First Number," p. 6.
28Letter of October 284 Thackeray Letters, IV, 158.
29Circular of November 1. I d., pp. 159-160.
30itchie, "The First Number," p. 5.
31See bibliography, Melville, II, 289. He finished no. 24 on
September 7. Thackeravy Leter.s IV, 149.
3hakeray Letters, IV, 148, fn.44.
3Ritchie, "Biographical Introductions," XI, xv.

3Ueference to his poor health is made in the following letters:
of May 15 to Mrs. Theresa Hatch (Thackeray Ltter IV, 140); of
May 28 to Mrs. Blackwood (ibi., p. 142); of August 23 to his daughters
(ib.i., p. 148); of Septeber ? October 16 to Tennyson (ibid*, p. 151);
of October 1 to Mrs. Carmichael-Smyth (ib.., pp. 154-155); and of
December 16 to Mrs. Irvine (id., p. 169).
35
J3 i., pp. 143-144.

Wisdm, p. 295.
37Ritchie, "The First Number," p. 6.







80


3ere ELot Letters. III, 195.

39Thackery Letters, IV, 148-149.
4%erman Merivale and Frank T. Marzials, L f W M. Thackeray
(London, 1891), P. 199.
41utQobioraph, p. 108.
2Tro1pe Letters, pp. 47-48.
38adleir, p. 201.
Autobiography, p. 119#

5iEg., pp. 125-126.
46utobiograph, p. 111.

47TrolloPe Letters, p. 52.
*Autobiography, p. 112.

49Thckera Letters, IV, 158-159. Also see Autobiography, p. 112,
and f rollo Letters, p. 53.
50Autobiography, p. 113.
51
lai, p. 115.
5Bradford A. Booth, Anthony Trolloe ~ Apsnets s ie
o gg (London, 1958), p. 105.
53Lucy and Richard Poate Stebbins, Tg Trollopes: The Chronicle
o iag Family (New York, 1945), pp. 171-172.
54Autobioraphy, p. 113

55i., p. 115.
56bA., pp. 116-117,
57 ., p. 124.

Sadleir, p. 407, He returned to Framleg Parsonage on April 1, the
day after gast~ Riechmond was finished, and completed it on June 30.
59utobiorajphy, pp. 98-99,

6 &., p. 207.







81


6ToLo Letters, p. 54.

6 amiso, p. 295.
6Tjgagkera Le rs, IV, 168.
6e Letters, p. 54.
_65_ p. 295.

Thackeray Letters, IV, 169-170.

67Trollope Letters, p. 55.
6Ritchie, "The First Number," p. 2.
69Letter to George Smith, Thackera Letters, IV, 162.

70itchie, "The First Number," p. 2.

7Anthony Trollope, Thagkeray ("English Men of Letters"; London,
1879), p, 53. Hereafter referred to as ThackeraT
72This sentence is worded, "Mr. Reginald Smith reminds me," in
Ritchie, "The First lluber," p. 1.

7Titchie, "Biographical Introductions," XI, xviii.
Robertson Scott, p. 69.

7, g g, p. 296.
76Rithie, "The First Number," p. 1.

Ritchie, "The First Editor," p. 2.

a._p p. 296.
79Ritchie, "The First Editor," p. 2.

m&,> p. 299*
1Ritchie, "The First Number," p. 7.

2 ".0 p. 12.
Th e Lters. IV, 266-267.

8 *, p. 228.







82

See Wisdom, p. 300.
William Makepeace Thackeray, "Thorns in the Cushion," The
B i grhal Edition h Works f Willia 4akepeace Thackeray
(London. 1898-1899), XII, 231-214. Hereafter referred to as Ip ,s.
Ritchie, "The First NUmber," p. 10.
88Quoted in Robertson Scott, p. 76.

8Ritchie, "The First Number," p. 6.
90Robertson Scott, p. 79.
9A third novel, egi Duval, left unfinished at his death,
printed in March and June, 1864.
92See bibliography in Elvin, pp. 389-390.

93taceray Letters, IV, 225-226.
9iO, p. 306.
9Ray apparently owns the letter of this date, a cover letter for
Yates"s contribution; if so, Yates's affirmation that he sent the poem
"without remark" is a later confusion of facts intended to belittle
Thackeray, See Recollections ad Experiences, II, 58.
96Thackerav Letters, IV, 171.

di0., p. 215, fn.2,
98Quoted from Henry William and Irene Law's e Book of Beresford
Hpes in Bevington, p. 28.
99Wisdom, pp. 304-305.
100Thackeray, "Nil Nisi Bonum," Works, XII, 177.

lOThackeray, "De Juventute," orks, XII, 232.
12Thackeray, "Small Beer Chronicle," Works XII, 303.
10Thackeray, "Thorns in the Cushion," Y1, XII, 212.
104i. m, pp. 305-306.

10Auutobiorah, pp. 114-115.










106Tackeray, p. 52.

Melville, p. I.
1Olugh Walpole, Ahny Trollepe ("English Men of Letters";
New York, 1928), p. 90,
109adleir, p. 279.

1Autobiography, p. 218.
1118&dleir, p. 297.

12AtobioTaphy, pp. 218-219.

113Thkera~, p. 54.













CHAPTER III

1860--TIE YEAR OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS


The year 1860 could justly be called the "year of misunder-

standings" in the relation between Thackeray and Trollope; it was the

year in which the two men met.. To understand the early part of the

year most clearly and without clouding our perspectives with prejudice

or preconceived notions demands a suspension of judgment and a detach-

ment from the figures involved., This has been difficult in the past

and is, perhaps, humanly impossible. The three figures, Trollope,

Thackeray, and Yates, play roles that, while difficult to untangle,

need to be analyzed if we are to comprehend Trollope's volume in the

English Men of Letters series. The conflicts and the misunderstandings

arose from the social function of a series of dinners given by the

publisher to the staff and contributors of the Cornhill.. George Smith,

acting in a tradition followed by Mark Lemon of Punch, probably like

John Douglas Cook of the Saurd Review saw the dinners as a method

"of encouraging a sense of unity."l But such a worthy goal was not the

result of the first four dinners, because these tended to put a division

between the editor and one of his major contributors, Anthony Trollope.

If we alter the chronological sequence of the first five

months of 1860 by looking at the two major pieces of evidence concerning

the QCorhill dinners, the proper sequence can be better understood.






84







85


In a widely quoted passage from his autobiography George Smith describes

the first meeting of Trollope and Thackeray:

We lightened our labours in the service of
the Cornhill by monthly dinners. The principal
contributors used to assemble at my table in
Gloucester Square every month while we were in
London; and these "Cornhill dinners" were very
delightful and interesting. Thackeray always
attended, though he was often in an indifferent
state of health. At one of these dinners
Trollope was to meet Thackeray for the first
time and was equally looking forward to an
introduction to him. Just before dinner I
took him up to Thackeray and introduced him
with all the suitable empressment. Thackeray
curtly said, "How do?" and, to my wonder, and
Trollope's anger, turned on his heell He was
suffering at the time from a malady which at that
particular moment caused him a sudden spasm of
pain; though we, of course, could not know this.
I well remember the expression on Trollope's face
at that moment, and no one who knew Trollope
will doubt that he could look furious on an
adequate--and sometimes on an inadequate-
occasion! He came to me the next morning in a
very wrathful mood, and said that had it not
been that he was in my house for the first time,
he would have walked out of it. He vowed he
would never speak to Thackeray again, etc. etc.
I did my best to soothe him; and, though rather
violent and irritable, he had a fine nature
with a substratum of great kindliness, and I
believe he left my room in a happier frame of
mind than when he entered it. He and Thackeray
became after close friends.2

Smith makes four major points which will be of great importance:

(1) Trollope first met Thackeray at a Cornhill dinner, the first that

Trollope attended and the first time that Trollope was in Smithts home;

(2) Thackeray, driven by a sudden pain, snubbed Trollope; (3) Trollope

was subsequently infuriated; and (4) Smith asserts that after Trollope

visited him the next morning, the friction was eased and the two

writers became "close friends."








86


The second important passage is a paragraph that was

suppressed from Trollope's autobiography; in this he describes his

impressions of the first Cornhill dinner and its aftermath:

I do not know whether I did not put an end
to these dinners by an indiscretion of my own.
It was I think at the first of them that
Thackeray, sitting opposite to his host, asked
whether Dr. Johnson was getting his dinner
behind the scenes. The old story is too well
known to require any further telling here. Our
munificent publisher being engaged with his
neighbor did not hear the question, and
Thackeray, naturally anxious for his little
joke, repeated it. Whereupon Mr. Smith, who
was still very eager with the friend at his
elbow, replied that he did not think there was
anyone of the name of Johnson in the room.
There was not much fun in it, but, what there
was, consisted in Thackeray's vain attempt to
have his allusion recognized. On the next
morning, I unfortunately told the story to a
friend;-but I told it also in the presence of
a man to whom nothing could be told quite
safely. He was, though I did not know it then,
a literary gutter-scraper,--one who picked up
odds and ends of scandal from chaence sources,
and turning them with a spin of malice into
false records, made his money of them among
such newspapers as would pay him, This story,
although bedevilled and twisted from the
truth--rammed with bitterness both against
Thackeray and Smith, loaded with poison,--
was sent to an American newspaper. That alone
would not have mattered much because American
newspapers are not much read in this country.
But The Saturay Review, which everybody reads,
or which at least everybody then read, got
hold by chance of the American paper and more
-uo, tore everybody concerned to pieces. Why
were such dinners given? Why were such stories
told? Was it endurable to anybody that the
conversation of a private table in London should
be made gossip to satisfy the evil cravings of
New York readers? This article afflicted








87


Thackeray much. It annoyed Smith greatly.
I taxed the gutter-scraper with his offense,
and he owned his sin, praying to be forgiven.
I confessed my fault to the others;--for it
was a fault to have told anything in the
presence of such a man. I was pardoned, but
there were no more Cornhill dinners.3

A Trollope's account may be narrowed to four points: (1) he is describing

the first Cornhill dinner; (2) Thackeray was in good spirits and joked

with his host; (3) he tells that the next morning he described the

events of the evening in the presence of a man who can be identified

as Edmund Yates; and (4) when Yates betrayed this confidence, Trollope

confessed his indiscretions and was forgiven.

When we compare these two accounts, certain discrepancies

become apparent, but in order to pin-point these discrepancies, the most

important similarity must be noted. Trollope met Thackeray at the first

Cornhill dinner, an event that is confirmed in his autobiography:

It was in January 1860 that Mr. George
Smith-to whose enterprise we owe not only
the Cornhill Magazine but the = a
aette-gave a sumptuous dinner to his
contributors, It was a memorable banquet in
many ways, but chiefly so to me because on
that occasion I first met many men who after-
wards became my most intimate associates. It
can rarely happen that one such occasioncan
be the first starting-point of so many friend-
ships. It was at that table, and on that day,
that I first saw Thackeray, Charles Taylor
(Sir) Robert Bell, G. H. Lewes, and
John Everett Millais.

Other than this, the two accounts vary; Trollope makes no mention of

his anger at Thackeray's cut although he does put Thackeray in an

unfavorable light by describing a weak attempt to joke. Because










Trollope could not have known that Thackeray's behavior was motivated

by "a sudden spasm of pain," he could not have understood the reason

for the "affront"; therefore, if Thackeray was in a genial mood later

in the evening, the affront would hardly have been eased. That

Trollope remained angry is clearly stated by Smith's description of

Trollope's fury the next morning, but if Smith was able to calm him, he

must have told the story of Thackeray's "vain attempt to have his

allusion recognized" before going to Smith, Elder. Because Trollope

could not have escaped a knowledge of Yatests animosity toward Thackeray,

his relation of such a story while in a state of anger is hardly an

indiscretion arising from his ignorance of proper social behavior.

He knew Yates and knew that another person who believed himself badly

treated by Thackeray would sympathize with his hurt feelings. Since

people are apt to judge these figures from preconceived notions of

social behavior or bias toward one of the men, it is important to

remember that Trollope did not know Thackeray before this dinner and

the cut that he received was to him without meaning other than as an act

of snobbery, that Trollope could not have known Thackeray's reasons for

what appeared to be a personal affront, and that Trollope, as a man

whose pride had been deeply wounded, sought to ease the humiliation by

seeking the sympathy of a man whom he knew was Thackeray's enemy. In

-- this human problem no man was either without or with blame.

According to Smith, the two writers "became after close

friends"; this assertion needs to be further analyzed. In the suppressed

portion of the autobiography, Trollope related that Yates, who was in








89


the presence of the man to whom he told the story of Thackeray's vain

joke, sent the story to an American newspaper after twisting it from

the truth. The article appeared in The e Lrk Timaes for May 26,

1860, in a column entitled "Echoes from the London Clubs." It is

important to read the most pertinent parts of this article:

In literary matters we are all alive, but the
success of the Cornhill Magazine is already
showing symptoms of being on the wane. That
notable periodical went up like a rocket, and
is beginning to come down like the stick; it
is certain that its first number sold nearly a
hundred thousand, and that its second reached
seventy thousand, but ever since then it has
been declining, and now I should think forty
thousand was about the mark. With a less
circulation it would not--could not pay, for
it receives comparatively few advertisements,
and its expenses are enormous. There have been
already four tremendously heavy dinner parties
given by SMITH (of SMITH & ELDER,) at his
residence in Gloucester-terrace, at which all
of the principal contributors have been
present. THACKERAY is, of course, the great
gun of these banquets, and comes out with the
greatest geniality in his power, speaking of
G. H. LEES as "Mr. BEDE," (Mrs. L. is the
author of Adam Bede,) and drawing each man
out to the extent of his ability. But there
is one very fumy story which will bear
repetition: SMITH, the proprietor of the
Cornhill and the host on these occasions, is
a very good man of business, but totally
unread; his business has been to sell books,
not to read them, and he knows little else.
On the first occasion of their dining there,
THACKEMAY remarked to those around him, "This
is a splendid dinner, such an one as CAVE, the
bookseller of St. John's Gate, gave to his
principal writers when Dr. JOHNSON'S coat was
so shabby that he ate his meal behind the
screen;" then calling out to his host, who
was at the other end of the table, THACKERAY
said, "Mr. SMITH, I hope you've not got
JOHNSON there behind that screent" "Eh?" said








90


the bibliopole, astonished; "behind the
screen? JOHNSON? God bless my soul, my
dear Mr, THACKERAY, there's no person of
the name of JOHNSON here, nor any one behind
the screen-what on earth do you mean?" A
roar of laughter cut him short; poor Mr. SMITH
had probably never heard of Dr, JOHNSON and his
screen dinnera The principal contributors to
the Corhill are ANTONY TROLLOPE, who is
writing tFramley Parsonage' in its pages;
GEORGE SALA, the biographer of HOGARTH: Big
HIGGINS, MOONCKTN MILNES, and OXENFORD, of
the Tieg; G. HT LEES, who is writing the
'Insect Life' ?HOLLINGSHEAD, HANNAY, Mrs.
GASKELL, Sir JOHN BURGOYNE, Sir J. BO7RING,
Capt. ALEN YOUNG, DASENT (second Editor of
the Times;) and a host of smaller fry. The
paper called "Little Scholars," in the current
number, was written by THACKRAY 'S eldest
daughter-her first attempt at literary composi-
tion; it is pretty, but bears traces of being
touched up by the paternal hand,-as THACKERAY
himself once said to PETER CUNINGLAM, who
was proudly pointing to some anonymous article
as his writing: "Ah! I thought I recognized
your ho in it" With the exaeption of
DICKENS and THACKERAY, perhaps, ANTONY TROLLOPE
is making more money than any English novelist.
He has a situation in the Post-Office, which
brings him over eight hundred a year; he gets
a thousand guineas for his "Framley Parsonage;"
and in addition to this, had just completed and
published a novel with CHA IAN & HALL; besides
all he is making by his reprints and new
editions. Some of his literary friends want
him to give up the Post-Office and devote all
his time to novel-writing, but he wisely looks
upon his official position as a source of
certain income, and intends to stick to it.7

In this piece of newspaper gossip Yates makes several statements which

are immediately important: (1) there have been four Gornhill dinners

(e.g,, January, February, March, and April); (2) Thackeray's futile

attempt to joke is related; (3) Smith is made out to be ignorant of

literature; (4) Thackeray is accused of touching up "Little Scholars";








91


and (5) Trollope is, in contrast to Thackeray, placed in a favorable

light. These five points help us to understand the reality that is

hidden beneath the account. In the first place, Thackeray's joke, which

can be dated at the January dinner, was apparently futile not because

Smith was ignorant but because Smith thought quickly enough to top it

with a rapid repartee. In this respect Yates's account written within

four months of the event is probably more accurate than Trollope's

written several years later.8 But although Yates says that "a roar of

laughter cut him short," he twists the actual event by implying that

the laughter was directed at the publisher; however, Trollope did not

make Smith ignorant, only preoccupied, so that the misunderstanding of

the joke seems to be on Trollope's part, not on Smith's. Trollope's

version is careful to save Smith's intellectual character while making

Thackeray repeat the joke in a vain attempt. If Yates learned of the

joke on the day following the January dinner, as he did according to

Trollope, it is strange that he did not put it to use until four months

later; if Trollope spoke to Yates only after the first dinner as he

claims, it is strange that Yates mentions the decline of the Conhill's

circulation and the possible touching up of Anne's "Little Scholars."

We know that the Cornhill declined in circulation during the first few

months, but not to the extent of Yates's assertion and not financially

to the distress of the publisher; hence Yates is entirely unaware of

the actual facts and is probably guessing. In the matter of "Little

Scholars," however, his version appears to be based on a misconception

of the actual facts that might have derived from a gornhill dinner.

Many years later, Lady Ritchie told George Smith,








92


I had written several novels and a tragedy
by the age of fifteen, but then my father forbade
me to waste my time any more scribbling, and
desired me to read other people's books.
I never wrote any more except one short fairy
tale, until one day my father said he had got a
very nice subject for me, and that he thought I
might now begin to write again. That was
Little Scholars which he christened for me and
of which he corrected the stops and the
spelling, and which you published to my still
pride and rapture.9

If Thackeray admitted at a CGrnhill dinner his suggestion of the subject

and his corrections (which were probably no more than he would have done

to any other contribution), a person wishing to attack him could easily

have twisted the facts by overstatement; since Lady Ritchie pointed out

her father's help, Thackeray very likely made some mention of it at

Smith's table. Because Trollope could not have heard this at the

January dinner, he must have heard it in April after Anne's story had

been accepted for the May issue. Trollope definitely tells that he

spoke in the presence of Yates after the January dinner; however, this

information must have been given to the younger journalist in April.

Trollope, therefore, saw Yates a second time-four months after the

first--and this second relation of events led Yates to write the

article that was published on May 26. With the necessity of the second

meeting being apparent, Trollope's relation to Thackeray becomes

clearer. Trollope, as we have seen, was more aligned to Yates's side

of the Garrick Club Affair; hence when Thackeray snubbed him, he could

hardly have sympathized with the editor. Rather Trollope's first

impression--an impression which was still strong in April-was negative;

Thackeray appeared to him to be everything that Yates would have called

him.








93


As Trollope pointed out in the suppressed portion of his

autobiography, Yatests column in h ~&w Yrk Times came to the atten-

tion of the widely circulated Saturda Review. It will be remembered

that the Satrday feview had castigated both Thackeray and Yates in

1858 during the Garrick Club Affair and took a decidedly antagonistic

stand against Thackeray after the initial success of the Cornhill.

The interest in "Echoes from the London Clubs," however, was also

derived from the Saturday vie's ideal of gentlemanly conduct.

Earlier in 1860 a reviewer had criticized the publishing of club

secrets:

If you cannot keep a feeble cireulation from
becoming utter stagnation and death in any
other way, you must do it by publishing what
nobody else will publish.

Later the same reviewer warned,

by all the rules of English public
morality, a man who thinks it his duty
publicly to cast a slur on another man's
name, must stand the risk of being as
publicly called to account for it, and
having to make as public a reparation.l 0

On June 23, the Saturday RevL seized upon Yates's article, enlarged

upon it, and soundly beat the principal figures; the following two

passages from the long article, "Newspaper Gossip," are especially

pertinent:

In America they print what in English towns
is only said or whispered; and, as the gossip
sells well and is well paid for, it is sure to
be amply provided. English gossip is particu-
larly acceptable, and the letters of the
London correspondent are accordingly a great
feature of a New York newspaper. When these








94


accounts of what is going on here come back
to London, they have the oddest possible effect.
It seems so strange, first, that any one should
write them--secondly, that any one should print
them without being ashamed--and, thirdly, that
the information, with its curious travesties of
names and facts, should be credulously swallowed.
As an example, we may take a comunication that
appeared in the L York Timea of the 26th of
May, under the title of "Echoes from the London
Clubs." It deals with English people in a
strain of extraordinary frankness, but we must
venture to reproduce some of its statements,
because it is impossible otherwise to estimate
what we should come to here if society and the
higher portion of the press did not constantly
keep newspaper gossip in decent bounds .
The fact is that he has so mch literary gossip
to communicate that he cannot afford much space to
art. Principally he writes about the Cornhill
Magazine. He does not seem to agree with Mr.
Thackeray's rose-coloured views of the success of
that publication, and no reader of the w York
Tlies is likely to believe that the author of
anity Fair has had much cause to streak himself
with the red paint that was, as he has told us,
the proper accompaniment of his triumphant. "That
notable periodical," we read, "went up like a
rocket and came down like a stick," But particu-
lars about the sale of the different numbers into
which he enters are wearisome, and open to question,
so he soon hurries to something a little more
personal. "There have been four tremendously heavy
dinner parties given by Smith at his residence in
Gloucester-terrace." Most of us remember the
circular in which Mr. Thackeray announced his
Magazine, and spoke of the claret of different
growths that figuratively adorned his editorial
board. This was poetry; but the correspondent sees
only prose, and gives the following unvarnished
account of these editorial repasts:--"Thackeray is
of course the great gun of these banquets, and
comes out with the greatest geniality in his
power, speaking of G. H. Lewes as Mr. Bede, and
drawing out each man to the extent to his ability."
A dinner, we fear, might well be tremendously heavy
at which the greatest geniality of the great gun is
shown by his calling Mr. Lewes "Mr. Bede." There
then follows a story to the disadvantage of the host.











(The full story of Thackeray s joke and Smith's
reply is quoted here from Yates's column.a A
list of the principal contributors to the
despised Magazine is then given--Antony Trollope,
George Sala, Big Higgins, Billy Russell, and so
on; and then the mention of Mr1 Trollope's name
leads to an interesting calculation how much that
gentleman makes by writing novels, and how much
he has from other sources; and thus the Americans
are kept up to the current of things, and know
all about English literature that is important and
interesting to know.il

This account carefully reviews Yates's column, presenting four major

pointst (1) the expressed purpose of the article is "to keep newspaper

gossip in decent bounds"; (2) the reviewer implicitly castigates the

policy of staff dinners; (3) "Little Scholars" is not mentioned; and

(4) the reviewer, although criticizing certain newspapers for publishing

slanderous rumors, puts Thackeray in a bad light by quoting such slander.

Perhaps, the reviewer was adhering to his own concept of the gentleman

by his silence concerning "Little Scholars," since an attack through a

young girlts first literary attempt was, indeed, "ungentlemanly,"

Besides this silence, however, the Saturday Rev s attack against

those people and newspapers which spread personal gossip and against

Thackeray himself is blatant,

With his confidence in Yates made public, Trollope began to

see the enormity of his action-not only Thackeray for whom he had no

love but Smith, whom he admired, was brutally attacked. He chose the

best approach to ease out of the situation, a full confession to Smith:

Shortly after the Saturday Review article
article appeared Trollope walked into my room
and said he had come to confess that he had
given Yates the information on which his
article was founded. He expressed the deepest




Full Text
41
Robinson, British Post Office, p. 356
-^Autobiography. p. 77.
Recollections and Experiences. II, 222-229.
Raileir, p. 145.
20irollope vas not alone in having difficulty vrith him; Hill
lacked tact and quarreled with a number of Postmaster-Generals under
whom he held office. See Robinson, British Post Office. pp. 177-178.
2~Autobicgraphy. p. 215.
Robinson, Britains Post Office, pp. 167-168.
Robinson, British Post Office, pp, 333-334*
R?rollope Letters p. 13, fn.3.
^Robinson, British Post Office, p. 336.
Of.
I have indicated Trollopes opinion of Sir Rowlands character
above; Tates must be exaggerating when he describes the Secretarys
attitude toward Trollopei .he hated Trollope very cordially and
could not avoid showing it when they were brought into contact.
Recollections and Experiences. II, 225. Since both men sought the same
goal and since Sir Rowland trusted Trollope to make him a special agent
in important matters, the hatred that existed between the men was not
one to be confused with their ability to work together toward a common
vision of postal efficiency, even though they obviously differed on
the methods that should be employed to obtain that vision.
27
Autobiography, pp, 104-105.
"Recollections and Experiences. I, 83.
^Robinson, British Post Office. p.
362, fn.21, and p. 365, fn,28.
-Recollections and Experiences. I, 89.
^Robinson, British Post Office, p. 418.
-Recollections and Experiences.
I, 93.
33Ibid. 101.
from 1846-1852.
The Marquis of Clanricarde was Postmaster-General
34Ibid., p. 103.
from 1852-1853.
The Earl of Hardwicke was Postmaster-General


243
Elwin, Malcolm. Thackeray? A Personality. London: Jonathan Gape,
1932.
Fields, James T, Yesterdays with Authors. Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin and Company, 1894*
Forster, John. The Life of Charles Dickens. 2 vols. London: Chapman
and Hall, Ltd,, 1899.
Friswell, J. Hain. Modern Men of Letters Honestly Criticised. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1870,
Fuller, Hester Thackeray [Ritchie3, and Violet Hammersley. Thackerays
Daughter: Some Recollections of Anne Thackeray Ritchie. London:
Â¥. J. Pollock and Company, Ltd., 1952.
Garraty, John A. The Nature of Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1957.
"Gentlemen Authors," Littell*s The Living Age. LVIII (September 4,
1858), 742-744.
Gissing, Algernon and Ellen (Editors). Letters of George Gissing to
Members of his Family.- Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1927.
Haight, Gordon S. (Editor). The George Eliot Letters. 7 vols. New
Havens Yale University Press, 1954-1955.
Hodder, George. Memories of My Time Including Personal Reminiscences
of Eminent Men. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1870.
Hollingshead, John. My Lifetime. 2 vols. London: Sampson Low,
Marston and Company, Limited, 1895.
Hutton, Laurence (Editor). Letters of Charles Dickens to Wilkie
Collins. 1851-1870: Selected by Miss Georgina Hogarth,
London: J. R. Osgood, Mcllvaine and Company, 1892.
^Huxley, Leonard). The House of Smith. Elder. London: William
Clowes and Sons, Limited, 1923.
Irving, Laurence, Henry Irving: The Actor and Kis World. London:
Faber and Faber, 1951*
James, Henry. "Thackerayana." The Nation. XXI (December 9, 1857), 376.
Johnson, Edgar. Charles Dickens: His Tragedy and Triumph. 2 vols.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1952.


120
have been more than "simply a friend." He was a rather close friend
of long standing. In August, I860, Synge even named his son, William
Makepeace Thackeray Synge, and Thackeray stood as godfather. In the
second place Trollope relates that Thackeray answered his proposal
"angrily, with some expletives" and then "whispered his suggestion, as
though half ashamed of his meanness." While the latter reaction was
more characteristic of Thackeray, the former assertion has more the
romantic quality of a Trollopian character than any direct reference
to Thackerays recorded behavior. Mr. Ray has pointed out Thackerays
eagerness to help those in financial distress by loaning them money or
even taking them into his hame*^ It is remarkable that Thackerays
first reaction to such a proposal should be of anger, just as it is
surprising that Trollope approached him to ask for a loan of money for
a man whom Thackeray had known over a considerable length of time as a
friend. Finally Trollope insinuates that Synge first approached him,
then he asked Thackeray. Shortly after seeing Trollope, Thackeray sent
the following note to Synge:
My Dear Doubleyou Doubleyou,
I have just met a Trojan of the name of
Trollope in the street (your ingenious note of
last night kept me awake all night, be hanged
to you), and the upshot is that we will do what
you want between us. My dear old Synge, come
and talk to me on Friday before twelve.
32
Thackeray says that he has just met Trollope, but the sentence in
parenthesis implies that Synge had written beforehand to Thackeray,
Synge did irrite to Thackeray asking for the loan, a circumstance that
logically follows from their friendship and Synges awareness
If


130
Colonel Heweome is the finest single character in English fiction."55
If Trollopes desire to heighten the memory of the recently deceased
Thackeray causes him to submerge adverse criticism and to praise
without qualification Thackeray's artistic abilities, he reveals his
split view of his subject as early as January, I864. Writing immedi
ately after the death of Thackeray, Trollope did not have time for his
initial emotional reaction to cool; therefore, the adverse criticism
must have been a strongly latent opinion that slowly emerged as the
emotional association faded. Trollope himself may have realized his
inability clearly to present a fair image of Thackeray when he
told Smith that "I do not feel up to writing a memoir." In the memorial
article, however, he does not attempt a memoir, he merely mentions
James Hannay's account then adds,
The writing of his life will be a task, and we
trust a work of love, for which there will
probably be more than one candidate. We trust
that it may fall into fitting hands,into the
hands of one who shall have loved wisely, and
not too well,but, above all things, into the
hands of a true critic. That which the world will
most want to know of Thackeray, is the effect which
his writings have produced; we believe that effect
to have been very wide, and beneficial withal.
Let us hope, also, that the task of his biography
may escape that untoward hurry which has ruined
the interest of so many of the memoirs of our
latter-day worthies.56
That the biographer should be "one who shall have loved wisely, and not
too well," perhaps, reveals Trollopes primary qualification for the
English Men of Letters volume; moreover, Trollopes emphasis here on
"the effect which his writings have produced" explains the later volume
in which Thackeray the artist is highly praised and discussed at length


132
founded in an emotional state of association with Thackeray; it was
more soundly reasoned and written than Trollopes. The general tone,
then is more objective; his description of the funeral, for example, is
brief and to the points
On the bright wintry day, the last but one of
the old year, he was laid in his grave at Kensal
Green, there to mingle the dust to which the
mortal part of him had returned, with that of a
third child, lost in her infancy, years ago.
The heads of a great concourse of his fellow-
workers in the Arts, were bowed around his tomb. ^
With a difference in tone comes a total difference in conception; while
Trollope discusses Thackerays works, Dickens wrote:
In no pages should I take it upon myself at this
time to discourse of his books, of his refined
knowledge of character, of his subtle acquaintance
with the weaknesses of human nature, of his
delightful playfulness as an essayists, of his
quaint and touching ballads, of his mastery over
the English language. Least of all, in these
pages, enriched by his brilliant qualities from
the first of the series, and beforehand accepted
by the Public through the strength of his great
name.^2
In contrast to Trollope, Dickens, who had known Thackeray some twenty-
eight years, gathers anecdotes that he can remember to describe
Thackeray the man, focusing upon minutiae that reveal the humor, gentle
ness, or vivacity of the man as Dickens remembered him. Trollope,
plunging his account into the sentimental, had lost the actual man,
but Dickens in his straightforward account emphasizes the Thackeray he
had known so well and fought so violently. Perhaps, the estrangement
was a factor in giving Dickens's account its deep poignancy, for instead
of constructing elaborate rhetorical sentences when mentioning the
qualities that come to his mind, he simply writes:


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID ELF4VZCXG_XJM9GP INGEST_TIME 2014-11-17T20:55:37Z PACKAGE AA00026379_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES


As let as M91 lady Bitefel till claiming that whatever the public
asedad to knew about her father could fee fmm& is hi# writes, addedt
Mr* Trollope that kind old friend *o knm
his so mM'if sm Ml frm & very different
point of riet from sin but fee writes with
as affection which never varied, and which
vas ever eoeetant to w fatter*# children,
though sot untried 1 fear, by the present
writer*5
Between 1S2 and 1891* trollops feed, died cd enough hostile material
had hmn circulated for her to see in Trollope*# book the meager praise
that use before edtesrged beneath the overt portrait#
Trollop*s image of Thackeray presents a writer who at his
beet ms inferior to none bat whose personality mm marked by Indolence,
melancholy, ineptitud am! a sserbid awareness of snobbery* Th&eteray*#
family would, of course, not condone such a portrait, so Lady Bitchi
alter the portrait by leaving the critical view untouched and by con
centrating on ter fatter*# personality* therefore, in the *Biographical
lntTOduetioasn and in Mr* Say* biography which mn influenced by her,
we receive a portrait of & benevolent* jpwiaaw, warm hearted, as
sincere ms burdened by pals and continued suffering but always rising
dmm hi# adversity* The Malee on the other teal, usually accepted
Trollop9# description of Thackeray*# personality (with greater
exRggeratioas) and lowered the appreciation of Me artistic skill mill
fee was noticeably below Unitene* Sine Trollop,, the first biographer,
presented the most central view, his portrayal takes on the unusual
attribute of furthering both extremes, Lady Bltehie could indirectly
um it a# a sanction for her own work, and the- attackers, who saw that


TROLLOPES THACKERAY:
ONE PHASE OF VICTORIAN BIOGRAPHY
By
MARK DOUGLAS HAWTHORNE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
August, 1964


44
'^Wisdom. pp. 274*275.
Recollections and Experiences. I, 235-236.
78
Adversity, p. 226.
^El-win, p. 369.
'^Recollections and Experiences. I, 231-282. George Hodder gives
the following account of the dinner: "The project being initiated, Mr.
Peter Cunningham undertook the duties of secretary, and all the pre
liminary arrangements were of the most satisfactory kind, care being
taken that the party should be entirely private, and that it should
consist exclusively of Mr, Thackerays intimates." Memories of My Time
Including Personal Reminiscences of Eminent Men (London, 1870), p. 257.
81
82
Recollections and Experiences. II, 153.
Ibid.. I, 253-254.
%lsdom. p, 52.
^^Recollections and Experiences. I, 280.
85
86f
Adversity, p. 291.
George Augustus Sala, The Life and Adventures of George Augustus
Sala. Written by Himself (London, 189677 PP 275 and 278.
87,
88*
Recollections and Experiences. I, 336-337,
The Correspondence of Thomas Carlyle and Ralph Waldo Emerson.
1834-1872 7Boston, 1883)71, 262.
^Bevington, pp. 182-183.
^See his reviews of Goningsby (May 13, 1844) and Sybil (May 13,
I845) reprinted in Gordon H. Ray (ed.), William Makepeace Thackeray?
Contributions to the Morning Chronicle (Urbana, 1955).
"Adversity. pp. 241-245.
9Sibia.. pp. 367-373.
"ibid.. pp. 286-289.
"Letter of May 30, 1851. Muriel Spark (ed,), The Bronte Letters
(London, 1954), PP. 185-186,


106
I have been very glad to get your letter.
I should have been unhappy to feel myself
severed from the most popular periodical of
the day, & assure you that I will do the best
I can for you with B. J. & R.^4
It seems only reasonable to assume that Trollopes dismissal from the
staff came as a result of the clashes between him and the editor}
because Trollope did not appreciate Thackeray as a man, he had no
intimacy with him as a person. But because he deeply admired Thackerays
art, especially in Esmond, he sought to preserve his place, which was
also very lucrative, on the Cornhill staff. This admiration of the
writer caused Trollope to appear to many of his contemporaries to be
Thackerays close friend (and he may even have fooled Thackeray into
believing that he was a closer friend than he really was) while con
sistently his opinion of Thackeray reverted to that held by lates.
Motes
1
Bevington, p. 37,
2
HuxLey, p. 104.
"3
Wilfred Partington, "The Indiscretion of Anthony Trollope,
Bookman. LXXVT (February, 1933), 207.
^Autobiography, p. 119.
'That Trollope was Ignorant of social behavior is obvious from
Salas account of the first Cornhill dinner: "Anthony Trollope was
very much to the fore, contradicting everybody; afterwards saying kind
things to everybody, and occasionally going to sleep on sofas or chairs;
or leaning against side-boards, and even somnolent while standing erect
on the hearthrug. I never knew a man who could take so many spells of
forty winks at unexpected moments, and tren turn up quite wakeful,
alert, and pugnacious, as the author of Barchester Towers, who had
nothing of the bear but his skin, but whose ursine envelope ms
assuredly of the most grisly texture." George Augustus Sala, Things I
Have Seen and People I Have Known (London, 1&94), I, 30-31*


CHAPTER I
THE FORMATION OF TROLLOPE'S PREJUDICE
The man who was to prejudice Trollope against Thackeray was
Edmund Tates. Trollope and Yates, who was sixteen years younger, not
only knew one another but were closely enough associated by 1858 that
the younger asked the older for friendly, indeed brotherly, help.
The common bond that the Post Office gave the men and the common
sympathy for Sir Rowland Hill's plans of postal reform brought the two
men together and after 1853 provided the grounds upon which an acquaint
ance could be founded. This acquaintance had developed, despite the
infrequent association of the men, into a more personal bond before
Trollope's trip to Egypt in 1858. It will be important for us to
ascertain this relation in order to understand the formation of
Trollope's viewpoint of Thackeray and the circumstances of their first
meeting. At this time Trollope did not know Thackeray other than as a
literary figure, but, as we shall see, Yates did. Since Trollope's
first knowledge of Thackeray's personality was dependent upon Yates's
opinion, we need to establish the relations between Trollope and Yates
and Yates and Thackeray before we can understand the one that came to
exist between Trollope and Thackeray. Given to writing scandalous
personal gossip columns, a journalistic feature that he claimed to
1
have originated, Yates was not one of those writers who helped to
P
lift journalism from its lav? status of the first part of the century.
8


113
Sala lent his name, bat Tates, the assistant or sub-editor, was the
actual force behind the magazine. Trollope, of course, knew that to
accept the editorship of Temple Bar would put him into direct associa
tion with a man who, though once a friend, had already betrayed and
thus embarrassed him. Since he was now a member of the Garrick Club
and for the first time in his life felt himself accepted by his
associates,"^ Trollope refused Maxwell's generous offer. Maxwell could
hardly have made the offer to Trollope without Tates's knowledge; there
fore, Tates's active antagonism to Trollope, while probably originating
from his jealously in i860, reached its full growth when he stepped into
the position refused by Trollope. Tates*s actions during this time
were, perhaps, justified in whatever thrusts he might make against
Thackeray or his supporters, since in his eyes he was forced to suffer
8
for committing an offense that Thackeray himself was guilty of. On
May 25, 1889, he defended his action to Herman Merivale, who was then
collecting materials for his biography of Thackeray:
Please bear in mind, first, the circumstances
under which the offending little article was
written. While the press waited, to supply
'short copy', at a desk in a printing office,
with the master-printer at my elbow, urging me
on, slip by slip being carried off to the
compositors, as it was written. Think that I
was then only 27 years old, with wife & three
children, supplementing a small Post Office
salary by journalistic labour, sitting down at
my desk, three or four nights a week, after ay
day's official grind, sitting down at 8 pm. &
steadily writing till midnight. Remember what
the social degradation inflicted upon me at
Thackeray's instance, not the fury of a moment
but deliberately insisted on through six weeks,


61
When he had decided to break his principle, he went to
London to make final arrangements. Arriving on the morning of
November 3, he had finished plotting Castle Richmond and went first to
Edvard Chapman to break his arrangement with Chapman & Hall in the case
that this Irish novel suited the Cornhill. With an agreement made,
Trollope had his "first interview with Mr. George Smith," who wanted
"an English tale, on English life, with a clerical flavour.
Smiths rejection of a novel dealing with Ireland reflected his concern
with the English public. Trollopes early Irish novels, The Macdermots
of Ballvcloram (1847) and The Kellys and the 0*Kellys: or Landlords
and Tenants (1848), as well as Castle Richmond (i860), "brought to the
Irish novel an objectivity which not even Maria Edgeworth could match,
yet he was almost as close to the peasants as Garleton or the Banims."^2
The intellectual climate in England, however, formed the basis for
Smiths refusal of Castle Richmond: the Stebbinses describe the attitude
toward the Irish in England in the following paragraph:
Such bitter food was not relished in England.
Had Ireland been in a less unhappy state when
Castle Richmond was published, English readers
could have been comfortable in the thought that
twelve years had passed since these poor wretches
starved to death. As it was, they could not pick
up a daily paper without seeing reference to
current evils in that luckless country. Rents
had continued to rise, landlords to be extortionate,
taxes to increase, and the endless quarrel between
Catholics and Protestants had waxed in bitterness.
A strong police force was ineffectual in subduing
malcontents. Across the Atlantic, especially in
New York, Irish emigrants who had left the country
in the dreadful years of dearth had grown rich and
were sending money home to foment disorder. The
Fenian Society had declared its purpose of setting
up an independent Irish republic. Victorians dis
liked depressing novels based on truths which
pricked at conscience.53


171
Mr & Mrs Brookfield Mrs Elliot & Miss Perry
Ed. Fitzgerald
Sir Henry Dawson
Mrs Fladgate
were people he was very fond of.
Of these people only Edward Fitzgerald is mentioned in Thackeray.
although Frank Fladgate*s name appears in the list of Thackeray's
acquaintances.Included with these questions and answers is question
twenty-three, "Gan you give aie any other details of his life," which
received the ambiguous answer:
Jerusalem about 1843. Rome 53,4
Oxford Election
Cornhill Magazine
Trollope does not mention either the trip to Jerusalem or to Rome in
the biographical chapter, but he does speak at length on the other two
details. Altogether seven of the twenty-three questions were not
used in Trollope's writing; therefore, the sixteen remaining questions
were incorporated. The unanswered and the unused questions are of
interest because here Trollope has over-estimated the recollection of
his correspondent or has changed plans in his writing; apparently he
was so desperate in his search for information that he asked some of
the questions hoping to have some leads upon which to build.
The first question that Trollope asked, "Date and place of
his birth," reveals Trollope's desire to substantiate factual informa
tion since both parts were widely known and had even been published in
American newspapers two decades before.^ Lady Ritchie's answer,
"Calcutta. July 18 1811," forms the substance of Trollope's first
statement after describing the purpose of the chapter, "William Makepeace


229
Yates publishes article in
Town Talk.
June 12
Yates replies to Thackeray
after seeing Dickens.
June 15
Writes to Garrick Club
Committee, Doland tirites
to Yates,
June 19
Yates writes to Committee,
after seeing Dickens.
June 23
Committee sides with Thackeray, June 26
orders lates to apologize or
retire.
Yates writes Committee, having
see Dickens.
July 1
Dickens writes to Yates
telling him not to go to
General Meeting.
July 6
Dickens describes affair to
Russell.
July 7
Thackeray writes to Committee
but does not mail letter,
feels punishment greater
than offense.
July 9
General Meeting upholds
Thackeray,
July 10
Thackeray on continent. July 13-August 17
Yates expelled from Club,
July 20
Dickens advises Yates to
get a lawyer.
July 23
July (?) In London,
August-October At home in Ireland.
Returning to London, finds August 17
small papers have taken
Yatess side.


52
position at a salary of LI,000 a year. As evident from his calculations
in a letter of October 1 to Mrs, Carmichael-Smyth, he was pleased that
he finally had risen to a financially comfortable position:
If I can work for 3 years now, I shall have
put back my patrimony and a little over
after 30 years of ups and downs. I made a
calculation the other day of receipts in the
last 20 years and can only sum up about 3200L
of moneys actually receivedfor w& I have
values or disbursements of 13000so that I
havent spent at the rate of more than 1000 a
year for 20 years. The profits of the
lectures figure as the greatest of the
receipts 9500LVirginians 6Vanity Fair only
2. 3 years more please the Fatesand the
girls will then have the S or 10000 a piece
that I want for them: and we mustnt say a
word against filthy lucre, for I see the use
& comfort of it every day more and more,
that a blessing not to mind about bills1
Before accepting this lucrative position, Thackeray was hesitant: My
Father, Lady Ritchie wrote, demurred at first to the suggestion of
editing the Cornhill*. Such work did not lie within his scope, but then
Mr. George Smith arranged that he himself was to undertake all business
transactions, and my Father was only to go on writing and criticising
17
and suggesting. Under the final arrangement both Smith and
IS
Thackeray had to agree on an article before it could be published,
a situation that was to irritate Trollope in 1861 and to lead to his
comment, "What I wrote for the Cornhill Magazine. I always wrote at the
instigation of Mr. Smith,On the whole, the agreement was satis
factory, and Smith was later able to comment, This relation between
publisher and editor would have worked ill in the case of some men,
but Thackerays nature was generous, and my regard for him was so
sincere that no misunderstanding ever occurred,


168
21* He told me shortly before his death that he was worth then
exactly the sum of money that we inherited on coming of
age**-He mentioned a sumI think it was 430,000.
Ans. Ke left about 4730 a year including 5000 for the
copyrights after dues & taxes were paid
22, For some years before his death he was a sufferer
When did that begin
- Ans, He had a dreadful fever wile he was writing Pendennis,
At Rome he was again ill & ever afterwards suffered from
spasms & constant pain & uneasiness
23 Can you give me any other details of his life
Ans. Jerusalem about I843. Rome 53,4
Oxford Election
Cornhill Magazine
Lady Ritchie failed to answer only three of Trollopes questions,
not because she desired to thwart the novelist but because she was
ignorant of the facts demanded. Trollope's fourth question, "What fortune
did he inherit,1 poses the typical problem. Evidently Lady Ritchie had
no reason to wish to suppress this information, for she later details
the amount of her own inheritance. If she wished to conceal the first,
she presumably would not have given the second? therefore, her reticence
is more than likely the result of a lack of knowledge, an assumption on
our part that appears to be entirely logical since Thackeray would have
had little occasion to pass such information to his child. The eighth
question, "When was he at Weimar and for how long, again demands
information that Lady Ritchie would probably not know. Just as Trollope
knew that Thackeray had been in Weimar (or he could not have asked the
question in the first place), Lady Ritchie, while being aware that her


89
the presence of the man to whom he told the story of Thackeray's vain
joke, sent the story to an American newspaper after twisting it from
the truth. The article appeared in The Hew York Times for May 26,
I860, in a column entitled "Echoes from the London Clubs." It is
important to read the most pertinent parts of this articles
In literary matters we are all alive, but the
success of the Cornhill Magazine is already
showing symptoms of being on the wane. That
notable periodical went up like a rocket, and
is beginning to come down like the stick; it
is certain that its first number sold nearly a
hundred thousand, and that its second reached
seventy thousand, but ever since then it has
been declining, and now I should think forty
thousand was about the mark. With a less
circulation it would notcould not pay, for
it receives comparatively few advertisements,
and its expenses are enormous. There have been
already four tremendously heavy dinner parties
given by SMITH {of SMITH & ELDER,) at his
residence in Gloucester-terrace, at which all
of the principal contributors have been
present. THACKERAY is, of course, the great
gun of these banquets, and comes out with the
greatest geniality in his power, speaking of
G. H. LEWES as "Mr. BEDE," (Mrs. L. is the
author of Adam Bede,) and drawing each man
out to the extent of his ability. But there
is one very funny story which will bear
repetition! SMITH, the proprietor of the
Cornhill. and the host on these occasions, is
a very good man of business, but totally
unread; his business has been to sell books,
not to read them, and he knoiis little else.
On the first occasion of their dining there,
THACKERAY remarked to those around him, "This
is a splendid dinner, such an one as CAVE, the
bookseller of St. John's Gate, gave to his
principal writers when Dr. JOHNSON'S coat was
so shabby that he ate his seal behind the
screen;" then calling out to his host, who
was at the other end of the table, THACKERAY
said, "Mr. SMITH, I hope you've not got
JOHNSON there behind that screen!" "Eh?" said


177
but by emphasizing the money lost in the attempt to float The National
Standard, he is able to moralize in the next passage over the futility
of such endeavors. Nevertheless, in the above passage only a small
portion comes from the questionnaire; the source of the remainder is
rather obvious. Since Lady Ritchie could have relied only on hearsay,
the only other person who could supply the approximate amount of
Thackeray1s inheritance (Trollopes figure being only i>75 too much) and
the details of The National Standard would have been someone who knew
Thackeray at that time. Unless he received this information from a
source that is not mentioned elsewhere in the volume, Trollope was
informed by Edward Fitsgerald, who was quite intimate with Thackeray at
that period. It is doubtful whether Lady Ritchie was conversant with
these details since she falsely implies in her answer that more was
lost in the newspaper endeavor than in the bank failure and since she
did not know the amount of Thackerays inheritance.
In Thackerays domestic matters, on the other hand, Lady
Ritchie had more knowledge than anyone else whom Trollope solicited for
aid; here a textual problem similar to that of question five is posed.
Three sets of questions are relevant. The least difficult is the
material that deals with Amy Crowe that Trollope had placed in his
fourteenth question:
14* There should be a word about Amy Crowe. How long was
she with you
Ans. From 1853 to 1862 when she married Ed. Thackeray


164
create a work of love*^ that would please Thackerays daughter but also
would remain honest to the opinion of Thackeray that he had expressed
in An Autobiography three years before. The result of this two-fold
drive is the ambivalence of the finished work, an ambivalence that we
have already traced from the inception of his image of Thackeray when
he still befriended Edmund lates.
In later volume (1928) of the English Men of Letters series,
Hugh Walpole helped to propagate an illogical and unfounded idea of
Trollope 1s Thackeray that has unfortunately been accepted without much
serious consideration.
Trollope loved his friend so deeply that one
can feel the throb of his affection in every
page of this book, but at the same time he
would tell no lies, but would write what
seemed to him to be the truth. He knew
Thackeray only in his later years, with the
result that he leaves a rather unfortunate
portrait of a man bowed down with pain and
sickness and loneliness, someone a little
acid from melancholy although loyal and
charming to his close friends.
When we analyse the volume, separating the elements supplied frora various
sources, we can see into the nature of Trollopes opinion of Thackeray.
Such analysis means that the source of each section in the volume, especi
ally in the first chapter, must be identified and that those passages
which cannot be attributed to a source must be set aside as revealing
Trollopes own opinion. The greatest aid to this analysis is the
following questionnaire sent to Lady Ritchie and her answers.^ Since
the manner in which Trollope utilized her information is of utmost
importance in determining the full extent of her help, some of which


63
own mind,undertaken always to supply them
with so many words, and I have never put a
book out of hand short of the number by a
single word. I may also say that the excess has
been very small. I have prided myself on com
pleting my work exactly within the proposed
dimensions. But I have prided myself especially
in completing it within the proposed time,and
I have always done so. There has ever been the
record before me, and a week passed with an in
sufficient number of pages has been a blister
to my eye, and a month so disgraced would have
been a sorrow to my heart.59
Elsewhere he confided that he had the custom "to write with a watch
before me, and to require from myself 250 words every quarter of an
hour, I have found that the 250 words have been forthcoming as
regularly as my watch went." Between the details of his postal
work and the confusion of the move to Waltham House, therefore,
Trollope managed to have copy in Smith's hands early enough that he
could return the proofs on November 25.^
Thackeray and Smith had a hectic time as the dead line for
the first number neared, but on December 15 Thackeray wrote to Mrs,
Tennyson,, "Hip Hip Hurray. Our number is gone to press. . On
December 25 Trollope, now living at Waltham Cross, had already received
his payment and asked Smith whether the check was not too large, adding
his congratulations on the first number.0^ Thackeray was pleased when
65
he received an early copy on December 20, as were the contributors
who also received advanced copies. Richard Monckton Milnes, for
example, wrote Thackeray on December 27 to congratulate him for a
magazine "almost too good for the public it is written for and the money
fifi
it has to earn."UD Trollope wrote to the editor on December 28, adding
his praises to the others:


167
I have not got all the original editions
Hogarthy diamond 1338 or 9 B & E
Vanity Fair 1843 Paris Sketch Book 1840
Pendennis 1850 Irish 1843
Esmond 1852
Newsomes 1854
Virginians 1853
Roundabout papers 1862
Phillip
17. How were his books published & by whom
in Fraser
Punch
or in other periodicals or by what publishers
Eo Answer.
18. A list of the lectures he gave / were there any besides the 4
Georges and the Humourists. Were all the Humourists, as
presented given as lectures
The places where they were given in England, and America
In what Hall In London
Ans. There was Charles which he kept I think fr charities
53 humourists 55 Georges
Edenbro. Newcastle- Glasgow. Leeds.
Sheffield Oxford Cambridge
Devonshire & Willis5 Evans
19. Date of his trip to America
Is it not the ease that the lectures in America were more
profitable in England
When did he first 0 himself Thackeray
Ana, October 1852 & 8 1855 [?]
Yes. All the money he made in America he laid by for us.
20. Are there particular friends to whom reference should be made
Ee told me himself that he had ox-red most m to Shirley Brooks
Higgins & But he was alluding to pecuniary
obligations
Ans. Mr. & Mrs. Brookfield Mrs Elliot & Miss Perry.
Ed. Fitzgerald
Sir Henry Dawson
Mrs. Fladgate
were people he was very proud of.


157
Mr# Trollope, that kind old friend who knew
him so much, saw him from a very different
point of view from mine, but he writes with an
affection which never varied, and which was
ever constant to my fatherfs children, though
not untried, I fear, by the present writer.IS
Since Trollope was not writing a voluminous account of Thackeray, the
help of Thackeray*s family is not unusualj Lady Fdtchie apparently felt
that she could aid her friend in his work because it was not to be a
standard life but a critical summary that needed to be placed in a
biographical context.
The English Men of Letters Series was established by John
Morley, who described the series as being "a useful contribution to
knowledge, criticism, and reflection, and bringing all these three good
things within reach of an extensive, busy, and preoccupied world.
When Morley had procured Trollope's agreement to do the volume and had
secured the assent of Thackerays family, he virote to Trollope giving
him the word to go ahead with the writing:
Brighton.
Jan. 27. 79
My dear Trollope,
I am delighted that it is to be, and particu
larly as we have such friendly assent from Stephen
and his sister-in-law. But I confess to a touch
of disappointment that the world is never to have
a full life of him, and a selection from his
letters, which must have been full of flavour, I
don't know how far you will feel free to tell his
story, but 1 hope you will give us as much as ever
you can in the personal vein, by way of background
to the critical and descriptive.
The end of March will do perfectly well. In
fact I shall hardly be peady before. So I will
book you for Mar. 31, w. is exactly 9 weeks from
to-day.


173
In the following paragraph from the book I have again italicised the
material from the questionnaire:
In 1353. Thackeray having then his own two girls
to provide for, added a third to his family, and
adopted My Crowe, the daughter of an old friend,
and sister of the well-known artist now among us.
How it came to pass that she wanted a home, or
that this special home suited her, it would be
unnecessary here to tell even if I knew. But
that he did give a home to this young lady,
making her in all respects the same as another
daughter, should be told of him* He was a man
who liked to broaden his back for the support of
others, and to make himself easy under such
burdens.^9 In 1362. she married a Thackeray
cousin, a young officer with the Victoria Cross,
Edward Thackeray, and went out to India.--where
she dledT^'
Obviously Trollope knows nothing about My Crowe prior to 1360 except
her family connections which he learned after being entertained in
Thackerays house and after meeting her5 therefore, he admits his
ignorance, giving only the date supplied by Lady Ritchie, The details
of her marriage, on the other hand, are contrasted to his ignorance
of the manner of her death; Trollope was a visitor in Thackerays
home when Amy Crowe was married, but he had apparently learned of her
death afterwards, no details being given to him. Of greater complexity
is the way Trollope used the fifteenth question:
15. Names and dates of his London residences
Ans. Albion St 1337. Ct Coram St 1835-40
St James St Chambers
13 Young St Kensington 1847-1853
36 Onslow Sqr 1853-1862
Palace Green 1362-1863


72
The Cornhill Magazine in i860 and eight or nine during each of the next
three years."97 Beresford Hope of the Saturday Review commented about
him!
Maine and Stephen enticed over to the Cornhill
by Thackeray, like a jobber as he is. Stephen,
who is avid of money, agreed without Cooks
knowledge to write a continuous series for the
Cornhill, which is obviously treason, and he
has got his dismissal accordingly.^
Earlier the Saturday Review had favored Thackeray over Dickens, but in
1860 they joined the nebulous group that opposed the editor of the
Cornhill.99 When Thackeray mentioned the Saturday Review in nNil Nisi
Bonum" (February, I860) he was highly complimentary: ,!It is a good
sign of the times when such articles as these (I mean the articles in
the Times and Saturday Review) appear in our public prints about our
public men. They educate us, as it were, to admire rightly."-90 In
another Roundabout Paper, De Juventute" (October, I860), however,
Thackeray, who had by now enough of the Saturday Reviews attacks,
struck back by satirizing their position:
It is the Superfine Review. It inclines to
think that Mr. Dickens is not a true gentleman,
that Mr. Thackeray is not a true gentleman, and
they when the one is pert and the other is
arch, we, the gentlemen of the Superfine Review,
think, and think rightly, that we have some
cause to be indignant. The great cause why
modern humour and modern sentimentalism repel
us, is that they are unwarrantably familiar.
Now, Mr. Sterne, the Superfine Reviewer thinks,
"vas a true gentleman, because he was above all
things a true gentleman." The flattering
inference is obvious: let us be thankful for
having an elegant moralist watching over us,
and learn, if not too old, to imitate his high-


I do not hesitate to name Thackeray the first.
His knowledge of human nature was supreme, and
his characters stand out as human beings, with a
force and a truth which has not, I think, been
within the reach of any other English novelist
in any period.
Trollope then concentrates on Thackerays ability to draw well-rounded
characters, but soon he inserts a qualification into his praises
Among all our novelists his style is the purest,
as to my ear it is also the most harmoniouis.
Sometimes it is disfigured by a slight toueh of
affectation, by little conceits which smell of
the oil;but the language is always lucid.
The section ends with out and out adverse criticism of Thackerays
final work (and interestingly of the period during which he was editor
of the Cornhill)s
Late in Thackerays life,he never was an old
man, but towards the end of his career,he failed
in his power of charming, because he allowed his
mind to become idle. In the plots which he con
ceived, and in the language which he used, I do
not know that there is any perceptible change;
but in The Virginians and in Philip the reader
is introduced to no character with which he
makes a close and undying acquaintance. And this,
I have no doubt, is so because Thackeray himself
had no such intimacy. His mind had come to be
xjeary of that fictitious life which is always
demanding the labour of new creation, and he
troubled himself with his two Virginians and
his Philip only when he was seated at his desk.
Since Trollope mentioned Thackeray as one of the novelists who followed
poor procedures in writing and since that procedure implies that all
Thackerays major works except Esmond are inferior, this shift from
unqualified praise to unlimited castigation causes Esmond to become a
pivot in Thackeray's career before which he was good but not great and


TROLLOPES THACKERAY:
ONE PHASE OF VICTORIAN BIOGRAPHY
By
MARK DOUGLAS HAWTHORNE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
August, 1964

ro^ICATION
I would like to dedies this dissertation to my wife
whose patience has been the grea- single factor in its
composition.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the interest
and patience of Dr. William Ruff, who directed this dissertation.
Without his continual encouragement and his help in procuring other-
wise inaccessible material, this dissertation would not have been
completed. I also wish to express my appreciation for the help that
I have received from Dr, August Staub and Dr. Alton C. Morris, who
were members of the Supervisory Committee.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS . . v
INTRODUCTION ................ 1
I THE FORMATION OF TROLLOPE'S PREJUDICE .... 8
II THACKERAY'S CORNHILL MAGAZINE AND
TROLLOPE'S CONTRIBUTION ......... 48
III i860THE YEAR OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS 84
IV TROLLOPE'S OPINION OF THACKERAY FROM
1861 UNTIL 1876 109
V TROLLOPE'S THACKERAY; THE MANIPULATION OF
FACT 150
EPILOGUE 217
APPENDIX A; A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF
THACKERAY AND TROLLOPE, 1857-1863 .... 228
APPENDIX B: THE TEXT OF YATES'S TOWN
TALK ARTICLE 234
APPENDIX C; A PARAGRAPH ANALYSIS OF
THACKERAY SHOWING TROLLOPE'S CONTENT
AND SOURCES 236
BIBLIOGRAPHY 242

ABBREVIATIONS
Adversity. Gordon N. Ray, Thackeray; The Uses of Adversity.
1811-1846 (New York, 1955).
Autobiography. Anthony Trollope, An Autobiography (Garden City,
New York, n.d.).
George Eliot Letters. Gordon S, Haight (ed.), The George Eliot
Letters (Mew Haven, 1954-1955).
Recollections and Experiences. Edmund Yates, Edmund Yates; His
Recollections and Experiences (London, 1884).
Thackeray. Anthony Trollope, Thackeray (English Men of Letters;
London, 1879).
Thackeray Letters. Gordon S, Ray (ed.), The Letters and Private
Papers of William Makepeace Thackeray (Cambridge,
1945-1946).
Trollope Letters. Bradford A, Booth, The Letters of Anthony
Trollope (London, 1958).
Wisdom. Gordon N. Ray, Thackeray; The Age of Wisdom. 1847-
1863 (New York,'1958).
Works. Anne Thackeray Ritchie (ed.), The Biographical Edition
of the Works of William Makepeace Thackeray (London.
1898-189917"
v

INTRODUCTION
A biography written by a novelist about a contemporary
novelist presents a unique phenomenon, but when that biography appears
against the wishes of its subject, the result is a work that raises
questions about its origin in the lives of the men concerned and its
importance in literary history. On the evening of November 20, 1862,
Henry Silver wrote in his diary that Thackeray, disliking Mary
Gordons life of John Wilson, said, JW did nothing worth record-and
the effect of the life upon him, Th?, was to make him tell his
daughters Mind, no biography of himself,"^ Even though Mr, Gordon N,
Ray attributes Thackerays strictures to an anxiety caused by the fear
of scandalous rumors that his enemies might circulate after his
death, Thackerays reticence was a typical reaction of a Mid-Victorian
writer* As early as March 24, 1840, Tennyson condemned biographical
writing in The Examiner:
For now the Poet cannot die,
Nor leave his music as of old,
But round him ere he scarce be cold
Begins the scandal and the cry:
"Proclaim the faults he would not show;
Break lock and seal, betray the trust;
Keep nothing sacred, *tis but just
The many-headed beast should know,"
("To After Reading a Life and Letters," 13-20)
1

2
After the first edition of Pauline (1833) and John Stuart Mills
criticism, Browning sought obscurity behind the many characters of his
dramatic monologues, and in 1076, he attacked the biographical approach
to his work in such poems as "House1 and "Shop," Thomas Huxley wrote
his Autobiography in order to prevent the inaccuracies that a biographer
would inevitably make* This strange reluctance of a public figure, or
of the family of a public figure, to have biographical materials pre
sented to the public prevented an authorised version of William
Makepeace Thackerays life until Mr, Rays admirable work, Thackeray:
The Uses of Adversity (1955) and Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom (1958),
But sixteen years after Thackerays death, and after several unauthor
ised lives, Anthony Trollope was commissioned to write a volume on
Thackeray for Morleys English Men of Letters series. This little
volume, Thackeray (1879), was apparently the first biography for which
the Thackeray family, and especially his daughter Lady Ritchie, offered
any help and is, therefore, important in the development of Thackeray
biography.
While Mr. Ray is quite justified in brushing Trollopes
little volume aside by remarking "his book is ... of little biographi
cal importance,-'' the volume is indispensable in reaching an under
standing of Trollope's relation to his more prominent contemporary.
Documents remain that reveal Lady Ritchie's aid and approval, however
slight. But, apart from the accuracy of Trollopes account, the
Thackeray volume presents a departure from those trends of biographical
writing that tie the major nineteenth century biographies, such as

3
Lockharts Life of Sir Halter Scott (1836-1838), Stanleys Life of
Thomas Arnold (I844), or Froudes Life of Thomas Carlyle (1882-1884),
to the high point of eighteenth century biography, Boswells Life of
Johnson (1791). In Thackeray. Trollope presents his subject as
honestly as he can, as Boswell and Lockhart had honestly presented
their subjects, but unlike these predecessors Trollopes honesty
resulted in a picture of Thackeray that caused the very people who had
aided him to denounce the work. This honesty and its consequent
denunciation puts Thackeray in a unique positionJ the book which was
intended to praise its subject attacks Thackerays personality.
With Thackerays express desire not to be the subject of a
biography and with his familys attempt to preserve his wish,^ it was
no wonder that Trollopes book was rejected and the family disclaimed
any reference to the materials used in it. Yet Trollopes approach
had already been manifested in the ambivalent view taken toward Sir
Rowland Hill, the founder of the penny post and secretary of the Post
Office. In An Autobiography, written between October, 1875 and
April 30, 1876 (though published posthumously in 1883) Trollope delin
eated his dislike for his superior;
How I loved, when I was contradicted,-as I was
very often and no doubt very properly,to do
instantly as I was bid, and then to prove that
what I was doing was fatuous, dishonest, expen
sive, and impracticable! And then there were
feuds,such delicious feuds! I was always an
anti-Hillite, acknowledging, indeed, the great
thing which Sir Rowland Hill had done for the
country, but believing him to be entirely unfit
to manage men or to arrange labour. It was a
pleasure to me to differ from him on all
occasionsj-and looking back now, I think that
in all such differences I was right,5

4
Despite this unflattering account, Trollope had written a letter on
March 2, 1364, to Sir Rowland. Here his view was quite different:
As there is no longer any official connexion
between us, I may perhaps say a few words which
I could not have said while you were our secre
tary. ... I cannot let your resignation from
office pass without assuring you of my thorough
admiration for the great work of your life. I
have admired you for many years as one of the
essential benefactors, not only of your own
country, but of all the civilized world, I
think that the thing you have done has had in
it more of general utility than any other measure
which has been achieved in my time.0
Mr, Pearson Hill, Sir Rowland's son, might have seen "in this praise
either a refutation of the 'anti-Hillite* statement or a piece of
7
insincere and fulsome flattery," and the Postal, Telegraphic. and
Telephonic Gazette might have published the letter on November 30,
1883j to belittle Trollope's Autobiography which appeared during the
0
previous month. But, as Professor Bradford A. Booth has pointed out,
the two views are compatibles Trollope admired Sir Rowland's public
services, but he heartily disliked the Secretary's private character.
Trollope's view of Thackeray incorporates this same ambivalence.
Through George Smith7 and through a careless reading of the Autobiography
and Thackeray, a legend of a friendship between Trollope and Thackeray
has permeated accounts of both men. However, by scrutinizing the docu
ments that have been published and by attempting to reach a clear and
unbiased conception of the relation between these figures, we can further
understand the Thackeray and assess its value, not as a literary monument,
but as an important factor in the historical development of English
biographical writing. The conclusion to which we shall be led will

5
reveal Trollopes unqualified praise of Thackerays literary achieve
ments and his dislike for or personal antagonism to Thackeray the man.
In general, the same basic view that Trollope held concerning Sir
Rowland is true of his relation with Thackeray.
In order to see the biography in its full significance, we
shall approach it chronologically, beginning our study several years
before the two men met. At this point, two or three years before
Trollope and Thackeray met, Trollopes opinion of his more famous rival
was already being prejudiced. Trollopes work in the Post Office
brought him into a relationship with Edmund Yates, the young journalist
who was destined to become Thackerays most hated and most active
antagonist. Meanwhile, Yates was before 1858 on rather intimate terms
x^ith Thackeray since they belonged to the same clubs. Since Trollope
did not know Thackeray until January, i860, the opinion he received of
Thackeray derived from Yates; therefore, since Yates and Thackeray
clashed in the Garrick Club Affair of 1858, Trollopes opinion became
at that time prejudiced against Thackeray's personality while he con
tinued to admire Thackeray's literary works. This divided opinion
might well have been united when the two men were brought together by
the founding of the Cornhill Magazine. but Trollope's adverse opinion
was strengthened when Thackeray, who was subject to suddenly painful
attacks of ill health, snubbed him. Having been snubbed and seeking
revenge, Trollope gave Yates in April, 1860, material that enabled the
journalist to attack Thackeray once again; after this, the relation
between Thackeray and Trollope remained on a strained basis until

6
December, 1363, when Thackeray died With the removal of Thackerays
personality, Trollopes devotion to Thackerays artistic achievement
appeared to be a hero-worship to Thackerays daughter Lady Ritchie.
Thus when John Morley wished to include a volume on Thackeray in the
English Men of Letters series, Lady Ritchie agreed and answered to the
best of her ability the questions sent by Trollope. Trollope used
'-i
these answers, but he filled in the spaces between them with his own
opinion. The result was a biography that placed the subjects works
at the top of the literary ladder but that projected a portrait of a
weak, indolent, inept, and melancholy personality. Since this was
obviously not what Lady Ritchie anticipated, she broke her relations
with Trollope and denied having helped him in any manner. It was not
until 1891 that she softened in her attitude, probably because the
1880s saw the publication of several attacks that were more violent
than Trollopes had been* The little biography is important, there
fore, because in it we can see the attack of a major Victorian figure
by another Victorian, foreshadowing the approach to Victorian biography
introduced by Lytton Strachey in his book Eminent Victorians (1913).
But more than merely foreshadowing Strachey, Trollope's volume breaks
with the Boswellian-Forster tradition by presenting a picture that
attempts to establish a certain truth, even though we shall see that
Trollopes "truth in this matter was not based on verifiable data.
Finally the book is important, for it foreshadows the split between
biography and criticism that underlies much twentieth century scholar
ship, especially in the school of the New Critics. Therefore,

7
Thackeray has a rather clearly defined place in English literary history
and deserves our attention because it is a pivotal point in the develop
ment of biographical writing.
Notes
1
Gordon N, Ray, Thackeray; The Uses of Adversity. 1311-1846
(New York, 1955), p. 1. Hereafter referred to as Adversity.
2Ibid.. p. 2.
%bid.. p. 3.
%ee, for example, Anne Thackeray Ritchie, "Thackeray and his
Biographers," Illustrated London News, XCVIII {June 20, 1891), 811; or
Adversity, pp. 1-9.
^Anthony Trollope, An Autobiography (Garden City, New York,
n.d*), p. 215. Also,see p. 109:' "Hith \Sir Rowland Hill] I never had
any sympathy, nor he with me. In figures and facts he was most accu
rate, but I never came across any one who so little understood the ways
of men. ..." Hereafter referred to as Autobiography. All quotations
will be presented without alteration of wording, spelling, or punctua
tion.
^Bradford A. Booth, The Letters of Anthony Trollope (London,
1951), p. 148. Hereafter referred to as Trollope Letters.
7
Edmund H, Yates, Edmund Yates: His Recollections and Experiences
(London, I8S4), II, 223. Hereafter referred to as Recollections and
Experiences.
#
-Trollope Letters, pp. 143-149, fn.2. Also see Recollections
and Experiences j, jjf 223.
^[Leonard Huxley], The House of Smith. Elder (London, 1923),
p. 104.

CHAPTER I
THE FORMATION OF TROLLOPE'S PREJUDICE
The man who was to prejudice Trollope against Thackeray was
Edmund Tates. Trollope and Yates, who was sixteen years younger, not
only knew one another but were closely enough associated by 1858 that
the younger asked the older for friendly, indeed brotherly, help.
The common bond that the Post Office gave the men and the common
sympathy for Sir Rowland Hill's plans of postal reform brought the two
men together and after 1853 provided the grounds upon which an acquaint
ance could be founded. This acquaintance had developed, despite the
infrequent association of the men, into a more personal bond before
Trollope's trip to Egypt in 1858. It will be important for us to
ascertain this relation in order to understand the formation of
Trollope's viewpoint of Thackeray and the circumstances of their first
meeting. At this time Trollope did not know Thackeray other than as a
literary figure, but, as we shall see, Yates did. Since Trollope's
first knowledge of Thackeray's personality was dependent upon Yates's
opinion, we need to establish the relations between Trollope and Yates
and Yates and Thackeray before we can understand the one that came to
exist between Trollope and Thackeray. Given to writing scandalous
personal gossip columns, a journalistic feature that he claimed to
1
have originated, Yates was not one of those writers who helped to
P
lift journalism from its lav? status of the first part of the century.
8

9
Yet he vas important in the development of Trollopes viewpoint before
the 1860s, because during this time he knew Thackeray while Trollope
did not. Although the comments made by each concerning the other are
almost consistently pejorative, the active dislike that came to exist
between them did not originate until the early months of 1860 when
Yates betrayed a trust Trollope placed upon him and consequently shoved
him into an embarrassing situation. The relation of the two men prior
to that situation must be pieced together from the hints that seep
through their later antagonism and from their work in the Post Office
if Trollopes view of Thackeray is to be understood.
In 1834 Trollope was introduced into the Secretarys Office
of the General Post Office at St, Martins le Grand by his friend
Clayton Freeling, the brother of the Secretary, Sir Francis Freeling.-^
Trollope tells us in An Autobiography that during the first seven
years, "I was always on the eve of being dismissed, and yet was always
striving to show how good a public servant I could become, if only a
chance were given me.^ Sir Francis, a man who outlived his useful
ness because he eould not adapt to the necessary reforms of the postal
system demanded by the public, died in June, 1836,^ depriving the
twenty year old Trollope of his strongest ally in "The Grand," as the
headquarters of the Post Office were called. Until August, 1841, when
he was transferred to Ireland, Trollope worked under Colonel Maberly,
who immediately formed such a low opinion of him that Trollope*s days
were made miserable?

10
Years have gone by, and I can write now, and
almost feel, without anger; but I can remember
well the keenness of my anguish when I was
treated as though I were unfit for any useful
work,^
After seven years he could stand the situation no longer and boldly
volunteered for a post in Banagher in the far west of Ireland, a
position that was thought fit only for "a man absurdly incapable;
when he reported to the Secretary of the Irish Post Office on the
morning of September 16, 1841, he found that "Colonel Maberly had sent
a very bad character. His own hard work and evidently his brother-
in-laws efforts in London kept him from being lost in the obscurity of
an Irish post, and he mounted steadily "from deputy surveyor to surveyor,
from surveyor to special commissioner charged with the planning of a
rural postal service,
Meanwhile, an ambitious postal reformer by the name of
Rowland Rill had published a surprising pamphlet, Post Office Reform:
Its Importance and Practicability in 1337;^ this pamphlet advocated
the basic charge of a penny "on all letters received in a post-town
10
and delivered in the same or any other post-town of the British Isles."
The public agitation resulting from Hill's suggestion led to the penny
11
postage and to the birth of the adhesive stamp on May 6, 1340,
Having proven the efficiency of these reforms to the public, Hill tried
to have Colonel Maberly removed to provide for his appointment as
Secretary of the Post Office, but in December, I846, he took the newly
created post of Secretary to the Postmaster-General. Until 1354? when
Maberly "had been . squeezed into, and his place was filled by Mr.

11
Rowland Hill,"^ the Post Office vas controlled by a dual secretary
ship "with Hill making constant efforts to displace Col. Maberly^
and Maberly waiting "for time to prove that Hill vas a false prophet.
When Trollope was sent, early in 1851, to western England to
"create a postal network which should catch all \jruralQ recipients of
letters,he was probably acting under orders from Rowland Hill, who
had advocated an extension of rural delivery as early as 1843.The
enthusiasm that he showed for his work might well have been the reason
for his steady promotion under Hills command:
It is armsing to watch how a passion will grow
upon a man. During those two years it was the
ambition of my life to cover the country with
rural letter-carriers. I do not remember that
in any case a rural post proposed by me was
negatived by the authorities. ,
id
Although Trollope may not have been popular at "The Grand," head
quarters valued him for his effectiveness and energy.^ Despite
Trollope's dislike for Rowland Hill,2u the two men wanted the same
resultsan efficient and inexpensive postal system.
The antagonism between Hill and Trollope might easily have
originated, with personal incompatibility, from the issue of pillar
boxes in the mid-1850's. In his autobiography Trollope claims the
credit for pillar letter-boxes, "of which accommodation in the streets
and ways of England I was the originator, having, however, got the
authority for the erection of the first at St. Heliers in Jersey."
Trollope, who had been sent to the Channel Islands to analyze the
local needs, recommended road-side letter-boxes in a letter of
November, 1851, to G, H. Cresswell, the Surveyor of the District:

12
Iron posts suited for this purpose may be
erected at the corners of the streets .
or perhaps it may be found more desirable to
fix iron letter-boxes about five feet from the
ground wherever there are permanently built
walls.
When Oresswell proposed that these be erected, Golonel Maberly granted
permission; the pillar boxes were in use by the end of November, 1852.22
But Rowland Hill also claimed to have originated the pillar box in
1840; however, it was not until January, 1851, that he reported that
they might be tried in London and not until October 11, 1854, that an
official announcement of their use was published, The first in London
appeared finally in March, 1855,2^ Although Hill, who was in the
superior position, took the public credit for this innovation, the
correspondence on pillar boxes in the General Post Office refers to
the plan as "Mr. Trollopes suggestion."24 To the inferior this
"stealing of credit due to him was infuriating enough for him to
recall some twenty years later; therefore, Trollope had good reason
personally to dislike Rowland Hill on grounds other than a personality
clash.
In spite of personal animosity the reliability that Trollope
displayed in propagating Kills suggestions during the dual secretary
ship led to his being chosen for the special mission to the Pasha of
Egypt in 1858. Hill, now Sir Rowland, having successfully pushed the
Colonel from the Secretaryship, had taken control of the Post Office in
25
1854; therefore, Trollope's trip to Egypt must have come as a direct
order from Sir Rowland, the man under whom Trollopes career as a civil

13
servant reached its peak. The importance of the mission* to secure a
new treaty with the Pasha for the transportation of the mails through
Egypt, made it one that would not have been entrusted to a man whose
ability or character x.?as doubted by his superior. Trollopes
dedication to the betterment of the Post Office won him the confidence
of Sir Rowland, even if it did not enhance the personal feelings on
either side. The same confidence is shown in Trollopes missions to
revise the Glasgow Post Office, to "cleanse the Augean stables" of the
postal system in the best Indies, and to make postal treaties with the
governments of Cuba and New Grenada.^1'
Yates's career as a civil servant up to i860 is quite bleak
when compared to Trollope's. Entering the Post Office service at St.
Martin's le Grand on March 11, 1847, he began under the dual secre
taryship, His first encounter with Rowland Hill, who later became his
29
friend, was the result of his "peppering, with peas and pellets of
n
saturated blotting-paper, of the passers-by from the windows of his
30
office. He characterized his public service in 1890 on the fiftieth
anniversary of penny postage;
His memories went back to the days of Col.
Maberly, his "first chief," who used to
impress upon him the necessity of not over
working himself. Mr. Yates assured the
group that he had given the Colonel the pledge
that he would not, and he had solemnly adhered
to that sacred obligation.31
Yates's public service, however, was not the trait that brought him
into contact with Trollopej rather the positions that he held in rela
tion to Colonel Maberly and Rowland Hill caused him to associate with
his more industrious fellow-worker.

14
Two years after he began working,Yates was transferred to
the Colonels outer office. In this capacity he was brought into close
contact with Lord Clanricarde-^ and criticised for having beer on the
premises by Lord Hardwicke.-"^ He was, therefore, in Colonel Maberly's
outer office during the time in which Trollope was working under
orders from. Rowland Kill. It would be unlikely that any personal con
tact was made during this time, although. Yates might have known
Trollope's work through office gossip. The acquaintance of the two
men would have to be dated after 1853, the year Lord Hardvieke lost
his position as Postmaster-General, unless Trollopes mission to western
England in 1851 brought him tinder Colonel Maberly. Yatess first job
at "The Grand was in the Money Order Department of the Secretarys
Office so that from 1847 to 1849, he was under Hills commands
Mr. Hill with two or three clerks, prepared
statistical returns, suggested economics, and
also had the supervision of that secretarial
money-order department in which I worked.35
If Trollope worked directly under the orders of Hill, whose program of
reform was identical with his own work during these years, Yates very
well could have heard of him as early as 1847. When he was trans
ferred to Colonel Maberlys outer office, this knowledge possibly led
to a closer acquaintance. Hill acted during this time to forward his
reforms so that the otherwise awkward "arrangement of two secretaries
worked only because there was a separation of duties.Since the
situation was extremely delicate, Trollope, working under Hills super-
37
vision, also worked to some extent through the Colonels offiee.

15
On the other hand, Yates, who began in Hills Money Order Department,
was much more in sympathy with the Secretary to the Postmaster-General
than with the Secretary of the Post Office. With both men working,
at least in part, under the Colonel but favoring the reforms of Rowland
Hill, a common bond existed between them? therefore, when the two men
were brought into closer affinity between 1853 and 1854 by Yatess
return to Hills direet supervision, there was ample opportunity for a
personal acquaintance to begin.
When Rowland Hill rose to Colonel Maberlys position in 1854,
he made John Tilley, a man whom the Colonel had already chosen for a
chief executive position, the first Assistant Secretary.99 John
Tilley, one of Trollopes oldest and dearest friends, had married
Cecilia Trollope, the novelists sister, prior to Trollopes transfer
to Ireland;^ therefore, Trollope had a family connection with the top
hierarchy of the General Post Office.From this tie to the Secre
tary's office, Trollope came into eloser affiliation with Sir Rowland
and the Secretarys personal friend and official ally Edmund Yates,
Having proven himself compatible with Sir Rowlands reformation,
Trollope was in such a position that his brother-in-law could place his
name before the Secretary for any important mission. Yates, an
inferior, was in a position to become associated with him; his work
directly under Sir Rowlands orders brought him into association with
both Hill and Trollope,

16
, with both of who I vas mor or leas
associated? and, as a bystander is said in
the old proverb to see most of the game, it
is probable that I, who interfered with
neither, had better opportunities for observing
their various peculiarities than if I had
occupied a less subordinate position.42
Between 1853 and 1858, the period that most interests us, Trollope was
seldom in London except for short trips? thus the acquaintance of the
two men was their meeting in Sir Rowland s office. After December,
1859} Trollope had more occasion to meet Yates, as we shall see later,
but the definite ties which can be established in the spring of 1858
and the early months of i860 had their origin in the years before 1858
when both men, though in different ranks of the Post Office, met in
Sir Rowlands office where Yatess position with his superior gave him
a firm standing.
To assume that a personal animosity existed between Yates
and Trollope at this time is to read the events of 1860 into the period
prior to 1858, a historical mistake. Trollope may well have disliked
Yates because he was Sir Rowlands henchman,^ but his infrequent
visits to "The Grand and the improbability of Ms knowing Yate-s in an
intimate relation indicate that the association was not colored by the
later antagonism. In fact, Trollopes letter of March 11, 1858,
implies an informal association in which the older Trollope freely
helped the younger man. In the early months of 1858, Trollope, as w
saw, was sent on an important postal mission to Egypt? while he was
there, Yates made a special, though much less important, trip to the
same country!

17
My first special journey, howeverfirst and
most importantxjas merely due to my position
in the Secretarys office. It ms In the year
1858, and the terrible Indian Mutiny was at its
height. Submarine telegraphy was in its
infaney then, and the number of letters passing
between this country and India was so enormously
increased that supplementary mails were con
tinually being dispatched. The ordinary Indian
mail, made up in air-tight cases, was always
sent in charge of special officers appointed
for the purpose, and discharging no other duty
than that of travelling, with the mails in their
custody, from London to Marseilles, and from
Marseilles, on board one of the steamers of the
P. and 0. Company to Alexandria, where the
charge was transferred to the officers of the
Indian Post Office, who had travelled so far,
bringing the homeward letters.44
As soon as he heard that he was to make this trip, he wrote "to
Anthony Trollope . telling him I was coming, and asking him to
look out for me,"^ The nature of this request appears to be such
that the younger man knew Trollope and that some degree of friendship,
however slight, existed between them. Trollope left a letter in which
he tried to give Yates the information necessary for an enjoyable and
profitable stay in Egypt since he was unable to meet him;
Alexandria
11 March 1353
My dear Yates,
It is a matter of great regret to me that I
should miss you. But were I to stay now I should
lose my only opportunity of going to Jerusalem. I
had hoped to have got there and back before you
came out, but it has been impossible for me to
start till to-day, I shall probably still see you
on the 22nd. At Cairo see (above all) the newly-
opened catacombs of Sakkaraby taking a horse and
mounted guide you may see that and the Pyramids of
Ghiseh In one day. Hear the howling dervishes of
Cairo at one on Friday. They howl but once a week,
go to the citadel of Cairo, and the mosque of
Sultan Hassan. See, also, the tombs of the Caliphs,

IS
Heliopolis is a humbug, so also is the petrified
forest. At Alexandria see the new Greek church
they have just excavated. Go to the Oriental
Hotel at Alexandria, and Shephard*s at Cairo.
lours ever. ,,
ANTHONY TROLLOPE46
The letter was an "admirable product of tabloid tourism,"4^ because
Trollope was intent upon helping his acquaintance in every possible way
in lieu of his presence, This letter, the single evidence from
Trollopes pen from this period, asserts the relation between the men:
they knew and hoped to associated with each other with only already made
plans preventing their meeting*
One of the most obscure relationships to untangle, and one of
the most important, is that of Yates and Thackeray prior to 1858. While
Yates cannot be regarded as the most faithful and unbiased of recorders,
the account in his autobiography may elucidate a certain degree of famili
arity. In the letter of June 13, 1358, which protested Yatess Town Talk
article, Thackeray asserted, "I dont remember that out of that Club I
ever exchanged 6 words with you.4' That this statement was written in
anger is evident from the circumstances of its composition; therefore,
we cannot depend upon its reliability. If Thackeray exaggerated, a
fault that is only human in such a situation, the discrepancy between
this statement and Yatess testimony may be to some degree resolved*
In the world of London social and club life, Thackeray and
Yates were evidently thrown together both before and after the success
of Vanity Fair more than Thackeray would have wished to admit. Yates
reports that "Thackeray was constantly" present at Evans cellar
supper-and-music rooms, which were also frequented by Albert and Arthur

19
Smith, Horace Mayhew, Douglas J err old, James Eannay, and Augustus
Sala,^ men who never rose above journalism and later resented
Thackerays rise to literary and social prominence.*0 Of those Yates
remembers enjoying Evans "annexea comfortable kind of hall, hung
with theatrical portraits, &c.where conversation could be carried
on51 were several whom Thackeray knew from the early 1840*s when he
was first connected with Punch; in fact, Thackeray earned a position on
the staff after Jerrold and Mark Lemon procured Albert Smiths dismissal
in December, 1843.^ Hence after 1843 there would have been some
friction between Thackeray and the Smiths? if Yatess account was meant
to include persons who might be seen at Evans at one time, there would
already be antagonisms hidden beneath the surface harmony. Since
Thackeray's feud with Jerrold for supremacy at Punch took place in
I846, J the most logical time in which Thackeray could have frequented
Evans with these men x-jould have been prior to this literary battle,
at a time in which Yates would have been about fifteen years old and
unknown except as the son of a fairly prominent family of actors,'5^'
If Thackeray (who was about thirty-five in 1846) knew Edmund Yates, the
relation must have been, even at the most, more the recognition of the
son of a late fellow member of the Garrick Club^ than the friendship
of peers. This obscure reference, however, does mean, that each of these
figures may have known of the existence of the other from a time prior
to Thackerays rise to fame.

20
Having traveled on the continent after the completion of
Vanity Fair (July 2, 1843) and having begun the monthly prublication of
The History of Pendennis in November,^ Thackeray was free "from the
day-to-day struggle for existence.^( Already he had subdued Jerrold,
whom he saw as a living warning of the dangers into which ttngoverned
radicalism could lead.7 In November, 1336, however, Dickens had
written to Jerrold, whom he knew only as the author of the popular
comedy, Black-eyed Susan, to obtain an article for Bentleys
Miscellany.^ and by September, 1333, Jerrold was visiting in Dickenss
home,^ Thus by 1346, Jerrold was intimate enough with Dickens to Join
in protest against Thackerays attack on radicalism and personally on
Jerrolds writings in Punch.^ and on July 2, 1847, Thackeray expressed
his apprehension of this alliance in a letter to Mrs. Carrdchael-Smyth,
"Jerrold hates me, Ainsworth hates me, Dickens mistrusts me, Forster
says I am false as hell, and Buiwer curses meThis division of
the literary figures and Journalists into two camps, those favoring
Dickens and those favoring Thackeray, began as early as I846 and was
rather definite by the time that Vanity Fair established Thackerays
prominence.^ In the Garrick Club Dickens, Forster and Jerrold formed
a circle which included Albert and Arthur Smith, Andrew Arcedeckne,
and Wilkie Collins^ as well as the comedian John Pritt Harley.^5
Dickens seldom went to the Club even though the Bohemian group regarded
him as their leader. By December, 1848, Thackeray had inadvertently
alienated not only Douglas Jerrold but also the man who was to be
67
Dickenss biographer, John Forster, with the result that, at least to

21
some extent, the Club must have begun taking sides. The coincidence
.p-
of Thackerays being at Brighton when Edmund Yatess name was pro
posed for membership in the Garrick Club, therefore, seems to have been
premeditated rather than accidental.
Although Yates dates his acquaintan.ce with Dickens as begin
ning in 1854, his account of this first" meeting is highly improbable.
Since both had been members of the same club for at least five years,
Yatess insinuation that he had not seen the novelist becomes question
able. Although they may have been only chance acquaintances before
1854, Yates must have been intimate enough with Dickens for the
novelist to attend his sons christening dinner on October 14, 1854,
tilth more incentive than a conversation on one Sunday afternoon and the
gift of a book.^ It might very well have been that, while Yates was
not on intimate terms with Dickens until early 1854, the two knew one
another through mutual friends and through a speaking acquaintance at
the Club* If this is true, the circumstances surrounding Yatess
election to the Club and those surrounding his dismissal ten years
later are much more closely united than has hitherto been seen*
In his autobiography Yates left an account of his election:
I As soon as I was fairly launched in London, it
* was my mothers great wish that I should belong
to the Garrick Club, of which my father had been
an original member; and though I \4&s much under
the age prescribed by the regulations, my appear
ance was that of a full-grown man, and there was
little reason to fear that the fact of my having
attained my majority would be questioned. Accord
ingly, I was proposed by the veteran, comedian
Mr, Harley, and seconded by Andrew Arcedeckne; and
being well supported by members who had known my
father, I was elected into the Garrick in December,
1848, fully six months before I attained my eight
eenth year.

22
Mr. Say describes "Albert Smiths set," the Bohemians in the Club, as
antagonistic to "the nerves of the quieter and more sedate members.
Again lates misdates the origin of his friendship with Albert Smith:
About this time, towards the close of the
year 1851 I made the personal acquaintance
of Albert Smith, with whom I speedily con
tracted an intimate friendship. ... I had
met him twice previous to this. Early in '47,
just after my appointment to the Post Office,
and while I was still the rawest of youths. .
His silence concerning Albert's membership in the Garrick Club,^ as
in the case of Dickens, seems to have been motivated by a desire to
obscure his early affinity with the circle that favored Dickens and
opposed Thackeray. Since lates wrote His Recollections and
Experiences in 1884 to justify his youthful behavior, he would hardly
admit his friendship with persons known to be antagonistic to
Thackeray. But 1%*. Harley was a close friend of Dickens, at least
close enough for Dickens to dedicate The Village Coquettes to him in
1837^ and Mr. Arcedeckne (whom Thackeray was characterizing as
Henry Foker in Penderaisenjoyed a "comic persecution" of Thackeray's
dignity at the Club. Despite how good naturedly Arcedeckne might have
taken his portrait in Pendennis. the coincidence of his being in the
Dickens' circle when he seconded Yates's nomination and Thackeray's
being absent appears auspicious. It almost seems as if Yates's elec
tion into the Garrick Club was some kind of power play that put Yates
in opposition to Thackeray from long before 1858,

23
Beside the Garrick Club, Yates more than likely met Thackeray
at the Fielding Club:
Just about this time, too-the spring of 1852
was established the original Fielding Club, of
which I was a constant attendant, and where I
spent many happy hours and made many pleasant
and useful acquaintances. . The establish
ment of a night clubthe ''Fielding was the
name selected by Thackeray, to whom the choice
of title was delegatedwas decided on in conse
quence of the impossibility of getting supper
at the Garrick, or, indeed, of infusing anything
like liveliness into that temple, after midnight.^
Thackeray, whose great admiration for Henry Fielding caused him to
identify himself with the eighteenth century novelist,^ evidently did
more than merely select the name for the new clubj Mr. Elwin gives him
no
credit for founding it in April, 1852, a date which corresponds with
Yates's account. If Yates can be trusted, he may have known Thackeray
at this club as well as at the Garrick. That he was relatively well
acquainted with Thackeray in 1852 accounts for Peter Cunninghams
inclusion of Yates in Dickenss dinner for Thackeray in October:
I had seen Dickens twice before Ms departure
for Parisonce when he presided over a dinner
given to Thackeray, immediately before his
departure for America, at which through the
kindness of Peter Cunningham, who acted as
honorary secretary, I managed to be present.
It was a most interesting occasion, and
Diekens, in proposing the toast of the evening,
spoke with much eloquence. Thackeray, too, was
plainly moved, so much so that his reply was
very short$ he tried to pass off his emotion
with some joke about the coining voyage and
the steward, but it was too much for him.^O
If further proof Is needed to discount Yates's date for meeting Diekens,
this statement clearly offers it, since Thackeray departed for America
on October 30, 1852. Yates's misrepresentation of factual material

24
becomes understandable, not only in the light of his desire in 1834 to
justify his behavior, but even more so, if his acquaintance with
Thackeray extended over several years and if throughout this time he
ms closely aligned with Dickens. These two occasions in 1852 point
to a more intimate acquaintance than Thackerays angry letter of
June 13, 1858, indicates. If Yates can be trusted at all in these
references, he seems to have maintained a strange role: he consciously
favored Dickens, but to Thackeray he appeared to be neutral, if not
slightly leaning to his side.
Yates has only four additional references to Thackeray that
can be placed between 1852 and 1858 whieh are important to the under
standing of their relation. The first, an anecdote that puts Thackeray
in an unfavorable light, can most easily be discarded:
I was walking with him tThackeray} one evening
from the club, and, passing a fish-shop in
New Street, he noticed two different tubs of
oysters, one marked "Is. a dozen, the other
"Is, 3d. a dozen." "H0w they must hate each
other!" said Thackeray, pointing them out.^-
The second presents a greater problem: Yates describes the receptions
of Mrs. Milner Gibson, mentioning Thaekeray as one of the persons who
frequented them and adding that she "never had a reception without
sending us a card."*2 Mr, Ray gives credence to the first part of this
assertion by stating that Thackeray "was frequently seen at the recep
tions ... of Mrs. Milner Gibson (or Mrs. Milliner Gibson, as that
somewhat overdressed lady was called), who gave offence in some
quarters by her excessive enterprise in attracting intellectual lions

25
S3
to her scion." ^ Since she may very well have invited the Edmund Yates
because of his father's fame, Yates's presence at Mrs. Gibson's salon
is likely. If so, Yates and Thackeray, who were both members of the
Garrick and the Fielding Clubs, would have further occasion to meet one
another. The third reference Yates makes to a familiarity with
Thackeray occurred on September 29, 1855, two days after Mrs. Yates tos
delivered of twins?
. , being at the Garrick and seeing Thackeray
there, I asked him for an autograph for a book
which I had just established. He sat down at once,
and wrote the following:
"Michaelmas Day, 1355.
My dear Yates,Am I to condole with, or congratu
late, you, on the announcement in to-day's paper?
May every year increase your happiness, and good
fortune attend your increases I know I am
writing in an affected manner, as you are pleased
to desire my autograph. I assure the friend for
whom it is destined that I am quite incapable of
being funny on a sudden, easily abashed, of a
modest retiring disposition, forty-four old, and
Yours truly, my dear Yates,
W, M Thackeray.
P.S.The T of the signature I do not think is
near so elegant as my ordinary T's arej in fact,
my attention was drawn off just as I was turning
it.
S. YATES, Esq.
(Private and confidential.)"0^
Here Thackeray's joviality and self-humor indicate a degree of acquaint
ance that cannot be explained without reference to the relation of the
two men both in the clubs and in social association outside the clubs.
Even in a man with Thackeray's disposition to joke,^ such familiarity
in a letter for an autograph book is unusual unless deriving from a
personal knowledge of the receiver, Thackeray's remarks on The Train,
a periodical that Yates and Sala tried to float in 1356, reveal the
same type of familiarity:

26
You have a new artist on The Train I see,
my dear Yates! I have been looking at his
work, and I have solved a problem, I find
there is a man alive who draws worse than
myselfT^?
In both cases, Thackerays humor is the ability of a sensitive man to
laugh at himself. That he would so expose himself to a mere acquaint
ance whom he saw only at the Garrick Club is dubious*
The relation between Yates and Thackeray prior to 1358, then,
was far from simple. First, Thackeray, twenty years older than Yates,
frequented Evanss when Yates was still a boy, but might have known him
as the son of Frederick Henry Yates, one of the original members of the
Garrick Club. Second, Yatess election to the Garrick was proposed by
persons antagonistic to Thackeray at a time when Thackeray was not
present. The same group that proposed Yates was aligned with Dickens,
and Yatess apparently conscious misrepresentation of his friendship
with Dickens indicates his unwillingness to admit that he was in the
Smith-Dickens-Jerrold circle prior to, or at the same time as, his
election to the Club. Third, Yates was an original member of the
Fielding Club that Thackeray helped to found and would have known the
older man in this club as well as in the Garrick. Fourth, the attend
ance of both Yates and Thackeray at social affairs after 1852 indicates
the possibility of a greater degree of familiarity than an acquaintance
only in clubs. The relation of Yates and Thackeray, therefore, seems
to have been on terms far different from those Thackeray insinuates
in his letter of June 13, 1858. The most logical approach to Thackerays
affirmation is to say that his discover;'- of Yatess duplicity came as a

27
shock to him; apparently he had regarded the younger man as a friend
only to discover that Yates's real affinity was with Dickens and to
those whom he knew to he his enemies. If the relation between these
men was on this basis, Thackeray's motivation in the Garrick Club
Affair becomes clearer.
Since it is important for ns to trace the origins of
Trollope's prejudice against Thackeray's personality, we have estab
lished two relations. In the first, we saw that Yates and Trollope
were acquainted and by 1358 were on rather intimate relations; in the
second, we saw that Thackeray and Yates were drawn closely together
by their clubs and social affairs* If Trollopes opinion of Thackeray
in the biography of 1879 originated from Edmund Yates, the Garrick
Club Affair of 1858 was the dispute that caused Yates, and hence
Trollope, to dislike Thackeray's personality, Trollope would have
learned the negative opinion either from Yates himself or from the
press that supported him; regardless of how the opinion came to him,
Trollopes prejudice against Thackeray's personality elearly derives
from this period.
On September 9, 1353S Carlyle described Thackeray's character
to Emerson after the novelist returned to England from his first
American tours
Thackeray has very rarely come athwart me since
his returns he is a big fellow, soul and body;
of many gifts and qualities (particularly in the
Hogarth line, with a dash of Sterne superadded),
of enormous appetite withal, and very uncertain
and chaotic in all points except his outer

28
breeding, which is fixed enough, and perfect
according to modern English style. I rather
dread explosions in his history. A big,
fierce, weeping, hungry man; not a strong one.8(5
The "explosion" that Carlyle dreaded might well have been similar to
Thackerays indignation over the article in a small paper, Town Talk.
written about him by Edmund Yates. Because this verbal battle, "The
Garrick Club Affair, helps us to understand the later relation of
Trollope, Thackeray, and Yates, we need to analyze the dispute and
its repercussions during the succeeding years. Since Trollope knew
Yates and did not know Thackeray at this time and since, except for a
short visit to London in July, Trollope was in Scotland, northern
England, or Ireland from May 11 until October, 1858, he had no active
part in the dispute; however, his image of Thackeray ms, as we will
see, formed by the Tates-Bickenss side of the quarrel and by the
periodical accounts antagonistic to Thackeray.
To set Yatess article into a historical context, it is
necessary to understand Thackerays public image as propagated by the
journalists. This image was not drawn totally by those who favored
Dickenss, because the Saturday Review, for example, condemned both
writers, complaining about Dickens's "vulgarity and emotional radical-
ism" and Thackerays "shallowness of philosophy." y Thackeray,
nevertheless, had already offended Disraeli in the Morning Chronicle.
Bulwer in Fraser s Magazine,^ Jerrold at the Punch table,92 Forster
in caricatures in private letters, and Charles Lever in Fraserss^
hence a considerable number of persons, misunderstanding his humor or
his philosophy, were not exactly fond of him. These two groups, those

29
who disliked Thackerays literary abilities and those who disliked him
for personal reasons, were united in their campaign against him in the
periodicals of the 1850s; therefore, the image of Thackeray presented
to the public was often unflattering. Thackerays admirers must not
be forgotten, for they also made themselves heard: Charlotte Bronte
preferred him to the Crystal Palace,94 Caroline Fox praised one of his
lectures with only slight reservation,*^ and Dr. John Brown condemned
Jenny Lind, the Brownings, and Dickens in order to praise him.^ But,
by far, the reviews in the pennyaliners and the cheaper periodicals
placed before the public were unfavorable.
The lew York Times for October 29, 1855, extensively compared
Dickens and Thackeray, exhibiting a rather detailed knowledge of
Thackerays life and a preference for his rival.^ The writer pre
sented a biased view of Thackerays art, making such statements as
"A highly respectable, gentlemanly selfishness is the alpha and omega
of Mr. THACKERAY's code of ethics. . THACKERAYS great fault is
his total absence of poesy. . Mr. THACKERAY has, like most literary
men, his peculiar prejudice. His is Anti-Irish, Then the article
concluded with an announcement of Thackerays lectures on The Four
We look forward with the keenest relish to his
Anatomy of the Four Royal Brutes, he is to have
next week under his dissection. They are
worthy of his knife, and will doubtless draw
crowds of admiring students.98

30
H. S. Maine registered an objection in The Saturday Review of
December 15 to the reports of Thackeray's lectures in the American
papers : "it is not the act of a good citizen to vituperate with
measureless acrimony a King who has been thirty years dead, before an
audience which firmly believes that the difference between an English
man and an American is exclusively caused by the influence exerted
over the former by the institution of Kingship. He continues by
saying that Thackeray, in his lecture on George I?, panders, probably
without knowing it, to a very popular prejudice.^ The Saturday
Review continued its attack on The Four Georges on January 3, 1357,
in an article by T. C Bandars, who suggests that the lecturer of the
future, wishing to give "an effective, if one-sided picture of
Victorian England," will only need to tell
how the greatest humorist of his day a man
in the highest rank of English literature, a
gentleman by birthwent from town to town,
and rehearsed his admirable productions at
the small charge of five shillings a headhow
he jested in the most lively way about royalty
and episcopacy, and future punishmentand how
he was rapturously applauded by a fashionable
audience, who privately piqued themselves on
nothing more than on being invited, or being
nearly invited, to the Queens balls, and on
regular attendance at church, and sound views
as to the eternity of damnation.
The reviewer for The Literary Gazette of February 7, 1357, insinuates
that Thackeray planned his lectures for the American, "whose abject
prostration before the very semblance of rank amazes us of aristocratic
Europe" and who either seeks to be descended from nobility or "to snap
his fingers at kings and knights, and to find out that they are after

31
all but pitiful shams On April 11, 1857, the same periodical
claimed that it "cannot be classed among Mr. Thackeray*s detractors"
but admitted that "we own to have felt somewhat tired and bored by the
perpetual flow of sarcasm and vehement denunciation which Mr. Thackeray
102
poured upon the devoted head of the defunct voluptuary George IV ."
On November 7, 1857, however, the reviewer for The Literary Gazette
found the first number of The Virginians promising,"*-^ but in January
through March, 1858, the periodical took a firm stand against
Thackerays recommendation that a special school be provided for the
children of literary men. This type of opposition"^ made him increas
ingly uneasy and only too glad to give up The Four Georges in June,
1857;-^ that he lost to his Whig opponent when he stood for Parliament
in July^ was, at least to some degree, a result of the unfavorable
image of him that these journalists placed before the public. These
gleanings help us to perceive the undercurrent of feeling antagonistic
to Thackeray at a time when his prominence was firmly established by
Vanity Fair, The History of Pendennis. The History of Henry Esmond, and
The Hewcernes. Thackeray was helpless against this continual attack;
he could not strike at his reviewers as long as they remained hidden in
the comfortable security of the unsigned column*
In 1855, Edmund Yates developed a scheme that won the approval
of the publisher Henry Vizetelly, and on June 30, The Illustrated Times
carried the article, "The Lounger at the Clubs," the first personal
gossip column.10^ When the staff divided the most prominent men of
letters among themselves, Sala wrote on Dickens, James Hannay on

Thackeray, and Tates on Albert Smith; Hannay, however, made a
scathing summary of the merits of the three little essays of famous
men
Thackeray, By a Scholar.
Dickens. By a Dickensian.
Albert Smith. By an Ape.
The union of Hannay (who wrote one of the earliest unauthorised biog
raphies of Thackeray) and Thackeray could only have infuriated the
young Tates, and he "paid Hannay in his own coin, and with interest, on
Qg
a good many occasions. One of these occasions might very well have
been Yatess article on Thackeray in Town Talk on June 12, 1858,
While Yates had ample motivation to write the column on
Thackeray as a result of his alliance with Dickens, Forster, and
Jerrold and because of a personal feud with James Hannay, one of
Thackerays admirers, his version of the composition of the article is
probably true:
About the third week of my engagement Con Town Talkd
I went over to the printers, which was in Aldersgate
Street, close by the Post Office, at the close of my
official work, to make up the paper. All my contri
bution was in type, and I thought I should only have
to remain for half an hour to "see all straight, when
I was horrified at hearing from the head-printer that
in consequence of illness Mr. Watts Phillips had not
sent in his usual amount, and that another column of
original matter was absolutely requisite. There was
no help for it; I took off my coatliterally, I
remember, for it was a warm eveningmounted a high
stool at a high desk, and commenced to cudgel my
brains.
It happened that in the previous week's number I
had written a pen-and-ink sketch of Dickens, which
had given satisfaction; I thought I could not do
better than follow on with a similar portrait of his
great rival,

33
The image of Thackeray in the article, while very unflattering, reflects
the view of those opposed to him; it is a mixture of exaggerations,
half-truths, and malicious slander similar to the adverse reviews and
comments about Thackeray propagated by his enemies. But Yates is
probably truthful in his account of its composition,^-0 and in his
naive assumption that the article was not offensive or objectionable,
or likely to bring me into trouble.Associating with people
antagonistic to Thackeray, despite the acquaintance with the novelist,
Yates hastily threw together the impressions that he had picked up both
from his relation with Thackeray and from his friends who disliked him.
He knew the image of the novelist propagated by this circle and virote
in the vein of the other journalists. That he might well have been
attacking James Hannay through Thackeray is possible, but he was covered
by the obscurity of anonymity and such an attack could scarcely hurt.
Yet Hannays thrust and Yatess desire to stab back must have been a
part of the elaborate chain of events that led to the article. It does
not seem probable to assert that Yatess attack on Thackeray vra.s
motivated by personal dislike or envy on Yatess part, even though
these qualities can be read into the sketch, because Yates is silent
concerning events in Thackerays private life which even the Hew York
Times published and which Yates would surely have known from his rela-
tion with Thackeray. It is much more logical to assume that the
article is a careless recording of impressions received from periodicals
and from persons antagonistic to Thackeray mixed with the remembrance
of James Hannay's biting sarcasm. The mistake that Yates made was

34
innocently to confide in a man at the Garrick Club whom he considered
a friend. This unknown man told Thackeray the identity of the author,
and for the first time Thackeray definitely knew the man who attacked
him.
It is easy to imagine Thackerays shock and indignation when
he discovered that a man he had known, and probably trusted for several
years, was the author of a slanderous column about him. As we have
seen, the relation of the two men was such that Thackeray was probably
quite friendly to his younger contemporary. It is not necessary to
assume either that "Yates was moved by an overzealous partisanship for
Dickens" or that Thackeray was compelled to place the matter before
the Committee of the Garrick Club "by his surmise that Dickens was
Yatess active ally." Thackerays anger at discovering that an
acquaintance whom he regarded as a friend had ridiculed him was motive
enough for his actions
Had your remarks been written by a person
unknown to me, I should have noticed them no
more than other calumnies: but as we have
shaken hands more than once, and met hitherto
on friendly terms, (You may write to one of
your employers, M? Carruthers of Edinburgh,
& ask whether very lately I did not speak of
you in the most friendly manner) I am obliged
to take notice of articles w-r I consider to
be, not offensive & unfriendly merely, but
slanderous and untrue.^-4
Only after discovering that his identity was known, did Yates solicit
Dickenss aid,^"^ yet there is no need to suppose that Thackeray knew
or surmised Yatess helper. It was not until November 24 that Dickens
116
confessed to Thackeray his part in the feud, and Thackerays letter
of November 26 expresses his surprise:

35
I grieve to gather from your letter that you
were Mr, Yatess adviser in the dispute between
me and him. His letter was the cause of my
appeal to the Garrick Club for protection from
insults against which I had no other remedy. 23.7
On December 2 Thackeray communicates his shock at Dickenss treachery
to Blackwood:
But the Beauty of Beauties now comes out
that Dickens advised Yates throughout Edwin
James says wrote every word of Yatess letters.
Isnt it a noble creature?-^
Even if Yates was one of the Dickenss circle, then, it is not neces
sary to regard Thackerays anger and persecution of the journalist as
Ka struggle for supremacy, or an outburst of jealousy between Thackeray
and Dickens" in which Yates was merely "the scapegoat or shuttlecock."-^
Yates had acted freely, though naively, in writing the article, not
seeking aid from Dickens until Thackeray had discovered his identity,
and Thackeray acted from justly hurt feelings because a man he had
trusted had proven a traitor to him, not knowing of Dickenss part until
after Yates was expelled from the Club and was seeking reinstatement
John Forsters single mention of the Garrick Club Affair in his biography
of Dickens seems to be the most just summary of the dispute between
Dickens and Thackeray engendered from this clash; "Neither was wholly
right, nor was either altogether in the wrong,"-^
This club dispute would be unimportant in a study of Trollopes
opinion of Thackeray if it did not have wide publicity at the time.
Trollope, it must be remembered, knew Yates but did not know Thackeray;
moreover, his absence from London during most of 1358 and early 1359

36
means that his first knowledge of the affair was through periodicals.
Thackeray inadvertently helped the publicity of the scandal by
ridiculing Tates as Young Grubstreet" in the ninth number of The
Virginians in July, and the penny press so persecuted Thackeray that
finally he spent much of his time on the continent.1-''-'' As early as
September 4 1858, the American miscellany Littells The hiving Age
picked up a feature from The Saturday Review, spreading an unfavorable
picture of Thackeray across the Atlantic? in this article, sarcastically
entitled "Gentlemen Authors," the writer attacks Thackeray, not because
Yates was in the right, but because Yates merely printed a "photograph"
of a man who earned money selling his features at public lectures.
Since the writer sees the entire dispute as Thackerays objection to a
personal description, especially to references to his "bloodless face"
and "broken nose," he argued that Thackeray had no grounds for anger
he had already fallen below the level of a gentleman by selling what
Yates tried to peddle,in November, The Eclectic Magazine reprinted
part of Yatess article,and on March 15, 1859, Littell*s The hiving
Age reprinted a squib from the Home Journal;
Punch is now not much good, and Thackeray, their
next best, is rapidly going down hill as a
saleable writer. His "Virginians has a very
small saleso small that from sheer shame he
actually returns some of the stipulated sum paid
him by the publishers. The trial brought by
Edmund Yates against the Garrick Club for
illegally expelling him, as an act of servile
flunkeyisa to Thackeray, comes on the beginning
of next month. In legal circles there is no
doubt of Yatess success. The trial will be

37
before Lord Campbell, and Edwin James, the
queens counsel, will represent Tates. It is
said he intends to put Thackeray into the
witness bos; and, if so, the charming Titmarsh may
expect a ferocious mauling, *
Thackeray, of course knowing the limits to which the unflat
tering publicity was going, made numerous references in his letters to
the volume of squibs and articles printed against him;
August 25, 1358;
The little papers are still going on abusing
me about it I hearand dont care as I never
read one. The public does not care about the
story. .
December 2, 1858;
I wonder who possibly can have written that
article in the Scotsman? The other side has
been having it all their way for 6 months during
wt I have not been allowed to speak one word.127
December 4* 1858;
The Yates and Thackeray affair still roars on
bravely. Three articles this week. Two against
me and accusing me of persecuting Yatesprivate
letter from Higgins to tell me I am utterly in
the wrong, that Yatess article wasnt malicious. .
March 12, 1859:
Scores of the pennyaline fraternity have written
on his side, and a great number of them are agreed
that its the description of my no3e w£ makes me
so furiousMot one of them seems to understand
that to be accused of hypocrisy of base motives
for public & private conduct & so forthare the
points wi? makes me angryand I look for more press
libels immediately shoving how I have ruthlessly
persecuted an excellent & harmless young man. . '
March 29, 1859:
. . the more dignified and I may say sweller
course is to hold my tongue, and let the penny-
aliners fire away their abuse till the subject
dies out.^30

38
The trouble with the public image of a man propagated by the press is
the difference between that image and the actual man. If there is a
discrepancy between the two, as is apparent in this case, we cannot
assume that the person, who knew of Thackeray only through the periodi
cal accounts of him, will be able to perceive Thackeray the actual man.
Because Thackeray was a great writer, his public image has been
redeemed; however, to the contemporary person who knew and admired
Thackeray's novels this publicity would have caused a split concept of
the novelist; he could be regarded in very favorable light as a
literary figure, but disliked as a man. This is precisely the view
that Trollope had of Sir Rowland Hill, and, as we shall see, developed
concerning Thackeray.
From May 11 until July Trollope was on official postal
business in northern England and Scotland, and from August to October
he was at home in Ireland; since he left London on November 16 on an
official postal mission to the West Indies from which he did not return
until the summer of 1859his knowledge of the Garrick Club Affair
could come from only two sources; a chance meeting with Yates when in
London in July and November or the periodical account which we just
surveyed. Since both sources are highly probable, Trollope was unable
to see Thackeray's side of the dispute. The Irish had no love for
Thackeray, and since Trollope spent much of his time there, he was more
than likely familiar with the Irish view of Thackeray's behavior. In
1839, Thackeray published Catherine, an !,01d Bailey novel," in Fraser's
Magazine and in the fifteenth number of Pendenmis for April, 1850, he

39
innocently alluded to the same woman, Catherine Hayes, the murderess.
However, a popular Irish soprano, Miss Catherine Hayes, was then
performing at the Baymarket Theatre, and the Irish were quite proud
of her and of her spotless character.
A howl of indignation arose from the Hiberian
Press, which by-the-way, had not forgotten
Thackeray's "Irish Sketch-Book, and his
scathing satire in Punch. "The Battle of
Limerick." They wholly ignored Catherine Hayes
the murderess, and they charged "the Big Blubber
Man"as, with other abusive epithets, they
called Thackeraywith wilfully and scandalously
libelling the fair fame of Miss Catherine Hayes
the vocalist.132
The Irish press joined to abuse Thackeray for what it regarded to be
an insult to its national pride, and Thackeray was forced to realise
as early as 1S51 that he was surrounded by enemies,^3 That the Irish
press would enjoy a further strike at the novelist naturally follows,
so Trollope would see an unflattering picture of Thackeray. If the
Irish papers backed Yates and if Trollope knew only Yates's side, any
chance meeting with Yates in the Post Office in London would strengthen
Trollope's preconception. Trollope's Image of Thackeray's personality
at this time, therefore, could hardly be fair to the more prominent
author? instead Trollope saw Thackeray through the eyes of his opponents,
a vieitf that is important if his later relation with Thackeray is to be
understood.
The particular coloring of Trollope's view of Thackeray is
the result of Trollope's having been influenced by Edmund Yates and
those opposed to Thackeray. Because Yates was the middle man who knew
both Trollope and Thackeray when they did not know each other, it is not

40
surprising to find that Trollope based his own opinion of Thackeray on
what the younger nan said. The surprising thing is that Trollope did
not alter his opinion after he knew Thackeray, yet even this is not so
surprising when we see the friction that existed between them after
they met.
Notes
^Recollections and Experiences I, 278.
Merle Mowbray Bevington, The Saturday Review. 1855-1868:
Representative Educated Opinion in Victorian England (New York, 1941),
pp. 1-2.
^Autobiography. p. 38.
4-Ibid.. pp. 45-46.
'Howard Robinson, The British Post Office. A History (Princeton,
1948), pp. 255-256.
^Autobiography. pp. 44.-45.
7Ibid.. p. 54.
^Michael Sadleir, Trollope. A Commentary (rev. ed.: New York,
1947), pp. 144-145.
%obinson, British Post Office, p. 257.
^Quoted from Hill's Post Office Reform in ibid.. p. 267.
nibid.. p. 303.
12Autobiography. pp. 108-109.
^Robinson, British Post Office, p. 327.
^Howard Robinson, Britain's Post Office: A History of Development
from the Beginnings to the Present Day' (London. 1953), p* 154.
^^Autobiography. pp. 75-76.

41
Robinson, British Post Office, p. 356
-^Autobiography. p. 77.
Recollections and Experiences. II, 222-229.
Raileir, p. 145.
20irollope vas not alone in having difficulty vrith him; Hill
lacked tact and quarreled with a number of Postmaster-Generals under
whom he held office. See Robinson, British Post Office. pp. 177-178.
2~Autobicgraphy. p. 215.
Robinson, Britains Post Office, pp. 167-168.
Robinson, British Post Office, pp, 333-334*
R?rollope Letters p. 13, fn.3.
^Robinson, British Post Office, p. 336.
Of.
I have indicated Trollopes opinion of Sir Rowlands character
above; Tates must be exaggerating when he describes the Secretarys
attitude toward Trollopei .he hated Trollope very cordially and
could not avoid showing it when they were brought into contact.
Recollections and Experiences. II, 225. Since both men sought the same
goal and since Sir Rowland trusted Trollope to make him a special agent
in important matters, the hatred that existed between the men was not
one to be confused with their ability to work together toward a common
vision of postal efficiency, even though they obviously differed on
the methods that should be employed to obtain that vision.
27
Autobiography, pp, 104-105.
"Recollections and Experiences. I, 83.
^Robinson, British Post Office. p.
362, fn.21, and p. 365, fn,28.
-Recollections and Experiences. I, 89.
^Robinson, British Post Office, p. 418.
-Recollections and Experiences.
I, 93.
33Ibid. 101.
from 1846-1852.
The Marquis of Clanricarde was Postmaster-General
34Ibid., p. 103.
from 1852-1853.
The Earl of Hardwicke was Postmaster-General

42
35Ibid.. II, 90-91
^Robinson, Britains Post Office. p. 163,
37
As in the matter of the pillar-boxes cited above.
3%his sympathy accounts for his unflattering and gently satirical
picture of Colonel Maberly in Recollections and Experiences. I, 96-100
it is interesting to note that, while Yates differed from Trollope in
his estimate of the man, he yet points out the Colonels indifference
and ridicules his behavior.
^Robinson, British Post Office. p. 365.
^Autobiography. p. 53
^Tilley became Secretary of the Post Office in 1864 when Sir
Rowland retired. Robinson, British Post Office, p. 445.
^Recollections and Experiences. II, 222.
^Sadleir, p. 204.
^Recollections and Experiences. I, 110,
45Ibid.. I, 111.
/
4 Trollope Letters, p, 41 This letter is also quoted in Sadleir,
p. 198, and Recollections and Experiences. I, 113-114.
47Sadleir, p. 198.
L 8
'"Gordon N, Ray(ed.), The Letters and Private Papers of William
Makepeace Thackeray; Collected and Edited by Gordon N. Ray (Cambridge,
1945-1946), IV, 90. Hereafter referred to as Thackeray Letters.
49
Recollections and Experiences. I, 170.
See Gordon N, Ray, Thackeray; The Age of Wisdom. 1847-1863
(New York, 1958), chapter two. Hereafter referred to as Wisdom.
^Recollections and Experiences. I, 170. Also see Wisdom, pp.
343-344.
^Adversity, p. 349.
53Ibid.. p. 367.

43
-^Edmund Yates was born on July 3, 1831, the son of Frederick
Henry Yates (1795-1842), an actor and part owner of the Adelphi Theatre.
^Thackeray joined the Garrick Club on July 22, 1333. Adversity,
pp. 167-168.
-Malcolm Elwin, Thackeray; A Personality (London, 1932), p. 368,
-^Wisdom. p. 109.
^Adversity. p. 367.
^%dgar Johnson, Charles Dickens; His Tragedy and Triumph (Hew
York, 1952), I, 182.
6Ibid.. p. 220.
6lAdwersity. pp. 372-373.
%hackeray Letters. II, 308.
^Adversity. pp, 285-286,
^Uisdoia. p. 274.
65Johnson, I, 211.
^Wisdom, p. 275.
^Adversity, p. 288.
^%lwin, pp, 203 and 269.
69
Recollections and Experiences. I, 256-259.
70Ibld.. II, 2.
^Wisdom. p. 274.
'Recollections and Experiences. I, 224-225.
^Albert Smith was a candidate for the Garrick Club in 1850, so
Yates must have known him from this time. Ibid. p. 49.
^'Johnson, I, 185.
75
"Isadore Gilbert Mudge and M.. Earl Sears, A Thackeray Dictionary;
The Characters and Scenes of the Hovels and Short Stories Alphabetically
Arranged (London, 1910), p, 100.

44
'^Wisdom. pp. 274*275.
Recollections and Experiences. I, 235-236.
78
Adversity, p. 226.
^El-win, p. 369.
'^Recollections and Experiences. I, 231-282. George Hodder gives
the following account of the dinner: "The project being initiated, Mr.
Peter Cunningham undertook the duties of secretary, and all the pre
liminary arrangements were of the most satisfactory kind, care being
taken that the party should be entirely private, and that it should
consist exclusively of Mr, Thackerays intimates." Memories of My Time
Including Personal Reminiscences of Eminent Men (London, 1870), p. 257.
81
82
Recollections and Experiences. II, 153.
Ibid.. I, 253-254.
%lsdom. p, 52.
^^Recollections and Experiences. I, 280.
85
86f
Adversity, p. 291.
George Augustus Sala, The Life and Adventures of George Augustus
Sala. Written by Himself (London, 189677 PP 275 and 278.
87,
88*
Recollections and Experiences. I, 336-337,
The Correspondence of Thomas Carlyle and Ralph Waldo Emerson.
1834-1872 7Boston, 1883)71, 262.
^Bevington, pp. 182-183.
^See his reviews of Goningsby (May 13, 1844) and Sybil (May 13,
I845) reprinted in Gordon H. Ray (ed.), William Makepeace Thackeray?
Contributions to the Morning Chronicle (Urbana, 1955).
"Adversity. pp. 241-245.
9Sibia.. pp. 367-373.
"ibid.. pp. 286-289.
"Letter of May 30, 1851. Muriel Spark (ed,), The Bronte Letters
(London, 1954), PP. 185-186,

45
950n June 12, 1851, she entered in the diary: Went to Thackerays
lecture on the 'Humorists at Willis's Rooms. It was a very large
assembly, including Mrs. Carlyle, Dickens, and unnumerable noteworthy
people. Thackeray is a much older-looking man than I had expected? a
square, powerful face, and most acute and sparkling eyes, greyish hair
and eye brows. He reads in a definite, rather dry manner, but makes
you understand thoroughly what he is about. The lecture was full of
point, but the subject was not a very interesting one, and he tried to
fix our sympathy on his good-natured, volatile, and frivolous Hero
rather more than was meet. 'Poor Dick Steele,' one ends with, as one
began; and I cannot see, more than I did before, the element of great
ness in him." Horace H. Pym (ed.), Memoirs of Old Friends. Being
Extracts from the Journals and Letters of Caroline Fox of Penierrick.
Cornwall. from 1835 to 1871 (London. 1882), p. 269.
<^>u. . I heard Jenny Lind and cared nothing for her, I detest
Mrs. Browning and Festus. and prefer Thackeray 10 times over to
Dickens. . Letter of June 23, 1851, to Lady Trevelyan. John
Brown, Letters of Dr. John Brown With Letters from Buskin, Thackeray.
and Others (London. 1907), p. 88.
^Apparently the author knew enough about Thackeray to be able to
give a sketch of his birth, adolescence, and family; the writer may
have been informed of this material by English associates because his
being an American is clear from the view point of the article. If the
information cited (e.g., Thackeray's gambling and his study for the
bar) was common knowledge, the writer's obvious preference for Dickens
accounts for the misrepresentation; if the information was not common
knowledge, he must have learned of the factual details antagonistic to
Thackeray and from English periodicals directed against him.
Thackeray," The Hew York Daily Times. V (October 29, 1855), 2.
This article was reprinted in Littell's The Living Age. XLYII
(December 1, 1855), 562-565.
99
Quoted from The Saturday Review for December 15, 1855, in
Bevington, pp. 168-169.
^Quoted from The Saturday Review for January 2, 1859, in ibid..
P. 170.
IOIhj^ Thackeray at the Surrey Gardens," The Literary Gazette.
and Journal of Archaeology. Science, and Art. Ho. 2090 (February 7,
1857), p. 137.
"Mr. Thackeray in Edinburgh," The Literary Gazette. and Journal
of Archaeology. Science, and Art. Ho. 2099 (April 11, 1857),p. 351.

46
103
"The Virginians, The Literary Gazette, and Journal of Belles
Lettres. Science. and Art, No.' 2129 (November 7, 18577, pp. 1065-1066.
have concentrated only on the reviews of Thackeray*s lectures?
the reviews of his novels are, on the whole, more favorable. This
emphasis on the lectures, however, elucidates Yates's viewpoint con
cerning Thackeray's ability as a public lecturer in the final paragraph
of his Town Talk article,
^'fyisdom. p. 267.
106.
'Ibid.. pp. 269-270.
107,
Recollections and Experiences. I, 277-279.
108,
'Sala, Life and Adventures. pp. 269-271,
109
Recollections and Experiences, II, 10.
110
In a letter of May 25, 1889, Yates tells the same story to
Herman Merivale, who was writing a biography of Thackeray? "While the
press waited, to supply 'short copy, at a desk in a printing office,
with the master-printer at my elbow, urging me on, slip by slip being
carried off to the compositors, as it was written." Thackeray Letters.
IV, 133, fa.17.
111
Recollections and Experiences. II, 13.
112
"In my wretched nonsense, there is no single reference to
Thackeray's home-life, no mention of his Club, no 'gossip' of any kind,
no hintGod forbidtat Ms domestic trouble, no word of anything
that was not thoroughly patent & well known at the time." Letter to
Herman Merivale, Thackeray Letters, IV, 133, fn.17.
11%isiom. pp. 278-281,
^^etter to Edmund Yates of June 13, 1358,
IV, 90.
115
Recollections and experiences. II, 18.
Thackeray Letters.
116,
117
Thackeray Letters. IV, 117.
Ibid.. p. 118.
^^Wisdom, p. 285.
119
Recollections and Experiences. II, 32,

47
120por the chronology of the Garrick Club Affair, see Appendix A.
121
John Forster, The Life of Charles Sickens (London, 1899), II, 697.
122Wisdon. pp. 282-284.
123uGantlenen Authors,* hlttell*s The Living Age, LVIII (September 4,
1858), 742-744.
124The Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature. Science, and Art.
XLV (November, 1858), 434.
125
"Dickens and Kis Publishers,'* Littell1 s The Living Age. LX
(March 5, 1858), 624.
1 o A
Letter to the Baxters. Thackeray Letters, I?, 109-110.
^Letter to Blackwood. Wisdom, p. 285*
128
Letter to his daughters. Thackeray Letters, I?, 121.
"^Letter to Charles Kingsley, Ibid.. pp. 133-135.
130
Letter to Duer Robinson. Ibid.. p, 135.
131Sadleir, p. 407.
132
Sala, Life and Adventures, p. 82.
l23Wisdom. pp. 133-135.

CHAPTER II
THACKERAYS COKNHILI, MAGAZINE AND TROLLOPES CONTRIBUTION
The thing that brought Thackeray and Trollope together was
The Cornhill Magazine, a shilling monthly founded by George Smith.
When Thackeray accepted the editorship of the new magazine, he did not
know the amount of work that it would demand, but during the latter
part of 1859 he threw himself into the task of creating a substantial
quality periodical. The news of the forthcoming magazine and Thackeray's
request for contributions attracted Trollopes attention, and because
he saw in the magazine a chance to break into Londons social and
literary life when he moved there, Trollope offered some short stories
to Thackeray. These stories were not wanted, but Smith and Thackeray
immediately accepted him on the staff and asked for a novel. This
exchange of letters marks the first personal contact of the two novelists
however, since Trollope approached Thackeray from a subordinate position,
he later belittled Thackerays editorial abilities, claiming that
Thackeray was an inferior editor with little talent for the job, in
order to build up his own abilities as editor of the ill-fated St. Paul's
Magazine
Before Trollope returned from his postal mission to the West
Indies, plans were already underway for this project that was to bring
him into association with Thackeray: The Cornhill Magazine. under
Thackerays editorship, was to be published by George Smith beginning
43

49
in January, 1860. Since this magazine was the first step toward
Trollopes relation with Thackeray, the events of 1859 that led to its
birth form the bridge between the view that Trollope received from
Yates and that which he developed by 1863, the year of Thackerays
death. The Cornhill. one of the first shilling magazines,^ owed its
inception indirectly to Sir Rowland. In I848 he had convinced the
government that the mails should be opened to books because no other
method of delivery effectively reached the rural districts. At first
the cost of the Book Post was 6d. a pound with no package containing
more than one volume or any writing whatsoever,*^ Meanwhile, the news
paper stamp, the heavy taxation that handicapped the newspapers of the
first third of the nineteenth century, had increased from l-|d, in 1780
to 4d. in I836, and until 1833 a duty of 3s. 6d. was assessed for each
advertisement. By 1853 the advertisement duty was abolished, and in
1855 the stamp was discontinued.-^ Sir Rowlands 1848 reform included
the newspapers so that by 1855 any newspaper that paid the postage rate
was handled by the Book Post. When the rate was lowered in 1855 to
four ounces for a penny,^ the feasibility of a shilling magazine was
created. George Smith, an enterprising young publisher who had just
prevented his firms bankrupcy on account of his partners embezzlement
of over i30,000?5 led Smith, Elder into its first ownership of a news-
6
paper in the same year. But it was not -until the early months of
1859 that the idea of a good quality magazine to sell for one shilling
flashed suddenly into his mind, and the yet-to-be-named Cornhill
was born.

50
Thackeray had first become acquainted with Smith, who hoped
to publish his works, when the young publisher invited him to dine with
Charlotte Bronte in November, 1849. Even though Miss Bronte and
Thackeray failed to become intimate, Smith's bid for Thackeray's work
paid off; he published The Kickleburvs on the Rhine (1850), Henry
Esmond (1852), The English Humourists (1853), and The Rose and the Ring
(1855). At the same time Thackeray issued the monthly numbers of The
Neweornes (October, 1853-August, 1855) and The Virginians (November,
1857-September, 1859) through his usual publishers, Bradbury & Evans,
at one shilling a number. When the idea of a shilling magazine came
to Smith, it was accompanied by the shrewd plan to have Thackeray
publish an installment of a novel in each issue; therefore, the public
would be paying the accustomed price for the monthly numbers of
Thackeray's novels and would also be purchasing the magazine.'
Having planned the format of the new magazine, George Smith
gave Thackeray the following proposals;
Smith, Elder, & Co, have it in contemplation
to commence the publication of a Monthly Magazine
on January 1st, I860. They are desirous of
inducing Mr, Thackeray to contribute to their
periodical, and they make the following proposal
to Mr. Thackeray;
1. That he shall write either one or two
novels of the ordinary size for publication in
the magazineone-twelfth portion of each novel
(estimated to be about equal to one number of a
serial) to appear in each number of the Magazine.
2. That Mr. Thackeray shall assign to Smith,
Elder, & Co. the right to publish the novels in
their magazine and in a separate form afterwards,
and to all sums to be received for the work from
American and Continental Publishers.

51
3. That Smith, Elder, & Co, shall pay Mr.
Thackeray 3502a, each month,
4. That the profits of all editions of the
novels published at a lower price than the
first edition shall be equally divided between Mr,
Thackeray and Smith, Elder, & Co.
65 Cornhill: February 19th, 1859.
Thackeray accepted the offer, and in a letter to his mother of the same
month mentioned that he will earn 8500 in the next 2 years from Smith &
11
Elder. Because Thackeray was still being harassed by the Garrick
1 P
Club Affair, which Yates planned to take to court in March, this
generous offer was welcomedj his excitement continued to run high on
March 29"
Then, for next year, I am engaged to write a
story (jFhilipj in 16 numbers for wtJ- I am to
receive-well, more than I have ever received
yet by 100i> a number. Think of that! and
after a little pause another story. I may
want to give up novel-writing but how refuse
when I am paid such prodigious sms? Why
didnt they buy me at 30? not the tired old
horse at 50?*^
George Smith, however, found himself in a quandary: he had
engaged Thackeray to write for the new magazine before he had located
an editor. He considered several people, but none responded to his
offers, Thomas Hughes, for example, was already obligated to Macmillan
and refused. Finally when he had been driven to his "wits end,""'^
the idea came: Why not Mr. Thackeray, and you yourself do what is
necessary to supplement any deficiencies on his part as a man of
business? Think of the writers who would be proud to contribute under
his editorship.-^ In a letter of April 14 Thackeray accepted the

52
position at a salary of LI,000 a year. As evident from his calculations
in a letter of October 1 to Mrs, Carmichael-Smyth, he was pleased that
he finally had risen to a financially comfortable position:
If I can work for 3 years now, I shall have
put back my patrimony and a little over
after 30 years of ups and downs. I made a
calculation the other day of receipts in the
last 20 years and can only sum up about 3200L
of moneys actually receivedfor w& I have
values or disbursements of 13000so that I
havent spent at the rate of more than 1000 a
year for 20 years. The profits of the
lectures figure as the greatest of the
receipts 9500LVirginians 6Vanity Fair only
2. 3 years more please the Fatesand the
girls will then have the S or 10000 a piece
that I want for them: and we mustnt say a
word against filthy lucre, for I see the use
& comfort of it every day more and more,
that a blessing not to mind about bills1
Before accepting this lucrative position, Thackeray was hesitant: My
Father, Lady Ritchie wrote, demurred at first to the suggestion of
editing the Cornhill*. Such work did not lie within his scope, but then
Mr. George Smith arranged that he himself was to undertake all business
transactions, and my Father was only to go on writing and criticising
17
and suggesting. Under the final arrangement both Smith and
IS
Thackeray had to agree on an article before it could be published,
a situation that was to irritate Trollope in 1861 and to lead to his
comment, "What I wrote for the Cornhill Magazine. I always wrote at the
instigation of Mr. Smith,On the whole, the agreement was satis
factory, and Smith was later able to comment, This relation between
publisher and editor would have worked ill in the case of some men,
but Thackerays nature was generous, and my regard for him was so
sincere that no misunderstanding ever occurred,

53
One of the next major problems that confronted Smith and his
new editor lias the selection of a name for the magazine. On September 29
a name had not yet been founds
Coire, Switzerland, September 29, 1859.
Have you found a title? St, LucS.us, who
founded the church of St. Peter. Cornhill. is
buried here. Help us, good St. Luciusf and
I will be your faithful W. M, T21
Since the offices of Smith, Elder, & Co. were located at 65 Cornhill,
the name, Cornhill Magazine, was appropriate and stuck in Thackerays
mind: The only name I can think of as yet is The Cornhill Magazine,
It has a sound of jollity and abundance about it,5*22 By November 1
Smith had agreed upon the name, and in A LETTER FROM THE EDITOR TO A
FRIEND AND CONTRIBUTOR Thackeray stated his reasons for it:
Our Store-House being in Cornhill, we date
and name our Magazine from its place of publica
tion. We might have assumed a title much more
startling: for example, The Thames on Fire'
was a name suggested; and, placarded in red
letters about the City, and Country, it would
no doubt have excited some curiosity. But, on
going to London Bridge, the expectant rustic
would have found the stream rolling on its
accustomed course, and would have turned away
angry at being hoaxed. Sensible people are not
to be misled by fine prospectuses and sounding
names; the present Writer has been for five-and-
twenty years before the world, which has taken
his measure pretty accurately. We are too long
acquainted to try and deceive one another; and
were I to propose any such astounding feat as
that above announced, I know quite well how the
schemer would be received, and the scheme would
end.23
The name of the magazine has remained unchanged up to the present day,
even though George Simpson thought, "The title of Thackerays Magazine
conveys to me the idea of Banks, Stockbrokers, and Assurance Companies
not of Literature2^ and some critics sneered at it.2^

54
Hot only did Thackeray and Smith need to settle the name of
the magazine, they had to reach a conception of what the Cornhill ms
to represent and to find contributors. In both problems, Thackeray
was as active as a man in poor health could be. In early September he
thought that "the Magazine must bear my cachet . and be a man of
the world Magazine.'*2 Sir Henry Thompson told Lady Ritchie that
Thackeray "told me that he intended to develop a new principlethat
he thought everyman, whatever his profession, might be able to tell
something about it which no one else could say, provided the writer
could write at all; and he wanted to utilize this element.^ To
Trollope, Thackeray wrote, "One of our chief objects in this magazine
is the getting out of novel spinning, and back into the world.'*2 In
the circular to prospective contributors, he was more explicit*
We hope for a large number of readers, and
must seek, in the first place, to amuse and
interest them. Fortunately for some folks,
novels are as daily bread to others; and
fiction of course must form a part, but only
a part, of our entertainment. We want, on the
other hand, as much reality as possible-
discussion and narrative of events interesting
to the public, personal adventures and observa
tions, familiar reports of scientific discoveries,
descriptions of Social Institutionsquicquid
agunt hominesa 'Great Eastern,' a battle in
China, a Race-Course, a popular Preacherthere
is hardly any subject we don't want to hear about,
from lettered and instructed men who are compe
tent to speak on it, . There are points on
which agreement is impossible, and on these we
need not touch. At our social table, we shall
suppose the ladies and children always present;
we shall not set up rival politicians by the
ears; we shall listen to every guest who has an
apt word to say; and, I hope, induce clergymen
of various denominations to say grace in their
turn.^9

55
Under these directions the Cornhill became a monthly family magazine
directed toward an upper-middle class reader,
Thackeray, immediately after accepting the editorship, set
to work finding suitable contributors. According to Lady Ritchie, he
"thought of articles and wrote letters and made suggestions; he asked
people to write for him; he went here and there on purpose to meet
likely contributors."-^ Since Thackeray was responsible for a number
of The Virginians each month until September,^ had begun writing
Philip for the Cornhill before he became editor,^ took his daughters
on a tour of the continent,^ and was in poor health,^ his work on the
magazine was only a little less than prodigious. As early as June 27
he was negotiating with Charles Lever,^ and he "soon had commitments
for the early numbers of the Cornhill from such celebrities as Arnold,
Mrs. Browning, Bulwer Lytton, Mrs, Gaskell, Lever, Lewes, Ruskin, and
Tennyson."as Lady Ritchie has pointed out, "Messrs. Smith & Elder
also worked hard and converted their editor's suggestions into facts
and reality, with an energy and a liberality very remarkable."^ In a
letter to his sons one of Thackeray's early contributors, G. H. Lewes,
described the manner in which the editor solicited his contributor and
and the publisher negotiated the payment:
You have heard I dare say that Mr. Thackeray
is about to edit a new Magazine. Well, as soon
as he had begun to make arrangements, he wrote
to ask me if I would help him. I replied that
I should be very willing indeed, if I saw
clearly that I could do so, and if the payment
was tempting. Whereupon Mr. Smith, the
publisher, drove here in his carriage, and
made me a tempting offer, which I accepted.

56
The arduous arrangements, under the circumstances of his illness and
other obligations, forced Thackeray to abandon Philip, the novel he was
writing for monthly installments in the Cornhill: on August 23 be and
Smith had reached an alternative plans
For the new Magazine we are going to turn the
Comedy into a story in 6 numbers to be followed
by the 4 Georges in 4 numbersand not begin
the long story until July.39
As agreed, Thackeray turned The ¥olves and the Lamb into the short,
"comparatively unimportant story, Level the Widower.1"^ He knew the
weakness of the story and was, therefore, glad to welcome Anthony
Trollope to his staff if the latter could supply a novel before the
copy for the first number went to the printer in December.
When he returned to England from the West Indies in the
simmer of 1859, Trollope requested a transfer to England. His work was
of such a nature that he was often away from Dublin, his home, and a
transfer to the vicinity of London would unite his family and place
him within the reach of the publishers, the clubs, and the dinner
parties of the metropolis."^ When his request was granted, he searched
for a place to live that could be close to London and still preserve
the rural atmosphere of Ireland. By August 2 he was able to tell his
wife that a place had been leased:
To ye ladie of Waltham House in y Countie of
Herts. These
Deareste Madame
Havinge withe infinite trouble & pain inspected
& surveyed and poked manie and diverse holes in ye
aforesaid mansion, I have at ye laste hired and
taken it for moste excediente ladieshipto have
and to hold from ye term of St Michaels mass next

57
eomynge The Cliche Waltham House is now the
property of one Mistress Wilkins, who has let
it to your lovynge lord & husband for 714
or 21 years, with mande and diverse clauses
which shall hereafter as time may serve be
explained to your excellente 1adiship42
Mr. Sadleir has described Waltham House, at Waltham Gross in Hertford
shire, as wa fine Georgian house of weathered brick, which had in
those days a large garden, good stabling and surroundings of great
rural beauty.In his autobiography Trollope described the advantages
that the new residence was to bring him;
In December 1359, while I was still very hard at
work on my novel {Tramlev Parsonage]. I came
over to take charge of the Eastern District,
and settled myself at a residence about twelve
miles from London, in Hertfordshire, but on
the borders both of Essex and Middlesex,
which was somewhat too grandly called Waltham
House, This I took on lease, and subsequently
bought after I spent about 5,1000 on improve
ments. From hence I was able to make myself
frequent both in Gornhill and Piccadilly, and
to live, when the opportunity came, among men
of my own pursuit,44
The move to Waltham House opened the London world to Trollope, while
he continued to have the rustic pleasures that Ireland had offered;
I was now settled at Waltham Gross, in a house
in which I could entertain a few friends
modestly, where we grew our cabbages and
strawberries, made our own butter, and killed
our own pigs, I occupied it for twelve
years, and they were years to me of great
prosperity.45
But this new world -was not dependent alone upon the change
of residence; much of it derived from his acquaintance with Thackeray,
With characteristic energy Trollope filed official reports, made
arrangements to move from Ireland, and on August 4 began composing a

new novel for Chapman & Hall, his publishers. After the transfer was
definite and the lease on Waltham House had been obtained, Trollope
heard of Thackerays new magazine:
, . even in Ireland, where I was still living
in October, 1859, I had heard of the Comhill
Magazine. which was to come out on the 1st of
January 1860, under the editorship of Thackeray.
To be on the staff of a new and promising London periodical meant to
Trollope an entrance into the hitherto closed literary world. He
had "written from time to time certain short stories, which had been
published in different periodicals," and hoping to make an acquaint
ance with one of the top literary figures, he offered some stories to
Thackeray, whom he had never seen.^ On October 23 he wrote Thackeray
from Dublin modestly offering his services to the magazine:
Dear Sir,
I do not know how far the staff of your new
periodical may be complete. Perhaps you will
excuse my taking the liberty of offering to
make one of the number if it may be not so,
I will tell you exactly what would be my
views, and you will as frankly tell me whether
they would suit you.
I am writing a series of stories to be
calledunless I change the name, Tales of all
countries. I began them last summer with the
view of publishing them first in Harpers
magazine, & then of republishing them here.
He has two of them already in his hands.
My idea is to publish one a month, & to
republish the 12 in a single vol at the end
of a year. They wd run in this way for two
years. They would occupy, each, from 8 to
13 pages of a big-paged magazinesuch as
yours may probably be.
If it suited you to take one each alternate
month, I would send one for each alternate
month to Harpers. It does not suit him to
have to take one monthlyor I would send them
all to you, if you so wished.

59
If this idea would suit you, you would
probably let me know your rate of pay. Harper
gives me £20 for each storyor £2 a page for
10 pages. Of course I have the right of
republication whenever it may suit me.
I have five of these stories now by me.
Each refers to or is intended to be redolent
of some different countrybut they apply
only to localities with which I am myself
conversant.
You will I hope at any rate excuse my
writing to you in this manner*
Yours faithfully
ANTHONY TROLLOPS
As I have before me a letter from Harper
respecting these stories which I must answer,
perhaps you will let me have a reply as soon
as may be convenient to you,^
When Trollopes letter reached London, his proposal instantly
received attention. Thackeray and Smith, however, needed a novel to
supplement Lovel the Widower. not the short articles Trollope offered.
Since Thackerays reply was dated October 23, five days after Trollopes
had been written, and followed Smiths proposals, the idea to ask
Trollope for a lead novel must have been instantaneous. Thackeray,
since he also was to feature a novel, tactfully allowed time for Smith's
letter to be in the mail before he wrote. According to Trollope, the
letter from Smith offered £1000 for the copyright of a three-volume
novel, to come out in the new magazine,on condition that the first
portion of it should be in their hands by December 12th.Thackeray's
letter immediately followed, welcoming Trollope to the staff and con
taining the printed circular, A LETTER FROM THE EDITOR TO A FRIEND AND
CONTRIBUTORS

60
My dear Mr. Trollope,Smith & Elder have sent
you their proposals; and the business part
done, let me come to the pleasure, and say how
very glad indeed I shall be to have you as
co-operator in our new magazine. And looking
over the annexed programme, you will see
whether you cant help us in many other ways
besides tale-telling. Whatever a man knows
about life and its doing, that let us hear
about. You must have tossed a good deal about
the world, and have countless sketches in your
memory and your portfolio. Please to think
if you can furbish up any of these besides a
novel. When events occur, and you have a
good lively tale, bear us in mind. One of
our chief objects in this magazine is the
getting out of novel spinning, and back into
the world. Dont understand me to disparage
our craft, especially your wares. I often say
I am like the pastry-cook, and dont care for
tarts, but prefer bread and cheese; but the
public love the tarts (luckily for us), and we
must bake and sell them. There was quite an
excitement in my family one evening when
Paterfamilias (who goes to sleep on a novel
almost always when he tries it after dinner)
came upstairs into the drawing-room wide awake
and calling for the second volume of The
Three Clerks. I hope the Cornhlll Magazine
will have as pleasant a story. And the
Chapmans, if they are the honest men I take
them to be, Ive no doubt have told you with
what sincere liking your works have been read
by yours very faithfully,
W. M, Thackeray.^*
Trollope was delighted, but the suddenness of the call found him
unprepared t
It was already the end of October, and a
portion of the work was required to be in the
printers hands within six weeks. Castle
Richmond was indeed half written, but that
was sold to Chapman. And it had already been
a principle with me in ray art, that no part of
a novel should be published till the entire
story was completed, I knew, from what I read
from month to month, that this hurried publica
tion of incompleted work was frequently, I
leading novelists of the day.

61
When he had decided to break his principle, he went to
London to make final arrangements. Arriving on the morning of
November 3, he had finished plotting Castle Richmond and went first to
Edvard Chapman to break his arrangement with Chapman & Hall in the case
that this Irish novel suited the Cornhill. With an agreement made,
Trollope had his "first interview with Mr. George Smith," who wanted
"an English tale, on English life, with a clerical flavour.
Smiths rejection of a novel dealing with Ireland reflected his concern
with the English public. Trollopes early Irish novels, The Macdermots
of Ballvcloram (1847) and The Kellys and the 0*Kellys: or Landlords
and Tenants (1848), as well as Castle Richmond (i860), "brought to the
Irish novel an objectivity which not even Maria Edgeworth could match,
yet he was almost as close to the peasants as Garleton or the Banims."^2
The intellectual climate in England, however, formed the basis for
Smiths refusal of Castle Richmond: the Stebbinses describe the attitude
toward the Irish in England in the following paragraph:
Such bitter food was not relished in England.
Had Ireland been in a less unhappy state when
Castle Richmond was published, English readers
could have been comfortable in the thought that
twelve years had passed since these poor wretches
starved to death. As it was, they could not pick
up a daily paper without seeing reference to
current evils in that luckless country. Rents
had continued to rise, landlords to be extortionate,
taxes to increase, and the endless quarrel between
Catholics and Protestants had waxed in bitterness.
A strong police force was ineffectual in subduing
malcontents. Across the Atlantic, especially in
New York, Irish emigrants who had left the country
in the dreadful years of dearth had grown rich and
were sending money home to foment disorder. The
Fenian Society had declared its purpose of setting
up an independent Irish republic. Victorians dis
liked depressing novels based on truths which
pricked at conscience.53

62
Wanting to accept Smiths generous offer ("The price . was more than
double what I had yet received"),^4 Trollope began Framlev Parsonage on
the night of November 4 on the "journey back to Ireland, in the railway
carriage."55
Although Trollope had never written for serialization before
and had initial misgivings over the change of style that it demanded,^
he stopped work on Castle Richmond until Framley Parsonage was half-
finished.-^ Since he resumed work on the Irish novel on January 1,
1860,^8 p0rtion that he placed in Smiths hands must have been
considerable. Smith himself could hardly be anything but surprised at
the speed of Trollope's work, but Trollope, who was as methodical a
writer as England has yet produced, had prepared a plan for the writing
of novels before his mission to Egypt:
When I have commenced a new book, I have always
prepared a diary, divided into weeks, and
carried it on for the period which I have
allowed myself for the completion of the work.
In this I have entered, day by day, the number
of pages I have written, so that if at any time
I have slipped into idleness for a day or two,
the record of that idleness has been there,
staring me in the face, and demanding of me
increased labour, so that the deficiency might
be supplied. According to the circumstances of
the time,whether my other business might be
then heavy or light, or whether the book which
I was siting was or iras not wanted with speed,-
I have allotted myself so many pages a week. The
average number has been about 40* It has been
placed as low as 20, and has risen to 112. And
as a page is an ambiguous terra, my page has been
made to contain 250 words; and as words, if not
watched, will have a tendency to straggle, I
have had every word counted as I went. In the
bargains I have made with publishers I have,
not, of course, with their knowledge, but in my

63
own mind,undertaken always to supply them
with so many words, and I have never put a
book out of hand short of the number by a
single word. I may also say that the excess has
been very small. I have prided myself on com
pleting my work exactly within the proposed
dimensions. But I have prided myself especially
in completing it within the proposed time,and
I have always done so. There has ever been the
record before me, and a week passed with an in
sufficient number of pages has been a blister
to my eye, and a month so disgraced would have
been a sorrow to my heart.59
Elsewhere he confided that he had the custom "to write with a watch
before me, and to require from myself 250 words every quarter of an
hour, I have found that the 250 words have been forthcoming as
regularly as my watch went." Between the details of his postal
work and the confusion of the move to Waltham House, therefore,
Trollope managed to have copy in Smith's hands early enough that he
could return the proofs on November 25.^
Thackeray and Smith had a hectic time as the dead line for
the first number neared, but on December 15 Thackeray wrote to Mrs,
Tennyson,, "Hip Hip Hurray. Our number is gone to press. . On
December 25 Trollope, now living at Waltham Cross, had already received
his payment and asked Smith whether the check was not too large, adding
his congratulations on the first number.0^ Thackeray was pleased when
65
he received an early copy on December 20, as were the contributors
who also received advanced copies. Richard Monckton Milnes, for
example, wrote Thackeray on December 27 to congratulate him for a
magazine "almost too good for the public it is written for and the money
fifi
it has to earn."UD Trollope wrote to the editor on December 28, adding
his praises to the others:

64
My dear Sir,
Allow me to congratulate you on the first
number of the magazine. Putting aside my own
contribution, as to which I am of course bound
to say nothing laudatory whatever I may think,
I certainly do conceive that nothing equal to it
of its kind was ever hitherto put forth
The great aim in such a work should be, I
think, to make it readable, an aim which has been
so constantly lost sight of in a great portion of
the pages of all magazines. In your first number
there is nothing that is not readablewith the
single exception above mentioned;and very little
that is not thoroughly worth reading.
Very faithfully yours
ANTHONY TROLLOPE
W, M, Thackeray Esq'
The first number of the Cornlilll. that excited such laudatory
exclamations, was a modest little magazine with a yellow cover designed
by Godfrey Sykes, a student at the school of art which had recently
been established under the protection of the Prince Consort at South
Kensington. The cover was not decided upon until November after
Thackeray had tried in vain to find an artist or to design one himself?
I have been with Mr. Keene [cartoonist for Punch]
and pressed him in vain. His hands he says are
quite too full* I spent a great part of yester
day at the Museum trying if I could devise a title
page myself but this morning bethought that my
friend Mr* Cole at the Boilers [South Kensington
Schools of ArtJ might find an artist to my purpose.
He introduced me to a gentleman there of the very
highest skill to whom I explained the design we
wanted, who took immediately my view of it and
will bring me a drawing as soon as done.k
Although another design had been tentatively chosen, Syke's drawing was
immediately selected: "What a fine engravingl what a beautiful
drawing!" Thackeray wrote; "there has beea nothing so ornamentally
good done anywhere that I know ofIf the cover was pleasing to the

65
eye, the contents were delightful to the mind* In the 128 pages of
the large, extremely readable type was a liberal feast fit for any
palate, prepared by amateurs and professionals alike, and presented to
the pxiblic without signatures. The contents alone reveal the fulfill
ment of Thackerays desire to make the Cornhlll na man of the world
Magazine"s
(Anthony Trollope I] Framley Parsonage.
Chapter 1. 11 Ctenes omnia bona dlcere. Chapter 2.
The Framley Set and the Chaldicotes Set.
Chapter 3 Chaldicotes. . ..... 1
[Sir John Bowring3 The Chinese and the Outer
Barbarians ............ .26
[W. M. Thackeray,3 Lovel the Widower.Chapter 1,
The Bachelor of Beak Street. .......... .44
[G, H. LewesJ Studies in Animal LifeChapter 1. .61
Father Prouts Inauguration Ode to the Author
of "Vanity Fair. 75
[Sir John Burgoyne.3 Our Volunteers .77
(Thornton Hunt 3 A Man of Letters of the Last
Generation .......... ...85
[Allen Young .3 The Search for Sir John
Franklin (from the Private Journal of an
Officer of the Fox) 96
LMrs. Archer Clive3 The First Morning of 1860. 122
[W. M. Thackeray.3 Roundabout Papers.No. 1
On a Lazy Idle Boy ............... 124 ^
In this table of contents the Cornhlll offered fiction, poetry, the
personal essay, the scientific essay, the adventure narrative, and a
patriotic appeal to oppose the French, Between Thackeray and Smith the
new magazine had become not just a reality but a periodical of out
standing promise.
The public reception was immediate and far excelled the wildest
dreams of its editor or publisher:

66
The day when the first number was published
January i860messengers arrived to tell the
editor of the new thousands being wanted by
the publicj then more messengers came, and we
were told how the printers were kept working
till all hours, ... Mr. George Smith'?2 told
me that the calculations were all put out by
the enormous sale, which reached to some
120,000.73
No more than 80,000 copies had been ordered, but the great sale was
"without precedent in English periodical, literature"7^ and meant that
half a million people read the first number.^ Financially, however,
this unexpected success caused the publisher to lose money:
The calculations for the advertisements were
all put out by the enormous sale. The price
which pays for 10,000 announcements and the
paper and the printing ceases to be remunerative
when 120,000 notices are put forth. The pro
prietors actually lost upon the transactions
after a certain number had been reached.?0
Despite this initial loss Smith had the foresight to rejoice over the
prospects of the magazine. The entry for January 3, I860, in his
diary succinctly stated, "Called on Thackeray on my way to the City;
signed agreement respecting Roundabout Papers. Mr. Thackeray in
very good spirits at the success of the Cornhill,Perhaps, this
meeting was also the time when Smith doubled Thackerays salary, an
offer that caused Thackerays income from the magazine to rise to
3a6QO a month.7o At the end of the month Smith knew better how to
estimate sales: on January 27 he "ordered 80,000 to be printed.
Called in Bride Lane to see hoi; they were selling the second number of
the magazine. The demand very rapid," and on January 30 he "ordered
100,000 to be printed. . ."The editor and the publisher could

67
hardly be anything but elated over the fruits of their toil in 1859,
and even when the circulation dropped to an average of 85,000 copies a
month, they could still pride themselves at surpassing the rival shilling
80
magazine Macmillans.
Because the editorship of an unexpectedly popular magazine
T^as a new experience for Thackeray, his role was often difficult. On
the one hand, Thackerays suggestions to would-be contributors were
parried by such replies as Motleys refusal:
I feel sure that I should be voted a bore were
I to try my hand as you desire. Believe rae that
it is from no affectation or modesty, nor indis
position to oblige you, that I thus refuse your
invitation, but from an honest inward conviction
of imbecility.
On the other hand, the sensitive Thackeray squirmed in his position when
he was faced to reject material submitted but not suitable for the
magazine. For example, when Mrs. Browning contributed "Lord Walters
Wife,rt^ Thackeray cried, Who am I to refuse the poems of Elizabeth
Browning, and set myself up as a judge over her? In his letter to her,
he painfully described the reasons for his rejection:
You see that our Magazine is written not only for
men and women, but for boys, girls, infants,
sucklings almost, and one of the best wives
mothers, women in the world, writes some verses,
w£ I feel certain would be objected to by many
of our readersNot that the writer is not pure,
and the moral most pure chaste and rightbut
there are things my squeamish public will not
hear on Mondays though on Sundays they listen to
them without scruple. In your poem you know
there is an account of unlawful passion felt by
a man for a woman-and though you write pure
doctrine and real modesty and pure ethics, I
am sure our readers would make an outcry, and
so I have not published this poem.3

68
Miile Mrs. Browning sent another contribution, Little Mattie, to
prove that I am not sulky, she defended herself by adding,
I am not a fast woman*I dont like coarse
subjects, or the coarse treatment of any
subject-But I am deeply convinced that the
conniption of our society requires, not shut
doors and windows, but light and airand
that it is exactly because pure & prosperous
women choose to Ignore vice, that miserable
women suffer wrong by it everywhere. Has
paterfamilias, with his Oriental traditions
and veiled female faces, very successfully
dealt with a certain class of evil? Hhat if
materfamilias, with her quick pure instincts
and honest innocent eyes, do more towards
their expulsion by simply looking at them &
calling them by their names
But Mrs. Browning's reaction would have been a relief compared to
Thackerays continual uneasiness when he rejected material, especially
material submitted by young ladies.^ Thackeray himself characterised
"the thorn in the cushion of the editorial chair in his fifth
Roundabout Paper (July, 1860)s
Ah! It stings me now as I write. It comes
with almost every mornings post. At night I
come home, and take my letters up to bed {not
daring to open them), and in the morning I
find one, two, three thorns on my pillow.
Three I extracted yesterday? two I found this
morning. They dont sting quite so sharply as
they did; but a skin is a skin, and they bite,
after all, most wickedly. It is all very fine
to advertise on the Magazine, "Contributions
are only to be sent to Messrs. Smith, Elder, &
Co., and not the Editor's private residence."
My dear sir, how little can you know man- or
woman-kind, if you fancy they will take that
sort of warning! How am I to know (though, to
be sure, I begin to know now), as I take the
letters off the tray, which of those envelopes
contains a real bona fide letter, and which a
thorn? One of the best invitations this year
I mistook for a thorn-letter, and kept it
without opening. This is what I call a thorn-
letters

69
"CAMBERWELL: June 4
"SIR,May I hope, may I entreat, that you
mil favour me by perusing the enclosed lines,
and that they may be found worthy of insertion
in the Cornhill Magazine? We have known better
days,sir. I have a sick and xiidowed mother to
maintain, and little brothers and sisters who
look to me, I do my utmost as a governess to
support them. I toil at night when they are at
rest, and my own hand and brain are alike tired.
If I could add but a little to our means by my
pen, many of my invalid's wants might be supplied,
and I could procure for her comforts to which she
is now a stranger. Heaven knows it is not for
want of mil or for want of energy on my part
that she is now in ill-health, and our little
household almost without bread. Dodo cast a
kind glance over my poem, and if you can help
us, the widow, the orphans will bless you! I
remain, sir, in anxious expectancy, your
faithful servant,
S.S.S."
And enclosed is a little poem or two, and an
envelope with its penny stampHeaven help us!
and the writers name and address.
Mow you see what I mean by a thorn.
As Thackeray's health failed, this part of the work became more and more
irksome to him.' Smith could not even call him a good editor when it
came to rejections, because Thackeray was "uncertain and wayward, far
too tender-heartedcould not say 'No* to a contributor."0
Beside the troubles he faced soliciting articles and rejecting
unsuitable material, Thackeray had two other procedures that harmed his
efficiency as an editor. Lady Ritchie relates that, after he asked Sir
Henry Thompson "to describe cutting off a leg as a surgical operation,"
he lost the manuscript for three months so that it did not appear until
the fourth number with the mild title "Under Chloroform."^ An editor
who misplaces a manuscript, especially one that was solicited, can
scarcely be regarded as efficient, Also as Robertson Scott has pointed

70
out Thackerays method of correcting contributions was not designed to
save his publishers profits: he corrected, not the manuscripts or
the galley proofs, but the page proofs, the most costly to work with,
for if a sizable passage were deleted, the pagination and the contents
90
of each fallowing page in the feature would have to shift position.
Even if Thackeray fell down in the mechanical part of his
work, his artistic contribution to the Comhill balances, if not over
shadows, his faults. Beside his contributions of the two novels, Lovel
the Widower and The .Adventures of Philip.^" twenty-eight Roundabout
Papers, The Four Georges, and seven other articles,^ Thackeray often
revised the material of his contributors. In the jubilee edition of
the Comhill (January, 1910) was printed a facsimile of three pages of
a story which Thackeray has revised and altered. Thackerays pen has
touched extensive passages, concentrating on diction and word choice
as well as on grammar and word order. Because he was not always compe
tent to do the revision himself, he sometimes suggested to the contribu
tor the manner in which the material should be altered:
The verses are so good that they ought to be
better. Why leave careless and loose rhymes
such as those marked? Why not polish the verses
more and more and make them as bright as they
possibly can be? ....
vows so dear and
Not hear the passionate words so fondly told
(2)
For all ay soul goes sorrowing to behold
How much &c.
5 x grasping pen? & mine & thine are but poor rhymes
7 stars. futurity
10, sea, me, see, be. The whole stanza is obscure,
earthly sea specially obscure.
17 Go then! & take with thee &e
7 Dimmed with a mist of tears my eyes I raise
Two tearful stars are all ray eyescan see
But thine into futurity should gaze'

71
The careful work that Is exhibited here seems to overbalance the faults
Thackeray exhibited in the more mechanical aspects of editorship. In
a modern magazine staff he would probably be a very good literary
editor, leaving the other side of the work to a managing editor, but in
the nineteenth century one man was expected to fulfill both roles.
Despite the initial high sales and the care he exerted to make
the Cornhill a quality magazine, Thackeray was beset by troubles more
serious than having to reject young ladies* contributions or revise poor
material to make it suitable. His enemies of the Garrick Club Affair
continued to harass him. On November 17, 1859^ Tates, apparently
hoping to end the animosity that had been generated by his earlier
indiscretion, sent Thackeray a poem. This rash movement led to what
Tates should have expected when his poem was mailed; "It came back by
return of post, with a line of his secretary, who was desired by Mr.
Thackeray to return the enclosed.This was probably the easiest
rejection Thackeray was able to make. But Tates was not the only
person whom Thackeray feared; the powerful coalition of the Dickenss
clique and the penny papers presented a united front against him. In
1859 he had been afraid that "Forster will try to prevent Tennyson
from writing for [[Samuel Lucas, who was apparently employed by Smith,
Elder when the first number of the Cornhill was being prepared]."^
Then the greatest attack came, not from individual enemies, but from
the Saturday Review. The first two members of the Saturday Review
staff to desert the staff were Henry Sumner Maine and Fitzjames Stephen,
elder brother of Leslie Stephen. Stephen "contributed two articles to

72
The Cornhill Magazine in i860 and eight or nine during each of the next
three years."97 Beresford Hope of the Saturday Review commented about
him!
Maine and Stephen enticed over to the Cornhill
by Thackeray, like a jobber as he is. Stephen,
who is avid of money, agreed without Cooks
knowledge to write a continuous series for the
Cornhill, which is obviously treason, and he
has got his dismissal accordingly.^
Earlier the Saturday Review had favored Thackeray over Dickens, but in
1860 they joined the nebulous group that opposed the editor of the
Cornhill.99 When Thackeray mentioned the Saturday Review in nNil Nisi
Bonum" (February, I860) he was highly complimentary: ,!It is a good
sign of the times when such articles as these (I mean the articles in
the Times and Saturday Review) appear in our public prints about our
public men. They educate us, as it were, to admire rightly."-90 In
another Roundabout Paper, De Juventute" (October, I860), however,
Thackeray, who had by now enough of the Saturday Reviews attacks,
struck back by satirizing their position:
It is the Superfine Review. It inclines to
think that Mr. Dickens is not a true gentleman,
that Mr. Thackeray is not a true gentleman, and
they when the one is pert and the other is
arch, we, the gentlemen of the Superfine Review,
think, and think rightly, that we have some
cause to be indignant. The great cause why
modern humour and modern sentimentalism repel
us, is that they are unwarrantably familiar.
Now, Mr. Sterne, the Superfine Reviewer thinks,
"vas a true gentleman, because he was above all
things a true gentleman." The flattering
inference is obvious: let us be thankful for
having an elegant moralist watching over us,
and learn, if not too old, to imitate his high-

73
bred politeness and catch his unobtrusive
grace* If we are unwarrantably familiar, we
know who is not. If we repel by pertness, we
know who never does. If our language offends,
we know whose is always modest*^lJi
In "Small Beer Chronicle" (July, 1361) Thackeray hit again:
A short while since, a certain Reviewer
announced that I gave myself great pretensions
as a philosopher. I a philosopher! I advance
pretensions! My dear Saturday friend, And you?
Dont you teach everything to everybody? and
punish the naughty boys if they don't learn as
you bid them?1^2
While such thrusts might appear in Thackeray's skilled hands to be
humorous, the adverse attacks were among the "thorns in the cushions"
that he could best stop through slighting? as early as July, i860, he
declared s
. . it is not the fire of adverse critics
which affects or frightens the editorial bosom.
They may be right; they may be rogues who have
a personal spite; they may be dullards who kick
and bray as their nature is to do, and prefer
thistles to pineapples; they may be conscientious,
acute, deeply learned, delightful judges, who see
your joke in a moment, and the profound wisdom
lying underneath. Wise or dull, laudatory or
otherwise, we put their opinions aside,
The Saturday Review and Thackeray, however, both held as an ideal the
middle class gentleman; it was the Bohemian circle that had sided with
Yates that was particularly offensive.The relation between the
Saturday Review and the editor of the Cornhill had a basis other than
this personal animosity, but when it finally entered the fight between
the obscure papers and Thackeray, it was to raise the great Titmarsh
to his full wrath.

74
Since the Cornhill was the medium that brought Trollope and
Thackeray together, Trollopes views on Thackeray as an editor are
especially interesting* We have seen how Trollope earned, much to his
surprise, a major place on the magazines staff and how his relation to
the Cornhill was primarily through George Smith. Furthermore, we have
seen that Trollope was In a position more to hear of Yatess side of
the Garrick Club Affair than to sympathize with Thackeray. From these
premises we can assume that Trollope, who did not yet know Thackeray,
may already have formulated the divided image of him that was to become
apparent in the biography of 1879. In his autobiography (vjritten
between October, 1875, and April 30, 1876), when Trollope accounts for
the manner in which Framley Parsonage came to be placed first in a
magazine originally intended to have its main stay in a serialization
by Thackeray!
... the answer to this question must be
found in the habits of procrastination which
had at that time grown upon the editor. He
had, I imagine, undertaken the work himself,
and had postponed its commencement till there
was left to him no time for commencing. There
was still, it may be said, as much time for
him as for me. I think there was,for though
he had his magazine to look after, I had the
Post Office. But he thought, when unable to
trust his own energy, that he might rely upon
that of a new recruit.I65
Obviously Trollope, while praising his own unusual capacity for work,
never learned the burdens under which Thackeray worked in 1859. He has
forgotten that while Thackeray had to finish The Virginians for
Bradbury & Evans, he was working on the Cornhill. and on top of this

75
work was in chronically poor health. In Thackeray (1879) Trollope is
more lenient in his charges, perhaps because tmlike An Autobiography
it was to be published during the authors lifetime:
I was astonished that work should be required
in such haste, knowing that much preparation
had been made, and that the service of almost
any English novelist might have been obtained
if asked for in due time. It vas my readiness
that v;as needed, rather than any other gift!
The riddle was read to me after a time.
Thackeray had himself intended to begin with one
of his own great novels, but had put it off till
it was too late. Lovel the Widower was commenced
at the same time with my own story, but Lovel the
Widower was not substantial enough to appear as
the principal joint at the banquet. Though your
guests will undoubtedly dine off the little
delicacies you provide for them, there must be
a heavy saddle of mutton among the viands pre
pared. I was the saddle of mutton, Thackeray
having omitted to get his joint down to the fire
in time enough. My fitness lay in my capacity
for quick roasting.T06
Apparently Trollope did not know, or chose to forget, Thackerays begin
ning of Philip and the alteration of The Wolves and the Lamb into Lovel
the Widower. His ignorance concerning Thackerays occupations in 1859
and Thackeray's plan to run Lovel the Widower as his novel has caused
him to slant the accounts in such a way that Thackeray comes out on the
small end while he takes the praise upon himself. Lewis Melville
attacks Trollopes position by asserting
Thackeray had made no default, for "Lovel
the Widower" was the story he had intended to
contribute, and the invitation to Trollope arose
from the proprietors belief that a second serial
would strengthen the magazine, "Framley Parsonage"
vas given the place of honour in the new periodical,
indeed, and it was this that led Trollope to a
mistaken conclusion; but that was by Thackerays

76
own arrangement on grounds of courtesy. "He
would not claim the first place in his own
magazine, George Smith has explained, "He
looked upon himself as a host, and upon
Trollope as his guest."!0?
The point to be made is that Trollope did not know Thackeray's side of
the question nineteen years later, after they had supposedly been close
friends for years. Had their friendship been "one of the finest and
i ns
most generous friendships in English letters,"iUO it is, to say the
least, surprising that Trollope never understood why he had been chosen
to write a novel for the Cornhill. the magazine that introduced him to
Thackeray.
Trollope's opinion of Thackeray's abilities as an editor are
also pertinent. By the time that he wrote the biography, Trollops
himself had experienced the editor's "throne." On October 1, 1867, St.
Paul's Magazine was launched with Trollope in "complete freedom of
editorial control,and in March, 1870, he resigned. In his auto
biography he excused the failure of St. Paul's:
It did fail, for it never paid its way. It
reached, if I remember right, a circulation
of nearly 10,000perhaps on one or two
occasions may have gone beyond that. But the
enterprise had been set on foot on a system
too expensive to be made lucrative by anything
short of a very large circulation. Literary merit
will hardly set a magazine afloat, though when
afloat it will sustain it. Merit and time
together may be effective, but they must be backed
by economy and patience.
lio
Sadleir, however, has pointed out that in St. Paul's. Trollope tried, on
the one hand, to reduce "work written from purely literary impulse to
his own artificial conception of the capacities of a magazine public"

77
and, on the other, "to improve magazine-writing proper into at an
imitation of literature," The result was mediocrity.Trollope,
of course, failed to realize this and instead asserted that "publishers
themselves have been the best editors of magazines":
The Cornhill . after Thackeray had left
it and before Leslie Stephen had taken it,
seemed to be in quite efficient hands,those
being the hands of proprietor and publisher.
In the biography of Thackeray, this personal awareness of the problems
of the editor led Trollope.into a biased view of Thackerays editorship:
The magazine was a great success, but justice
compels me to say that Thackeray was not a good
editor. As he would have been an indifferent
civil servant, an indifferent member of
Parliament, so was he perfunctory as an editor. .
I think it may be doubtful whether Thackeray
did bring himself to read the basketsful of
manuscripts with which he was deluged, but he
probably did, sooner or later, read the touching
little private notes by which they were
accompanied. . .113
With the editor of a magazine that had failed writing adverse criticism
of the editor of a magazine that was one of the most successful maga
zines of the nineteenth century and accusing the latter of being a
poor editor, a weird situation is set up, Trollope apparently had
reasons for condemning Thackerays editorshiphe made a point of saying
that he worked only for Smith and another point of saying that editors
should be the publishersand the main reason is his development of a
picture of Thackeray originally through Tates's eyes. That this picture
colored their early months of acquaintance id.ll be apparent when we look
at their relation in the spring of i860; that it remained until 1,879 is
apparent in Trollopes double view of his great rival.

lotes
"Anne Thackeray Ritchie, ,!The First Number of The Cornhill,
The Cornhill Magazine, n.s. I (July, 1896), 3. Also see Anne
Thackeray Ritchie, "Biographical Introductions," The Biographical
Edition of the Works of William Makepeace Thackeray (London., 1898-1899)
XI, xviii.
^Robinson, British Post Office, p. 328.
%evington, p, 3-
%obinson, British Post Office, p. 355.
£
J. W. Robertson Scott, The Story of the fell Mall Gazette, of
its First Editor. Frederick Greenwood. and of its Founder. George
Murray Smith '('London. 1950)'. pp. 40-41*
^Ibid.. p. 47.
^[Leonard Huxley], The House of Smith. Elder (London, 1923), p. 89
8
See the bibliography in Lewis Melville, William Makepeace
Thackeray; A Biography Including Hitherto Uncollected Letters and
Speeches and A Bibliography of 1300 Items (London, 1910), II, 260-289.
%obertson Scott, p. 63, and El win, pp. 344-345.
^Quoted from George Smith. A Memoir in Thackeray Letters. I?, 130,
fn.10. It also appears with slight textual variations in Huxley, p. 94
-^Thackeray Letters. IV, 130.
^Yates was prevented from pressing charges at the last moment by
the Clubs legal maneuver to force the case into the Court of Chancery,
the cost of which he "tas not prepared to undertake . and the
proposed action was eventually abandoned. Recollections and
Experiences. II, 30-31.
^Letter to William Duer Robinson. Thackeray Letters. IV, 136
^Peter Smith, "The Cornhill MagazineHumber 1," A Review of
English Literature. IV (April, 1963), 24.
15
^Robertson Scott, p. 65.
1 fi
Thackeray Letters. I?, 155.

79
17
Anne Thackeray Fdtchie, "The First Editors And the Founder,
The Cornhill Magazine, n.s. XXVIII (January, X9X0), 2.
See Letter of January 23, 1360, from Thackeray to George Smith.
Thackeray Letters. I?, 172.
^^Autobiography, p, 138*
^Quoted in Robertson Scott, pp. 67-68,
21
Letter to George Smith. Thackeray Letters. IV, 154.
22
Letter of October 4 to George Smith, Ibid.. p. 156.
23Itdd., p. 159.
^Gordon S, Haight (ed,), The George Eliot Letters (New Haven,
1954-1955), HI, 210. Hereafter referred to as George Eliot Letters.
^Robertson Scott, p. 67.
?6
'-Letter of September 7 to George Smith. Thackeray Letters. IV, 150.
27
'"'Ritchie, "The First Number, p. 6.
'better of October 28* Thackeray Letters. IV, 153.
Circular of November 1* Ibid., pp. 159-160.
-Ritchie, nThe First Number, p. 5.
31
See bibliography, Melville, II, 289. He finished no. 24 on
September 7. Thackeray Letters. TV, 149.
^Thackeray Letters. IV, 148, fn.44.
^Ritchie, "Biographical Introductions, XI, xv.
-^Reference to his poor health is made in the following letters:
of May 15 to Mrs. Theresa Hatch (Thackeray Letters. IV, 140)j of
May 28 to Mrs. Blackwood (ibid.. p. 142)5 of August 23 to his daughters
(ibid.. p. 14S)? of September ? October 16 to Tennyson (ibid.. p. 151);
of October 1 to Mrs, Carmichael-Smyth (ibid., pp. 154-155); and of
December 16 to Mrs. Irvine (ibid.. p. I69).
35
Ibid., pp. 143-144#
-^Jisdom. p. 295.
^Ritchie, "The First Number," p. 6.

80
"^George Eliot Letters. HI, 195,
^Thackeray Letters, XV, 148-149,
4%erman Merivale and Prank T. Marzials, Life of W. M, Thackeray
(Londonj, 1891), P. 199.
1
^Autobiography. p. 108.
^Trollope Letters. pp, 47-46
43Sadleir, p. 201.
^Autobiography. p. 119.
4gIbid.. pp. 125-126.
^Autobiography. p. 111.
^Trollope Letters, p. 52.
4uAutobiography, p, 112.
49
Thackeray Letters. 17, 158-159. Also see Autobiography, p. 112,
and Trollope Letters, p. 53.
^Autobiography. p. 113.
51Ibid.. p. 115.
g^Bradford A. Booth, Anthony Troll one;
Work (London, 1958), p. 105.
Aspects of his Life and
53
Lucy and Richard Poate Stebbins, The Trollopes; The Chronicle
of a Writing Family (lew York, 1945), pp. 171-172.
5L
^Autobiography, p. 113.
5gIbid.. p. 115.
goIbid.. pp. 116-117.
57Ib:ld.f p. 124.
5S
'Sadleir, p. 407. He returned to Framley Parsonage on April 1, the
day after Castle Richmond was finished, and completed it on June 30.
-^Autobiography, pp. 98-99.
6Ibld.. p. 207.

81
61
Trollope Letters, p. 54
Wisdom, p. 295.
^Thackeray Letters. IV, 168.
^^Trollope Letters. p. 54
65Wi
66.
67,
sdom. p. 295.
'Thackeray Letters. IV, 169-170.
Trollope Letters p. 55.
^%itchie, "The First Humber, p. 2.
69
Letter to George Smith. Thackeray Letters. IV, 162.
"^Ritchie, "The First lumber," p. 2.
71.
Anthony Trollope, Thackeray ("English Men of Letters"; London,
1879), p. 53- Hereafter referred to as Thackeray.
72
This sentence is worded, "Mr. Reginald Smith reminds me," in
Ritchie, "The First Humber," p. 1.
7%itehie, "Biographical Introductions," XI, xvili.
^Robertson Scott, p. 69.
7%isdom. p. 296.
76_,
Ritchie, "The First Humber," p. 1.
77.
Ritchie, "The First Editor," p. 2.
wisdom, p. 296.
7%.
Ritchie, "The First Editor," p. 2.
8%isdom p. 299.
81
'Ritchie, "The First Humber," p. 7.
82
Ibid., p. 12*
'^Thackeray Letters. IV, 266-267.
84Ibid.. p. 228,

82
S5See Wisdom, p. 300.
^William Makepeace Thackeray, "Thorns in the Cushion," The
Biographical Edition of the Works of William Makepeace Thackeray
(London, 1898-1899), XII, 213-214. Hereafter referred to as Works.
87,
Ritchie, "The First Humber," p. 10.
88,
Quoted in Robertson Scott, p. 76.
^Ritchie, "The First lumber," p. 6.
^Robertson Scott, p. 79.
91
' A third novel, Denis Duval, left unfinished at his death,
printed in March and June, I864.
9 See bibliography in Elwin, pp. 389-390.
9%hackeray Letters. IV, 225-226.
^Wisdom, p. 306.
95
Ray apparently otras the letter of this date, a cover letter for
Yatess contribution; if so, Yatess affirmation that he sent the poem
"without remark" is a later confusion of facts intended to belittle
Thackeray, See Recollections and Experiences. II, 58.
96
Thackeray Letters, IV, 171.
97Ibid.. p. 215, fn.2
98
Quoted from Henry William and Irene Laws The Book of Beresford
Hopes in Bevington, p. 28.
99
Wisdom, pp. 304-305.
10f)
Thaekeray, "Mil Nisi Bonum," Works. XII, 177.
101
xhaekeray, "De Juventute," Works. XIIf 232.
102
Thackeray, "Small Beer Chronicle," Works. XII, 303.
103
'Thackeray, "Thorns in the Cushion," Works. XII, 212.
10%sdom. pp. 305-306,
^Autobiography, pp, 114-115.

^Thackeray. p. 52.
107
Melville, p. 41*
%Itigh Walpole, Anthony Trollope ("English Men of Letters"
New York, 1928), p. 90.
109Sadleir, p. 279.
^^Ai-itobtography. p. 218.
^Sadleir, p. 297.
^^Atitobiography. pp. 218-219.
13~^Thackeray. p. 54*

CHAPTER III
1860THE YEAR OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS
The year i860 could justly be called the "year- of misunder
standings in the relation between Thackeray and Trollope; it was the
year in which the two men met.. To understand the early part of the
year most clearly and without elouding our perspectives with prejudice
or preconceived notions demands a suspension of judgment and a detach
ment from the figures involved. This has been difficult in the past
and is, perhaps, humanly impossible. The three figures, Trollope,
Thackeray, and Yates, play roles that, while difficult to untangle,
need to be analyzed if lie are to comprehend Trollopes volume in the
English Men of Letters series. The conflicts and the misunderstandings
arose from the social function of a series of dinners given by the
publisher to the staff and contributors of the Cornhill. George Smith,
acting in a tradition followed by Mark Lemon of Punch, probably like
John Douglas Cook of the Saturday Review saw the dinners as a method
"of encouraging a sense of unity.But such a worthy goal was not the
result of the first four dinners, because these tended to put a division
between the editor and one of his major contributors, Anthony Trollope.
If we alter the chronological sequence of the first five
months of 1860 by looking at the two major pieces of evidence concerning
the Cornhill dinners, the proper sequence can be better understood.
84

85
In a widely quoted passage from his autobiography George Smith describes
the first meeting of Trollope and Thackeray*
We lightened our labours in the service of
the Cornhill by monthly dinners. The principal
contributors used to assemble at my table in
Gloucester Square every month while we were in
London; and these "Cornhill dinners" were very
delightful and interesting. Thackeray always
attended, though he was often in an indifferent
state of health. At one of these dinners
Trollope was to meet Thackeray for the first
time and was equally looking forward to an
introduction to him. Just before dinner I
took him up to Thackeray and introduced him
with all the suitable empressment, Thackeray
curtly said, "How do?" and, to my wonder, and
Trollopes anger, turned on his heel! He was
suffering at the time from a malady which at that
particular moment caused him a sudden spasm of
pain; though we, of course, could not know this.
I well remember the expression on Trollopes face
at that moment, and no one who knew Trollope
will doubt that he could look furious on an
adequateand sometimes on an inadequate-
occasion! He came to me the next morning in a
very wrathful mood, and said that had it not
been that he was in my house for the first time,
he would have walked out of it. He vowed he
would never speak to Thackeray again, etc. etc.
I did my best to soothe him; and, though rather
violent and irritable, he had a fine nature
with a substratum of great kindliness, and I
believe he left my room in a happier frame of
mind than when he entered it. H and Thackeray
became after close friends.^
Smith makes four major points which will be of great importances
(1) Trollope first met Thackeray at a Gornhill dinner, the first that
Trollope attended and the first time that Trollope was in Smiths home;
(2) Thackeray, driven by a sudden pain, snubbed Trollope; (3) Trollope
was subsequently infuriated; and (4) Smith asserts that after Trollope
visited him the next morning, the friction was eased and the two
xiriters became "close friends."

86
The second important passage is a paragraph that was
suppressed from Trollopes autobiography; in this he describes his
impressions of the first Cornhill dinner and its aftermaths
I do not know whether I did not put an end
to these dinners by an indiscretion of my own.
It was I think at the first of them that
Thackeray, sitting opposite to his host, asked
whether Dr, Johnson was getting his dinner
behind the scenes. The old story is too well
known to require any further telling here. Our
munificent publisher being engaged with his
neighbor did not hear the question, and
Thackeray, naturally anxious for his little
joke, repeated it. Whereupon Mr. Smith, who
was still very eager with the friend at his
elbow, replied that he did not think there was
anyone of the name of Johnson in the room.
There was not much fun in it, but, what there
was, consisted in Thackeray's vain attempt to
have his allusion recognized. On the next
morning, I unfortunately told the story to a
friend;but I told it also in the presence of
a man to whom nothing could be told quite
safely. He was, though I did not know it then,
a literary gutter-scraper,one who picked up
odds and ends of scandal from chance sources,
and turning them with a spin of malice into
false records, made his money of them among
such newspapers as would pay him. This story,
although bedevilled and twisted from the
truthcrammed with bitterness both against
Thackeray and Smith, loaded with poison,
was sent to an American newspaper. That alone
would not have mattered much because American
newspapers are not much read in this country.
But The Saturday Review, xjhich everybody reads,
or which at least everybody then read, got
hold by chance of the American paper and more
suo, tore everybody concerned to pieces. Why
were such dinners given? Why were such stories
told? Was it endurable to anybody that the
conversation of a private table in London should
be made gossip to satisfy the evil cravings of
New lork readers? This article afflicted

87
Thackeray much. It annoyed Smith greatly.
I taxed the gutter-scraper with his offense,
and he owned his sin, praying to be forgiven.
I confessed my fault to the others;for it
was a fault to have told anything in the
presence of such a man. I was pardoned, but
there were no more Cornhill dinners3
Trollope's account may be narrowed to four points; (l) he is describing
the first Cornhill dinner; (2) Thackeray was in good spirits and joked
with his host; (3) he tells that the next morning he described the
events of the evening in the presence of a man who can be identified
as Edmund Yates; and (4) when Yates betrayed this confidence, Trollope
confessed his indiscretions and was forgiven.
Mien we compare these two accounts, certain discrepancies
become apparent, but in order to pin-point these discrepancies, the most
important similarity must be noted. Trollope met Thackeray at the first
Cornhill dinner, an event that is confirmed in his autobiography;
It was in January 1860 that Mr. George
Smithto whose enterprise we owe not only
the Cornhill Magazine but the Pall Mall
Gazettegave a, sumptuous dinner to his
contributors. It was a memorable banquet in
many ways, but chiefly so to me because on
that occasion I first met many men who after
wards became my most intimate associates. It
can rarely happen that one such occasion can
be the first starting-point of so many friend
ships. It was at that table, and on that day,
that I first saw Thackeray, Charles Taylor
(Sir) , Robert Bell, G. H. Lewes, and
John Everett Millais^
Other than this, the two accounts vary; Trollope makes no mention of
his anger at Thackeray's cut although he does put Thackeray in an
unfavorable light by describing a weak attempt to joke. Because

ss
Trollope could not have known that Thackerays behavior was motivated
by "a sudden spasm of pain*'* he could not have -understood the reason
for the "affront"; therefore, if Thackeray was in a genial mood later
in the evening, the affront would hardly have been eased. That
Trollope remained angry is elearlv stated by Smith's description of
Trollope's fury the next morning, but if Smith was able to calm him, he
must have told the story of Thackeray's "vain attempt to have his
allusion recognised" before going to Smith, Elder. Because Trollope
could not have escaped a knowledge of lates's animosity toward Thackeray,
his relation of such a story while in a state of anger is hardly an
indiscretion arising from his ignorance of proper social behavior.
He knew lates and knew that another person who believed himself badly
treated by Thackeray would sympathize with his hurt feelings. Since
people are apt to judge these figures from preconceived notions of
social behavior or bias toward one of the men, it is important to
remember that Trollope did not know Thackeray before this dinner and
the cut that he received was to him without meaning other than as an act
of snobbery, that Trollope could not have known Thackeray's reasons for
what appeared to be a personal affront, and that Trollope, as a man
whose pride had been deeply wounded, sought to ease the humiliation by
seeking the sympathy of a man whom he knew was Thackerays enemy. In
this human problem no man was either without or with blame.
According to Smith, the two writers "became after close
friends"; this assertion needs to be further analyzed. In the suppressed
portion of the autobiography, Trollope related that Yates, who was in

89
the presence of the man to whom he told the story of Thackeray's vain
joke, sent the story to an American newspaper after twisting it from
the truth. The article appeared in The Hew York Times for May 26,
I860, in a column entitled "Echoes from the London Clubs." It is
important to read the most pertinent parts of this articles
In literary matters we are all alive, but the
success of the Cornhill Magazine is already
showing symptoms of being on the wane. That
notable periodical went up like a rocket, and
is beginning to come down like the stick; it
is certain that its first number sold nearly a
hundred thousand, and that its second reached
seventy thousand, but ever since then it has
been declining, and now I should think forty
thousand was about the mark. With a less
circulation it would notcould not pay, for
it receives comparatively few advertisements,
and its expenses are enormous. There have been
already four tremendously heavy dinner parties
given by SMITH {of SMITH & ELDER,) at his
residence in Gloucester-terrace, at which all
of the principal contributors have been
present. THACKERAY is, of course, the great
gun of these banquets, and comes out with the
greatest geniality in his power, speaking of
G. H. LEWES as "Mr. BEDE," (Mrs. L. is the
author of Adam Bede,) and drawing each man
out to the extent of his ability. But there
is one very funny story which will bear
repetition! SMITH, the proprietor of the
Cornhill. and the host on these occasions, is
a very good man of business, but totally
unread; his business has been to sell books,
not to read them, and he knoiis little else.
On the first occasion of their dining there,
THACKERAY remarked to those around him, "This
is a splendid dinner, such an one as CAVE, the
bookseller of St. John's Gate, gave to his
principal writers when Dr. JOHNSON'S coat was
so shabby that he ate his seal behind the
screen;" then calling out to his host, who
was at the other end of the table, THACKERAY
said, "Mr. SMITH, I hope you've not got
JOHNSON there behind that screen!" "Eh?" said

90
the bibliopole, astonished; "behind the
screen? JOHNSON? God bless my soul, my
dear Mr. THACKERAY, theres no person of
the name of JOHNSON here, nor any one behind
the screenwhat on earth do you mean? A
roar of laughter cut him short; poor Mr. SMITH
had probably never heard of Dr* JOHNSON and his
screen dinner* The principal contributors to
the Cornhill are ANTONY TROLLOPE, who is
writing Framley Parsonage* in its pages;
GEORGE SALA, the biographer of HOGARTHs Big
HIGGINS, M0NCKT0N MILNES, and 0XFJF0RD, of
the Times; G. H. LEWES, who is writing the
Insect Life; HOLLINGSHEAD, HANNA Y, Mrs.
GASKELL, Sir JOHN BURGOYNE, Sir J. BONRING,
Gapt. ALLEN YOUNG, DASENT (second Editor of
the Times;) and a host of smaller fry* The
paper ealled "Little Scholars,1' in the current
number, was written by THACKERAYS eldest
daughterher first attempt at literary composi
tion; it is pretty, but bears traces of being
touched up by the paternal hand,as THACKERAY
himself once said to PETER CUNNINGHAM, who
was proudly pointing to some anonymous article
as his writing; "Ah! I thought I recognized
your hoof in it!" With the exception of
DICKENS and THACKERAY, perhaps, ANTONY TROLLOPE
is making more money than any English novelist.
He has a situation in the Post-Office, which
brings him over eight hundred a year; he gets
a thousand guineas for his "Framley Parsonage;
and in addition to this, had just completed and
published a novel with GHAHiAN & HALL; besides
all he is making by his reprints and new
editions. Some of his literary friends want
him to give up the Post-Office and devote all
his time to novel-writing, but he wisely looks
upon his official position as a source of
certain income, and intends to stick to it.^
In this piece of newspaper gossip Yates makes several statements which
are immediately important; (l) there have been four Cornhill dinners
(e.g., January, February, larch, and April); (2) Thackerays futile
attempt to joke is related; (3) Smith is made out to be ignorant of
literature; (4) Thackeray is accused of touching up "Little Scholars;

91
and (5) Trollope is, in contrast to Thackeray, placed in a favorable
light. These five points help us to understand the reality that is
hidden beneath the account. In the first place, Thackeray's joke, which
can be dated at the January dinner, as apparently futile not because
Smith was ignorant but because Smith thought quickly enough to top it
with a rapid repartee. In this respect Yates's account written within
four months of the event is probably more accurate than Trollope's
written several years later.6 But although Yates says that "a roar of
laughter cut him short," he twists the actual event by implying that
the laughter was directed at the publisher? however, Trollope did not
make Smith ignorant, only preoccupied, so that the misunderstanding of
the joke seems to be on Trollope's part, not on Smith's, Trollope's
version is careful to save Smith's intellectual character while making
Thackeray repeat the joke in a vain attempt. If Yates learned of the
joke on the day following the January dinner, as he did according to
Trollope, it is strange that he did not put it to use until four months
later? if Trollope spoke to Yates only after the first dinner as he
claims, it is strange that Yates mentions the decline of the Cornhill's
circulation and the possible touching up of Anne's "Little Scholars."
V, know that the Cornhill declined in circulation during the first few
months, but not to the extent of Yatess assertion and not financially
to the distress of the publisher? hence Yates is entirely unaware of
the actual facts and is probably guessing. In the matter of "Little
Scholars," however, his version appears to be based on a misconception
of the actual facts that might have derived from a Cornhill dinner.
Many years later, Lady Ritchie told George Smith,

92
I had written several novels and, a tragedy
by the age of fifteen, but then my father forbade
me to waste my time any more scribbling, and
desired me to read other peoples books.
I never wrote any more except one short fairy
tale, until one day my father said he had got a
very nice subject for me, and that he thought I
might now begin to write again. That was
Little Scholars which he christened for me and
of which he corrected the stops and the
spelling, and which you published to my still
pride and rapture.9
If Thackeray admitted at a Cornhill dinner his suggestion of the subject
and his corrections (which were probably no more than he would have done
to any other contribution), a person wishing to attack him could easily
have twisted the facts by overstatement; since Lady Ritchie pointed out
her fathers help, Thackeray very likely made some mention of it at
Smith's table. Because Trollope could not have heard this at the
January dinner, he must have heard it in April after Anne's story had
been accepted for the May issue. Trollope definitely tells that he
spoke in the presence of Yates after the January dinner; however, this
information must have been given to the younger journalist in April.
Trollope, therefore, saw Yates a second timefour months after the
firstand this second relation of events led Yates to write the
article that was published on May 26. With the necessity of the second
meeting being apparent, Trollope's relation to Thackeray becomes
clearer. Trollope, as we have seen, was more aligned to Yates's side
of the Garrick Club Affair; hence when Thackeray snubbed him, he could
hardly have sympathized with the editor. Rather Trollope's first
impressionan impression which was still strong in Aprilwas negative;
Thackeray appeared to him to be everything that Yates would have called
him.

93
As Trollope pointed out in the suppressed portion of his
autobiography, latest column in The New York Times came to the atten
tion of the widely circulated Saturday Review. It will be remembered
that the Saturday Review had castigated both Thackeray and Yates in
1853 during the Garrick Club Affair and took a decidedly antagonistic
stand against Thackeray after the initial success of the Cornhill.
The interest in "Echoes from the London Clubs," however, was also
derived from the Saturday Review1s ideal of gentlemanly conduct.
Earlier in i860 a reviewer had criticised the publishing of club
secrets s
If you cannot keep a feeble circulation from
becoming utter stagnation and death in any
other way, you must do it by publishing what
nobody else will publish.
Later the same reviewer warned,
... by all the miles of English public
morality, a man who thinks it his duty
publicly to cast a slur on another man's
name, must stand the risk of being as
publicly called to account for it, and
having to make as. public a reparation.
On June 23, the Saturday Review seized upon Yates's article, enlarged
upon it, and soundly beat the principal figures5 the following two
passages from the long article, "Newspaper Gossip," are especially
pertinent s
In America they print what in English towns
is only said or whispered; and, as the gossip
sells well and is well paid for, it is sure to
be amply provided, English gossip is particu
larly acceptable, and the letters of the
London correspondent are accordingly a great
feature of a New York newspaper. Khen these

94
accounts of what is going on here come back
to London, they have the oddest possible effect.
It seems so strange, first, that any one should
write themsecondly, that any one should print
them without being ashamed-and, thirdly, that
the information, with its curious travesties of
names and facts, should be credulously swallowed.
As an example, we may take a communication that
appeared in the Hew York Times of the 26th of
May, under the title of Echoes from the London
Clubs. It deals with English people in a
strain of extraordinary frankness, but we must
venture to reproduce some of its statements,
because it is impossible otherwise to estimate
what we should come to here If society and the
higher portion of the press did not constantly
keep newspaper gossip in decent bounds. . .
The fact is that he has so much literary gossip
to communicate that he cannot afford much space to
art. Principally he writes about the Cornhill
Magazine. He does not seem to agree with Mr.
Thackerays rose-coloured views of the success of
that publication, and no reader of the Hew York
Times is likely to believe that the author of
Vanity Fair has had much cause to streak himself
with the red paint that was, as he has told us,
the proper accompaniment of his triumphant. That
notable periodical, we read, "went up like a
rocket and came down like a stick. But particu
lars about the sale of the different numbers into
which he enters are wearisome, and open to question,
so he soon hurries to something a little more
personal. There have been four tremendously heavy
dinner parties given by Smith at his residence in
Gloucestar-terracs. Most of us remember the
circular in which Mr. Thackeray announced his
Magazine, and spoke of the claret of different
growths that figuratively adorned his editorial
board. This was poetry; but the correspondent sees
only prose, and gives the following unvarnished
account of these editorial repasts:"Thackeray is
of course the great gun of these banquets* and
comes out with the greatest geniality in his
power, speaking of G H. Lewes as Mr. Bede, and
drawing out each man to the extent to his ability.
A dinner, we fear, might well be tremendously heavy
at which the greatest geniality of the great gun is
shown by his calling Mr. Lewes Mr. Bede. There
then follows a story to the disadvantage of the host.

95
[The full story of Thackerays joke and Smith's
reply is quoted here from Yatess columnA
list of the principal contributors to the
despised Magazine is then given*Antony Trollope,
George Sala, Big Higgins, Billy Russell, and so
on; and then the mention of Mr. Trollope's name
leads to an interesting calculation how much that
gentleman makes by writing novels, and how much
he has from, other sources; and thus the Americans
are kept up to the current of things, and know
all about English literature that is important and
interesting to know.
This account carefully reviex^s Yates's column, presenting four major
points! (1) the expressed purpose of the article is "to keep newspaper
gossip in decent bounds"; (2) the reviewer implicitly castigates the
policy of staff dinners; (3) "Little Scholars" is not mentioned; and
(4) the reviewer, although criticizing certain newspapers for publishing
slanderous rumors, puts Thackeray in a bad light by quoting such slander.
Perhaps, the reviewer was adhering to his own concept of the gentleman
by his silence concerning "Little Scholars," since an attack through a
young girls first literary attempt was, indeed, "ungentlemanly."
Besides this silence, however, the Saturday Reviews attaek against
those people and newspapers which spread personal gossip and against
Thackeray himself is blatant*
With his confidence in Yates made publie, Trollope began to
see the enormity of his actionnot only Thackeray for whom he had no
love but Smith, whom he admired, was brutally attacked. He chose the
best approach to ease out of the situation, a full confession to Smiths
Shortly after the Saturday Review article
article appeared Trollope walked into my room
and said he had come to confess that he had
given Yates the information on which his
article was founded. He expressed the deepest

96
regret, but said, 1 told the story not against
you, but against Thackeray, and his blunder in
seeming to compare you with that rascal Curie.
I am afraid I answered him rather angrily,
Trollope, however, took it very meekly, and said;
"I know I have done wrong, and you may say any
thing you like to me.n^
Sometime in June following the appearance of the Saturday Review's
attack, Thackeray wrote to Smith;
I have been lying awake half the night about
that paper in a sort of despair; but I think
I have found a climax dignified and humourous
enough at last, Heaven be praised, and that our
friend won't sin again. . ,3-3
The question of Thackeray's awareness of the identity of the person or
persons who attacked him in "Echoes from the London Clubs" remains
unanswered. We know that Trollope confessed Ms part in the affair to
Smith, but we do not know if he confessed to Thackeray, Even though
Thackeray probably had a very good idea that the writer of the article
was Yates, the person who had attended the dinners could have been any
one of a number who might profit from Thackeray's discomfort.
Thackeray, however, lias urged to write the Roundabout Paper, "On Screens
in Dining Rooms," by Mrs, Smith, who was particularly upset by Yates's
portrayal of her husband; from this source Thackeray may well have
learned of the identity of the staff member even if he did not learn it
from Smith himself.
Thackerays answer to the attack was not published until the
August number of the Cornhlll. Since copy went to the printers about
two weeks before publication, "On Screens in Dining Rooms" must have

97
occupied his time in the early weeks of July, shortly after the attack
in the Saturday Review. In this paper Thackeray presents a counter
attack i
That a writer should be taken to task about
his books is fair, and he must abide the praise
or the censure. But that a publisher should
be criticised for his dinners, and for the
conversation which did not take place there,-
is this tolerable press practice, legitimate
joking, or honourable warfare?
He then proceeds to defend himself and the Cornhill by pulling the
Saturday Review and The New York Times correspondent over the coals of
his wits
And suppose, Mr. Saturday Revieweryou censor
morum. you who pique yourself (and justly and
honourably in the main) upon your- character of
gentleman, as well as of writersuppose, not
that you yourself invent and indite absurd twaddle
about gentlemens private meetings and trans
actions, but pick this wretched garbage out of a
New York .sheet, and hold it up for your readers
amusementdont you think, my friend, that you
might have been better employed? Here, in my
Saturday Review, and in an American paper sub
sequently sent to me, I light, astonished, on an
account of the dinners of my friend and publisher,
which are described as "tremendously heavy," of
the conversation (which does not take place),
and of the .guests assembled at the table. I am
informed that the proprietor of the Cornhill.
and the host on these occasions, is "a very good
man, but totally unread;" and that on my asking
him whether Doctor Johnson was dining behind the
screen, he said, "God bless my soul, my dear sir,
theres no person by the name of Johnson here,
nor any one behind the screen," and that a roar of
laughter cut him short. I am informed by the same
New York correspondent that I have touehed up a
contributors article; that I once said to a
literary gentleman, who was proudly pointing to
an anonymous article as his writing, "Ah! I
thought 1 recognised your hoof in it." I am told
by the same authority that the Cornhill Magazine

98
"shows symptoms of being on the wane, and
having sold nearly a hundred thousand copies,
he (the correspondent) ttshould think forty
thousand was now about the roark. Then the
graceful writer passes on to the dinners, at
which it appears the Editor of the Magazine
"is the great gun, and comes out with all the
geniality in his power.1'
How suppose this charming intelligence is
untrue? Suppose the publisher ... is a
gentleman to the full as well informed as those
idiom he invites to his table? ... he would
find that "poor Mr. Smith'1 had heard that
recondite anecdote of Doctor Johnson behind
the screen; and as for "the great gun of those
banquets," with what geniality should not I
"come out" if I had an amiable companion close
by me, jotting down my conversation for the
Hew York Times I
Finally, Thackeray concluded his counter-attack by concentrating on the
correspondent himself:
As dear Sam Johnson sits behind the screen, too
proud to show his threadbare coat and patches
among the more prosperous brethren of his trade,
there is no want of dignity in him, in that
homely image of labour ill-rewarded, genius as
yet recognized, independence sturdy and uncom
plaining. But Mr* Nameless, behind the screen
uninvited, peering at the company, and the meal,
catching up scraps of the jokes, and noting down
the guestss behaviour and conversationwhat a
figure his is! Allons. Mr. Nameless! Put up
your notebook; walk out of the hell; and leave
gentlemen alone who would be private and wish
you no harm.14
Here Thackeray makes several assertions: (l) the conversation did not
take place, at least in the manner described; (2) the Saturday Review
is as guilty as the New York Times for spreading slanderous rumors;
(3) critics have the right to anatomize works, not personalities; and
(4) the attacker is called "Mr. Nameless" and is made out to have
eavesdropped because he was not invited. "Mr. Nameless," who has

99
been recognised as Edmund lates, is actually both Yates and Trollope
and anyone who spreads gossip about his betters. But Trollope was
not touched by the paper as he thought he would be: 'The R* Paper is
not so severe as I thought it would bebut it is better so."^ If
Thackeray did not know Trollope's part in the affair before copy was
sent to the printers, the attack on writers and publishers of scandal
was general enough to express a gentlemans disdain at the unwarranted
behavior of his inferiors. If he did know of Trollope's part as Yates's
informer, Thackeray's silence and generalization of his attack arose,
perhaps, from a desire not to muddy his hands in the offensive practices
employed by those whom he regarded as his inferiors. Whichever the
case, Thackeray's treatment of the disagreeable episode silenced Yates
and prevented further "indiscretions by Trollope. That Thackeray
might have learned of Trollope's part is implied in their official
relation of contributor and editor during the latter part of I860, but
again it is more probable that Thaekeray was innocent of knowledge of
his contributor's guilt for some time and when he did learn of it was
willing to forgive the offence. As far as Trollope is concerned, there
were still moments of hard feelings to com, but w can assume that
Yates's attack on Smith turned Trollope against the younger man just
as the mannered reply of Thackeray began to win Trollope to his side.
But Trollope's view of Thackeray continued, though in a lesser degree,
to be colored by the initial impression that was fortified by Yates's
enmity.

100
The events of the latter half of i860 indicate that Smiths
and, perhaps, Thackerays forgiveness of Trollope's confessed indis
cretion was slow in development, because Trollope found himself in the
predicament of having articles rejected. Although he said in the
autobiography that he never dealt directly with Thackeray, in the case
of the second rejection, and the one that raised him to greatest anger,
he was brought into a direct clash with the editor. That Thackeray
knew of Trollope's part in the scandal of the immediately preceding months
might well account for the rancor displayed on both sides at the rejec
tion of "Mrs. General Talboys," but even if Thackeray was innocent of
hard feelings, Trollope took the rejection so personal!;/ that his
reaction reveals the deeply rooted antagonism that grew from the
earliest opinion he held of Thackeray and that was cultivated by
Thackerays behavior at the first Cornhill dinner. When he described
Thackeray in the English Men of Letters volume, Trollope mentioned
this clash in order to further belittle his subject's ability as editor:
I had once made an arrangement, not with
Thackeray, but with the proprietors, as to
some little story. The story was sent back
to me by Thackerayrejected. Virginibus
puerisque! That was the gist of his objection.
There was a project in a gentleman's mind,
as told in my story,to run away with a
married womanl Thackeray's letter was very
kind, very regretful,full of apology for
such treatment to a contributor. But
Virginibus puerisque! I was quite sure that
Thackeray had not taken the trouble to read
the story himself. Some moral deputy had read
it, and disapproving, no doubt properly, of
the little project to which I have alluded,
had incited the editor to use his authority.

101
That Thackeray had suffered when he wrote
it -was easy to see, fearing that he was
giving pain to one he would fain have pleased.
I wrote him a long letter in return, as full
of drollery as I knew how to make it. In
four or five days there came a reply in the
same spirit-boiling over with fun. He had
kept my letter by him, not daring to open
it,as he says that he did with that
eligible invitation. At last he had given
it to one of his girls to examine,to see
whether the thorn would be too sharp,
whether I had turned upon him with reproaches.
A man so susceptible, so prone to work by
fits and starts, so unmethodical, could not
have been a good editor.
To understand the full impact of this comment, and to see the way in
which Trollope has twisted the event to result in this picture, we
must begin in July, I860 when Trollope submitted "The Banks of Jordon
to George Smith.
Trollope wrote "The Banks of Jordon" in about ten days and
offered it to Smith with caution that sprang from a sense of inferiority,
possibly more pronounced because of the recent discovery of his indis
cretions
I have a story, written within the last ten
days, about the Holy LandI suppose it would
not be granted by you for the magazine. It would
min 30 pages & have to be divided in two,or
three if you preferred. But, as I said, I do
not presume it would be wanted, & therefore ask
the question almost idly*
The name is
The Banks of Jordon.
If you see it or hear of it elsewhere dont mention
it as being mine. Mot that I have any idea of
publishing it immediately.!^
When he actually submitted the story on August 1, Smith rejected it.
When Trollope replied to Smiths objections on August 9, he defended
himself against the standards of Victorian tastes

1
There shall be no rap on the knuckles*
I do nothing in that lia unless I m purposely
rubbed against the hair# But you city publishers
are so mcoss&only delicate* where, anything
passe at the West Ea&l I shall, never forget a
terrible ft tilling eorreepondem which. 1 lad
with W* Lon^aan because I wit mk a olergswaa
IdUm a lady Whan ho proposed to mrryHe, the
elergyraa 1 neon; not he ¥ Input But in that
instase HI hgnpna4 ekEreh principles were
perhaps in talca*1
This Section prescita the peon! upon which Trollope and Thackeray
were to clash on "Mrs. General Talboys.* The Victorian reading public,
in this mm, was aligned with Santh aai Thackeray? when the two
stories were nablished in the London tmm Laurence c&ipibsaat cosa
plained to Trollope that the i!lw serai tone of the stories* offended
the readers*^ The situation, therefor, was a division between
Trollope and the Victorian reading public $ that Saith and Thackeray
took aides with .4¡ha presrolng taste ma only natural else they saw
the Comhlll tas a fatally ¡aagaaine# With their knowledge of and
Trollope* ifporsnee of the current taste, we have the curious situa
tion that in the biography Trollope easts aspersions on the wary
attributes that sad Thackeray & successful editorhis ability to read
the oral thermometer of hi reading publie.
The genesis of Mrs* General Tslboye* Mgfet haw com from
Smith hiaiself in late October or early Kowesfeer, although in. his letter
of Howessbar 6, Trollop a@y be referring to an earlier letter, now
lost, in which he ted nentioned the story to Ssith. Severthelesa, in
this letter Trollope first proposes the story*

103
The story shall be done & shall be with
you without fail by 11 am Tuesday 13th
Instant18 pages exact. I say IS that you
may be able to make sure, & thinking that
that number may be most suitablebeing the
mean of 16 & 20If 20 (twenty) will suit you
better, & if you will say so by return, you
shall have 20 exactIf I dont hear again
from you it will be 18
It shall be among the most inward of my
inward thingsno one being privy to it but
my wife20
Obviously Trollope was fond of his idea for the story even before it
Tas written and hoped to overcome the ill feelings caused by !!The
Banks of Jordon." When "fes* General Tslboys" was written, fes.
Trollope did not care for it, but Trollope submitted it with greater
confidence than he had the earlier story:
I .have completed KF3 Talboys* My wife,
criticising it, says that it is ill-natured*
I would propose you should call it
Mrs General Talboys*
I hope and trust that there is not and never
has been any real General of that name. If so,
we must alter it. I shall always'call it
"Mrs Talboys at Romebut you will probably
chose to sink the Rome, as you have an article
in the same number about the eternal city.21
The story was set into page proofs by Smith before Thackeray vetoed it,
which means that Smith sanctioned the story while the editor did not,
Trollope must have learned of Thackeray's veto on either November 14 or
15, for on the 15th he wrote letters to both Smith and Thackeray. In
the former he merely asked for the return of the manuscript? in the
latter, the letter mentioned in Thackeray as being "as full of drollery
as I knew" how to make it," Trollope criticised certain of Thackeray's
characters and the conception of the Cornhill held and fostered by
its proprietor and its editor:

104
X trust ym to believe ne when X assure you
that X feel no mnoymm as against you at the
rejection of my story. As ispartial Editor met
do his duty* Fur morals must bo supplied, and
the mmm* of th responsible sas must be the
judge of the purity, A writer for a periodical
mofes* hiwelf subject to this judgment by tmdar-
taking such waste j sad a ma who allows himself to
bo irritated because judgment go against himself
is m ass* So mmh X sy, that 1 my he set dot
by you as disgusted, or angry, 02* s&lovolent.
But a fm web I rust say alee is defence of
tny own neme*
I will not How that I as imleeent, and pro
fess that sipeamislmessin so for m it is
equeaMsh tad not delicacyshould be- disre
garded by a writer* I of course look back for
ssssjjlss to justify ajyself is alluding to a salt
with illegitimate children, sd to the existence
of a warns who la not as pure m she should be*
1 think first of Fsffi Beane* Thm ing Sown
to out second modera great gunObserve hew civil
I m i you after the injury1 jm haw done msX
reflect upon the naughtinesses of Miss Beatrice,
all th nor naughty in that they are told only
by Mnifand also of th very wicked vmm at
Tunbridge VUs who was so surprised because young
Barrington did not Rdo as others use with herX
forget whether it was her daughter, or her niece,
or her protegee* Then there its that illegitimate
brat in Jane Kyre with th whole story of her
birth and Hatty Sorrel with ilwitt the whole
story of hm the child was gotten* X could think
of no pom Sogllsh novelist, pure up to th
CoraMH standard, except Dickens, but then X
vmssa&er Oliver Twist and blushed for what ay
aether m sisters reed in that very fio-fic
story* 1 have swationed our five greatest names,
& feel tmt X do not approach the- in naughtiness
any mor than t do in genius*
But in swh cases, yon will my, th# impurities
rest on th# heads of individual author,ad that
you mmt especially guard the Gcmfeill, But hew
have v stood there? History perhaps should b
told even to the squeamish, and therefore the
improprieties of the improper George met be
endured* %t hew about the innuendoes as to th
opera dancers which mad the children of
Terpsichore m mud thru the three Kingdoms?

105
You speak of the squeamishness of "our
people." Are you not magnanimous enough to
feel that you write urbl et orbijfor the
best and wisest of English readers5 and not
mainly for the weakest?
I of course look forward to bringing out
my own story in a magazine of my ownIt will
be called "The Marble Arch," and I trust to
confound you by the popularity of M1"3 Talboys.
Joking apartI must declare that I disagree
with your criticisms. But at the same time I
assure you that I am quite satisfied that you
have used your own judgment impartially & with
thoroughly good Intention.22
Trollope does not reveal the same biting criticism of Thackerays
unmethodical working habits here, but he does imply that the editor
does not know what he is doing. As he related in the biography,
Thackerays reply was delayed, but not because he was afraid to open
Trollopes letter:
I am just out of bed after one of my attacks,
w£ leave me very nervous and incapable of letter
writing or almost reading for a day or two. So,
as your letter came, and upon a delicate subject
or twoI told one of the girls to read it.
I give you her very wordsI can't help it
if they are not more respectful. She says after
reading the letter. "He is an old dear and you
should write him an affectionate letter."
Then I had the courage to have your letter
read. I am another, am I? I always said so.
"The Marble Arch" Is such a good name that I
have a months mind to take it for my own story.
While neither Trollope's letter nor Thackerays reply is fully honest,
the friction between the men is obvious. Differences of temperament,
of social background, and of outlook were separating the men to such an
extent that Trollopes opinion of Thackeray, which derived from his
acquaintance with Yates, could hardly have been enhanced. On the
contrary, this correspondence seems to have deepened the gulf between
them, for on January 5, 1861, Trollope wrote to Smith:

106
I have been very glad to get your letter.
I should have been unhappy to feel myself
severed from the most popular periodical of
the day, & assure you that I will do the best
I can for you with B. J. & R.^4
It seems only reasonable to assume that Trollopes dismissal from the
staff came as a result of the clashes between him and the editor}
because Trollope did not appreciate Thackeray as a man, he had no
intimacy with him as a person. But because he deeply admired Thackerays
art, especially in Esmond, he sought to preserve his place, which was
also very lucrative, on the Cornhill staff. This admiration of the
writer caused Trollope to appear to many of his contemporaries to be
Thackerays close friend (and he may even have fooled Thackeray into
believing that he was a closer friend than he really was) while con
sistently his opinion of Thackeray reverted to that held by lates.
Motes
1
Bevington, p. 37,
2
HuxLey, p. 104.
"3
Wilfred Partington, "The Indiscretion of Anthony Trollope,
Bookman. LXXVT (February, 1933), 207.
^Autobiography, p. 119.
'That Trollope was Ignorant of social behavior is obvious from
Salas account of the first Cornhill dinner: "Anthony Trollope was
very much to the fore, contradicting everybody; afterwards saying kind
things to everybody, and occasionally going to sleep on sofas or chairs;
or leaning against side-boards, and even somnolent while standing erect
on the hearthrug. I never knew a man who could take so many spells of
forty winks at unexpected moments, and tren turn up quite wakeful,
alert, and pugnacious, as the author of Barchester Towers, who had
nothing of the bear but his skin, but whose ursine envelope ms
assuredly of the most grisly texture." George Augustus Sala, Things I
Have Seen and People I Have Known (London, 1&94), I, 30-31*

107
Because of the earlier relation with Yates, Trollope*s behavior
seems to be more than social ignorance, hence it is necessary to
modify Mr, Sadleirs account of this episode. See Sadleir, p. 214,
^Edmund Yates], "Echoes from the London Clubs, The New York
Times. IX (May 26, I860), 2,
8
It should be noted that George Smiths own account differs sub
stantially from both Trollope and Yates: "Yatess account was obviously
at second-hand, and was blunderingly inaccurate. The fact was that
Thackeray, confusing one name with another, as he was apt to do, said,
This reminds me of one of Mr. Curies dinners; and then went on to
ask if Dr, Johnson was behind the screen. In Boswell's version, the
dinner took place at Tonsonsa man of honour and standing; Curie, as
every one knows, was an infamous book-seller of the Dr. Johnson period,
notorious for every sort of villainy. Thackeray's blunder in sub
stituting Curie's name for Tonsons aroused a laugh, partly at his
expense and partly at mine; and I answered rather sharply, perhaps,
There is no Dr. Johnson here." Quoted in Huxley, p. 105.
%ester Thackeray Fuller and ¥iolet Hammersley, Thackervs
Daughter: Some Recollections of Anne Thackeray Ritchie (London, 1952),
pp. 87-88.
in
"Club Secrets, The Saturday Review of Polities. Literature.
Science, and Art, IX (March 24, I860),368.
Newspaper Gossip," The Saturday Review of Politics. Literature.
Science, and Art. IX (June 23, "1860), 799-800,
-^Huxley, pp. 105-106.
~L%hackeray Letters. Hf, 189-190.
^Thackeray, "On Screens in Dining-Rooms," Works. XII, 220-222,
15
Trollope Letters. p* 64.
^Thackeray, pp. 55-56.
"^Trollope Letters. p. 66.
~lbid.. pp. 66-67.
^Ibld.. p. 80.
Of)
Ibid.. p. 74. Although Mr. Booth does "not find anything in the
next few numbers that answers this description, the correspondence of
his promise to have a story in Smiths hands by the 13th and his mailing
of "Mrs. General Talboys" on the 10th indicates that he is here refer
ring to the rejected story.

IOS
91
Ibid., p. 114.
Ibid., pp. 77-79,
23Ibid.. pp. 79-30,
24Ibid.. p. 84.

CHAPTER IV
TROLLOPE'S OPINION OF THACKERAY FROM 1861 UNTIL 1876
Despite the conflicts between the two men in 1860* the relation
underwent a change to a calmer association in 1861, the year from which
we may date a more sympathetic acquaintance between Trollope and
Thackeray. Because Trollope's ill feelings were repressed during the
last two and one half years before Thackeray's death, the relation
between the two men gave the overt appearance witnessed by George Smith
when he remarked that they "became after close friends." This shift
in Trollope's view of Thackeray ultimately developed into the ambivalent
portrayal of the English Men of Letters volume. As we have seen,
Trollope broke whatever acquaintance he had with Yates after the
journalist put him in an embarrassing situation by betraying his confi
dence. If the realization of June, I860, was the beginning of a
gradual shift in feelings, Thackeray's mannerly response to the un
pleasant episode in August was just the catalyst to further the change
of outlook* The matter of the rejected stories, while preventing the
immediate shift of Trollope to Thackeray's camp, seems to reflect
Thackeray's fairness since he was acting in his desire to better the
quality of the magazine, not from a selfish desire to thwart Trollope*
From Thackeray's viewpoint, then, Trollope's faux pas was to be met
with understanding and to be forgiven. Thackeray, perhaps, went a
109

110
little out of his way to "save Trollope from Yates and Dickens, for
it remains difficult to see how a man of the world who idealized a
concept of the middle class gentleman could truly befriend a man so
unlike himself. Leslie Stephen, later Thackerays son-in-law, has left
his impressions of Anthony Trollope, and from his statement, which is
doubtless similar to Thackerays, Trollopes character could hardly
fit a concept of gentility:
Nobody ever met the adult Trollope in the
flesh without receiving one impression. . .
In person, Trollope resembled the ideal beefeater;
square and sturdy, and as downright as a box on
the ear. The simple, masculine character revealed
itself in every lineament and gesture. His talk
was as hearty and boisterous as a gust of a
north-eastera Kingsley north-easter, that is;
not blighting, but bracing and genial. The
first time I met him was in a low room, where he
was talking with a friend almost as square and
sturdy as himself. It seemed as if the roof was
in danger of being blown off by the vigour of
the conversational blasts. And yet, if I
remember rightly, they were not disputing, but
simply competing in the utterance of a perfectly
harmless sentiment in which they cordially agreed.
A talker of feeble lungs might be unable to get
his fair share in the discussion; but not because
Trollope was intentionally overbearing, or even
rough. His kindliness and cordially were as
unmistakable as his sincerity; and if he happened
to impinge upon his hearers sore points, it was
from clumsiness, not malignity. He was incapable
of shyness or diffidence, and would go at any
subject as gallantly as he rode at a stiff fence
in the hunting-field. His audacity sprang not
from conceit, but from a little over-confidence
in the power of downright common-sense.
Yet Thackeray overcame whatever natural repuganee he might have held and
in the last years of his life treated Trollope as fairly as could be
expected.

Ill
The force that finally brought Trollope end Thackeray
together was probably Trollopes election to membership in the Garriek
Club:
In 1861 I became a member of the Garrick Club,
with which institution I hare since been much
identified. I had belonged to it about two
years, xien, on Thackeray's death, I was in
vited to fill his place on the Committee, and
I have been one of that august body ever since.
Having up to that time lived very little among
men, having known hitherto nothing of clubs,
having even as a boy been banished from social
gatherings, I enjoyed infinitely at first the
gaiety of the Garrick.2
Trollope had made many friends in London since occupying Waltham House
in December, 1859, and the ones that brought him into the Garrick were
definitely of Thackeray's faction. By this time Trollope had com
pletely broken whatever ties he had to lates, or he would not have
been elected to the club; as late as April, 1873, the well known actor
Henry Irving was blackballed from membership on account of his friend
ship with Yates.3 Whether or not Trollope was personally allied to
Thackeray at this time, he was not overtly antagonistic since Thackeray
had risen in the club to a position of prominence. Prior to Trollope's
election the relation of the men tras characterized by misunderstandings
afterward the two men were brought into a closer relation and grew to
have greater understanding. Trollope's membership in the Garrick Club
is, therefore, the concrete action that was to bring the two novelists
into a friendship. Such is not unusual, for the misunderstandings of
I860 largely arose from feelings or actions that were misinterpreted by
Trollope, partly because of his preconceived idea of Thackeray's

112
character. After the sen were in a position to associate in the club,
the formal subordination of contributor to editor merged into an
equality of club members. On this basis, Trollope learned to penetrate
the myth of Thackeray and to see the vibrant and sensitive actuality
beneath, and Thackeray discovered that beneath the blatant and coarse
exterior presented by Trollope was a man eager to be loved and to be
popular with his associates. These two shifts in outlook could only
have come if and when the novelists were in a proximity that allowed the
one to see the other frequently and on a more personal basis.
That Trollope had moved from the Yatess camp before his
election to membership in the Garrick in the spring of 1861 is,
perhaps, one of his reasons for rejecting John Maxwells offer of the
editorship of Temple Bar in August, 1861:
Mr. Maxwell has asked me to offer you i>1000
a year for three or five years, with the
ostensible editorship of Temple Bar, if you
will undertake to supply a novel and fill the
position that Mr. Sala now occupies.
All the real work of editorship will be
performedas heretoforeby Mr. Edmund Yates,
who would act with you as sub-editor.
Temple Bar had been launched in December, 1860, as a rival to the
Gornhill. and for its first editor Maxwell had drawn Sala from Thackerays
staff. Thackeray was friendly to Sala, and they parted on the best of
terms.Immediately thereafter Yates was picked as the acting editor:
My old friend George Sala had undertaken the
editorship, and had expressed a wish, in
which Mr. Maxwell concurred, that I should
act as assistant or working editor.6

113
Sala lent his name, bat Tates, the assistant or sub-editor, was the
actual force behind the magazine. Trollope, of course, knew that to
accept the editorship of Temple Bar would put him into direct associa
tion with a man who, though once a friend, had already betrayed and
thus embarrassed him. Since he was now a member of the Garrick Club
and for the first time in his life felt himself accepted by his
associates,"^ Trollope refused Maxwell's generous offer. Maxwell could
hardly have made the offer to Trollope without Tates's knowledge; there
fore, Tates's active antagonism to Trollope, while probably originating
from his jealously in i860, reached its full growth when he stepped into
the position refused by Trollope. Tates*s actions during this time
were, perhaps, justified in whatever thrusts he might make against
Thackeray or his supporters, since in his eyes he was forced to suffer
8
for committing an offense that Thackeray himself was guilty of. On
May 25, 1889, he defended his action to Herman Merivale, who was then
collecting materials for his biography of Thackeray:
Please bear in mind, first, the circumstances
under which the offending little article was
written. While the press waited, to supply
'short copy', at a desk in a printing office,
with the master-printer at my elbow, urging me
on, slip by slip being carried off to the
compositors, as it was written. Think that I
was then only 27 years old, with wife & three
children, supplementing a small Post Office
salary by journalistic labour, sitting down at
my desk, three or four nights a week, after ay
day's official grind, sitting down at 8 pm. &
steadily writing till midnight. Remember what
the social degradation inflicted upon me at
Thackeray's instance, not the fury of a moment
but deliberately insisted on through six weeks,

114
meant to an unknown man, who had not made
any mark then, but was merely pulling the
devil by the tail, in a struggle for bread.
Think of being expelled* from a club, as
tho one had been a eardsharper, a cheat, a
thief, a braggart about women!9
let Yates failed to learn his lesson, for he was later sent to prison
for libelling the Earl of Lonsdale from gossip picked up at the Carlton
Club,'*' and Sala relates the following episode from late in Yatess
life!
I remember once, at a dinner at poor Edmund
Yatess, his wife propounding to three of her
male guestsher husband, Dion Bouicault, and
myselfthe grave question whether we were
sorry--you know what I mean; sorry in the
all-round sense, unreservedly penitent, as
Catholics must declare themselves to be in a
confession genrale. Boucicault was the first
called upon to speak. The bright-witted
dramatist . replied, with truth beaming from
his expressive countenance, that he was deeply,
unfeignedly sorry for all his sins. Then came
my turn. I replied diplomatically, that I was
going to be sorry. Mieux tard que .jamais.
Then the dread query . was put to Edmund.
He looked at us; he looked at the ladies; he
looked into his plate, and then, bringing his
closed hand heavily on the table-cloth, he said,
sternly and decisively, No!
When dealing with such a person, Trollope was fully in the right to
refuse whatever offer Maxwell would have made, but more importantly the
refusal forced Trollope to move further toward Thackerays side and
further from Yatess. This movement is important to Trollopes
development of a view of Thackeray, for he had begun on Yatess side
and, as we shall see, was never able completely to overcome certain
attitudes toward Thackeray that were learned before meeting him.

115
Even though Thackeray invited Trollope to dine at his home
"I p
on May 5, there remained some ill feeling on his part, though the
meager evidence seems to imply that the antagonism was such less than
earlier* On May 24, he wrote to Lucy Baxter*
I think Trollope is much more popular with
the Cornhill Magazine readers than I am*
and doubt whether I am not going down hill
considerably in public favor. It doesnt
concern me very much* .
At this time he was running The Adventures of Philip in the Cornhill
and Trollopes Framlev Parsonage had just finished serialization.
Neither Lovel the Widower nor The Four Georges had favorably struck the
public, and with Philip he hoped
to fetch up the ground v& I havenot lost,
I trust, biit only barely kept. I sang
purposely small; wishing to keep my strongest
for a later day, and give Trollope the honors
of Vlolono primo. Now I must go to work with
a vengeance.^4
But Philip probably ranks lowest in popularity among Thackerays novels^
while Framlev Parsonage even won Brownings approval:
. let me say, the looseness of idiom and
mistakes in the properties of words are nothing
extraordinary*not worse thannor so bad as,
those in some of Trollopes booksThe West
Indies for instance, which exceeds in slovenliness
any clever mans production within my experience:
these slips let you alone, by the bye, in "Framley
Parsonage, and begin to bother you again in the
first number of "Qrley Farm,"whence I conclude
that Thackeray will have "English spoken where
he rules the roast.16
Thackeray, therefore, had some reason for a professional jealousy,
especially since he was the editor of the magazine that was boasting his
rivals reputation at his own expense. Two months later on July 2,
G. H. Lewes observed,

116
The fact is, Thackeray is so soured by the
want of success vhieh his writing of late has
had, that he is sardonic and bitter against
all who are successfuleven against his friend
Trollope, I hear, .
Thackeray may also be justified in such jealousy, because it must have
appeared to him that he had cut his own throat by keeping Trollope on
his staff and by not opposing his election for membership in the
Garrick Club after Trollope vas instrumental in placing him in an
unfavorable position in the public eye. Nevertheless, even if he knew
of Trollopes part, Thackeray was not one to hold personal grudges for
extended lengths of time5 in the autumn of 1861 he even sympathized with
Edmund Yates"So poor Yates has been having gastric fever* This
friction appears to be the last that disturbed the relation of the
two authors, at least from Thackerays side.
One area of thought that found Trollope and Thackeray in
opposing camps was the British reaction to the American Civil War.
While in the United States during 1861-1862, Trollope visited all the
states which had not then seceded. Outspoken in whatever he believed,
Trollope had no sympathy with the Southern causes
Jpf?
The Southern cause was bad. The South had
provoked the quarrel because its political
supremacy vas checked by the election of Mr,
Lincoln to the Presidency. It had to fight as
a little man against a big man, and fought
gallantly,and a feeling based on a misconception
as to American character that the Southerners
are better gentlemen than their Northern brethren,
did create great sympathy here; but I believe that
the country was too just to be led into political
action by a spirit of romance, and I vas warranted
in that belief

117
On the other hand, Thackeray, whose gentlemanly ideal caused him to
lean toward the Confederacy, was personally interested in the Southern
Of)
cause because of close friends then living in South Carolina.
Trollope published his sentiment in North America in May, 1862, immedi
ately after his return to England; Thackeray had already struck out in
his Roundabout Paper M0n Half a Loaf" in February. This disagreement
would be slight if Trollope was not the type of man eager to have his
own views expressed; with Trollopes being outspoken and Thackeray being
emotionally concerned with the Southern cause, some friction may have
existed. If so, the disagreement did not significantly enter into
their relation, because in 1862 Thackeray had already made a step that
was to ease the way to a closer intimacy between them.
That the intimacy did grow despite such differences was
largely the result of Thackerays resignation from the editorship of
Cornhill in March. While no significance can be placed on his
resigning while Trollope was in America, it is interesting that neither
Thackeray nor Smith seemed to consider him as a possible successor,
Smith first offered the position to Robert Browning, who refused because
he was not to receive the same pay as Thackeray. On April 8, George
Smith called on G. H. Lewes, who entered in his journal that the
publisher
spoke to me about the editorship of the Cornhill
Magazine which Thackeray has resigned. I de
clined taking any responsible position, but
agreed that if he would edit it responsibly, get
a subeditor, and some other adviser of whom I
approved, I would act as consulting editor. He
is to think over the proposition.^

118
A month later, May 8, Lewes accepted the positions
In the afternoon George Smith called with a
final proposal about the Cornhill which I
accepted, namely, that I am tc act as his
chief literary Adviser in the selection of
articles, and suggestion of subjects, he
bringing them to me and I only taking such
responsibility as is implied in my judgement.
Salary L60Q per annum. This is very handsome,
as the work promises to be light, and not
disagreeable. In the evening read some proofs
he sent up, and one m.s.^3
With this action Thackeray was no longer Trollopes superior on the
magazine; instead one of Trollopes closest friends, a man of whom he
wrote, ttGeorge Lewes has . been and still is one of my
dearest friends,"^ became the second editor of the Cornhill. With
this change the formal division that had severed the two novelists was
removed, and the gradual growth of intimacy that reached from Trollopes
election into the Garrick Club was allowed to follow the more natural
development between equals.
The most important episode that occurred after the resigna
tion of Thackeray from the editorship and before his death was the
joint loan of several hundred pounds to William Webb Follet Synge in
May, 1862, The most widely quoted source for this episode, however, has
been colored by the writer in such a manner that the true incidents are
obviously misrepresented. In Thackeray Trollope tells the story to
illustrate Thackerays benevolence;
I heard once a story of woe from a man who
was the dear friend of both of us. The
gentleman wanted a large sum of money instantly,
something under two thousand pounds,had no
natural friends who could provide it, but must
go utterly to the wall without it. Pondering

119
over this sad condition of things just
revealed to me, I met Thackeray between the
two mounted heroes at the Horse Guards, and
told him the story. MDo you mean to say that
I am to find two thousand pounds? he said,
angrily, with some expletives, I explained that
I had not even suggested the doing of anything,
only that we might discuss the matter. Then
there came over his face a peculiar smile, and a
wink in his eye, and he whispered his suggestion
as though half ashamed of his meanness. "Ill
go half, he said, if anybody will do the rest.
And he did go half, at a day or two's notice,
though the gentleman was no more than simply a
friend. I am glad to be able to add that the
money was quickly repaid.
While Trollope does not mention that he lent Synge the other half
(even though the implication is too strong to miss), he does make several
statements that need to be scrutinized: (l) he insinuated that Synge
first approached him for the amount; (2) the characterization of
Thackeray is hardly laudatory? and (3) he asserted that Synge "was no
more than simply a friend of Thackerays. If we analyze these state
ments, several discrepancies between Trollope's account and the actual
episode become apparent. In 1846 Synge entered the Foreign Service and
was attached to the British legation at Washington from 1851 to July 1,
pry
1853. Thackeray had known him prior to this since on February 24
he told Mrs. Baxter that "my English acquaintance Synge has married a
28
charming young creature a great deal too good for him. J Gn March 1
he sent Mrs. Synge a note of apology for leaving Washington without
seeing her and asked her to visit him xjhen she was in London.^ Then
in the autumn and winter of 1853 Thackeray lent the Synges his home,
13 Young Street, while he was in Italy. ^ These happenings are nine
years before Thackeray loaned him money; therefore, Synge appears to

120
have been more than "simply a friend." He was a rather close friend
of long standing. In August, I860, Synge even named his son, William
Makepeace Thackeray Synge, and Thackeray stood as godfather. In the
second place Trollope relates that Thackeray answered his proposal
"angrily, with some expletives" and then "whispered his suggestion, as
though half ashamed of his meanness." While the latter reaction was
more characteristic of Thackeray, the former assertion has more the
romantic quality of a Trollopian character than any direct reference
to Thackerays recorded behavior. Mr. Ray has pointed out Thackerays
eagerness to help those in financial distress by loaning them money or
even taking them into his hame*^ It is remarkable that Thackerays
first reaction to such a proposal should be of anger, just as it is
surprising that Trollope approached him to ask for a loan of money for
a man whom Thackeray had known over a considerable length of time as a
friend. Finally Trollope insinuates that Synge first approached him,
then he asked Thackeray. Shortly after seeing Trollope, Thackeray sent
the following note to Synge:
My Dear Doubleyou Doubleyou,
I have just met a Trojan of the name of
Trollope in the street (your ingenious note of
last night kept me awake all night, be hanged
to you), and the upshot is that we will do what
you want between us. My dear old Synge, come
and talk to me on Friday before twelve.
32
Thackeray says that he has just met Trollope, but the sentence in
parenthesis implies that Synge had written beforehand to Thackeray,
Synge did irrite to Thackeray asking for the loan, a circumstance that
logically follows from their friendship and Synges awareness
If

121
of Thackeray's benevolence, it was Thackeray, who, unable to loan the
full amount brought the matter to Trollopes attention, not as in the
version told by Troll.ope. While Trollope's version heightens the
romantic qualities of the story, giving Thackeray 'character," it
raises Trollope to a more prominent position, the result of a desire
that was also apparent in his treatment of Thackeray as an editor. In
his diary for 1862 Thackeray made the cryptic entry of May 11,
"Trollope at Star & Garter." Since Trollope tells that Thackeray lent
the money "at a day or two's notice," this entry probably refers to
the meeting of the two men at which Thackeray asked Trollope to go
halves on the loan, because the entry for May 13 reads, "At Bankers
464O. Paid Graham 1000£ Synge 6001," and the one for May 15 closes the
settlement:
Synge agrees to make 9 half yearly payments
of 100L each beginning from October 1 and a
10th payment of 112.10 to close the transaction.
Trollopes final statement is also misleading; while he said that "the
money was quickly repaid," he was worried about the payment of the debt
shortly after Thackeray's death:
Synge, who is now Consul at Honolulu, borrowed,
before he went in May 1862, £>900 from Thackeray
and i>900 from me. It was agreed that £.100 should
be paid off quarterly. The first quarter to
Thackeray5- & the second to me,& so on. We each
received the first £100, but then there was a
stop. Last year, in the spring, 1 think, Synge's
father died, & there were some proceeds out of
which Thackeray received £400 & I £400, It was
then agreed that the remainder should be repaid
by quarterly payments of £50 instead of £100.

122
Whether Thackeray has had any such payment I
cannot say I have not. They were to be made
by Messrs. Bedwell & Alslop the clerks of the
F. 0. who pay moneys for the consuls &c. They
can tell you whether Thackeray has had any
further instalment.34
These misrepresentations of the truth in Thackeray pose again the basic
question of the volume: if the traditional view of Trollopes close
friendship with Thackeray is accepted, why does he present Thackeray
in such a manner? In the case of his criticism of Thackerays
abilities as an editor the impulse that lowered Thackeray, perhaps,
stemmed from his own failure as an editor; in this case he is obviously
placing himself in a better position. Since both cases are rooted in
the writer's desire to excuse or to praise himself, the relation
between the two men could not have been the close friendship that is
often asserted to have existed; instead Trollope, while drawn to his
more prominent rivals side, retained an antagonism that he had learned
from Yates and which had been re-enforced during the early months of
1860.
During 1863, the last year of Thackeray's life, the two men
apparently found the closest degree of friendship that they were to
have. Thackeray entertained Mrs. Trollope on February 14?and on
May 10 had the Trollopes to a dinner. Other than these two affairs,
the only concrete evidence for a meeting of the two families was in
December,, about ten days before Thackerays death on December 24*^
Since Thackeray was in London all of 1863 except for two periods, ten
days in each April and August, there was ample time for more informal

123
meetings, especially since both men belonged to the Garrick Club and
worked on the Cornhill staff. The major disturbance in Thackeray's
last year was The Athenaeum's savage attack on him through Anne's
The Story of Elisabeth, a novel that had run in the Cornhill between
September, 1862, and January, 1863, but Trollope was not involved in
this dispute, which began on April 23 and grew into a major scandal by
December when Thackeray was refused a position on the national
Shakespeare Committee. If anything, Trollope leaned toward Thackeray
during this dispute, or Thackeray, who was 'personally affected, would
not have entertained him at 2 Palace Green in May, Even though
Thackeray was under great attack from the Bohemians, he had taken the
action in the spring to reconcile himself to Dickens; therefore,
Dickens was on friendly terns with him when he died suddenly in
December.
The Christmas of 1863 was bleak to those who had been friends
of Thackeray. G. H, Lewes' entered in his diary that Christmas was
solemn, "In the morning I called on Owen Jones and Dallas, where I
39
heard of Thackerays sudden death. Writing to Isabella Blagden,
Robert Browning described the manner in which he learned of the death:
We had a sad Christmas of it with poor Thackerays
death: on the Wednesday (23) I was to have met
him at dinnerhe had sent to say he was unwell,
so his empty place was provocative of the usual
talk and tattlenext day, 24. I was certain to
meet him at dinner also, because the people promised
a wonderful Christmas Tree for children, a flock
of whom were invitedon arriving, I heard his name
mentioned"Hot too unwell to come? I askedhe
was dead,40

124
Charles Lever, a closer friend, 'was touched even deeper:
Poor Thackeray! I cannot say how I was shocked
at his death. He wrote his "Irish Sketch-Book,"
which he dedicated to me, in my old house at
Tempieogue, and it is with a heavy heart I think
of all our long evenings together,mingling our
plans for the future with many a jest and many a
story.
He was fortunate, however, to go dox-m in the
full blase of his geniusas few do. The fate of
most is to go on pouring water on the lees, that
people at last suspect they never got honest
liquor from the tap at all.41
Sven Thackerays archenemy, Edmund Yates, says that the news shocked
-and disturbed him;
The news came to me in the afternoon, as I was
calling upon a friend at the Reform Club, and
gave me a certain shock, as for ever destroying
the hope which. I had entertained that the breach
between me and the great writer might eventually
have been healed. For many months any bitterness
which I may have at one time entertained against
him had died out, and when I treated of his loss
in print I was able conscientiously to claim my
share of the great and general grief.42
Forster relates that the death was a "painful shock to Dickens,"43
especially since the rival novelists had only recently been reconciled.
Trollope's immediate reaction was similar, but touched with a greater
sentimentality. On Christmas Day he expressed his sentiment in the
moving lines to Edward Chapman:
I have been greatly cut up by Thaclcerays death,
which I only learned in the Times. It has not
been a merry Christmas with us. I loved him
dearly.44
That Trollope learned of Thackerays death in the newspapers rather than
from mutual friends is interesting, but understandable since Waltham

125
House was twelve miles from the city. In a letter to Follett Synge,
written later in December, Trollope explains that he had not seen
Thackeray for ten days prior to his death:
I saw him for the last time about ten days
before his death, and sat with him for half an
hour talking about himself. I never knew him
pleasanter or more at ease as to his bodily
ailments* How I seem to have loved that dear
head of his now that he has gone.
I had better tell the story all through. It
is bad to have to write it, but you will expect
to be told. He had suffered very much on the
Wednesday (23rd), but had got out in the after
noon. He was home early, and was so ill when
going to bed that his servant suggested he had
better stay. He was suffering from spasms and
retching, having been for some months free from
this complaint than for a long time previously.
He would not have the servant, .and was supposed
to go to bed. He was heard moving in the night. . .
It Is believed that he must have gone off between
two and three, and I hear his last hours were
painful. His arms and face were very rigidas I
was told by Leech who saw him in the morning
afterwards *45
One sentence in this tense account stands dramatically in relief after
having traced the relation of the men: !,Eow I seem to have loved that
dear head of his now that he has gone. The immediacy of such sentiment
is particularly meaningful when we remember the frictions between them
when they first met and the gradual lessening of their misunderstandings.
But the sentence is interesting from another vantage: Trollope was
i
increasingly aware of Thackeray* s merits after Thackeray the man had
been removed by death.

126
On December 25 Trollope wrote a brief, but from subsequent
events a very important, letter to George Smith:
You will of course insert in the next Cornhill
some short notice of him. Who will do it for
you? If you have no one better, I will do it
gladly. Lewes, or Bell, or Russell would do
it better. I only make the offer in the event
of your having no one better
He added a single sentence as a postscript: "Of course you will know
that what I offer Is a work of love."^ Smith accepted his proposal,
but because the copy for the January, 1364, number was already at the
printers, the February number was the memorial issue. Trollope submitted
his article before January 17, and on that date vetoed a more elaborate
plan proposed by Smith:
I received together at Norwich on Friday your
letters of the 13& 14¡ I In the former you
propose to insert my paper with papers & verse
from Dickens & Lord Houghton, and in the latter
you suggest a longer memoir for the March number..*
I prefer the former plan. I do not feel up to
writing a memoir, and I do not personally know
enough, and tho I might possibly borrow all that
can be said from Hannays excellent article I do
not care to borrow in that way. More of criticism
that Q?thai\ what I have attempted would I think
be almost out of place* I have said nothing that
I do not think and believe, but if I were to say
more I should perhaps run into rhodomontade or
else cool down into ordinary eulogy.47
Evidently neither Smith nor Trollope knew at this time that Thackeray
had ordered his daughter, "When I drop there is to be no life written
of me; mind this and consider it as my last testament and desire,"^
because the "longer memoir" was obviously against Thackerays wishes.
In fact, even James Kannays brief tribute was not appreciated by the
Thackeray family, although Hannay had long been acquainted with his

127
subject. Yet Trollope's refusal of Smith's plans is founded on other
considerations: he does "not feel up to writing a memoir and does
"not personally know enough," While the former excuse cannot be
measured in terms of possible implications, the latter is certainly
strange coming from a man who has been called Thackeray's close friend
and who would sixteen years later write a biography of him. That he
would need to rely on Hannay for information implies that he knew
little of Thackeray's life before the time of their meeting: in other
words, the friendship had not reached a point of intimacy in which
Thackeray had trusted Trollope with his feelings or opinions that
touched upon matters of personal interest. Trollope had been no
friend of Thackeray as Forster had been of Dickens or as Lockhart of
Scott. Perhaps, Thackeray, having been so frequently attacked in the
last years of his life, was unable to trust Trollope, particularly
since Trollope had already exposed him once before; perhaps, Trollope
had never tried to place himself in a position to be intimately trusted*
Regardless of the possibilities, the confession that he did not know
Thackeray enough as a man is basic to the opinion he held of his rival
as early as the article in the February, 1864, number of the Cornhill.
The most striking aspect of Trollope's eulogy is the prevail
ing sentimental tone introduced in the first paragraphs
Now, at the present, it is not so much that he
who has left us was known, admired, and valued,
as that he was loved. The fine grey head, the
dear face with its gentle smile, the sweet, manly
voice which we knew so well, with its few words
of kindest greeting: the gait, and manner, and
personal presence of him whom it so delighted

128
us to estator in our oami! ¡walisg
going about tiie town*:it is of these things*
and of the things lost for ever, that we are
now thinkingI Me think of them a of treasure
which are sot only lost* hut which can never b
replaced. He who knew Thackeray will, have a
vacancy in his heart % irascat casket, which crust
resala vacant till he dies* C5ao loved hits almost
a one loves a. mss, tenderly and with thoughtful
nse#thiakiiig of hist when away from him as a
source of Joy which cannot be analysed, but is
full of comfort* On who loved him, loved him
thus because hi heart was as is the
heart of a MHr.*^
filis toa resches a clima la the final paragraph la which Trollop'
describes the funeral, % very large gatheringbetween 1000 and 1500
people,::,s that had boon held on Becesber 31 at Keasal Green:
Ife saw Ma laid low in hie tap!# grave at %lm
close of last year, m w saw the brethren of
his art, on after another, toad up on the
sisme at the grave foot to take a last look upon
the coffin which held him. It vm very ad.
There were 'there the faces of rough mm. red with
tear, who are sot used to the melting mood, The
grave was mrj simple, m became the sadness of
the soiwt* At such times It is better that the
very act of interment should be without pomp- or
sign of glory. But as weeks pas by us, they,
who love English literature, will desire t see
some preparation for placing a memento of him in
that shrine In which we keep the monuments of our
great men. It is to he regarded a a thing of
course, that there should be a bust of Thackeray
in Westminster Abbey,?!
The article, however, reveal Trollope4 s submerged adverse criticism
which, in this case, he used to heighten the image of Thackeray that he
is projecting; the balk of the comments, for example, is concerned with
Thackeray's relation to the Cornhill,^ After introducing this abject,
Trollope says,

129
It is not for any of ns who wsr connected with
him in the enterprise to say whether this
Lthe Cornhilll was done successfully or not|
but it is for usfor all men-to declare that
he was the kindest of guides, the gentlest of
rulers, and, as a fellow-workman, liberal,
unselfish, considerate, beyond compare.53
But he quickly adds his judgment that Thackeray was a poor editors
There are many who delight in wielding the
editorial ferule, good men and true, no doubt,
who open their hearts genially to genius when
they find it; but they can repress and crush
the incapable tyro, or the would-be poetess who
has nothing to support her own ambition, if not
delight, at least with satisfaction. Of such
men are good editors made. Whether it be a
point against a man, or for him to be without
such power, they who think of the subject may
judge for themselves. Thackeray had it not.
He lacked hardness for the place, and therefore,
at the end of two years, he relinquished it.54
While this adverse criticism is intended to form the background against
which the positive qualities of Thackerays tenderness and kindliness
may be contrasted for emphasis, the presence of this criticism is only
one step removed from the view of Thackerays editorship presented in
the passage of the autobiography and the English Men of Letters volume
that we have already noticed* The difference lies merely in the
omission of the positive qualities in the later works; with mention of
Thackeray's tenderness removed from the eulogy, the now submerged
adverse criticism predominates. In contrast to this approach, Trollopes
brief literary criticism is entirely laudatory, and in the two major
points is identical to the view that he expressed sixteen years later*
He regards 81 Esmond as the first and finest novel in the English language,"
and later he adds, "But if Esmond be, as a whole, our best English novel,

130
Colonel Heweome is the finest single character in English fiction."55
If Trollopes desire to heighten the memory of the recently deceased
Thackeray causes him to submerge adverse criticism and to praise
without qualification Thackeray's artistic abilities, he reveals his
split view of his subject as early as January, I864. Writing immedi
ately after the death of Thackeray, Trollope did not have time for his
initial emotional reaction to cool; therefore, the adverse criticism
must have been a strongly latent opinion that slowly emerged as the
emotional association faded. Trollope himself may have realized his
inability clearly to present a fair image of Thackeray when he
told Smith that "I do not feel up to writing a memoir." In the memorial
article, however, he does not attempt a memoir, he merely mentions
James Hannay's account then adds,
The writing of his life will be a task, and we
trust a work of love, for which there will
probably be more than one candidate. We trust
that it may fall into fitting hands,into the
hands of one who shall have loved wisely, and
not too well,but, above all things, into the
hands of a true critic. That which the world will
most want to know of Thackeray, is the effect which
his writings have produced; we believe that effect
to have been very wide, and beneficial withal.
Let us hope, also, that the task of his biography
may escape that untoward hurry which has ruined
the interest of so many of the memoirs of our
latter-day worthies.56
That the biographer should be "one who shall have loved wisely, and not
too well," perhaps, reveals Trollopes primary qualification for the
English Men of Letters volume; moreover, Trollopes emphasis here on
"the effect which his writings have produced" explains the later volume
in which Thackeray the artist is highly praised and discussed at length

131
while Thackeray the man is adversely criticised. This sentiment is
most strikingly evident in two incidents that followed the writing of
the article. In the first, Trollope wrote to Smith on February 10
asking payment for it, the demanded payment being the one volume edition
of Esmond (1853), and, in the second, Trollope*s letter of thanks
after- Smith sent him the Laurence portrait of Thackeray reveals greater
concern for the artist than for the man:
This morning we hung Thackeray up in our
library, and we are very much obliged to you
for the present,not only in that it is in
itself so valuable, but more especially because
it is one so suited to our feelings. *
The next thing will be to have a perfect
edition of his worksfor which we must look
to you.
In both eases, it is Thackeray the artist who is praised.
Preceding Trollope's memorial article in the Gomhill was one
by Charles Dickens; this article provides a helpful contrast to
Trollopes. It must be remembered that Dickens and Thackeray were
estranged during the Garrick Club Affair of 1353 and were only reconciled
during the summer preceding Thackerays death; the split had been deep,
and both men ran high feelings against his rival. let Dickens tact
fully and with great taste only mentions the differences, never alluding
KQ
to the true proportions. In fact, Dickens had not wanted to tirite the
article in the first place: "At the solicitation of Mr. Smith and some
of his friends, I have done what I would most gladly have excused myself
from doingif I felt I couldwritten a couple of pages about him in
what was his own magazine.Dickenss motivation, therefore, was not

132
founded in an emotional state of association with Thackeray; it was
more soundly reasoned and written than Trollopes. The general tone,
then is more objective; his description of the funeral, for example, is
brief and to the points
On the bright wintry day, the last but one of
the old year, he was laid in his grave at Kensal
Green, there to mingle the dust to which the
mortal part of him had returned, with that of a
third child, lost in her infancy, years ago.
The heads of a great concourse of his fellow-
workers in the Arts, were bowed around his tomb. ^
With a difference in tone comes a total difference in conception; while
Trollope discusses Thackerays works, Dickens wrote:
In no pages should I take it upon myself at this
time to discourse of his books, of his refined
knowledge of character, of his subtle acquaintance
with the weaknesses of human nature, of his
delightful playfulness as an essayists, of his
quaint and touching ballads, of his mastery over
the English language. Least of all, in these
pages, enriched by his brilliant qualities from
the first of the series, and beforehand accepted
by the Public through the strength of his great
name.^2
In contrast to Trollope, Dickens, who had known Thackeray some twenty-
eight years, gathers anecdotes that he can remember to describe
Thackeray the man, focusing upon minutiae that reveal the humor, gentle
ness, or vivacity of the man as Dickens remembered him. Trollope,
plunging his account into the sentimental, had lost the actual man,
but Dickens in his straightforward account emphasizes the Thackeray he
had known so well and fought so violently. Perhaps, the estrangement
was a factor in giving Dickens's account its deep poignancy, for instead
of constructing elaborate rhetorical sentences when mentioning the
qualities that come to his mind, he simply writes:

133
These are slight remembrances; but it is to
little familiar things suggestive of the voice,
look, manner, never, never more to be encountered
on this earth, that the mind first turns in a
bereavement. And greater things that are known
of him, in the way of his warm affections, his
quiet endurance, his unselfish thoughtfulness
for others, and his munificent hand, may not be
told.63
To Dickens, Thackeray never "carried his heart-strings in a crystal
ease,^ Dickens reluctance to discuss Thackerays achievement was
just since critics were fond of linking their names; his illumination
of Thackerays character is poignant because of the long and bitter
estrangement; but his simple, more objective style gives the appearance
of being written by a man who was not only more familiar with but even
more closely associated with Thackeray than do the ornate rhetorical
cadences of Trollopes account. It is as if one were to compare
Everetts and Lincoln's speeches on the battlefield of Gettysburg.
Between the first sketch of Thackeray In February, 1364, and
the second, the opinion presented in An Autobiography written between
October, 1875, and April 30, 1876, Trollope underwent significant
changes in his popularity, his experience, and above all in his opinion
of Thackeray, As long as Thackeray lived, Trollope remained in his
shadow, but when the more prominent was removed, Trollope catapulted
into fame. He filled Thackerays vacant seat on the Committee of the
Garrick Club, J a position that placed him among the controllers and
the powerful in-group of that small society. Later in the year he
was elected to the Athenaeum Club to fill the seat vacated by Thackeray's

134
death. He did not succeed Thackeray, however, as one of Smith,
Elders leading novelists, though he did publish five novels through
Thackeray's old firm: to the end he was faithful to Chapman & Hall
through whom he published a total of thirty-two books between 1353 and
1832 He did, nevertheless, rise to prominence as one of Englands
most prolific and, for the period between 1364 and 1870, most popular
novelists. That he could have enjoyed such prosperity while Thackeray
lived is dubious, but the prosperity he did enjoy after Thackerays
death was initially rooted in Thackeray and Smiths choice of him as
the leading contributor to the first number of the Cornhill and the
positions left open for him at Thackerays death. Trollope may well
have seen that he rose by following Thackerays footsteps, because in
the Thackeray there is much self-identification of the writer with his
k
subject. On the other hand, Trollope raight easily have resented being
known as a disciple of Thackeray and have sought to break this concep
tion? if this assumption is accurate, Trollopes opinion of Thackeray
can again be compared to his opinion of Sir Rowland Hill, another man
who had enabled him to rise but with whom he differed in opinion.
Even if Trollope was antagonistic to Sir Rowland, he remained
in the Post Office until Sir Rowland retired. At this time a complex
of causes drove him to a violent resignation, Edmund Tates accounts for
the resignation of the man he had come to detest:
... he was, if not in the first, first in
the second, flight of novelists of the day;
he waswhat he had never been in his office-
popular in certain circles, notably at the
Garrick Club. He would have more leisure for

135
clubs, hunting, and whist, and at the same
time be earning more money; and he would have
opportunities for foreign and colonial travel,
and consequent book-making, such as he never
would have had again in the department, where
his official trips had already been much
discussed.?
While the final phrase of Yates's account apparently points to some
tension between Trollope and his superiors (even though many of his
trips had been on official postal work), Yates learned the reasons for
the retirement from Trollope's own version published posthumously the
same year as Recollections and Experiences. In An Autobiography
Trollope makes the resignation the result of long deliberations
In 1867 I made up my mind to take a step in life
which was not unattended with peril, which many
would call rash, and which, when taken, I should
he sure at some period to regret. This step was
the resignation of my place in the Post Office.
I have described how it was that I contrived to
combine the performances of its duties with my
other avocations in life. I got up always very
early; but even this did not suffice. I worked
always on Sundays,as to which no scruple of
religion made me unhappy,and not infrequently
I was driven to work at night. In the winter when
hunting was going on, I had to keep myself very much
on the alert. And during the London season, when
I was generally two or three days of the week in
town, I found the official work to be a burden.
I had determined some years previously, after
due consideration with my wife, to abandon the
Post Office when I had put by an income equal to
the pension to which I should be entitled if I
remained in the department till I was sixty.
That I had now done, and I sighed for liberty.
Trollope's resignation was accepted by his brother-in-law John Tilley,
now Secretary of the Post Office,^ and this man may have known that
these reasons were only part of Trollope's excuse for retirement.
Actually Trollopes resignation was the result of his being slighted.

136
In the autobiography he tells that he resigned when Mr. Scudamore was
promoted over his head for a position, Assistant Secretary, for i^hieh
he hiraself had applied. According to Sadleir, Edmund Yates became
Scudamores confidential aide In 1367; therefore, when Scudamore was
advanced over Trollope, the novelist thought that he was the victim of
Yatess Intrigue. The final encounter of the two men, however, did
not separate their paths; as late as 1878, a year before Thackeray was
written, both men, in a party of nine, attended a dinner given by
T, H, S, Escott.^ If Trollope did break with Post Office on account
of Yates as has been postulated, it is interesting that Trollope became
a friend of Alfred Austin, whose publication of personal gossip
infuriated Robert Browning and who had doctored Yates during his sick
ness in Switzerland. Trollope became intimate enough with Austin during
the 1870's that they were regular correspondents, and as early as
May 5, 1371, .Austin was allowed a glance at a side of Trollope frequently
ignored, for on that date Trollope wrote to him, nWe are in all misery
of living among friends and pot-houses, going through that very worst
phases of life which consists in a continuous end ever-failing attempt
to he .lolly with nothing to do, While one treads on dangerous ground
when assessing the relation between two men by their friendship with a
third party, the relation between Yates and Trollope seems to be less
sharply antagonistic when the friendship of each with the then rather
disreputable Alfred Austin is brought into view. While two men may
remain in animosity while both befriend a third man, the third man becomes
the path by which the other two come to share common ideas and opinions.

137
Yates might well have written the 1858 article in the indis
cretion of youth, hut the article obviously reflects the jealousy of
the less successful journalist. Trollope was more successful that
Yates even in October, 1859 but to a man with a slight inferiority
complex the more successful Thackeray was an object of jealousy* When
Thackeray died and Trollope ascended to his prominence, the cause for
jealousy remained; hence Trollope eulogized him in sentimental and
rhetorical artificiality. When he took the seats of authority vacated
by Thackeray, the jealousy could only have been kept alive by external
forces that played upon him. One of these forces was the indirect
influence of Edmund Yates coming to him by means of Alfred Austin*
Thus Trollope*s retirement was not motivated merely by Scudamores
advancement over Ms head, but by the deeply rooted feeling that he was
in come way inferior, the same feeling that compelled Mm to almost
superhuman production, and that the advancement was an act officially
recognizing Ms own inability to cope with the work. Because he vent
immediately into the editorship of St. Paul s and soon again was
revealed as a failure, Trollope by 1870 had lost, to some degree, faith
in his oim abilities and did not again match the peak he had earlier
readied. The presence of Yates in these complex situations is no more
surprising than Trollopes friendsMp with another gutter scraper,
for he seems in his own thought to have descended to the level that he
had been on in 1858, With this misconception in mind we can understand
his removal from Waltham House in April, 1871; his absences from
England from May 24, 1871-December 20, 1872, from February 28-October,

138
1875, and from June 29, 1877-January 2, 1878; and his self-evaluation
in An Autobiography, written immediately after the second trip. During
this time (1870-1878), he seems to be searching within himself to dis
cover that which had made him soar before his public and which he had
lost before the plunges of 1867 and 1870. All this self-examination
reaches a climax in his autobiography, the central book for any study
of Trollopes biography.
On April 30, 1876, Trollope, having finished his autobiography,
wrote his son,
I wish you to accept as a gift from me, given
you now, the accompanying pages which contain
a memoir of my life. My intention is that they
shall be published after my death, and be edited
by you. . The publication, if made at all,
should be effected as soon as possible after my
death.
The book was published in 1883, about nine months after the death of its
author, so Henry Trollope adhered to the wishes of his father. Since
the book would not appear during his life, Anthony Trollope wrote, we
may assume, as honestly as he could, taking into consideration his
knowledge that it would eventually be presented to the public. There
fore, the view of Thackeray that is present in the work is probably
founded more closely on Trollopes personal opinion than either the
eulogy or the English Men of Letters volume, and this view must be
appreciated before we can comprehend the full implications of the 1879
volume. Before foeusing upon this view, a few related items are
important. At the time of writing, Trollope claims to he on friendly
terms with John Forster and Wilkie Collins. While pointing out that

139
Forster "was not without his faults," Trollope added that after meeting
him in 1&48 Forster "has since been an intimate and valued friend" and
that Forster was a good editor because he "would always bray in a
literary mortar all critics who disagreed with [him], as though such
disagreement'were a personal offence requiring personal castigation."^
He later refers to Wilkie Collins as "my friend"^ and says of him:
Of Wilkie Collins it is impossible for a
true critic not to speak with admiration,
because he has excelled all his contemporaries
in a certain most difficult branch of his
art. . .76
Since Forster, the biographer of Dickens, and Collins, one of Dickenses
intimate friends (though hostile to Forster), were both hostile to
Thackeray, Trollopes affirmation of friendship, as in his earlier
relation to Yates, placed him in the group personally opposed to
Thackeray. This is significant for it further helps to account for the
picture of Thackeray that was to be created just three years later.
This alliance with people who personally disliked Thackeray, perhaps,
explains the strange omission of Thackeray's name from an important
sentence in the autobiography: "In our own century what literary names
stand higher than those of Byron, Tennyson, Scott, Dickens, Macaulay,
and Carlyle?"^ Yet while Thackeray's name is omitted, Trollope later
says that Dickens is inferior because his style "is jerky, ungrammatical,
and created by himself in defiance of rulesalmost as completely as
that created by Carlyle."^ Although a case cannot be built for
Trollope's opinion of Thackeray deriving from the followers of Dickens,
these references strongly imply that, at least in part, Trollope's

140
opinion may have been colored by that of persons whom he knew as
friends but whom Thackeray had known as enemies.
We have already had occasion to analyse Trollopes opinion of
Thackeray as an editor and Trollope's misleading accusation that the
reason Framley Parsonage was given prominence in the first number of
the Corn'.nil! was due to Thackeray's idleness. At that time Trollope's
reluctance to print a part of a novel before the whole was complete
was mentioned| this principle, however, presents a sharp criticism of
Trollope's contemporary novelists, including Thackerays
I knew, from what I read from month to month,
that this hurried publication of incompleted
work was frequently, I might perhaps say
always, adopted by the leading novelists of
the day. That such has been the case, is
proved by the fact that Dickens, Thackeray, and
Mrs. GaskeXl died with unfinished novels, of
which portions had been already published.
... I was aware that an artist should keep in
his hand the power of fitting the beginning of
of his work to the end. No doubt it is his
first duty to fit the end to the beginning,
and he will endeavour to do so. But he should
still keep in his hands the power of remedying
any defect in this respect.^'
The implication here is that the work so published is inferior to work
that is completed prior to the publication of any part; if this remark
were leveled directly at Thackeray, Trollope is implying that every
major novel by him is of inferior quality, except Henry Esmond, the
only novel first published when in a finished forra and the novel that
Trollope consistently picks as Thackeray's best. At its broadest, this
judgment is extremely narrow and is not significantly contradicted by
the more extended discussion of Thackeray's artistic achievements. This
section opens with an unqualified praise of Thackeray's literary rank:

I do not hesitate to name Thackeray the first.
His knowledge of human nature was supreme, and
his characters stand out as human beings, with a
force and a truth which has not, I think, been
within the reach of any other English novelist
in any period.
Trollope then concentrates on Thackerays ability to draw well-rounded
characters, but soon he inserts a qualification into his praises
Among all our novelists his style is the purest,
as to my ear it is also the most harmoniouis.
Sometimes it is disfigured by a slight toueh of
affectation, by little conceits which smell of
the oil;but the language is always lucid.
The section ends with out and out adverse criticism of Thackerays
final work (and interestingly of the period during which he was editor
of the Cornhill)s
Late in Thackerays life,he never was an old
man, but towards the end of his career,he failed
in his power of charming, because he allowed his
mind to become idle. In the plots which he con
ceived, and in the language which he used, I do
not know that there is any perceptible change;
but in The Virginians and in Philip the reader
is introduced to no character with which he
makes a close and undying acquaintance. And this,
I have no doubt, is so because Thackeray himself
had no such intimacy. His mind had come to be
xjeary of that fictitious life which is always
demanding the labour of new creation, and he
troubled himself with his two Virginians and
his Philip only when he was seated at his desk.
Since Trollope mentioned Thackeray as one of the novelists who followed
poor procedures in writing and since that procedure implies that all
Thackerays major works except Esmond are inferior, this shift from
unqualified praise to unlimited castigation causes Esmond to become a
pivot in Thackeray's career before which he was good but not great and

142
after which he did not rise again to the great. After his most
successful novel, Thackeray, according to Trollope, created his most
successful character, Colonel Neweome, a Judgment that was already
stated in the Cornhill article. Yet even while Trollope may not place
all Thackeray*s work on an equally high level, he maintained that
Thackeray was superior to both George Eliot and Charles Dickens, the
two closest rivals.
The single paragraph in the autobiography that touches in
detail on Thackerays character must be quoted, despite its lengthi
On Christmas day I863 we were startled by the
news of Thackerays death. He had then for many
months given up the editorship of the Cornhill
Magazine.-a position for which he was hardly
fitted either by his habits or temperament,but
was still employed in writing for its pages. I
had known him only for four years, but had grown
into much intimacy with him and his family. I
regard him as one of the most tender-hearted
human beings I ever knew, who, with an exaggerated
contempt for the foibles of the world at large,
would entertain an almost equally exaggerated
sympathy with the joys and troubles of individuals
around him. He had been unfortunate in early
life-unfortunate in regard to money-unfortunate
with an afflicted wife-unfortunate in having his
home broken up before his children were fit to be
his companions. This threw him too much upon
clubs, and taught him to dislike general society.
But it never affected his heart, or clouded his
imagination. He could still revel in the pangs
and joys of fictitious life, and could still feel
as he did to the very lastthe duty of showing
to his readers the evil consequences of evil con
duct. It was perhaps his chief fault as a writer
that he could never abstain from that dash of
satire which he felt to be demanded by the weak
nesses which he saw around him. The satirist who
writes nothing but satire should irrite but little,
or it will seem that his satire springs rather from
his own caustic nature than from the sins of the

143
world in which he lives. I myself regard Esmond
as the greatest novel in the English language,
basing that judgment upon the excellence of
its language, on the clear individuality of the
characters, on the truth of its delineations
in regard to the time selected, and on its
great pathos* There are also in it a few scenes
so told that even Scott has never equalled the
telling. Let any one who doubts this read the
passage in which Lady Castlewood induces the
Duke of Hamilton to think that his nuptials
with Beatrice will be honoured if Colonel
Esmond will give away the bride. When he went
from us he left behind living novelists with
great names5 but I think that they who best
understood the matter felt that the greatest
master of fiction of this age had gone.
Here the adverse and the laudatory opinions merge in a rather confusing
manner; unlike the adverse criticism of the Comhill article, the
negative attributes do not serve here to emphasise the positive. Instead
they assume almost a balance in which neither fully emerges as predomi
nate. He relates that Thackeray was the editor of the Cornhill. but he
adds that he was unsuited for the positions in other words, the initial
judgment is negative. Then he relates his intimacy with Thackeray and
highly praises him only to follow this praise by castigating him for his
dislike of society and for being a satirist. These rapid shifts of
point of view remain until he reaches Thackeray the artist and his
.masterpiece; then the writer is entirely laudatory. The ambivalence of
the first two-thirds of the paragraph, however, weakens the final
praise; Trollope has taken his reader through so many shifts without
emphasizing the one side above the other that confusion rather than
reasoned criticism is the result. He almost drives the reader to think
that his judgment is unfounded, a conclusion that he later invites after

discussing George Eliot and Dickens when he adds; ,fTo me it almost
seems that I must be wrong to place Dickens after Thackeray and George
Eliot, knowing as I do that so great a majority put him above those
authors."^
If Trollope praised Thackeray as an artist without qualifica
tion, his judgment would be questionable, but he did not. In the
autobiography he obviously has a wide range of opinions concerning
Thackeray; Esmond and Colonel Newcome place Thackeray in the highest
rank of English literature! Thackerays procedure of writing is the
lowest. Thackeray's tenderness and generosity place him foremost
among men, but his satirical outlook and his idleness hide him behind
the more personable. When the gloss of sentimentality has been removed,
Thackeray, as seen by Trollope, was humanly weak but creatively strong5
he was an artist to admire, who could overcome faulty procedures to
create a Colonel Newcome, but a man who was weak and struck others
because he was himself of a Mcaustic nature. Trollope had come to love
Thackeray as an artist, but evidently the love for the man never
developed even though he could recognize the good in Thackeray's
character. To recognize this good, however, is not to have a close
friendship based on love with a fellow creatures such friendship
emerges only from understanding, and this quality Trollope lacked. On
the portrait of Thackeray presented by the autobiography only one con
clusion is possible; Trollope's opinion of Thackeray the man remained
influenced by the Yates-Dickens*s circle, with whom Trollope was on
intimate terms, although he was a visitor in Thackeray's heme and a

145
friend of Thackeray's family. Since the influence remained strong,
Trollope, who was obviously drawn to Thackeray's works as the finest
in English literature, was unable to penetrate into Thackeray's
personality, unable to understand or finally to appreciate him as
anything other than a literary figure. Thackeray the man seems to have
been a myth never analyzed by Trollope.
Notes
^Leslie Stephen, Studies of a Biographer (London, 1902), I?, 171-172,
^Autobiography. p. 126.
^Laurence Irving, Henry Irving; The Actor and His World (London,
1951), pp. 230-232.
^Sadleir, p. 205.
^Sala, Life and Adventures, p. 354*
^Recollections and Experiences. II, 58.
7
Auiob1ographv. p. 127,
$
See Yates's original reply to Thackeray in Recollections and
Experiences. II, 15.
^Thackeray Letters. I?, 133-134, fn.17.
10-
Irving, p. 161.
11
Sala, Life and Adventures, pp. 324-325,
^^Da:iry for 1861, Thackeray Letters. I?, 397.
^William Makepeace Thackeray, Thackeray's Letters to An American
Family With An Introduction by Lucy W. Baxter and Original Drawings by
ThackeravTHew York, 1904), p. 174.
^Wisdom. pp. 303-304.
^Ibid., p. 388.

146
Letter of May 13, 1861, to Isabella Blagden. Edward C.
McAleer (ed.}, Deai-est Isa: Robert Browning *s Letters to Isabella
Blagden (Austin, 1951), pp* 76-77
-^George Eliot Letters. Ill, 434.
^Thackeray Letters, I?, 255.
^Autobiography. pp* 130-131.
Wisdom, pp. 316-317.
21McAleer, p. 105.
22
George Eliot Letters. IV, 24.
23Ibid.. IV, 29.
^Autobio graphy. p. 122
2%haekeray. p. 60.
26
Sadleir, p. 254; Booth, p. 14.
27
Thackeray Letters. Ill, 210, fn.39.
28Mm PP. 210-211.
%bid.. pp. 219-220,
3Ibid.. p. 291.
^Ifisdom. pp. 348-352.
3%hackeray Letters. IV, 262-263.
33Ibid.. p. 400.
Trollope Letters, p. 143.
-^Thackeray Letters. IV, 408.
3^Ibid.. p. 411.
37
Letter from Trollope to ¥, W. Follett Synge. Trollope Letters.
p. 142
3%ldsom. pp. 404-405.

147
39
George Eliot Letters. I?, 122.
4McAleer, pp. 184*185*
^Edmund Downey (ed.), Charles Lever: His Life in Hjs Letters
(Edinburgh, 1906), II, 2,
42
Recollections and Experiences. II, 80-81*
4%orster, p. 711,
^Trollope Letters, p, 141.
45Ibid.. pp. 142-143
^Ibid.. p. 142.
47Md*i P- 144.
48
Hester Thackeray Ritchie (ed.), Thackeray and His Daughter. The
Letters and -Journals of Anne Thackeray Ritchie. With Many Letters of
William Makepeace Thackeray. Selected and Edited by Hester Thackeray
Ritchie (Hew York,~192XT7p. 129.
4''Anthony Trollope, BW. M. Thackeray," The Cornhill Magazine. IX
(February, 1864), 134
50
0 H. Lewes's entry for January 1, 1864, in his journal. George
Eliot Letters. IV, 126,
^ Trollope, M, Thackeray, p* 137.
52_
Trollope neither mentions nor alludes to any event before I860.
53
Trollope, ¥. M. Thackeray, p. 134*
54
Ibid., pp. 134-135.
55
Ibid., pp. 136 and 137.
56Ibld.. p. 136.
^^Trollope Letters. p. 146.
5SIbid.s p. 156.

US
^Dickens wrote: "We had our differences of opinion, I thought
that he too much feigned a want of earnestness, and that he made a
pretence of undervaluing his art, which was not good for the art that
he held in trust. But, when we fell upon these topics, it was never
gravely, and I have a lively image of him in ray mind, twisting both
his hands in his hair and stamping about, to make an end of the dis
cussion." "In Memorial, The Cornhill Magazine. IX (February, 1864), 130.
^Letter of January 24, 1864, to Wilkie Collins, Laurence Hutton
(ed,), Letters of Charles Dickens to Wilkie Collins. 1851-1870: Selected
by Miss Georgina Hogarth (London, 1892), p, U5.
^"Dickens, "In Memoriam," p. 132.
62Ibid.. pp. 130-131.
63IkM., p. 130.
^Trollope, H, Thackeray," p. 135.
'^Autobiography. p. 126,
66Ibid,. p. 127.
67
Recollections and Experiences. II, 231.
68
"Autobiography, pp. 211-212.
69Ibid,, p. 214.
70
' Saileir, pp. 205-206,
71
Recollections and Experiences. II, 232.
'Trollope Letters. p* 484.
73
Autobiography, p. 5*
74Ibid.. p. 72,
75
?Ibid., p. 174.
76Ibid.. p. 195.
77Ibid.. p. 89.
7%bid.. p. 190.

149
79Ibld.. p. 113.
9Ibid.. p. 186.
81Ibld.. p. 187.
Tbid., pp. 145-146.
S3Ibid., p. 190.

CHAPTER Y
TROLLOPES THACKERAY; THE MANIPULATION OF FACT
While Trollope wrote An Autobiography for a posthumous
publication, the volume in the English Men of Letters series was
written for immediate publication; therefore, we must understand how
Trollope came to write it and the manner in which he gathered informa
tion for the project. As the death of Thackeray was followed by
Trollopes increasing club life and popularity, the image of Thackeray
evolved from the sentimental to the more honest, but in Thackeray the
knowledge that his siting would be read while he was living caused
Trollope to mis the honest opinion that he held of Thackeray with a
degree of sentimentality that he felt was demanded by certain of his
readers. One of these persons was Thackerays daughter Anne, or as
she is better known, Lady Ritchie, This daughter, who contributed
much to Thackerayan biography, was a sentimentalist herselfhence
Trollope, who had apparently grown familiar with her while Thackeray
lived, softened some of his barbs because she helped him despite her
fathers orders to the contrary. The relation between Trollope and
Lady Ritchie is, therefore, a basic key to the understanding of
Thackeray.
150

151
On the dates that Trollope dined at Thackerays house he
probably saw the eldest daughter, but he knew her primarily from their
relation to the Oornhlll. Since she became associated with this maga
zine in May, i860, when her "Little Scholars" appeared in its pages and
since she acted as her fathers secretary during the final years of
his life, there are good grounds for believing that she and Trollope
kneii rather much of each other before 1364. That this acquaintance was
no mere crossing of paths Is attested as early as 1865 in Lady Ritchies
journal:
Early in the year to Waltham Gross to stay
at the Trollopes'. It was a sweet prim chill
house wrapped in snow.
The Merivales were starring there too. I
remember so well saying to Rose Merivale how
terrible this pain of parting was and would it
ever cease? She said: "Life is over so quickly,
so very quickly," and now I feel how true that
is.
I can also remember in the bitter cold dark
morning hearing Mr. Trollope called at four oclock.
He told me he gave his man half a crown every time
he (Mr. Trollope) didnt get up! "The labourer is
worthy of his hire," said Mr. Trollope in his deep
cheerful lispy voiced
A young lady would not have accepted an invitation to visit a mans home,
especially for a length of time as this entry indicates, unless she
was rather well acquainted with her host. Later, presumably still in
the 1860s since no mention is made of her husband,^ the Trollopes and
Lady Ritchie enjoyed an excursion:
I once saw an artist at work in a little
wood near a knole on a certain day in July,
when we all started on a. happy expedition Mrs.
Millais invited me to join. Her sister was
there, and the Trollopes, and Mr. Charles

152
Clifford. We bad found sunshine everywhere,
and a drag at Sevenoaks, and as we walked
through the woods, we came upon this painter
at work under the trees. Our host stopped for
a moment, "Why," said he to the painter, "you
have not got your lights right. Look, this
is what you want, And he took the brush out of
the painters hand, and made a line or two on
the picture, and then nodded to him and
walked away.
Mr. Trollope laughed, and said, "The man looks
bewildered; he ought to know it is Millais," and
he ran back and told him. Then some one else
[Lady Ritchie3 laughed, and said, "He ought to
know it is Trollope." So a second message was
conveyed to the unfortunate painter, and
greatly amused we all walked on through the
woods to where the carriage was waiting. '
The carefree joviality is obvious; this was the affair of friends who
apparently enjoyed being together. On May 3, 1869, Trollope wrote to
Mary Holmes to tell her that Lady Ritchie was in Italy; therefore, he
was close enough to her to know her whereabouts. When he endeavored to
help Miss Holmes publish some verse in the Cornhill in May, 1874, he
sent the manuscript to Lady Ritchie because her brother-in-law, Leslie
Stephen, was editor; he explained, "Annie wrote 'to me in answer, but
said nothing about the verses.Apparently Miss Holmes wrote later
that year giving Trollope her opinion of Lady Ritchie and George Eliot
as novelists, for on September 18, he replied, "T do not quite agree in
all your criticism, touching A, Thackeray and G, Elliot;not that I
£
do not like Annies work, but I prefer George Elliots very much."
When he heard of the death of Thackeray's younger daughter, Minny
Thackeray Stephen, on November 26, 1875, Trollope sent Lady Ritchie a
brief but moving letter of condolence that alone witnesses his famili
arity with the deceased and id.th the living;

153
1 do not know how to write to you, or how to
be silent. I send one word to say that we
have thought of your grief, and of his
^Leslie Stephen'sj, with many tears.''
Lady Ritchie remained disconsolate over the death until well into 1876,
for on May 7, 1876, Trollope wrote to Miss Holmes!
I have not yet seen Annie T. though I have
been to see her two or three times. My
wife has seen her, and found her fairly well.
Him (Leslie Stephen) I have seen various
times. But a man recovers himself from all
that so much quicker than a woman,
On May 31 he forwarded a letter to her with a short note that added,
". . how glad I should be if I could see you."1" For at least sixteen
years, therefore, Trollope and Lady Ritchie were acquainted, although
the depth, of their acquaintance cannot be probed in any other way than
assuming that they knew each other personally, apparently liked each
other, and joined in common bonds of sorrow at least twice, at the
deaths of Thackeray and Minny Stephen. Trollope's closeness to
Thackeray's daughter is, perhaps, best stated by a passage in his auto
biography in which he praises her talent and gently raps her fingers
for faults inherited from her father:
There are two ladies of whom 1 would fain say
a word, though I feel that 1 am making my list
Cof contemporary novelists] too long, in order
that I may declare how much I have admired their
work. They are Annie Thackeray and Rhoda Broughton.
I have known them both, and have loved the former
almost as though she belonged to me. No two
writers were ever more dissimilar,except in this
that they are both feminine. Miss Thackeray's
characters are sweet, charming, and quite true
to human nature. In her writings she is always
endeavouring to prove that good produces good,

154
and evil evil. There is not a line of which
she need be ashamed,-not a sentiment of which
she should not be proud. But she writes like a
lazy writer who dislikes her work, and who
allows her own want of energy to show itself in her
pages.-*-
Lady Ritchie wished to obey her father's commandment that
there be no biography of him, and when Edward Fitzgerald, Thackeray's
friend of long standing, suggested in 1865 that she commission Tom
Taylor to do a biography, she refused. On May 14 he withdrew his
proposali
I think it is much [the^ best to have no memoir of
your fathers as you say, he is in his Books. I
only suggested Tom Taylor in case there were any;
or to anticipate some stupid Cockney, should any
such project such a work.
While the family could not prevent unauthorized biographies or collec
tions of anecdotes, some did creep into print. On June 20, 1891,
seven years before she turned biographer herself in the "Biographical
Introductions," Lady Ritchie stated her positions
People sometimes regret that my father left no
autobiography, and that no important printed
book has been published about his life; but I
cannot help thinking that whatever may or may
not be published in the future, his life has
been told by himself, in his own pages, better
than any other person can tell it, for those
who have eyes to see and ears to hear; and that
it has been best read by those who best appre
ciated him and his works.12
Twelve years before she made this statement, Leslie Stephen summed up
the same position, and Leslie Stephen's comments are of additional
interest since they appeared the same year as Trollope's little volumes

155
Mr. Thackeray intimated to Ms daughters during
his life that he wished them to have no concern in
any biography of their father. His known wishes were
necessarily regarded as final by them. The family
representatives of an eminent man may often feel it
to be not merely a right but a duty to publish his
life. But it is a duty for the discharge of which
they are responsible to their own consciences and
not to the public. The decision must rest upon the
particular circumstances of the ease, and involves
considerations which can be fully known to none but
the persons immediately concerned. . This alone
may be said; and I say it with the most entire con
viction of its truth. Nothing could be told of Mr,
Thackerays private life by those who have the
fullest means of knowledge which would not confirm
the highest estimate derivable from his writings
of the tenderness of his heart and the moral worth
of his nature; and all that could be told would
tend to justify the profound affection with which
they cherish his memory.13
The appearance of Trollope's volume, therefore, demands some definitions;
what to Thackerays family constituted abiography"? In the final volume
of the Biographical Edition of Thackerays Works of 1898-1899 Lady
Ritchie introduces Leslie Stephen's account of Thackerays life; "In
his biography of my father, reprinted from the 'Dictionary of National
Biography,' the whole framework of the life is given; the story he
purposely left for me to tell.^ Stephen himself called the article,
"little more than a condensed statement of facts."-*-5 in the opening of
1
the first chapter of Thackeray, entitled "Biographical," Trollope
prefaces his work by telling of Thackeray's condemnation of biography
and outlining his purpose;
Acting upon these instructions, his daughter,
while there were two living, and since that the
one surviving,have carried out the order which
has appeared to them to be sacred. Such being
the case, it certainly is not my purpose now to
write what may be called a life of Thackeray.

156
In this preliminary chapter I will give such
incidents and anecdotes of his life as will
tell the reader perhaps all about him that a
reader is entitled to ask* I will tell how he
became an author, and will say how first he
worked and struggled, and then how he worked
and prospered, and became a household word in
English literature. Then I will tell
how Thackeray died, early indeed, but still
having done a good lifes work. Something of
his manner, something of his appearance I can
say, something perhaps of his condition of
mind; because for some few years he was known to
me. But of the continual intercourse of himself
with the world, and of himself with his own
works, I can tell little, because no record
of his life has been made public.^
The meaning of the word "biography as understood by these people is
apparently exemplified by John Forsters life of Charles Dickens, a
voluminous eomplilation of letters, memoirs, and personal or intimate
glances into the subject's personality accompanied by a desire to
eulogise the subject or probe into his emotions and private feelings.
If this type of work represented biographical writing to them, only
Lady Ritchie's commodious introductions begin to touch the genre.
Yet Trollopes single chapter opened, as we shall see, the way for
these introductions because they engendered vitriolic attacks by many
of Thackerays old enemies, especially Yates and Disraeli. The dif
ference between "the story" and the "framework," Lady Ritchie's own
terms for the subjective or personal probing of the subject's mind and
emotions and the more objective or public data which makes up the bulk
of the articles in the Dictionary of Rational Biography, accounts for
her reaction to Trollope's book:

157
Mr# Trollope, that kind old friend who knew
him so much, saw him from a very different
point of view from mine, but he writes with an
affection which never varied, and which was
ever constant to my fatherfs children, though
not untried, I fear, by the present writer.IS
Since Trollope was not writing a voluminous account of Thackeray, the
help of Thackeray*s family is not unusualj Lady Fdtchie apparently felt
that she could aid her friend in his work because it was not to be a
standard life but a critical summary that needed to be placed in a
biographical context.
The English Men of Letters Series was established by John
Morley, who described the series as being "a useful contribution to
knowledge, criticism, and reflection, and bringing all these three good
things within reach of an extensive, busy, and preoccupied world.
When Morley had procured Trollope's agreement to do the volume and had
secured the assent of Thackerays family, he virote to Trollope giving
him the word to go ahead with the writing:
Brighton.
Jan. 27. 79
My dear Trollope,
I am delighted that it is to be, and particu
larly as we have such friendly assent from Stephen
and his sister-in-law. But I confess to a touch
of disappointment that the world is never to have
a full life of him, and a selection from his
letters, which must have been full of flavour, I
don't know how far you will feel free to tell his
story, but 1 hope you will give us as much as ever
you can in the personal vein, by way of background
to the critical and descriptive.
The end of March will do perfectly well. In
fact I shall hardly be peady before. So I will
book you for Mar. 31, w. is exactly 9 weeks from
to-day.

158
It is to be not less than 180 pp,, nor
more than 200j and perhaps I ought to write
down on paper what I mentioned to you, that the
fee is to be 200L (say two hundred poundsas
they put so mysteriously in legal documents
why, I wonder?)
Macmillan is quite as well pleased as I am at
your accession to our bando
I return Stephens letter, When the day
comes, I will tell you the printers to whom copy
is to be sent.
Yours always,
JOHN MOBLEY.2
After this, Trollope's major concern was to gather information,a
particularly trying endeavor since he had not known Thackeray before
1860, H began writing where he knew the mosta chapter on Henry
Esmond, but after sixteen pages he was desperates
... I have got the Thackeray in hand and a
terrible job I find it. There is absolutely
nothing to say,except washed out criticism.
But it had to be done, and no one would do it
so lovingly, 21
Meanwhile, he sought help on the biographical chapter; he xirote to
friends at the Garrick Club who might remember Thackeray and even sent
a questionnaire to Lady Ritchie. Because he began writing this chapter
on February 9, 1879, we can assume that he had finished gathering the
most necessary data.
Since Thackerays most recent biographer asserts that "if
biographical data of value occasionally found their way into print, it
was against the family's -wishes" and adds that "Trollope's appeal for
information . was neatly parried both by Lady Ritchie and by
Fitzgerald,the questions and Lady Ritchie's answers are of great
interest. While it is true that Lady Ritchie's answers to Trollope's

159
twenty-three questions are brief, the questions are adequately-
answered, Since Lady Ritchie's help is extremely important in judging
the volume, each question and answer will be traced into the text.
Before we do this, however, it is necessary to mention the other
sources of Trollope's information. Edward Fitzgerald, in a letter
xjritten early in 1882, described his part in the volume when W. F.
Pollack's son was planning a biography of Thackeray:
... I td.ll answer as well as I can any questions
put to me; or look over, and annotate, any proof
sent to me, as I did in Mr. Trollope's case. MS.
I have not the eyes for* I almost wish your Son
had not undertaken the job for Scribner, remembering
Annie's telling me what her Father said not long
before his Death. "When I drop let there be
nothing witten of me." Mr. Trollope (unto whom I
wish you would make my respects) wrote his Book
under Annie's eyes (who misinformed him in many
ways)5 and, as your Walter is a Gentleman as well
as Mr. T., I will do all for him. X did for the
other; and positively I can do no more.23
If Lady Ritchie helped Trollope but misinformed him, added complica
tions enter the volume. Whether Fitzgerald means that she helped
further than the questionnaire is doubtful; if she did, Fitzgerald's
comment is analogous to her portrait painted by Noel Gilroy Annan in
his biography of Leslie Stephen;
Annie and Minny were by no means pliable, and since
Minny sided with her sister, Leslie found himself
to his chagrin only half her master. "Annie and
Minny used to call me the cold bath from my habit
of drenching Annie's little schemes and fancies
with chilling criticism." Stephen could never
realize that the weighty analysis applied to
destroying a chapter of Buckle had no relevance
in his sister-in-law's world. But there was
worse to come. Annie not only muddled her facts,
she muddled her figures. . Worst of all, she

160
xjcmM talk in the evenings when he wished to
be silent and of these occasions he said in
self-defence, she was always the aggressor."
. Eventually her fabulous departure from
factual truth stirred Stephen to reproof, and as
his sister-in-law was exclaiming, "Indeed, I
tell my maid everything," he groaned, "Oh, yes
Annie, and we do wish you wouldnt," relapsing
again into the twilight of his thoughts while
Annies peals of laughter rang round the icy
dining-room.2-4-
Perhaps it is unfair to question the veracity of one of the major
sources of Thackerayan biography, but even Lady Ritchie herself invited
such criticism when she objected to James T, Fields paper in the
Atlantic Monthly by writing:
An anecdote I sh.4 like omitted is that one of
my father attempting to put his legs out of
the window (w£ of course he would not have thought
of really doing) another w£ seemed to me not
characteristic of him was his stopping in the
street to make a quotation about the Edinbro
speech it seemed to me that althoT I of course
understand that you meant to describe him as
laughing at himself, it would scarcely strike
anyone who read it without knowing him, in that
light.2?
To wish to suppress certain anecdotes either true or false because they
did not seem characteristic to the mans daughter is, indeed, presenting
a false picture to the world, particularly since a man does not always
behave in the same way when with his children as when accompanied by
his peers. The desire to suppress such material leads eventually to
the manipulation of factual details so that the writers preconceptions
will be communicated, not the unprejudiced truth. Thus Fitzgerald might
well be criticising his friends daughter for her biased, hero-worship
of her father, a criticism later repeated by Virginia Woolf, Lady Ritchies
step-niece, in the character of Mrs. Hilbsry in Right and Day.

161
Other than Lady Ritchie and Fitzgerald, Trollope sought the
help of old friends of Thackeray. On February 20, for example, he
acknowledged help from William Howard Russell, one of Thackerays
friends;
Dear Russell
Do not trouble yourself to make any MS.
My biographical chapter will be finished today.
I did not like to do it without letting you
know, and some dozen others, so that if there
were any little trifle to say, it might be
said. An Incident here or there I have got.
What passed between us at the Glub was
probably more valuable than any letter.
Yours always
ANTHONY TR0LL0JE26
Trollopes sources for the biographical chapter, then, seem to be
fourfold; Lady Ritchie, Edward Fitzgerald, Thackerays old friends,
and personal experience. The last, as will be seen, colored the others
so that the work is basically Trollopian even though details have been
gathered from a rather iri.de area after only a fortnights work.
As mentioned before, Trollope was an extremely methodical
writer and kept a notebook in which he registered the amount of work
done each day. The following table is his own daily tabulation for
the Thackeray, and in it the work done between February 9 and 20 has
been carefully recorded. Since he had each page counted to be recorded
at 250 words, we can assume from the table that he had the majority of
his information already gathered by the time he began, which perhaps
accounts for the blanks during the first weeks;

1879 Thackeray 20 pages 250 cash 5 a day 35 a week
Feb
Sat 1
Sun 2
Mon 3
Tues 4
Wed 5
Th 6
Fri 7
Ch.l-30
Esmond
6
2
1
7
7
23
Sa 8

23
S 9
Chap 1- [?1 9
6
M 10
7
T 11
17-21
5
30
Â¥ 12
22-26
5
T 13
27-28-29
3
F 14
. 30 33 .
4 .
S 15
34 to 37
4
53
S 16
33 to 43
6
M 17
44 to 50
7
T 18
51 to 56
6
W 19
57 to 61
5
34
? 20
61 to 6?
6
F 21
S 22
37
S 23
M 24
6
T 25
5
W 26
6
T 27
7
F 28
March
S 1
6
S 2
2
M 3
7
T 4
5
W 5
6
T 6
6
F 7
6
S 8
4
S 9
6
M 10
5
T 11
5
V 12
4
T 13
2
F 14
2

163
S 15 5
S 16 5
M 17 5
T IS 7
W 19
T 20 8
F 21 ¡L
S 22 5
S 23 5
M 24 7
T 25 3
27
A comparison of this table with the section for September, 1364, of
his notebooks, kept when he was writing The Claverlngs reveals the slow
pace of his compositions
Sept. 1
11-20
16
No. 4, 1-10
2
21-30
17
11-20
3
600
18
21-30
4
31-38
19
31-40
5
39-48
20
4148
6
21
No. 5. 1-12
7
Writing Malachis
22
13-24
3
Cove.
23
25-36
9
24
37-48
10
No. 3. 1-12
25
No. 6. 1-12
11
13-24
26
1324
12
25-36
27
25-32
-IX
37-48
28
33-42
14
29
43-48
-15
JO
No. 7. 1-3
While the average number of pages per day for The Claverlngs is ten,
Trollope averaged only about five per day, and at his best wrote only
seven, when writing the English Men of Letters volume. The volume was
hard for him to tirite because it vfs.s a biographical and critical review
of another novelist while The Claverlngs was a novel but also because
Trollope is obviously at odds with the task before him. He wanted to

164
create a work of love*^ that would please Thackerays daughter but also
would remain honest to the opinion of Thackeray that he had expressed
in An Autobiography three years before. The result of this two-fold
drive is the ambivalence of the finished work, an ambivalence that we
have already traced from the inception of his image of Thackeray when
he still befriended Edmund lates.
In later volume (1928) of the English Men of Letters series,
Hugh Walpole helped to propagate an illogical and unfounded idea of
Trollope 1s Thackeray that has unfortunately been accepted without much
serious consideration.
Trollope loved his friend so deeply that one
can feel the throb of his affection in every
page of this book, but at the same time he
would tell no lies, but would write what
seemed to him to be the truth. He knew
Thackeray only in his later years, with the
result that he leaves a rather unfortunate
portrait of a man bowed down with pain and
sickness and loneliness, someone a little
acid from melancholy although loyal and
charming to his close friends.
When we analyse the volume, separating the elements supplied frora various
sources, we can see into the nature of Trollopes opinion of Thackeray.
Such analysis means that the source of each section in the volume, especi
ally in the first chapter, must be identified and that those passages
which cannot be attributed to a source must be set aside as revealing
Trollopes own opinion. The greatest aid to this analysis is the
following questionnaire sent to Lady Ritchie and her answers.^ Since
the manner in which Trollope utilized her information is of utmost
importance in determining the full extent of her help, some of which

165
(as we shall see) must have been oral, the relation between these
documents and the completed book may form a basis from which the non-
Trollopian elements can be removed.
1. Date and place of his birth
Ans, Calcutta. July 18 1811
2. Names of his parents. Any details as to the family
especially his mother
Ans. His Father was Richmond Thackeray the 7th son of life
Makepeace Thackeray lately of Hadley on ra. They were
both Indian civil servants. His mother was Anne Becher
whose father was also in the Companys service. She went
to India and married young. She was only 19 when my
father was born. She was left a widow in 1816 & was
married a year or so afterwards to Major Henry Carmichael
Smith.
3. His education. Charter House when; for How long; Cambridge
how long & when at what college.
Ans. Feb. 1829. 17 years old.
Trinity Coll. Last letter from there Nov [?] 29
4. What fortune did he inherit.
No Answer.
5. Soon spent of course there is a story current as to this
Ans. Some went in an Indian Bank, a great deal in a news
paper which he & his Step-father started. About 1500 went
in cards.
6. low did he live & where on leaving Cambridge till he began to
earn money by writing in London
Ans. After leaving Cambridge he went to Weimar
7. Did he study drawing & where
Ans. He studied drawing in Paris under Bonington

166
8. When was he at Weimar and for how long
Ho Answer.
9* When was he in Paris and for how long
Ans. 8 tf&e 1830
15 Dee 1830
Feb 1831
10. When did he first settle in London
Ans. Off and on after leaving College, His parents lived
in Devonshire & he used to go there and stay after his
marriage.
11.* For what work was he first paid & how much. Were not his
first payments very small,
Ans. Fraser, The Times. The Constitutional.
12. When was he married. What was your Mothers name
Ans. Sept 1837, to Isabella Shawe daughter of Col Mathew
Shawe
13. When were the three girls born and how named
Ans. 1837. 1839* 1840, Anne Jane Harriet.
14. There should be a word about Amy Crowe. How long was she with
you
Ans. From 1853 to 1862 when she married Ed, Thackeray
15. femes and dates of his London residences
Ans. Albion St 1837. Gt Coram St 1836-40
St James St Chambers
13 Young St Kensington 1847-1853
36 Onslow Sqr 1853-1862
Palace Green 1862-1363
16* A list of his writings as nearly chronological as possible with
dates of publication
Ans. Mrs. Perkins 2mas books, Ch & H.
Â¥ F. Pen- Bradbury & Evans
Esmond, Roundabout. Phillip. Smith & El

167
I have not got all the original editions
Hogarthy diamond 1338 or 9 B & E
Vanity Fair 1843 Paris Sketch Book 1840
Pendennis 1850 Irish 1843
Esmond 1852
Newsomes 1854
Virginians 1853
Roundabout papers 1862
Phillip
17. How were his books published & by whom
in Fraser
Punch
or in other periodicals or by what publishers
Eo Answer.
18. A list of the lectures he gave / were there any besides the 4
Georges and the Humourists. Were all the Humourists, as
presented given as lectures
The places where they were given in England, and America
In what Hall In London
Ans. There was Charles which he kept I think fr charities
53 humourists 55 Georges
Edenbro. Newcastle- Glasgow. Leeds.
Sheffield Oxford Cambridge
Devonshire & Willis5 Evans
19. Date of his trip to America
Is it not the ease that the lectures in America were more
profitable in England
When did he first 0 himself Thackeray
Ana, October 1852 & 8 1855 [?]
Yes. All the money he made in America he laid by for us.
20. Are there particular friends to whom reference should be made
Ee told me himself that he had ox-red most m to Shirley Brooks
Higgins & But he was alluding to pecuniary
obligations
Ans. Mr. & Mrs. Brookfield Mrs Elliot & Miss Perry.
Ed. Fitzgerald
Sir Henry Dawson
Mrs. Fladgate
were people he was very proud of.

168
21* He told me shortly before his death that he was worth then
exactly the sum of money that we inherited on coming of
age**-He mentioned a sumI think it was 430,000.
Ans. Ke left about 4730 a year including 5000 for the
copyrights after dues & taxes were paid
22, For some years before his death he was a sufferer
When did that begin
- Ans, He had a dreadful fever wile he was writing Pendennis,
At Rome he was again ill & ever afterwards suffered from
spasms & constant pain & uneasiness
23 Can you give me any other details of his life
Ans. Jerusalem about I843. Rome 53,4
Oxford Election
Cornhill Magazine
Lady Ritchie failed to answer only three of Trollopes questions,
not because she desired to thwart the novelist but because she was
ignorant of the facts demanded. Trollope's fourth question, "What fortune
did he inherit,1 poses the typical problem. Evidently Lady Ritchie had
no reason to wish to suppress this information, for she later details
the amount of her own inheritance. If she wished to conceal the first,
she presumably would not have given the second? therefore, her reticence
is more than likely the result of a lack of knowledge, an assumption on
our part that appears to be entirely logical since Thackeray would have
had little occasion to pass such information to his child. The eighth
question, "When was he at Weimar and for how long, again demands
information that Lady Ritchie would probably not know. Just as Trollope
knew that Thackeray had been in Weimar (or he could not have asked the
question in the first place), Lady Ritchie, while being aware that her

169
father had made such a trip, would scarcely be capable of ascertaining
precise dates for an event that occurred before her parent's marriage.
The third unanswered question, seventeen, asked:
How were his books published & by whom
in Fraser
Punch
or in other periodicals or by what publishers
She answered this in part in another place, but the silence on her
part is easily attributed again to her lack of knowledge, since the
question demands of her a bibliographer's information that she obviously
did not have, because in her answer to question sixteen she inserts, as
an explanation of her omission of some material, "I have not got all
the original editions. These questions posed the necessity of more
knowledge than Lady Ritchie had, since she was only twenty-five when
her father died almost sixteen years before Trollope lias gathering
information. The most detailed and accurate memory of her father could
not predate her tenth birthday, the year Vanity Fair was published, and
probably no clearly adult view could be fomed prior to the time when
she was fifteen or sixteen, the period of The Four Georges and
Thackeray's lectures.
Three more questions were answered, but the answers were not
used in the biographical chapter, although the knowledge has become
infused into Trollope's account. The ninth question, "Mien was he in
Paris and for how long," like the eighth, demanded factual knowledge
beyond Lady Ritchie's ability. Apparently she referred to the dates
of some letters, for her answer cryptically reads:

170
S 1830
15 Dec 1830
Feb 1831
The crossed out y3?!1 reveals her attempt to answer that which she
doesnt know, but obviously unable to leave such ambiguity she supplied
the only dates she could. Trollope incorporates this data, joined with
other answers, into the vague statement, Between Weimar and Paris he
spent some portion of his earlier years. . .32 Trollopes eigh
teenth question was one of his most lengthy:
A list of the lectures he gave / were there
any besides the 4 Georges and the Humorists.
Were all the Humourists, as presented given as
lectures
The places where they were given in England, and
America
In what Hall in London
Lady Ritchie answered this question, remaining silent on the places in
America where the lectures had been presented since she was uninformed:
There was Charles which he kept I think fr charities
53 humourists 55 Georges
Edenbro. Newcastle- Glasgow, Leeds.
Sheffield Oxford Cambridge
Devonshire & Willis Evans
This detailed information has been widely scattered through the volume
in places in which the lectures are mentioned, but no outstanding use
is made of it, In the twentieth question, Trollope asked:
Are there particular friends to whom reference
should be made He told me himself that he had
owed most £f] to Shirley Brooks Higgins &
But he was alluding to pecuniary obligations
Again Lady Ritchie was full in her answer, although she offers no
reasons for the particular list, probably because she was not asked:

171
Mr & Mrs Brookfield Mrs Elliot & Miss Perry
Ed. Fitzgerald
Sir Henry Dawson
Mrs Fladgate
were people he was very fond of.
Of these people only Edward Fitzgerald is mentioned in Thackeray.
although Frank Fladgate*s name appears in the list of Thackeray's
acquaintances.Included with these questions and answers is question
twenty-three, "Gan you give aie any other details of his life," which
received the ambiguous answer:
Jerusalem about 1843. Rome 53,4
Oxford Election
Cornhill Magazine
Trollope does not mention either the trip to Jerusalem or to Rome in
the biographical chapter, but he does speak at length on the other two
details. Altogether seven of the twenty-three questions were not
used in Trollope's writing; therefore, the sixteen remaining questions
were incorporated. The unanswered and the unused questions are of
interest because here Trollope has over-estimated the recollection of
his correspondent or has changed plans in his writing; apparently he
was so desperate in his search for information that he asked some of
the questions hoping to have some leads upon which to build.
The first question that Trollope asked, "Date and place of
his birth," reveals Trollope's desire to substantiate factual informa
tion since both parts were widely known and had even been published in
American newspapers two decades before.^ Lady Ritchie's answer,
"Calcutta. July 18 1811," forms the substance of Trollope's first
statement after describing the purpose of the chapter, "William Makepeace

172
Thackeray was bora at Calcutta* on July 18, 1811."35 The second
question was not this simple; Trollope asked, "flames of his parents.
Any details as to the familyespecially his mother" Lady Ritchies
answer was quite full!
His Father was Richmond Thackeray the 7th son
of Wm Makepeace Thackeray lately of Hadley
on [?] They were both Indian civil servants.
Eis mother was Anne Beecher whose father was
also in the Coaipany's service. She went out
to India and married young. She was only 19
when my father was born. She was left a widow
in 1816 & was married a 7/ear or so afterwards to
Maj or Henry Carmichael Smith.
In Thackeray. Trollope utilised this information almost verbatim,
although a paragraph is inserted after the first sentence.
His father was Richmond Thackeray, son of W M,
Thackeray of Hadley, near Barnet, in Middlesex. . .
His father and grandfather were Indian civil
servants* His mother ms Arme Beecher, whose
father was also in the Companys service. She
married early in India, and was only nineteen
when her son was born. She was left a widow
in 1816, with only one child, and was married a
few years afterwards to Major Henry Garmichael
Smyth. . .3
Except for his ommission of Lady Ritchie's "the 7th" and "lately" in
the first sentence and the addition in the same place of geographical
details and the phrase "with only one child" in the last sentence, the
only changes are verbal and the alteration of "married a year or so
afterwards" to "married a few years later" for propriety's sake. This
information was inserted into the book with much less change than her
answer to Trollope's third question:

173
His education. Charter House when; for How longj
Cambridge how long & when at what college.
She answered without mentioning Charterhouse:
Feb. 1829. 17 years old.
Trinity College. Last letter from there Hov £?3 29
Trollope printed a letter in Thackeray from George Venables, the man
who broke Thackerays nose at Charterhouse and later became a close
friend, to describe Thackerays "life and doings there,but
Trollope gives no dates because Lady Ritchie had remained silent.
Following Venable's letter, he utilizes the information supplied by
her answer: "In February, 1829, when he was not as yet eighteen,
Thackeray went up to Trinity College, Cambridge, and was, I think,
removed in 1830."-^5 Here he altered the age from Lady Ritchies precise,
but at first misleading, statement to a more general and more quickly
understood wording, but of greater importance is his alteration in the
date of Thackeray's removal, which he apparently changed himself
hence "I think"in order to connect Thackeray to The Gownsman which was
not founded until late 1829.As we shall see, the information that
he here used probably came from Fitzgerald, who first met Thackeray
at Cambridge in October, 1829,^ and may have known of Thackeray's con
tributions to The Gownsman., a student periodical that ran until
February 25, 1830.^* Following the discussion of The Snob and The
Gownsman. Trollope combined the answers to his sixth, seventh, and tenth
questions. These three questions and the respective answers are as
follows s

174
6, How did lie live & where on leaving Cambridge till he began
to earn money by writing in London
ins. After leaving Cambridge he went to Weimar
7* Did he study drawing & where
Ans. He studied drawing in Paris under Bonington
10. When did he first settle in London
Ans. Off and on after leaving Cambridge. His parents lived
in Devonshire & he used to go there and stay after his
marriage
In Thackeray, these answers are worked together to form the brief passage
that follows:
In 1330 he left Cambridge, and went to Weimar
either in that year or in 1331, Between Weimar
and Paris he spent some portion of his earlier
years, while his family,-his mother, that is,
and his stepfather,were living in Devonshire.
It was then the purport of his life to become
an artist, and he studied drawing at Paris,
affecting especially Bonnington, the young
English artist who had himself painted at
Paris and who had died in 1828.-*-2
Only the final appositive needed to come from another source, and it
presents the reason for Trollope's alteration of Lady Ritchie's answer
to the seventh question. Lady Ritchie placed Thackeray in Paris prior
to 1823, a time before he had entered Cambridge^ and long before his
first trip to Paris in June, 1329.^ If he studied under Bonnington, he
must have studied before he left Charterhouse, a fact that Mr. Ray has
not mentionedj if he did not, why did Lady Ritchie say he did? This
type of factual mistake may well be the misleading advice that
Fitzgerald mentioned or the fabulous manipulation of details that
irritated Leslie Stephen, Regardless, Trollope learned of this

175
discrepancy when he discovered the date of Benningtons death from
another source and altered her faulty answer by changing the definite
wording to his own more general affecting especially Bennington, The
illogical construction of Trollopes second sentence (there being no
reason in the text for the addition of the temporal clause concerning
Thackerays parents) seems to have resulted from an inordinate elipsis
of a mention of Thackerays frequent visits to Devonshire, which Lady
Ritchie made abundantly clear in her answer to the tenth question*
Trollope appears to have been writing this passage, a factual connec
tive between a discussion of Thackeray's college activities and an
outspoken adverse criticism of Thackerays drawing, under much diffi
culty; he was uncertain in the first sentence exactly when Thackeray
went to Weimar^ and, with no transition other than the word Weimar,
introduced the illogical sentence. Apparently he thought that the
word then in the third sentence acted as a connective, but its
reference can be to Thackerays leaving Cambridge and going to Weimar,
to his spending time in Weimar and Paris, or to his parents living
in Devonshire. This awkwardness, while frequent in the factual
passages in Thackeray, is less notable in those passages that relate
details that Trollope knew from personal experience or that are
primarily Trollopes comments on Thackerays abilities or personality.
The fifth question and answer pose a textual problem unlike
any presented by the first ten questions. Actually the fifth question
was a continuation of the unanswered fourth, but Lady Ritchie had the
information to reply to five;

176
4 What for time did he inherit
Ho Answer*
5. Soon spent of course there is a story current as to this
Ans, Some went in an Indian Bank, a great deal in a news
paper which he & his Step-father started. About 1500
went in cards.
In Thackeray, however, this answer is incorporated into materials that
obviously came from another source; in the following passage, quoted at
length, I have italicized the portions that ultimately derive from Lady
Ritchies answer!
In 1832, Thackeray came of age, and inherited
his fortune,as to which various stories have
been told. It seems to have amounted to about
five hundred a year, and to have passed through
his hands in a year or two, interest and
principal. It has been told of him that it was
all taken ax-ray from him at cards,46 but such
was not the truth. Some went in an Indian bank
in which he invested it. A portion was lost at
cards. But with some of it.the larger part as
I think.he endeavoured in concert with his
stepfather. to float a newspaper. which failed.
There seem to have been two newspapers in which
he was so concerned, The Rational Standard and
The Constitutional. On the latter he was engaged
with his stepfather, and in carrying that on he
lost the last of his money. The Rational
Standard had been running for some weeks when
Thackeray joined it, and lost his money with it.
It ran only for little more than twelve months,
and then, the money having gone, the periodical
came to an end.47
If Mr, Ray is correct, both Trollope and Ladjr Ritchie are wrong when
they place the greatest loss in the newspaper failure, for he asserts
''the bulk of Richmond Thackerays estate was lost in the collapse of the
great Indian agency-houses.1^ Trollope has, again probably for
propriety's sake, omitted any reference to the sum lost in gambling,

177
but by emphasizing the money lost in the attempt to float The National
Standard, he is able to moralize in the next passage over the futility
of such endeavors. Nevertheless, in the above passage only a small
portion comes from the questionnaire; the source of the remainder is
rather obvious. Since Lady Ritchie could have relied only on hearsay,
the only other person who could supply the approximate amount of
Thackeray1s inheritance (Trollopes figure being only i>75 too much) and
the details of The National Standard would have been someone who knew
Thackeray at that time. Unless he received this information from a
source that is not mentioned elsewhere in the volume, Trollope was
informed by Edward Fitsgerald, who was quite intimate with Thackeray at
that period. It is doubtful whether Lady Ritchie was conversant with
these details since she falsely implies in her answer that more was
lost in the newspaper endeavor than in the bank failure and since she
did not know the amount of Thackerays inheritance.
In Thackerays domestic matters, on the other hand, Lady
Ritchie had more knowledge than anyone else whom Trollope solicited for
aid; here a textual problem similar to that of question five is posed.
Three sets of questions are relevant. The least difficult is the
material that deals with Amy Crowe that Trollope had placed in his
fourteenth question:
14* There should be a word about Amy Crowe. How long was
she with you
Ans. From 1853 to 1862 when she married Ed. Thackeray

173
In the following paragraph from the book I have again italicised the
material from the questionnaire:
In 1353. Thackeray having then his own two girls
to provide for, added a third to his family, and
adopted My Crowe, the daughter of an old friend,
and sister of the well-known artist now among us.
How it came to pass that she wanted a home, or
that this special home suited her, it would be
unnecessary here to tell even if I knew. But
that he did give a home to this young lady,
making her in all respects the same as another
daughter, should be told of him* He was a man
who liked to broaden his back for the support of
others, and to make himself easy under such
burdens.^9 In 1362. she married a Thackeray
cousin, a young officer with the Victoria Cross,
Edward Thackeray, and went out to India.--where
she dledT^'
Obviously Trollope knows nothing about My Crowe prior to 1360 except
her family connections which he learned after being entertained in
Thackerays house and after meeting her5 therefore, he admits his
ignorance, giving only the date supplied by Lady Ritchie, The details
of her marriage, on the other hand, are contrasted to his ignorance
of the manner of her death; Trollope was a visitor in Thackerays
home when Amy Crowe was married, but he had apparently learned of her
death afterwards, no details being given to him. Of greater complexity
is the way Trollope used the fifteenth question:
15. Names and dates of his London residences
Ans. Albion St 1337. Ct Coram St 1835-40
St James St Chambers
13 Young St Kensington 1847-1853
36 Onslow Sqr 1853-1862
Palace Green 1362-1863

179
The corresponding passage in which the majority of these residences are
mentioned is rather surprising, for these details have been subordinated
to other elements; again the italics are mines
In his youthful,all but boyish,days in
London, he delighted to "put himself up" at the
Bedford, in Covent Garden. Then in his early
married days he lived in Albion Street, and
from thence went to Great Corara Street, till
his household there was broken up by his wifes
illness, He afterwards took lodgings in St.
Jamess Chambers. and then a house in Young
Street, Kensington. Here he lived from 1847.
when he was achieving his great triumph with
Vanity Fair, dox-m to 1853. when he removed to
a house which he bought in Onslow Square. In
Young Street there had come to lodge opposite to
him an Irish gentleman, who, on the part of
his injured country, felt very angry with
Thackeray. The Irish Sketch Book had not been
complimentary, nor were the descriptions which
Thackeray had given generally of Irishmen; and
there was extant an absurd idea that in his
abominable heroine Catherine Hayes he had
alluded to Miss Catherine Hayes the Irish
singer. Word was taken to Thackeray that this
Irishman intended to come across the street
and avenge his country on the calumniators
person. Thackeray immediately called upon the
gentleman, and it is said that the visit was
pleasant to both parties. There certainly was
no blood shed.51
The anecdote, not deriving from the questionnaire, presents an interesting
problem. While it is the type of story a man might tell on himself
either in Trollopes presence, particularly since he had resided in
Ireland and would appreciate it, or in the presence of club members,
Lady Ritchie recited it as within her memory when she wrote the
"Biographical Introductions" in 1899. Her version is more complete
than Trollopes:

ISO
It was, I believe, in consequence of the
allusion to Catherine Hayes in "Pendennis" that an
incident occurred tilth comes within my own recol
lection. One evening my father received a letter
signed by a Mr. Briggs, announcing that a company
of young Irishmen had determined to chastise him
for this, and for various other supposed personal
insults of an equally serious nature, and intended
to come over one by one until their purpose was
accomplished# Mr. Briggs had taken lodgings opposite
to our house in Young Street, and was waiting until
my father should go out, to attack him.
In the window of our dining-room was presently
established a stout good-humoured-looking man in
a mustard-coloured coat, who was, so we are told,
a detective. He arrived immediately after break
fast, and spent the morning staring at the opposite
doorway, while my father finished his mornings
work. When lunch time came the detective descended
for his meal into the kitchen. Some friends arrived
to luncheon. My father said the situation was
becoming ridiculous and unbearable, and to our alarm
and excitement he walked straight across the street
and knocked at the door of 1%. Briggs lodging and
went in. We waited wondering in the bow-window;
at the end of twenty minutes or so the lodging-
house door opened, and he came out, unruffled and
composed. He had walked in, caused himself to be
announced suddenly by the landlady; had told Mr.
Briggs he was come to talk the matter over, and to
find out in what he had offended him. The young
manhe was a very young man-blustered at first,
then suddenly cooled down and listened to reason.
He had never heard of the real Catherine Hayes,
the murderess, before. He seems to have been
surprisingly amenable to explanation, and after ten
minutes conversation, to my father's great relief,
he actually promised to go back to Ireland. And
so he did, that very evening.52
Here is a possibility of Trollopes learning an anecdote from the daughter
rather than the father, although whichever may be the ultimate source
for the passage in Thackeray cannot with accuracy be determined. That
Lady Ritchie had remembered the episode and thought it iraportant enough
to add to her "Biographical Introductions" may well indicate that she

131
was the probable source, and that Trollope, having heard the anecdote
from her, inserted in the most convenient place in his account, the
passage describing Thackeray's residences. The third set of questions
is by far the most complex; questions twelve and thirteen appear in the
questionnaire as follows;
12 When was he married. What was your Mothers name
* Ans. Sept 1337, to Isabella Shawe daughter of Col Mathew
Shave.
13. When were the three girls born and how named
An§* 1337. 1839. 1340. Anne Jane Harriet.
Obviously Lady Ritchie has made a mistake in the date of her parents
marriage; actually Thackeray married Isabella Shawe on August 20, 1836,^
and Anne was born on Jume 9, 1937.^ To have later claimed such intimate
knowledge of her father, Lady Ritchie certainly reveals a total ignorance
here, especially since she places the date of her parent's marriage some
three months after her own birth. Rut Trollope had no other source, so
he used the incorrect date. These two questions are joined in the
opening sentence of a rather important paragraph;
In 1337 Thackeray married Isabella, daughter of
Colonel Matthew Shawe, and from this union there
came three daughters, Anne, Jane, and Harriet.
The name of the eldest, now Mrs. Richmond
Ritchie, who has followed so closely in her
father's steps, is a household word to the world
of novel readers; the second died as a child; the
younger lived to marry Leslie Stephen, who is too
veil known for me to say more than that he wrote,
the other day, the little volume on Dr. Johnson
in this series; but she, too, has now followed
her father. Of Thackeray's married life what
need be said shall be contained in a very few
words. It was grievously unhappy; but the misery

of It esa from Clod, at ms la so is due
to hxmm fatilt. She becas ill, at her sit
failed her* Thar as a period during which
be would not believe that her Ills# was ser
than illness, at then he clung to iter and
waited cm her with m assiduity of affection
which only made his task the more painful to
hita, it last it became evident that she should
live in the ooffifaaioBehip of mm one with whoa
her life might be altogether quiet, am she bed
sines been domiciled with a lady with whoa she
has been happy 'Sms she ms$ after but a few
years of married life, taken away from him,
at he becas as it were a widower till the end
of his days*55
Trollop, probably aware of the scandal that the fallacious date would
have caused, silently ttted the birth years of the three children
the bulky second sentence is a typical Trollopica comment on the
factual data supplied by Ms sources* iter it no question of lie
easing ultimately fgm anywhere but Trollop* personal asqxsriaace*
The remainder of the paragraph, si the other hand, presante material
that Trollop would of necessity hove le&mt fresa sosa masher of the
family, possibly from Lady titehie herself* Doubtless Thackeamy would
not heve added the touches of his own affection or the euphemistic
description of & feminine companion if he had told the story to
Trollope, neither would Trollope have been so delicate here, when he is
later tactless enough to refer to Mrs* Thackeray* malady as "a
skeleton in [tbej cupboard,^ unless he heard the story told in those
terms. He may have heard it free sue of Thackeray*s old friend at
the Garrick Club, but they would not have adat these touches. If Lady
Biichie was the source, he did not not to relate it specifically for
the purposes of the volume* therefor, Trollope say wen Imm learned

183
it before the book materialized even as a faint possibility and,
remembering it when he was writing, inserted it here. Two other
passages that had to derive from the same ultimate source are the
relation of Thackerayts revulsion of biography and his orders forbidding
one of himself and the account of Thackeray and his mother that is
sandwiched between the information taken from the second question and
George Venables*s letters
All who knew William Makepeace remember his
mother well, a handsome, spare, gray-haired
lady, whom Thackeray treated 'with a courtly
deference as trail as constant affection.
There was, however, something of discrepancy
between them as to matters of religion, Mrs*
Carmichael Smyth was disposed to the somewhat
austere observance of the evangelical section
of the Church, Such, certainly, never became
the case with, her son. There was disagreement
on the subject, and probably unhappiness at
intervals, but never, I think, quarrelling,
Thackeray*s house was his mothers home when
ever she pleased it, and the home also of his
stepfather,5S
Except for questions twenty-one and twenty-two, the remaining
questions concern bibliographical, not biographical, information and
are not pertinent to this study. Question twenty-one concerned the
inheritance Thackeray left to his daughters s
21, He told me shortly before his death that he was worth then
exactly the sum of money that he inherited on coming of age
He mentioned a sumI think it was £>30,000,
Ans. He left about £730 a year including 5000 for the
copyrights after all dues & taxes were paid.
This information is the basis of the following paragraph in which
Trollope joins his question and Lady Ritchies answer:

184
A little before his death Thackeray told
me that he had then succeeded in replacing
the fortune which he had lost as a young man.
He had, in fact, done better, for he left an
income of seven hundred and fifty pounds
behind him*59
The combination of information that he personally knew and that Lady
Ritchie offered to him again reveals the mosaic effect of the finished
work; Trollope seems to have known only rather broad generalities, the
details being filled in from other sources. Whereas he joined reliable
information in this case, he joined the information to hypothesis when
he used question twenty-two. His question reveals his knowledge of
Thackerays physical condition in the 1860s, while Lady Ritchies
answer reveals her ignorance of the exact time, actually before her
birth, that Thackeray began suffering.
22* For some years before his death he was a sufferer
When did that begin.
Ans. He had a dreadful fever while he was writing Pendennis.
At Rome he was again ill & ever afterwards suffered from
spasms & constant pain & uneasiness
I have quoted the corresponding paragraph at length and numbered each
sentence so that the development of one of the small divisions, typical
of Thackeray, can be more carefully analyzed; by seeing the structure
of Trollopes thought in this passage, the larger movements in the book,
those of considerable length, will be clearer. Earlier we saw how
Trollope combined several answers to form a rather incoherent sequence;
here we can perceive the same incoherence as Trollope x^eaves his source
material into his own analysis.

185
(l)This ought to have been the happiest period
of his life, and should have been very happy,
(2) He had become fairly easy in his circumstances,
(3) He had succeeded in his work, and had made for
himself a great name, (4) He was fond of popularity,
and especially anxious to be loved by a small circle
of friends. (5) These good things he had thoroughly
achieved. (6) Immediately after the publication of
Vanity Fair he stood high among the literary heroes
of his country, and had endeared himself especially
to a special knot of friends. (7) His face and
figure, his six feet four in height, with his flowing
hair, already nearly gray, and his broken nose, his
broad forehead and ample chest, encountered every
where either love or respect; and his daughters to
him were all the world,the bairns of whom he says,
at the end of the White Squall ballad;
I thought, as day was breaking,
My little girls were waking,
And smiling, and making
A prayer at home for me.
(8) Nothing could have been more tender or endearing
than his relations with his children. (9) But still
there was a skeleton in his eupboard,or rather two
skeletons. (10) His home had been broken up by his
wifes malady, and his own health was shattered.
(11) When he was writing Pendennis, in 1849, he had
a severe fever, and then those spasms came, of which
four or five years afterwards he wrote to Mr, Reed. ^
(12) His home, as a home should be, was never restored
to him,or his health* (13) Just at that period of
life at which a man generally makes a happy exchange
in taking his wifes drawing-room in lieu of the
smoking-room of his club, and assumes those domestic
ways of living which are becoming and pleasant for
matured years, that drawing-room and those domestic
ways were closed against him. (14) The children were then
no more than babies, as far as eociety was concerned,
things to kiss and play with, and make a home happy if
they could only have had their mother with them*
(15) I have no doubt there were those who thought that
Thackeray was very jolly under his adversity.
(16) Jolly he was, (17) It was the manner of the man
to be so,if that continual playfulness which was
natural to him, lying over a melancholy which was as
continual, be compatible with jollity. (18) He laughed,
and ate, and drank, and threw his pearls about with
miraculous profusion. (19) But I fancy that he was far
from happy. (20) I remember once, when I was young,
receiving advice as to the manner in which I had better

186
spend my evenings; I vas told that I ought to
go home, drink tea, and read good books,
(21) It vas excellent advice, but I found that
the reading of good books in solitude vas not an
occupation congenial to me, (22) It was so, I
take it, with Thackeray, (23) He did not like his
lonely drawing-room, and went back to his life among
the clubs by no means with contentment.&1
In sentence 1 Trollope stated what should be the central idea of the
paragraph, and which does in places hold the structure of the paragraph
together. Until sentence 7 he presented the reasons why Thackeray
should have been happy, thus fully defining the final phrase of the
first sentence, With the ungainly seventh sentence, however, the
logical development becomes confused. The unexpectedly detailed physical
description of Thackeray purports to define the popularity with the small
group of friends mentioned in sentences 4 and 6 so that the logical link
is the expansion from the "special knot of friends" to the more embracing
phraseology of "everywhere either love or respect; nevertheless, the
physical description becomes so syntactically awkward that grammatical
relation is altogether lost. The second clause, like sentence 5, employs
an inverted order, which -unlike the earlier example remains awkward.
Apparently this awkwardness is, in part, due to Trollopes wavering,
for at this point he digressed from the logical sequence developed
through the first six sentences. He inserted the quotation, and then
in sentence 8 he makes a statement, totally unrelated, concerning
Thackerays relation to his children. With the strong conjunction
"But still" in sentence 9, Trollope reverts to the logical sequence of
sentences 1 through 6, only now he presented the negative side or those

187
situations that prevented Thackerays happiness. The introduction of
tliis side is blunt and, perhaps, lacks proper taste following the
statement of the eighth sentence. He inserted the information from
Lads?- Ritchie in sentence 11, a sentence that logically follows the
final clause of 10, but in the next he again breaks his fluidity by
inserting a thought that refers back to sentence 8, This discussion
of Thackerays home life seems pulled into the sequence, even though
it adds to the negative circumstances, because Trollope is slowly
forgetting his original logical sequence and is moving into a new
thought? therefore, it presents the contradiction to sentence 8 that
Thackeray, while being tender or endearing to his daughters, found
no pleasure in his home life and sought refuge at his clubs. Obviously
Trollope does not wish to Imply this contradiction, but he in no way
resolves it, for he immediately in sentences 15 through 19 reverted
to the original pattern of sentences 1 through 6. In fact, the para
graph has a well developed and clearly logical sequence of ideas if
sentences 7 through 14, the ones in which he wandered from his subject,
were omitted. While there is no reason to suppose that these sentences
were inserted into an already developed paragraph, such would appear
to be the case, if Trollope had not consistently written in this manner
throughout the volume. It is further interesting that two, possibly
three, sources are utilized in this central portion; Trollope had
difficulty in using the material. He groped for a way to incorporate
them and finally, at the expense of his logical development, forced
them into his text. The same is true of sentences 20 through 23 in

188
which he padded the account by relating a personal experience then
forced it to apply to his subject by an illogical assumption. The
entire paragraph, therefore, is a logical sequence broken by awkward
insertions of factual data or personal opinion. In terms of the entire
biographical chapter, the same development is noticeable and at time
highly confusing. After his introduction, for example, he presented
the material concerning Thackerays parentage and birth but inserted a
paragraph of reminiscences of persons who might be related to
Thackeray before he mentioned Thackerays mother; after describing Mrs.
Carmichael Smyth, Trollope quoted a letter from Venables concerning
Thackerays life at Charterhouse, mentioned that Thackeray went to
Cambridge, and then digressed for almost two pages to speculate about
Thackerays relation to undergraduate publications, Tennysons
Timbuetoo, and snobbery. Almost consistently the writing is crabbed
and stiff when he employs details gathered from the various sources
but fluid when he is writing either from personal opinion or placing
value judgments on the factual details. The result of this stylistic
feature was to overemphasize his own insertions. When he described
Thackerays style in Barry Lyndon in a later passage in the volume,
Trollope himself accounted for the difference between the stiff and
the fluid passages in his own writing:
As one reads, one sometimes is struck by a
conviction that this or the other writer
has thoroughly liked the work on which he
is engaged. There is a gusto about his
passages, a liveliness in the language, a
spring in the motion of the words, an
eagerness of description, a lilt, if I may

189
so call It5 in the progress of the narrative,
which makes the reader feel that the author
has himself greatly enjoyed what he has
written. He has evidently gone on with his
work without any sense of weariness, or doubt;
and the words have come readily to hinSJ~
While we have attempted to analyze this quality from a less impression
istic viewpoint, the gusto that Trollope here mentioned is precisely
what is lacking in those passages in which he attempted to utilize his
sources.
While Lady Ritchie was doubtless not the sole informant, she
was the most important. The help from other contributors is more
fragmentary and scattered through the biographical chapter; nevertheless,
certain passages appear to be dependent upon sources that can be
identified with relative accuracy. Other than the letter from George
Venables, Trollope himself relates that he was in the possession of
certain documents!
I have had sent to me for my inspection an
album of drawings and letters, which, in the
course of twenty years, from 1829 to 1849,
were despatched from Thackeray to his old
friend Edward Fitzgerald.'3 3
Because the letters cover the period between 1829 and 1849, none of the
information relating to Thackerays life after 1849 appears to derive
from this source. Since 1829 is the date of Thackerays presence at
Cambridge, where he met Fitzgerald, the possibility of Fitzgeralds
contributing the information concerning The Snob and The Gownsman is
probable. The nature of the paragraph on The Snob further suggests that
Trollope was given no more than a broad hint, except for the parody of
Tennysons Timbuctoo:

190
In 1329 a little periodical was brought out
at Cambridge, called The Snob, with an
assurance on the title that it was not con
ducted by members of the university. It is presumed
that Thackeray took a hand in editing this. He
certainly wrote, and published in the little
paper, some burlesque lines on the subject which
was given for the Chancellor's prize poem of the
year. This was Timbuctoo. and Tennyson was the
victor on the occasion.^4
Again Trollope was only told that Thackeray contributed to The Gownsman.
because he does not know any definitely attributed articles?
The Snob lived, I think, but nine weeks, and
was followed at an interval, in 1330, by The
Gownsman, which lived to the seventeenth number,
and at the opening of which Thackeray no doubt
had a hand.6$ It professed to be a continuation
of The Snob. It contains a dedication to all
proctors, which I should not be sorry to attri
bute to him,
"To all Proctors, past, present, and future
Whose taste it is our privilege to follow,
Whose virtue it is our duty to imitate,
Whose presence it is our interest to avoid."
There is, however, nothing beyond fancy to induce
me to believe that Thackeray was the author of the
dedication, and I do not know that there is any
evidence to show that he was connected with The
Snob beyond the writing of Timbuctoo.^
Since Trollope would not have known that Thackeray was connected with
these periodicals without help, he may have learned these details from
the man whom Thackeray had befriended while at Cambridge. Another case
of aid from Fitzgerald that has already been discussed was the informa
tion concerning the amount of Thackerays inheritance and the futile
attempt to float The National Standard. While these two sections may
have been constructed from information received through other sources,
the letters that Fitzgerald loaned to Trollope cover this period; since

191
Fitzgerald had been an intimate friend daring the period between
Cambridge and the loss of the inheritance, there is no reason to
hypothesize another source for the information.
Further information came, of course, from Thackerays friends
in the Garrick Club whom Trollope interviewed, and two passages in
Thackeray can be readily attributed to these people. In the first,
Trollope quotes remarks that these friends had heard from Thackeray
concerning his work:
Who else would have told such a story of
himself to the first acquaintance he chanced
to meet? Of Thackeray it might be predicted
that he certainly would do so. No little
wound of the kind ever came to him but what
he disclosed it at once. ,fThey have only
bought so many of my new book. Have you
seen the abuse of my last number? ¥hat am
I to turn my hand to? They are getting tired
of my novels, "They dont read it, he said
to me of Esmond. So you dont mean to publish
my work?" he said once to a publisher in an
open company.
While not of great factual import, these remarks are used by Trollope
to interpret Thackerays personality, particularly his feelings of
inferiority; therefore, Trollope uses the information to censure
Thackeray for a trait which he himself displayed:
Other men keep their little troubles to them
selves. I have heard even of authors who have
declared how all the publishers were running
after their books; I have heard some discourse
freely of their fourth and fifth editions; I
have known an author to boast of his thousands
sold in this country, and his tens of thousands
in imerica; but I never heard anyone else declare
that .no one would read his ehef-d1 oeuvre. and
that the world was becoming tired of him. It
was he who said, when he was fifty, that a man
past fifty should never write a novel.

The other passage that is definitely dependent on the Garrick Club
friends is used for more laudatory purposes until Trollopes final
clause of his comment on the informations
192
In inquiring about him from those who survive
him, and knew him well in those days, I
always hear the same account, "If I could
only tell you the impromptu lines whieh fell
from him!" "If I had only kept the drawings
from his pen, which used to be chucked about
as though they were worth nothing!" "If I could only
remember the drolleries!" Had they been kept, there
might now be many volumes of these sketches, as to
which the reviexjer says that their talent was
"altogether of the Hogarth kind." Could there be
any kind more valuable? Like Hogarth, he could
always make his picture tell his storyj though,
unlike Hogarth, he had not learned to draw.6s
If these passages, however, represent the only information that
Trollope gathered from this source, the friends were remarkably sterile
in their recollections. Several definitely dependent passages ?aight
have been built on information with which these men would have been
familiar although there Is no indication in the material that allows
a positive identification. The most important of these passages are as
follows s
(1) The anecdote of Thackerays being asked to
shorten The Great Koggarty Diamond.9
(2) Thackeray's reasons for the selection of the
pseudonym, Michael Angelo Titmarsh.?0
(3) The poem that an informant remembered for
forty years before giving It to Trollope.91
{4) Thackeray's defence of his leetures in 1357.92
(5) Thackeray's unsuccessful application for a
position in the Post Office.93
(6) Thackeray's unsuccessful stand for Parliament.94
Of these six passages only the sixth, which was mentioned by Lady
Ritchie, and the fifth, which may have come from Trollope's association

193
with the Post Office, can be attributed to a source outside the
Garrick Club, yet the friends at the Club, where Thackeray spent a
great portion of his time, would have been familiar with the details
of all six passages. Since Trollope received help from fellow Club
members, to ascribe these parts of the biographical chapter to this
source is well founded.
A final general source of information that was at Trollopes
disposal was material already in print before his writing. Of these
the greatest single source was, as is to be expected, Thackerays own
works. While Trollope quotes poems in several places,^ he also
utilises more extensive passages from Thackerays prose. Passages
from Lovel the Widower are purported to display Thackerays opinion of
the futile newspaper endeavora letter to The Morning Chronicle in
which Thackeray advocated governmental pensions for writers is sand
wiched, rather illogicaliy, between the account of Thackerays desire
to enter the civil service and Trollopes criticism of the procedure
77
of writing used by authors who wrote for serial publication.
np
Trollopes other published sources are quite varied; he used reviews,
Macreadys Diary. ^ Forsters Life of Dickens,"5 Dickenss !,In
81
Memoriam, and the letters of Thackeray to Mr, Reed, the only private
po
letters of Thackeray then in print. While this list is far from
complete, it does help to round out the amount of labor Trollope exerted
in gathering information for the sixty-one pages of his biographical
chapter. He had admitted to George Smith sixteen years earlier that he
did not know enough to write a life of Thackeray, and even in 1879 there

194
were other people more qualified to write the memoir. The large number
of sources again raises the question of why Trollope happened to be
selected for the work. Lady Ritchie and Leslie Stephen must have known
his familiarity with Thackeray when they agreed to Morley's appeal for
permission, but they also would have known that Trollope placed
Thackerays literary achievement above that of any contemporary. The
selection, therefore, appears to have come as the result of a misguided
concept of Trollopes opinion of Thackeray the man so that when
Trollopes opinion ms published, they realised for the first time that
his opinion of Thackerays personality was not the same as they had
imagined. Perhaps, this realisation was in itself shocking enough for
their subsequent anger, since one of them had given help, but more
probably the manner in which Trollope manipulated his sources was
basic to their repulsion.
Having seen Trollopes reliance on his sources, we can more
fully understand those parts of the biographical chapter that directly
reflect his own opinion of Thackeray's personality. The stylistic
differences between the dependent and the original passages clearly
reveal, in many cases, Trollope's opinion, and because the original was
written with much great fluency, Trollopes opinion causes the factual
information to be subordinated in the readers mind. Earlier we
analysed the obvious difficulty Trollope had when he worked Lady
Ritchie's answers to questions six, seven, and ten into his account$
this short passage is the opening of a typically Trollopian criticism:

195
la 1330 he left Cambridge, and vent to Weimar
either in that year or in 1831. Between Weimar
and Paris he spent some portion of his earlier
years, while his family,his mother, that is,
and his stepfather,were living in Devonshire.
It was then the purport of his life to become
an artist, and he studied drawing at Paris,
affecting especially Bonnington, the young
English artist who had himself painted at Paris
and who had died in 1828. He never learned to
draw,perhaps never could have learned. That
he was idle, and did not do his best, we may
take for granted. He was always idle, and only
on some occasions, when the spirit moved him
thoroughly, did he do his best even in after
life* But with drawing,or rather without it,
he did wonderfully well even when he did his
worst. He did illustrate his own books, and
everyone knows how incorrect were his delineations.
But as illustrations they were excellent. How
often have I wished that characters of my own
creating might be sketched as faultily, if with
the same appreciation of the intended purpose.
Let everyone look at the 'plates,'1 as they are
called in Vanity Fair, and compare each with the
scenes and the characters intended to be dis
played, and there see whether the artist,if we
may call him so,has not managed to convey in
the picture the exact feeling which he has described
in the text.'83
As soon as he had discarded the factual details, Trollope moves into his
own opinion; the illogical and awkward constructions immediately are
followed by smooth logical patterns and graceful cadences. Since the
discussion of Thaekeray's inability to draw and idleness fall within
the more fluent section of the paragraph, these elements, not the
factual, are emphasized. Because this type of emphasis is frequent in
the chapter, that which claims to be biographical is, in effect,
Trollopes personal opinion of Thaekeray's character pulled into a
structure by a few factual details. To see Trollopes opinion of
Thackeray is, then, to understand the chapter in its fullest light and
to appreciate Trollopes relation to his subject.

196
Trollope tells his reader early in the chapter, "Something of
his manner, something of his appearance I can say, something perhaps
of his condition of mind; because for some few years he was known to
me>tt'34 The nature of such an assertion is to cover his statements with
the aura of truth and throw the unsuspecting off guard. But the view
held by Trollope, as we have already seen in the autobiography, did not
allow him to present an image that was either agreeable to the subjects
daughter, who saw her father from a more sentimental viewpoint, or
accurate to Thackerays later biographers who could look upon their
subject without the blinders of personal antagonism. The relation
between the two novelists was not one that led the younger to an
unbiased view; therefore, when he attempted to soar to eulogy in the
last paragraph of the first chapter, perhaps to please Lady Ritchie,
who had offered important help, his choice of words is forced, overdone,
and sentimental:
Such is my idea of the man whom many call a
cynic, but whom I regard as one of the most
soft-hearted of human beings, sweet as
Charity itself, who went about the world
dropping pearls, doing good, and never
wilfully inflicting a wound,5
The absurd comparison of Charity or Christ and Thackeray might have
been moving if the earlier portions of the chapter had skillfully or at
least consistently led to it as an inevitable conclusion, but to move
from Trollopes censures into this kind of figurative language reduces
the concluding paragraph to bathos. If Trollope were attempting to
present an honestly objective view that weighed Thackerays good and
bad qualities and found him overcoming the bad, the final tribute would
be understandable, but Trollope created no such carefully balanced

197
view. He tells that Thackeray was idle* "had a morbid horror of a
snob,"world have disgraced the civil service,^ and had a tongue
that inadvertently insulted. !'hen he has so ardently created such
an image of his subject, the sudden reversal is unbelievable and hence
unconvincing. The reader is left with a sour taste by the attempt and
prefers to aecept the more earthly criticism as the true picture of
the man.
Because Trollope's view remained colored by his early associa
tion with Edmund Yates, the image of Thackeray presented by the volume
cannot be called laudatory? nevertheless, Trollope was being, at least
in the main, honest in presenting his view, however much it may have
differed from that taken by Lady Ritchie or Mr. Ray, each of whom wrote
from a peculiar preconception of the subject. If Trollope sees
Thackeray as essentially melancholy and crippled with pain and reads
this vision into periods of his life when he was neither, he is not
attempting to present a perverted view; he is merely attempting to
account for behavior that he is unable to comprehend since he did not
know Thackeray prior to I860. But his view of Thackeray is not only
colored by his personal prejudices and his lack of perception into
Thackeray's character; he also projects his own traits into Thackeray.
This quality becomes interesting because Trollope ultimately sets
Thackeray beside himself in order to build up his own ego. After he
has objectively related Thackeray's futile appeal to Lord Clanricarde
in 1848 for the position of Assistant Secretary at the General Post
Office, Trollope, who believed himself to have been a "valuable public
servant,commented on Thackeray's fitness for the position;

198
It may be said that had Thackeray succeeded
in that attempt he would surely have ruined
himself, No man can be fit for the management
and performance of special work who has
learned nothing of it before his thirty-seventh
year; and no man could have been less so than
Thackeray, There are men who, though they be
not fit, are disposed to learn their lesson
and make themselves as fit as possible. Such
cannot be said to have been the case with this
man# For the special duties which he would
have been called upon to perform, consisting
to a great extent of the maintenance of dis
cipline over a large body of men, training
is required, and the service would have suf
fered for awhile under any untried elderly
tiro. Another man might have put himself
into hardness. Thackeray never would have
done so. The details of his work after the
first month would have been inexpressibly
wearisome to him. To have gone into the
city, and to have remained there every day
from eleven till five would have been all but
impossible to him. He would not have done
it. And then he would have been tormented
by the feeling that he was taking the pay and
not doing the work.90
Whereas this type of projection derived only from Trollopes own mind,
the implication is clearly suggested: Trollope was a good public
servant, but Thackeray could only have left the civil service with the
memory of a disgraceful job.n<^ But the implied contrast of the
writer and his subject moves into more personal grounds in this same
paragraph. Trollope, who worked during the days for the Post Office and
in his spare time as a novelist, had established a system for tabulating
his daily work and scorned those writers who, like Thackeray, were not
methodical:

199
There are those who would be ashamed to
subject themselves to sueh a taskmaster, and
who think that the man who works with his imagina
tion should allow himself to wait tillinspira
tion moves him# Tien I have heard such doctrine
preached, I have hardly been able to repress my
scorn. To me it would not be more absurd if the
shoemaker were to wait for inspiration, or the
tallow-chandler for the divine moment of melting.
If the man whose business it is to write has
eaten too many good things, or has drunk too much,
or smoked too many cigars,as men who write some
times will do,then his condition may be unfavour
able for workj but so will be the condition of a
shoemaker who has been similarly imprudent. I have
sometimes thought that the inspiration wanted has
been the remedy which time will give to the evil
results of such imprudence .Mens sana in corpore
sano. The author wants that as does every other
workman,that and a habit of industry. I was
once told that the surest aid to the writing of
a book was a piece of cobblers wax on my chair,
I certainly believe in the cobblers wax much
more than the inspiration.92
In his discussion of Thackeray and the civil service, Trollope adds that
Thackerays intention was
... to join literature with the Civil Service.
He had been taught to regard the Civil Service as
easy, and had counted upon himself as able to add
it to his novels, and his work with his Punch
brethren, and to his contributions generally to
the literature of the day. He might have done so,
could he have risen at five, and have sat at his
private desk for three hours before he began his
official routine at the public one, A capability
for grinding, sin aptitude for continuous task
work, a disposition to sit in one's chair as
though fixed to it by cobblers wax, will enable
a man in the prime of life to go through the
tedium of a second days work every day; but of
all men Thackeray was the last to bear the
wearisome perseverance of such a life.93
When Trollope's opinion in the autobiography is brought to bear on this
already adverse criticism, we can see that Trollope's impulse to belittle

200
Thackeray for personal aggrandizement gives additional sting to the
biography. If Trollope was a good public servant and was also able to
rise to prominence as a novelist, Thackeray, whom he says could not
have joined the two professions, was deficient and inferior.
Another section of the biography that reveals a similar impulse
on Trollopes part in the account of Thackerays unsuccessful stand as
a liberal candidate for Oxford. In 1368 Trollope had unsuccessfully
stood for Beverley in the same interest so that he had experienced a
a /
similar defeat. Although it would be expected that Trollope would
handle Thackerays defeat with a measure of sympathy, he uses it as an
opportunity to lash Thackeray for even contemplating that he could have
been successful if he had won;
There are, no doubt, many to whom a seat in
Parliament comes almost as the birthright of a
well-born and well-to-do English gentleman.
They go there with no more idea of shining
than they do when they are elected to a first-
class club;hardly with more idea of being
useful. It is the thing to do, and the House
of Commons is the place where a man ought to
befor a certain number of hours. Such men
neither succeed nor fail, for nothing is
expected of them. From such a one as
Thackeray something would have been expected,
which would not have been forthcoming. He
was too desultory for regular work,full of
thought, but too vague for practical questions.
He could not have endured to sit for two or
three hours at a time with his hat over his
eyes, pretending to listen, as is the duty
of a good legislator. He was a man intolerant
of tedium, and in the best of his time impatient
of slow work. Mor, though his liberal feelings
were very strong, were his political convictions
definite or accurate. He was a man who mentally
drank in much, feeding his fancy hourly with
what he saw, what he heard, what he read, and

201
then pouring it all out with an immense power
of amplification. But it would hare been
impossible for him to study and bring home to
himself the various points of a complicated bill
with a hundred and fifty clauses. In becoming
a man of letters, and taking that branch of
letters which fell to him, he obtained the
special place that was fitted for him. He was
a round peg in a round hole. There was no other
hole which he would have fitted nearly so well.
But he had 'Ms moment of political ambition,
like others,and paid a thousand pounds for
his attempt.>5
If Trollope had not thought himself qualified to sit in Parliament, he
would not have campaigned, but he belittles Thackeray by asserting that
he was not fit for the position. TMs type of adverse criticism is the
same that we saw in the autobiography in his opinion of Thackeray as
an editor and of Thackeray's procedure in writing, both of which are
discussed in the biography; therefore, the generalisation that Trollope
was belittling his subject in order (partly unconsciously) to put
himself in the more superior position is based on one trend in the
volume, Trollope's reasons for this inversion are many; he obviously
had been deeply hurt by Thackeray's affront in January, I960, and in a
mind that was already worried by feelings of inferiority, the obviously
superior position of his rival must have rankled* To elevate himself
at the expense of a man who had been dead for sixteen years might have
been morbid, but no one was harmed, except perhaps Lady Ritchie's
memory of her father, and the writer had in his own mind established
his own .superiority. While this desire is basic to the inversion that
has been discussed, we should be careful not to make Trollope malicious
in the treatment of Thackeray; that malice or the overt desire to harm

202
was present, as in the case of Yatess autobiography, is hardly the
case. Trollope was probably trying to be fully fair, even though in
his fairness he saw himself as the superior, not Thackeray.
In other passages in Thackeray. Trollope attempts to present
the psychological motivation behind his subjects behavior. After he
has mentioned Frasers request that Thackeray shorten The Great
Hoggarty Diamond. Trollope digresses Into the following account of
Thackerays personality:
I can understand all the disquietude of his
heart when that warning, as to the too great
length of his story, was given to him. He was
not a man capable of feeling at any time quite
assured in his position, and when that occurred
he was very far from assurance. I think that at
no time did he doubt ifce sufficiency of his own
mental qualification for the work he had taken
in hand; but he doubted all else. He doubted
the appreciation of the world; he doubted his
fitness for turning his intellect to valuable
account; he doubted his physical capacity,
dreading his own lack of industry; he doubted
his luck; he doubted the continual absence of
some of those misfortunes on which the works
of literary men are shipwrecked. Though he was
aware of his own power, he always to the last,
was afraid that his own deficiencies should be
too strong against him. It was his nature to
be idle,to put off his work,and then to be
angry with himself for putting it off.96
Here Trollope seems more to have analyzed the motives that forced him
to write three novels a year while working at the Post Office, the
desire to be idle that led to the guilty feeling that created his
notebook and the sense of inferiority that had hurt him so deeply when
Thackeray snubbed him or when Scudamore was advanced over his head.
The passionate syntactical arrangement suggests the depth of feeling

203
Trollope exerted on these lines and, perhaps, even the self-identifica
tion that brings his own personality into prominence. This type of
self-identification, joined with Trollopes belief that Thackeray1s
humor and wit were a veneer to conceal a melancholic nature, tends to
make Thackeray almost pathetics
"I have got to make it shorter!" Then he
would put his hands in his pockets, and
stretch himself, and straighten the lines of
his face, over which a smile would come, as
though this intimation from his editor were
the best joke in the world; and he would walk
away, with his heart bleeding, and every nerve
in an agony.9?
Furthermore, when Trollope adds to the melancholy his misconception that
Thackeray had been suffering from poor health through the majority of
his life, the pathetic is almost deepened, except that Trollope places
the blame for much of the melancholy on faulty writing procedures. In
the following passage, for example, he begins with the criticism of
writing in number, rendered trite by the quotation from Pope, and moves
to the mention of Thackerays health in such a Banner that the censure
of the first seven sentences is hardly eliminated by the bulky eighth:
Esmond was brought out as a whole. The other
appeared in numbers. "He lisped in numbers, for
the numbers came." It is a mode of pronunciation
in literature by no means very articulate, but
easy of production and lucrative. But though
easy it is seductive, and leads to idleness. An
author by means of it can raise money and reputa
tion on his book before he has written it, and
when the pang of parturition is over in regard
to one part, he feels himself entitled to a
period of ease because the amount required for
the next division will occupy him only half the
month. This to Thackeray was so alluring that
the entirety of the final half was not always

204
given to the task. His self reproaches and
bemoanings when sometimes the day for reappearing
would come terribly nigh, while yet the neeessary
amount of copy was far from being ready, were
often very ludicrous and very sadjludicrous
because he never told of his distress without
adding to it something of ridicule which was
irresistible, and sad because those who loved him
best were aware that physical suffering had
already fallen upon him, and that he was deterred
by illness from the exercise of continuous energy.98
While the pathetic tone that was apparent in the passages in which
Trollope attempted to probe Thackerays mind but, in reality, was
identifying himself with his subject is more poignant, the sympathy for
Thackeray is consistently qualified by placing contingent blames upon
him, as his poor procedure for siting in this case. Another case of
this mixture of syapathy and censure is in the part describing
Thackerays death, Trollope concludes his discussion of Thackerays
work on the Oornhill. "A man so susceptible, so prone to work by fits
and starts, so unmethodical, could not have been a good editor, before
he mentions Thackerays move to Palace Green. The next paragraph
begins, ,!!n 1863 he died in the house which he had built, ..." but
he does not return to this thought -until the second paragraph later
which opens, "He died on the day before Christmas, as has been said
above. . ."99 Between these two mentions of Thackerays death,
Trollope advises the beginning novelist to complete his work prior to
the publication of any part, using Thackeray, Mrs. Gaskell, and Dickens
as unfavorable examples, and inserts the following paragraph;

205
With the last chapter of Denis Duval tras
published in the magazine a set of notes on the
books, taken for the most part from Thackeray's
own papers, and showing how much collateral
work he had given to the fabrication of his
novel. No doubt in preparing other tales,
especially Esmond. a very large amount of such
collateral labour was found necessary. He
was a man who did very much of such work,
delighting to deal in little historical inci
dents. They will be found in almost every
thing that he did, and I do not know that he
was ever accused of gross mistakes. But I
doubt whether on that account he should be
called a laborious man. He could go down to
Winchelsea, when writing about the little
town, to see in which way the streets lay,
and to provide himself with what we call
local colouring. He eould jot down the
suggestions, as they came to his mind, of
his future story. There was an irregularity
in such work which was to his taste. His
very notes would be delightful to read,
partaking of the nature of pearls when
prepared only for his own use. But he could
not bring himself to sit at his desk and do
an allotted task day after day. He accom
plished what must be considered as quite a
sufficient life's work. He had about twenty-
five years for the purpose, and that which he
has left is an ample produce for the time.
Nevertheless he was a man of fits and starts,
who, not having been in his early years
drilled to method, never achieved it in his
career.100
By interrupting the train of thought (Thackeray's death) to make a
criticism, of this caliber, Trollope's sympathy for Thackeray becomes
qualified by his reservations. The result is the unnatural wavering
from sympathy, or sorrow in the case of the death, to censure, a
wavering between two poles that can be explained only by assuming that
the one was the view held by Trollope and evident in the autobiography
while the other was added for Lady Ritchies sake since she had helped

206
him in compiling the factual data. That he was unsuccessful in
holding the volume together with such a split purpose was only natural,
for the reader is never sure when Trollope is going to suing to the
opposite pole with no warning.
When Trollope compares Thackeray and Dickens, his opinion of
Thackeray becomes most clearly obvious, because if the followers of the
two great rivals divided into opposing camps, Trollope favors the camp
aligned to Dickens. In this respect, the volume presents a prominent
influence of the Yates-Collins-Forster group, an influence strong
enough in Trollopes mind to lower Thackeray beneath Dickens in the
comparisons. The first mention of Dickens occurs immediately after
Trollope has condemned Thackerays artistic abilities:
Dickens has informed us that he first met
Thackeray in 1835, on which occasion the
young artist aspirant, looking no doubt
after profitable employment, proposed to
become the illustrator of my earliest book.
It is singular that such should have been
the first interview between the two great
novelists. We may presume that the offer
was rejected.
Here the final sentence suggests that Thackerays drawing was so
inferior that Dickens had no other choice than to reject the offer;
although Trollope might disvalue Thackerays ability to draw, to place
the same disvaluing into Dickens is to establish a relation between
the rivals that becomes detrimental to Thackeray. If Trollopes
insinuation in this passage appears to be too submerged, his open
comparison of the two novelists a few pages later is completely surface.
Trollope here begins by comparing their literary positions in 1837-1838:

207
Pickwick had been published, and Oliver Twist
and Nicholas Hickleby were being published. All
the world was talking about the young author who
was assuming his position with a confidence in
his own powers which was fully justified both by
his present and future success. It was manifest
that he could make, not only his own fortune, but
that of his publishers, and that he was a literary
hero bound to be worshipped by all literary grades
of men, down to the devils'" of the printing-office.
At that time, Thackeray, the older man, was still
doubting, still hesitating, still struggling.
Everyone then had accepted the name of Charles
Dickens. That of William Thackeray was hardly
known beyond the circle of those who are careful
to make themselves acquainted with such matters. ^
He proceeds in the next paragraph to turn this difference into a problem,
avowing that he will not make a comparison between their genius!
They had begun to make their effort much at the
same time? and if there was any advantage in point
of position as they commenced, it was with
Thackeray, It might be said that the genius of
the one was brighter than that of the other, or,
at any rate, that it was more precocious. But
after-judgment has, I think, not declared either
of the suggestions to be true. I will make no
comparison between two such rivals, who were so
distinctly different from each, and each of whom,
within so very short a period, has come to stand
on a pedestal so high,the two exalted to so
equal a vocation* And if Dickens showed the best
of his power early in life, so did Thackeray the
best of his intellect. In no display of mental
force did he rise above Barry Lyndon.
At the end of the paragraph, Trollope finally states the problem: "Why
was Dickens already a great man when Thackeray was still a literary
Bohemian?"*^ Even though his solution does not extensively compare
"genius," or the manner in which each man saw reality and treated it
in his literary works, it does level a sharp blow at Thackeray's
character by the application of Trollope's personal and impressionistic

208
reading of their works. The charges that are brought against
Thmkmrnr a* neatly fealea*d by the praises for Dickensj therefore,
Thackerays character b&emsma inferior*
The answer is to be found not in the
extent or in the nature of the genius of
either ea, but la the edition of wind,
which indeed mj be read plainly in their
works by those who have eyes to see* The one
ms steadfast:, industrious, full of parpase,
never doubting of himself, always putting his
best foot foreaost and standing firmly on it
when ha got it there} with no inward trepi
dation, with no moments in which he vas half
inclined to think that this race ms not for
bis winning, this goal not to be reached by
his struggle* The sympathy of friends ms
good to him, but he could have done without
it. The good, opinion which he had of himself
was never shaken by adverse erlilei} and
the critiels on the other side, by which
it was exalted, came from the enumeration of
the nutaber of copies sold. He ms a fir
reliant man, very little proa to change, who,
when h had discovered the nature of Ms own
talent, knew how to do the very best with it,
It say almost be said that Thackeray was
the very opposite of this. Unsbeadfast, idle,
changeable of purpose, aware of his own,
intellect but not trusting it, no man over
failed sore generally than he to put Ms test
foot foremost. Full as his works &r of
pathos, full of tasonr, full of love and charity,
tending, as they always do, to truth and manly
worth and womanly modesty, excelling, as they
mm to a to do, scat otter written precepts
that I >3ioi?s they always mm to lack something
that might have been there. There is a touch
of vagueness which Indicates that bis pea was
not firm while he was using it, Be seems to
is to have been dreaming ver of eos high
' flight, and then to have told Itiaself, with a
half-broken heart, that it was beyond Ms power
to soar up into those bright regions, I can
fancy as the sheets went from hits very day he
told himself, in regard to very sheet, that
it was a failure, Dickons was quite sure of
Ms sheets*

209
Much latsr in the volume Trollopes prejudice is again sharply out
lined? when he discusses Thackerays lectures, he inserts the following
passage s
1 myself never heard him lecture, and can
therefore give no opinion of the performance.
That which I have heard from others has been
very various. It is, I think, certain that
he had none of those wonderful gifts of
elocution which made it a pleasure to listen
to Dickens, whatever he read or whatever he
said? nor had he that power of application by
using which his rival taught himself with
accuracy the exact effect to be given to every
word. The rendering of a piece by Dickens was
composed as an oratorio is composed, and was
then studied by heart as music is studied.
And the piece was all given by memory, without
any looking at the notes or words. There was
nothing of this with Thackeray, But the
thing read was in itself of great interest to
educated people. The words were given clearly,
with sufficient intonation for easy -under
standing, so that they who were willing to
hear something from him on hearing that they
had received full value for their money. At
any rate, the lectures were successful. The
money was made,and was kept.-^5
Since he never heard Thackeray lecture, Trollope is hardly in the posi
tion to disvalue him in this manner. The only explanation for this
comparison, then, is his prejudice against Thackeray, He tells that
others told him about the lectures? thus if the comparison came from a
source other than Trollope, that souree could not have been any more
favorable to Thackeray than Trollope was to add it to his account.
Since Thackeray, in each of these eases, appears definitely inferior
to Dickens, the assumption that Trollope was firmly in the formers
camp is misleading. Indeed, Trollope firmly places Thackerays literary
achievement above Dickens in the autobiography, but to recognize a mans

210
acMeveraent m better than others is not to fe a "close friend* to
the first san Trollop distinguished between his appreciation of Sir
Howland as a public servant and his dislike for the nan without feeling
hisself self -contradictory, and the soaso double perception is apparent
in this treatment of Thackeray* la this sense, Trollope*s opinion of
Thackeray rasalned similar, though probably act aa strong, to Tates *8,
for on May 25, 1889, fates held the view that Trollope is creating in
Thackeray (with added bitterness, of course)?
Throughout all these 3 years, Thackeray,
as author, has had no acre devoted worshipper?
eren now, 1 vfl go through a Stiff examination
paper, with iantaasrabla quotations fress Ms
veriest do your paper without any rending
l^M £&& fe. Item* & <-
stantly dipping into the Mjscellanies & the
Sallado* But for Thackeray, the snot, I shall
think, & say, to ay dying day, that Ms
treatment of ae was os of the wictesdsst,
cruellest, & msi dsps&bl acts of tyranny
ever perpetrated*?-^
With Trollop* view of Thackeray clearly before us, the only
feasible position that eon fee held concerning the biographical chapter
is one that accounts for the pejorative passages without eliminating
Trollope * dependence upon lady Ritchie, Edward fitsgerald, end
Thackeray* Garrick Club friends. To assume that they gave information
fatly knowing Trollope* pi&tm is afesurd, while to cussuns that
Trollope scl&ciouely gathered information Seacwiag as he did that he
would belittle his subject is to cast an unnecessary slur on Ms
purposes and bis character, because in ell likelihood Trollop vas
feeing fully honest to. his laforaer and to Mmself* This leaves us with
the moot reasonable conclusion Trollop obviously adsdred certain of

211
Thackeray's works but had found his association with the man to be
insulting to his own dignity. While we cannot censure Thackeray for
ill health during his last four years, we can attribute his insult to
Trollope at the Gomhill dinner, his reluctance to correspond over the
rejected story, and Ms general loftiness from the younger man to his
poor health. That Trollope was unable or unwilling to penetrate
beneath the surface created by the ill health reveals, if anything, his
lack of perception into Thackeray's character, a lack of perception
that led Mm to fortify the antagonism that he learned from Yates and
the publicity of the Garrick Club Affair prior to meeting Thackeray.
Although the relation between the two men appears to have been moving
to a greater intimacy, Thackeray's death prevented the development that
would have eventually given Trollope the needed insight into Thackeray's
character. When he vas commissioned to write the English Men of
Letters volume, he thought that he vs.s writing a work of love, but such
a lofty aspiration was only true of Ms treatment of Thackeray's
literary acMevement, He had difficulty with the first chapter because
he knew that his view differed radically from Lady Ritchie's, but rather
than present a view with which he did not sympathise, he delivered Ms
own opinion, slightly softened from the autobiography since he would be
responsible for it. Thackeray, therefore, is a biographical account
written by a man who greatly admired Ms subject's works while caring
little for the subject himself.

212
Hates
^Koel Gilroy Annan, Leslie Stephen: His Thought and Character in
Relation to his Time (London, 1951), p." 63
%Iester Thackeray Ritchie, p* 137.
%he married a distant cousin, Sir Richmond Ritchie in 1377.
^Hester Thackeray Ritchie, p, 252.
^Trollope Letters. p. 316.
^Tbld., p. 323
7Ibid.. p* 346.
^Tbid.. p. 353.
9Ibid** p. 355.
^^Autobiography. p, 196.
11
Adversity, p. 2.
Ip
Ritchie, "Thackeray and his Biographers,3 p. 311.
^Adversity, p. 3.
"^Anne Thackeray Ritchie, "Note to Sir Leslie Stephen's 'Life of
W. M. Thaekeray,The Biographical Edition of the Works of William
Makepeace Thackeray (London, 1393-1399), XIII, 633.
^Leslie Stephen, "Life of W. M. Thackeray," The Biographical
Edition of the Works of William Makepeace Thackeray (London, 1393-1899),
XIII, 689.
16
Only the first chapter of the volume is an attempt to write a
life? the remainder is a critical review of Thackerays works.
^Thackeray, pp. 2-3.
lSRitehie, Thackeray and his Biographers," p. 311.
19
/John Morley, Recollections (Hew York, 1917), I, 92.
20Trollope Letters, pp. 410-411.

213
21Ibld.. p. 412.
22
Adversity, pp. 2-3
2\rilliam Aldis Wright (ed.), More Letters of Edward Fitzgerald
(London, 1901), p. 261,
24
\&nnan, pp, 63-64.
23Adversity pp, 436-437, fn4.
2^Trollope Letters. p, 413*
07
'The original document is in the Bodleian Library among the
Trollope Papers II. MS, Don. C, 9, 10, 10#.
2SSadleir, p. 351.
; 29
See his letter to -John Blackwood quoted above.
3CWpole, pp. 156-157.
31
All material quoted from the questionnaire preserves the spelling
and punctuation of the original. The question marks enclosed in
brackets indicate illegible words. The original document is in the
Bodleian Library among the Trollope Papers II, MS. Don, C. 10, f, 72,73.
-^Thackeray, p, 7.
33Ibid.. p. 31.
34The New York Times for October 29, 1855, for example, mentioned
that Mr, THACKERAY was born in India in the year 1811. . .#
35
Thackeray, p, 3.
-?0Xb:ld.. pp. 3-4*
37
Ibid,, pp. 4-5.
38
Ibid.. p. 5.
39Ibid.. p. 6.
^Adversity, p. 129.
^Ibid.. p. 127.
^Thackeray, p. 7.

214
^Adversity. p* 115.
^Ibid.. p. 122.
^Actually he went there in the autumn of 1330 and remained until
March, 1331. Ibid. pp. 140-147.
^ Again The New York Times for October 29, 1855, helped to spread
this; "He lost his whole fortune on a run of ill-luck at ecarte, but
that was nothing particular.
^Thackeray. p. 8,
^Adversity. p. 162.
^%his sentence is one
book: that it should be so
Thackeray was many sided.
Thackeray1 s personality.
^Thackeray, p. 41.
51Ibid., p. 33.
52
Ritchie, "Biographical Introductions," If, xx.
53
Adversity, p, 187.
54Ibid.. p. 202.
^Thackeray. pp, 20-21.
p. 40.
p. .
P. 4.
p. 59.
immediately preceding paragraph Trollope mentioned Mr.
Reed and quoted the statement referred to heres In 1854 he says in
one of his letters to Mr. Reed,the only private letters of his which
I know to have been published; I am to-day just out of bed after
another, about the dozenth, severe fit of spasms which I have had this
year. My book would have been written but for them." Ibid.. p. 39.
6lIbid., pp. 39-41.
62Ibid., pp. 75-76.
5b'
57,
Ibid..
Ibid.,
58,
Ibid.
59,
60,
Ibid..
In the
of few honestly commendatory ones in the
is not unusual, for Trollopes view of
This is but one part of his opinion of

215
63
64.
65,
Ibid. p. 30.
Ibid., p. 5.
Actually the seventeen issues of The townsman were published
between November 5, 1329, and February 25, 1830. Adversity, p. 127.
Thackeray
, pp. 6-7.
67Ibid..
P.
16.
63Ibid..
P.
30.
6%bid.
P.
14.
70ibid..
P*
15.
71Ibid..
P.
32.
72Ibld..
P?
. 47-48.
?3Ibid.,
P.
34.
74Ibid..
P*
43-49*
75Ibd.,
PP'
, 6, 24, and 40
76Ibld..
pp,
. 9-10.
77Ibid..
P.
37
78
Abraham Haywards review
reaction to The Four Georges seems to be dependent on newspaper attacks
of that time (ibid., pp, 46~47).
79
Ibid.. p. 10, fn.l. Also see p. 27 v
"^Especially ibid., p, 43, although a knowledge of its contents is
apparent when he compares Thackeray and Dickens (ibid.. pp. 17-20 and 26).
S1T. ,
Xuxcln
P.-
8.
82-...
Ibid..
pp,
. 36, 39 and 40
83Ibid..
P.
7.
84Ibid.,
P.
3v
8W,
P*
61.

216
S6Tbid., p, 6.
S7Ibld.. p. 36.
S8Ibid.. p. 61.
^Autobiography, p. 212.
9%hackeray. pp. 34-35.
91
Ibid.. p, 36.
<52
Autobiography. p. 1D0
"Thackeray. pp. 35-36.
9%e Autobiography. chapter xvi, for a full account of Trollopes
campaign.
"Thackeray. pp. 48-49.
96Ibid.. p. 15.
97
y'ibid.. p. 20.
Qg
Ibid.. pp. 38-39.
"ibid., pp. 56-57.
100-,
Ibid., p. 57.
101Ibid.. p. 8.
102
Ibid., p. 17
^^Ibid.. p. 18,
104Mm pp. 19-20.
105Ibid.. pp. 45-46.
*1 /V*
Thackeray Letters. IV, 134, fn.17.

EPILOGUE
The volume in the English Men of Letters series did have
unique character!stics that separate it from the norm of Victorian
biographical writing described by Mr. Garraty in the following para
graphs
By the forties biography was rapidly
descending into complete respectability. An
age that invented the verb "to bowdlerize
and considered "leg an indelicate word
could not be expected to excel in biography,
"Authorized" and "commemorative" lives pro
liferated. As they grew duller and more
reserved, they also grew longer. The "Life
and Letters" variety flourished in two or even
three stout volumesoften with dashes sub
stituted for the names of persons still
living and "offensive" passages "modified" or
entirely removed. (As Charles Dickens once
said, many biographies of his day seemed to
be written "by somebody who lived next door
to the people, rather than inside em.") Of
course such practices had existed even in the
candid eighteenth century, and all Victorians
were not so eautious. But in the earlier era
the polite biographer was on the defensive;
in the later he dominated the field. The
poet Tom Moore, writing a biography of Lord
Byron, suppressed evidence in Byrons memoirs
and then evidently destroyed the source
itself lest others less squeamish gain posses
sion of knowledge he considered unfit for human
consumption. This happened in 1830; at the
height of the era diarists were censoring
themselves,1
A1though Froude's Carlyle (1882-1884) is usually given credit for
breaking the trends of the nineteenth century reticence, Trollopes
volume preceding it by three years foreshadowed Frondefs approach.
217

213
Froude had to choose between the alternative
of giving a truthful and as such a disagreeable
representation of Carlyle, and that of writing
no biography at all. He chose the former
alternative, and a yell of dismay arose from
the Victorians.2
But if Froude and Trollope each presented their subject as they saw
him, Trollope far surpassed his rival biographer by incorporating into
the work characteristics that were to become obvious in the twentieth
century.
These characteristics may be summarized under three headings:
(1) the volume was an influence, both directly and indirectly, upon
the image of Thackeray presented to the public and led eventually to
the writing of a biography that completely disregarded his last wishes!
(2) the viewpoint of the author, the separation or division of the
subject into personality and artist, caused a split in the volume that
ultimately places the book closer to the twentieth century tendency
to separate criticism and biography than to the earlier tendency to
integrate the two in the biography; and (3) the presentation of the
author through the subjective projection into his subject was to link
the book to the twentieth century attempt to analyze the mind of a
literary man by a projection of the critics own personality or preju
dices into the works left by that writer. With these characteristics
in mind, we shall see that even though the volume did not reach a
second edition until 1391, its importance remains high as a work that
foreshadows tendencies that had not yet colored biographical writing.
While we might be wrong to ascribe to it an importance utterly
unrelated to its circulation, we can view it as a work that stands at

219
a pivotal point in the development of biographical writing and as
such reflects the development of the genre so clearly that it gains
an importance otherwise lacking*
Thackeray*s family, represented by Lady Ritchie and Leslie
Stephen, did not fail to see what Trollope had done in the biography,
and the immediate result was the severing of whatever ties had held
them to Trollope. This immediate reaction led to the denial of any
aid given to the writer, thus accounting for the widely spread miscon
ception that Trollope received no substantial aid from Lady Ritchie
or Edward Fitzgerald.-^ But this reaction only served, during the next
two decades, to make an authorized biography more necessary; while
the family reacted by greater silence, Thackerays old enemies,
particularly Disraeli in Endvmion (1880) and lates in Recollections
and Experiences (1884), used the biography as an excuse to renew their
attacks. The entrance of Lady Ritchie as the official biographer of
her father in the late 1890s came as a result of these attacks;
therefore, her sanctioning of the biography was the direct action that
broke Thackerays wish that there be no life written of him. That
Lady Ritchie resented Trollopes portrayal of her father was apparent
to him when he saw her at Smiths in February, 1882; in a postscript
to a letter to his wife Trollope wrote:
I dined at Smiths last night and met Annie
Thackeray, & we smiled at each other, and
we had a thorough good talk. I am very glad
because my memory of her father was wounded
by the feeling of a quarrel.^

As let as M91 lady Bitefel till claiming that whatever the public
asedad to knew about her father could fee fmm& is hi# writes, addedt
Mr* Trollope that kind old friend *o knm
his so mM'if sm Ml frm & very different
point of riet from sin but fee writes with
as affection which never varied, and which
vas ever eoeetant to w fatter*# children,
though sot untried 1 fear, by the present
writer*5
Between 1S2 and 1891* trollops feed, died cd enough hostile material
had hmn circulated for her to see in Trollope*# book the meager praise
that use before edtesrged beneath the overt portrait#
Trollop*s image of Thackeray presents a writer who at his
beet ms inferior to none bat whose personality mm marked by Indolence,
melancholy, ineptitud am! a sserbid awareness of snobbery* Th&eteray*#
family would, of course, not condone such a portrait, so Lady Bitchi
alter the portrait by leaving the critical view untouched and by con
centrating on ter fatter*# personality* therefore, in the *Biographical
lntTOduetioasn and in Mr* Say* biography which mn influenced by her,
we receive a portrait of & benevolent* jpwiaaw, warm hearted, as
sincere ms burdened by pals and continued suffering but always rising
dmm hi# adversity* The Malee on the other teal, usually accepted
Trollop9# description of Thackeray*# personality (with greater
exRggeratioas) and lowered the appreciation of Me artistic skill mill
fee was noticeably below Unitene* Sine Trollop,, the first biographer,
presented the most central view, his portrayal takes on the unusual
attribute of furthering both extremes, Lady Bltehie could indirectly
um it a# a sanction for her own work, and the- attackers, who saw that

221
the "book can hardly be called the offering of a hero-worshipper at
6
the shrine of his saint," could directly use it as a spring board
from their own portrayals
It is precisely this ambivalence in Trollopes account that
puts it also on the border line between criticism and biography; the
major bulk of the volume is critical rather than strictly biographical
as is the case with many of the volumes in the series. The result of
such a balance is that it can be approached from either angle.
Edward Mason, who included selections from Thackeray in his Personal
Traits of British Authors aptly described the volume:
Mr. Trollopes volume in the "English Men of
Letters" serieschiefly a literary review
is the nearest approach yet made to a
biography of Thackeray.'?
While the standard Victorian biography of a literary man (for example,
Forsters Sickens) is a bulky integration of critical examination and
biographical narration, Trollopes leans more to the critical side.
There is no more attempt to make the personality of the subject real to
the reader than to maintain a close adherence to the truth. While
earlier biography may have employed letters, diaries, or the works of
the subject to cast light on the personality, Trollope presented the
biographical primarily to elucidate the works:
In this preliminary chapter I will give such
incidents and anecdotes of his life as will
tell the reader perhaps all about him that a
reader is entitled to ask.
This difference in emphasis helps to distinguish the gulf between
criticism and biography that has grown since the 1880s. In the light
of the standard Victorian life, this places the small volume on a

222
shelf of its own. Trollope is not seeking to praise the man to please
the family? instead he is contrasting the man and the artist in order
to show the superiority of the latter at the expense of the former.
The demands of length placed upon him by his editor prevented the
writing of a bulky volume, another characteristic of the Victorian
biographers. This need to condense, joined with his opinion of
Thackeray, gives Trollope's book greater affinity to Lytton Strachey*s
Eminent Victorians (191S) than to Forsters Dickens. If Trollope
consistently foreshadowed Strachey, as he apparently did from our
study of the text, the emphasis on criticism rather than biography
might result from his unwillingness to say too much about his subject
lest the family be too greatly embittered. Because he had received
help from Lady Ritchie and because he was still honest to himself,
if not to fact, he followed what might be called "the most tactful
path. This path allowed him the freedom to present the biographical and
the critical as he saw them, without unnecessary twisting of the one
to fit the other. The growth of the gulf between criticism and
biography, fostered by the lew Critics, is, in part, an outgrowth of the
development in biographical writing exemplified by Trollopethe
unwillingness to flatter when the author did not think flattery was
due. While Strachey and the debunkers were sble to belittle their
subjects, they were not dependent upon information given by the subjects
family; Trollope was, so he places his emphasis on criticism.

223
Finally, Thasfogray Is unique because it pre-seats the author
by prajesting his personality into the subJest* Trollop vas obviously
not the first biographer to color Ms subject is this stumer} Im&k
Helton did the smm two hundred years before* Harold Hieelson described
this wvatath century biographer*
libere Walton fail is in truth* he fail to
present us with emplete or tren probable
portraits? the intrusion of his am feelings
and -predilections Is too apparent; be is to
confident of hi mm ethical values; he
.surrender too readily to the deductive
method* For Walton, as we know was actually
obsessed by the fascination of doing nothing*
Be vas interested only in those sides of
character which reflect! his own negative
and reeoptiv temperament* Bis Mas is always
in favour at sob and caution and devout
scholarship, of the Agrave behaviour which iso
calls wa divine eoarm, &n& thus, in dealing
with a singularly mundane diplomatist like
totton, or with & tortured sensualist like
Donne, Saltea very flagrantly sieleade*^
But Trollope goes a step fsartfeer* B not only emphasised traits is
Thackeray that he saw in himself; he presented Thackeray as a negative
shading to the portrait of himself in the autobiography* While this
might be the grossest type f propaganda, the positive traits of
Trollop at the negative ones of Thackeray easily fall into a chart*
Trollop (Atttebi
E>
Thackeray (Thackeray)
1* Industrious
2* Superior Civil Servant
3* Practical common sens
4* Methodical
5* Superb working habits
6* Hardship of unhappy child
hood overcome by diligence
7. Happy domestic life
B, Good conversationalist
% tost election because fins.
to principles
10* Good editor
1. Indolent
2. Gould only have disgraced the
Civil Servio
3* Morbid horror of snobbery
4. B&phaaard
5. So set working habits
6. Emj childhood wasted by
instability in youth
7. Unhappy domestic life
B, Poor speaker at conversationalist
9* tost lection because of lack
of principle
10, Bad editor

224
In each case we might aay that Trollope was attempting to -understand
his subject by a projection of his own personality into Thackeray; this
explanation, however, crumbles when we see that Trollope is consistently
showing us what a person who lacks his own personality, or who possesses
only negative traits, would be. This forcing of the subject into a
preconceived construction, while being of immense aid to the propagan
dist, is bad in biography, for it obscures the truth for secondary
considerations. When Freud writes a life of Leonardo da Vinci by
applying pre-conceived ideas to the sparse data or when a political
party orders a biography of the man supported by its opponent party,
the result is propaganda; in the same manner, Trollope, who has turned
the picture of Thackeray to represent negative traits that by contrast
illuminate his own personality, has written an "impure biography,-*-
The characteristic of his propaganda, that causes the book to look
foreward to Strachey and the debunkers as well as to the Freudian
School of Criticism, is the obvious purposefulness of the portrayal;
in no way can we attribute the final portrait of Thackeray to accident
or even to a lack of materials. Trollope had a certain opinion of
Thackeray; he did not waver from that opinion when he associated with
Thackeray; ana after Thackeray's death the opinion remained much the
same as it had been prior to the meeting of the two men, Strachey's
cynicism and contempt for hero-worship, the debunkers' desire to
undermine the reputations of great men, and the Freudians' attempt to
psychoanalyze their subjects are foreshadowed in Trollope's contempt
for Thackeray's awareness of snobs and his abilities as a speaker or
as a potential Civil Servant, in Trollope's attempt to belittle the

225
character? of his subject by emphasizing his indolence and haphazardness,
and in Trollopes attempt to enter the mind of his subject by asserting
that he was constantly melancholy by creating a face for the world.
With this we have come back to our starting place in this
study, Trollopes image of Thackeray was apparently formed in the years
prior to their meeting. That this image was received from Edmund
Tates, who was in a position to know each man, means that Trollope's
first conception of Thackeray the man must have been similar to the
portrait of the biography. The fight between Tates and Thackeray at a
time when Trollope knew Tates but not Thackeray and at a time that
Trollope1s only information about Thackeray would have come from
newspapers antagonistic to him pushed Trollope closer to Tates's
opinion, Tates idolized the artist, placing Pendennis at the top of
the literary ladder, while he thought that Thackeray's personality
tos despicable. Since this is the same conception that Trollope
obviously holds in the autobiography and in the biography, the influ
ence of Tates must have been deep. The relations of Trollope and
Thackeray were such that Trollope's opinion was more firmly established,
although in his adoration of the literary abilities of his rival the
contemporaries mistook a friendship with the man. The desire of
Trollope to build up his own character at the expense of Thaekeray's
came as a result of his sudden rise immediately after Thackeray's
deathj when he rose into the positions left open by the death, he was
dependent upon the man whom he did not like. By twisting the image
of Thackeray to illustrate the negative side of his own character,

226
Trollope was able, to maintain his own pride and lift himself higher
than otherwise. When he was called upon to write the biography,
Trollope was dependent upon the family for information so that he
could not make a direct attack, but he does portray Thackeray in such
a manner that the book becomes an attack rather than the expected
praise of Thackeray, The nature of the biography immediately
alienated Thackeray's family from the author and the book was allowed
to fall as a failure in relative oblivion. The changes brought in
biographical writing by Frauds, Strachey and Freud have shown that
Trollope's book was written against the prevailing sentiments of its
age, but in terms of the modern reader, the book is a revealing account
of the relationship between two authors traditionally thought of as
"close friends." It is this relationship that we have carefully
studied in the hopes that the unscrambling of the data in the little
biography will throw new light on the men who helped to make
Victorian literature and on the biography itself as a produce of a
certain aspect of the culture of the nineteenth century.
Notes
^John A, Garraty, The Nature of Biography (New York, 1957),
pp. 99-100.
O
Harold Nicolson, The Development of English Biography (London,
1959), p. 129.
3
See Adversity, p, 3.
^Trollope Letters. p. 472.
^Ritchie, "Thackeray and his Biographers," p. 811.

227
"Recent Discoveries Concerning Thackeray," The Nation. XXXII
(January 27, 1881), 56.
/Edvard T. Mason (ed.), Personal Traits of British Authors (New
York, 1891), IV, 262-263.
^Thackeray. p. 2.
Q
Hisolson, pp. 65-66.
10roid.. pp. 9-io.

APPENDIX A
THACKERAY
Lectures in London &
southern England.
Lectures in northern
England & Scotland.
Defeated for Parliament
from city of Oxford.
In Hamburg,
First number of the
Virginians.
. CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF
THACKERAY AND TROLLOPE
1857-1863
1852
TROLLOPE
January-February
F ebruar y-March
July 8-21
August 18
Finishes The Three Clerks
September
In Florence.
October 20
Begins Doctor Thorne.
November
Three Clerks published.
1858
February 11
Leaves London on official
postal mission to Egypt.
early March Yates leaves for Egypt,
writes to Trollope
(returns in three weeks).
March 11 Leaves Alexandria for
Palestine.
April 22-May 10 Travels home via Malta,
Gibraltar, and Spain.
May 11-July Official visits to
Scotland & northern
England.
228

229
Yates publishes article in
Town Talk.
June 12
Yates replies to Thackeray
after seeing Dickens.
June 15
Writes to Garrick Club
Committee, Doland tirites
to Yates,
June 19
Yates writes to Committee,
after seeing Dickens.
June 23
Committee sides with Thackeray, June 26
orders lates to apologize or
retire.
Yates writes Committee, having
see Dickens.
July 1
Dickens writes to Yates
telling him not to go to
General Meeting.
July 6
Dickens describes affair to
Russell.
July 7
Thackeray writes to Committee
but does not mail letter,
feels punishment greater
than offense.
July 9
General Meeting upholds
Thackeray,
July 10
Thackeray on continent. July 13-August 17
Yates expelled from Club,
July 20
Dickens advises Yates to
get a lawyer.
July 23
July (?) In London,
August-October At home in Ireland.
Returning to London, finds August 17
small papers have taken
Yatess side.

230
In Paris.
September
November 16 Leaves London on official
postal mission to Nest
Indies.
In Paris
November
Dickens writes Thackeray
concerning Yates, says that
November 17
lates came to him for advice*
Writes Dickens to say affair
no longer in his hands.
November 26
Writes Committee, telling of
Dickenss proposal.
November 23
Blames Dickens for Yatess
letters.
December 2
Yates publishes "The
Histrionic Baronet."
December 4
Club meets to decide on
Yates; Yates brings suit
against Doland.
December 5
Yates publishes another
article on Thackeray.
December 11
In Paris.
1822
January
Agrees to write series for February 19
Oorahill.
Yates abandons his suit.
March
Summer Returns to London fresa
West Indies.
Accepts editorship of
Cornhili.
April 14
September On vacation in Pyrenees,

231.
MMMim finished.
September 7
Tf*tXii oa eoBtisaat*
SepteJer^Qetoba? 16
October 23
Offers sarrio to
QmMU*
October 26
Smith ask far & newel
by Deeaber 12.#
Brtalas Corahill to
Trollop, offers to
pibli&fc a story*
October 2$
llcsresbsr 3*4
So to London, meats
Smith vho eaggestf
IzMsm fuamm*
Iferetaber 4
tsMm SmmtmL %m
Rejects lates* posas
Wmrntibwt 17
seat to printers*
Peeesber 15
Deseaste*
to we Ireland$ settles
t Waltfe&a Cross*.
1860
Jassaary 1
Ssmaas work on Castle
I Paris#
Jmmry
Mcfaaoad.
First Comhill Dinner*
immsf-
Buys 2 Palace Oreen.
March 2$
leasing!*
3m ^oris fishes publishes
May 26
fate* artiele#
Mm gfiSlSK reprints
Tana 23
la. M SmSS rtlel*

232
Sala, who had been Cornhill September
contributor, accepts editor
ship of Temple Bar. Yates
rumors that Thackeray is
jealous. Thackeray on
continent.
Dickens writes warm letter September 23
of condolence to Yates.
Thinks Dickens has abandoned September 28
Yates,
October
Goes to Florence.
November 15
Writes to Thackeray,
after the rejection of
"Mrs. General Talboys."
First number of Temple Bar.
December
1861
January 5
Almost loses position on
Cornhill.
Spring
Elected to Garrick Club.
Sees both Trollope and Synge.
May 5
August 14
Leaves London for U, S. A
Yates, traveling in Switzer
land with wife and Alfred
Austin, has severe attack of
gastric fever? Thackeray
sympathizes with him.
Autumn
In Paris.
September
Death of Major Garmichael-
Smyth.
September 9
1862
Resigns editorship of Cornhill. March 6

233
Moves to 2 Palace Green,
Kensington,
March 31
In Paris,
April Returns from New York.
Loans Synge £.1300 with
Trollope.
May 11 Loans Synge £.1300 with
Thackeray.
In Paris.
September
1862
Invites Trollope to dine.
February 4
Visits Yorkshire with April 6-April 16
daughters.
Attack in The Athenaeum on
Annes Story of Elizabeth,
which leads to his trouble
with the National Shakes
peare Committee.
April 25
Invites Trollope to a
dinner.
May 10
In Belgium and France.
August 17-27
October 6 Frances Trollope dies
in Florence.
Last Roundabout Paper.
November
December 14 Sees Thackeray for last
time.
Dies.
December 24
Burial in Kensal Green
Cemetery,
December 29

APPENDIX B
THE TEXT OF YATES*S TOWN TALK ARTICLE
The full text of Edmund Yates*3 article* "Literary Talk," in the
June 13, 1858, number of Town Talk reads as follows:
Finding that our pen and ink portrait of Mr, Charles
Dickens has been much talked about and extensively quoted, we
purpose giving, each week, a sketch of some literary celebrity.
This week our subject is
Mr, W. M. THACKERAY,
HIS APPEARANCE.
Mr. Thackeray is forty-six years old, though from the
silvery whiteness of his hair, he appears somewhat older* He
is very tall, standing upward of six feet two inches, and as
he walks erect his height makes him conspicuous in every
assembly. His face is bloodless, and not particularly expres
sive, but remarkable for the fracture of the bridge of the
nose, the result of an accident in youth. He wears a small
grey whisker, but otherwise is clean shaven. No one meeting
him could fail to recognise in him a gentleman; his bearing
is cold and uninviting, his style of conversation either
openly cynical, or affectedly good natured and benevolent;
his bonhomie is forced, his vrit biting, his pride easily
touchedbut his appearance is invariably that of the cool,
suave, well-bred gentleman, who, whatever may be rankling
within, suffers no surface display of his emotions.
HIS CAREER.
For many years Mr. Thackeray, though a prolific writer, and
holding constant literary employment, was unknown by name to
the great bulk of the public. To Fraser*3 Magazine he was a
regular contributor, and very shortly after the commencement
of Punch, he joined Mr. Mark Lemonfs staff. In the Punch
pages, appeared many of his wisest, most thoughtful and
wittiest essays; "Mr. Brown's Letters to his Nephew" on love,
marriage, friendship, choice of a club, &e., contain an amount
of worldly wisdom, which, independently of the amusement to be
obtained from them, render them really valuable reading to
young men beginning life. The Book of Snobs, equally perfect
in its way, also originally appeared in Punch. Here, too,
were published his buffooneries, his Ballads of Policeman X,
his Jeamess Diary, and some other scraps, the mere form of
which consisted in outrages on authography, and of which
234

235
he is now deservedly ashamed. It was with the publication
of the third or fourth number of Vanity Fair, that Mr.
Thackeray began to dawn upon the reading public as a great
genius. The greatest work, which, with perhaps the exception
of The Nevcomes, is the most perfect literary dissection of
the human heart, done with the cleverest and most unsparing
hand, had been offered to and rejected by several of the
first publishers in London. But the public saw and
recognised its valuej the great guns of literature, the
Quarterly and the Edinburgh, boomed forth their praises,
the light tirailleurs in the monthly and weekly press re
echoed the feux-de-ioie. and the novelists success tas
made, Pendennis followed, and was equally valued by the
literary world, but scarcely so popular tilth the public.
Then came Esmond, which fell almost still-born from the
press; and then The Isvcomes. perhaps the best of all.
The Virginians. now publishing, though admirably written,
lacks interest of plot, and is proportionately unsuccessful.
HIS SUCCESS,
commencing tilth Vanity Fair, culminated with his "Lectures
on the English Humorists of the Eighteenth Century," which
were attended by all the courts and fashion of London. The
prices were extravagant, the Lecturers adulation of birth
and position were extravagant, the success was extravagant.
No one succeeds better than Mr. Thackeray in cutting his
coat according to his cloth: here he flattered the
aristocracy, but when he crossed the Atlantic, George
Washington became the idol of his worship; the "Four Georges"
the objects of his bitterest attacks. These last-named
Lectures have been dead failures in England, though as literary
compositions they are most excellent. Our own opinion is,
that his success is on the wane; his writings never were
understood or appreciated even by the middle class; the
aristocracy have been alienated by his American onslaught on
their body, and the educated and refined are not sufficiently
numerous to constitute an audience; moreover, there is a want
of heart in all he writes, which is to be balanced by the most
brilliant sarcasm and the most perfect knowledge of the
workings of the human heart.*
* Thackeray Letters. I?, facsimile following p, 90

APPENDIX C
A PARAGRAPH ANALYSIS CF THACKERAY SHOWING
TROLLOPES CONTENT AND SOURCES
In the following analysis, each paragraph of the biograph
ical chapter of Thackeray is attributed to its source or sources;
where a paragraph has more than one source, the different ones are
listed in the order in which they appear in the text. In the case of
a questionable attribution, I have enclosed the source in brackets.
The parenthesis following Lady Ritchies name refer to the Identity of
the source; those following the number of the paragraph refer to the
pages covered by the paragraph in the 1879 edition.
1. (pp. 1-2)
a. Trollope: account of the series and the lack of a biography
of Thackeray.
b. Lady Ritchie (oral): account of Thackeray's disgust with
biography.
2. (pp* 2-3)
Trollope: account of Thackeray's mental operations that led
to the forbidding of a life; outline of the first chapter.
3. (p. 3)
a* Lady Ritchie (2): Thackerays birth and father.
b, Trollope: persons known by the writer who might be related.
4. (pp* 3-4)
a* Lady Ritchie (2): Thackerays father and mother.
b. [Lady Ritchie (oral)]: religious differences between Thackeray
and his mother*
5. (pp* 4-5)
George Venables: Thackerays life at Charterhouse*
236

237
6. (p?. 5-6)
a. Lady Ritchie (3)s Thackeray at Cambridge.
b. [Edward Fitzgerald]: Thackeray and The Snob: his parody of
Tennysons "Timbuetoo."
c. Thackeray: parody quoted.
7. (p. 6)
Trollope: no other evidence of literary merit in The Snob.
8. (pp. 6-7)
a* Trollope: Thackerays morbid fear of snobbishness.
b. [Edward Fitzgerald]: The Gownsman.
c. Trollope: attribution of the dedication of The Gownsman to
Thackeray
d. Thackeray: dedication quoted.
9.
(pp. 7-8)
a. Lady Ritchie (6, 7, 10): Thackerays life immediately after
leaving Cambridge.
b. Trollope: Thackeray's inability to draw.
c. Dickens: Thackerays offer to illustrate The Pickwick Papers.
10.
(pp, &-10)
a. [Edward Fitzgerald]: Thackerays inheritance.
b. Lady Ritchie (5): the loss of the inheritance.
c. [Edward Fitzgerald]: The National Standard and The
Constitutional.
d. Trollope: the futility of investing money in such projects.
e. Thackeray: Lovel the Widower quoted.
[f. footnote: Macready's Diary.]
11-15. (pp. 10-13)
Trollope: digression on literature as a career.
16. (pp, 13-15)
a. Trollope: applies digression to Thackeray.
b. Lady Ritchie (ll): Thackeray's contributions to newspapers,
e.[?] : anecdote of Thackerays being asked to shorten the
Great Hoggarty Diamond.
d.[?3: Thackerays invention of pseudonym, Michael Angelo Titmarsh.
17. (pp. 15-16)
Trollope: Thackerays idleness.
IS. (p. 16)
a. [.Garrick Club Friends]: Thackeray's inferiority complex
b. Trollope: censure of Thackeray's feelings.
19. (pp. 16-17)
Trollope: Thackeray's consciousness of his ability but continued
uncertainty.

238
20-24. (pp. 17-20)
Trollope: comparison of Thackeray and Dickens.
25. (pp. 20-21)
a. Lady Ritchie (12, 13): Thackerays marriage and children.
b. Trollope: the three daughters.
c. Lady Ritchie (oral): Mrs. Thackerays illness.
26-30. (pp. 21-24)
a. Trollope: Thackerays connection to Punch.
b, Shirley Brooks: Thackeray on Punch.
e. Thackeray: a poem quoted in a discussion of his inferiority
as a poet.
31. (p. 25)
Trollope: The Irish Sketeh Book and Thackerays declaration of
his own identity.
32.(pp. 25-26)
Trollope: Vanity Pairs second comparison with Dickens.
33.(pp. 26-29)
a. Trollope: Thackerays popularity in 1848.
b. Kacready: Thackerays popularity attested in a memoir.
c. Abraham Hayward: article from Edinburgh Review for I848
extensively quoted.
34. (pp. 30-33)
Trollope: Thackerays effectiveness prior to Vanity Pair.
35. (pp. 30-33)
a. [Garrick Club FriendsJ: recollections of Thackeray's impromptu
remarks and sketches.
b. Edward Fitzgerald: loan of letters; Flore et Zephyr.
c. Trollope: Thackeray's acquaintances and his poor powers of
conversation,
d* [?]* a poem by Thackeray quoted for Trollope after forty years,
e, Trollope: Thackeray's burlesque resulted from melancholy.
36. (p. 33)
a. Lady Ritchie (15): Thackerays residences in London,
b. [Lady Ritchie (oral)]]: anecdote of Thackeray and the Irishman.
37.
(p
33-34)
?]: Thackerays application for a position at the Post Office
38, (pp. 34-36)
Trollope: Thackerays inability to be a good civil servant.

239
39. (p. 36)
Thackeray: letter to Mr, Reed in which he continued to hope for
a position in the civil service*
40. (p. 37)
Thackeray: 1850 letter to The Morning Chronicle quoted.
41. (pp. 37-33)
Trollope: disagreement with Thackerays letter.
42. (pp. 33-39)
a, Trollope: poor procedures in serial writing.
b. Thackeray; letter to Mr. Reed describing sickness that dela;fed
Pendennis.
43. (pp. 39-41)
a. Trollope; reasons Thackeray should have been happy.
b, Thackeray: stanaa of Whits Squall quoted,
c* Lady Ritchie (22): Thackerays illness.
d. Trollope: reasons Thackeray was melancholy; advice given to
himself when young.
44. (p. 41)
Lady Ritchie (14): Thackeray and Amy Crowe.
45. (pp, 41-43)
a* Trollope: The Rewcomes.
b. Thackeray: quotations from John Leechs Pictures of Life and
Character and references to The Genius of Cruikshank.
46. (pp. 43-45)
a, Trollope: Thackerays lectures,
b. John Forster: Dickenss thoughts on lectures.
e. Trollope: Thackerays desire to earn money for his children,
d. Lady Ritchie (19): income of lectures to give inheritance to
his children.
47. (pp, 45-46)
a. Lady Ritchie (18, 19): Thackerays lectures.
b. Trollope: never heard Thackerays delivery but had to be
inferior to Dickenss,
43. (pp. 46-47)
a. Lady Ritchie (15, 16, 19): Thackerays trips to America,
his return, The Newoomes.
b. ^Newspaper reviews?^: English reaction to The Four Georges.

240
49. (pp. 47-43)
a, l?J: Thackeray defense in 1857 of his lectures.
b. Trollope: Thackeray*s indiscretion in the lectures.
50. (pp. 48-49)
a. [?] : Thackerays unsuccessful stand for Oxford suggested
by Lady Ritchie (23)
b. Trollope: Thackerays unsuitability for Parliament.
51. (pp. 49-51)
Trollope: Thackeray and The Cornhill Magazine.
52.(pp. 51-52)
Trollope: the acceptance of Framley Parsonage.
53* (p. 52)
Trollope: the reasons for Framley Parsonages1s publication.
54. (PP. 52-53)
Trollope: contributors to the first number of the Cornhill.
55. (pp. 53-54)
Trollope: contributors to the Cornhill under Thackeray's editor
ship.
56. (pp. 54-55)
a. Trollope: Thackerays inability to be a good editor,
b* Thackeray: "Thoms in the Cushion" quoted.
57. (pp. 55-56)
Trollope: the rejected story.
58, (p, 56)
Trollope: Thackerays removal to Palace Green.
59. (pp. 56-57)
Trollope: faulty procedures in serial writing.
60. (p. 57)
Trollopes Thackerays lack of method in writing.
61. (pp. 57-58)
Trollope: Thackeray's death, funeral, and monument in West
minster Abbey.
62.
(p. 59)
Lady Ritchie (21): Thackerays inheritance for his daughters

241
63. (p. 59)
a* Trollope: Thackeray not a cynic.
b* Tom Taylors poem quoted to show Thaekeray was not a cynic.
64. (pp. 59-60)
Trollope: The Synge loan.
65. (pp. 60-61)
|Y] s anecdote from Thackerays American trip, showing him as a
satirist.
66. (p. 61)
Trollope: conclusion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Annan, Noel Gilroy, Leslie Stephen: His Thought and Character in
Relation to his Time. London: MacGibbon and Kee, Ltd., 1951.
Bevington, Merle Mowbray. The Saturday Review, 1855-1863: Representa
tive Educated Opinion in Victorian England. Hew York: Columbia
University Press, 1941.
Booth, Bradford A, Anthony Trollope: Aspects of his Life and Work.
Londons Edward ITulton and Company, Ltd., 1958,
. The Letters of Anthony Trollope. London: Oxford
University Press, 1951.
Brookfield, Charles and Frances, Mrs. Brookfield and Her Circle.
2 vols. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., 1905.
Brown, John, Letters of Dr. John Brown With Letters from Ruskin.
Thackeray, and Others, London: Adam and Charles Black, 1907.
Carr, J. Comyns. Some Eminent Victorians: Personal Recollections in
the World of Arts and Letters. London: Duckworth and Company,
1903.
"Club Secrets." The Saturday Review of Politics. Literature. Science.
and Art. IX Tiarch 24, l86o)",~368-369.
The Correspondence of Thomas Carlyle and Ralph Waldo Baerson. 1834-
1872. 2 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1883*
"Dickens and His Publishers." Littell1s The Living Age. LX (March 5,
1359), 624.
Dickens, Charles. "In Memoriam," The Cornhill Magazine. IX (February,
1864), 129-132.
Downey, Edmund (Editor). Charles Lever: His Life in His Letters.
2 vols. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1906.
The Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature. Science, and Art. XLV
(November, 1858), 434.
242

243
Elwin, Malcolm. Thackeray? A Personality. London: Jonathan Gape,
1932.
Fields, James T, Yesterdays with Authors. Boston: Houghton,
Mifflin and Company, 1894*
Forster, John. The Life of Charles Dickens. 2 vols. London: Chapman
and Hall, Ltd,, 1899.
Friswell, J. Hain. Modern Men of Letters Honestly Criticised. London:
Hodder and Stoughton, 1870,
Fuller, Hester Thackeray [Ritchie3, and Violet Hammersley. Thackerays
Daughter: Some Recollections of Anne Thackeray Ritchie. London:
Â¥. J. Pollock and Company, Ltd., 1952.
Garraty, John A. The Nature of Biography. New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1957.
"Gentlemen Authors," Littell*s The Living Age. LVIII (September 4,
1858), 742-744.
Gissing, Algernon and Ellen (Editors). Letters of George Gissing to
Members of his Family.- Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1927.
Haight, Gordon S. (Editor). The George Eliot Letters. 7 vols. New
Havens Yale University Press, 1954-1955.
Hodder, George. Memories of My Time Including Personal Reminiscences
of Eminent Men. London: Tinsley Brothers, 1870.
Hollingshead, John. My Lifetime. 2 vols. London: Sampson Low,
Marston and Company, Limited, 1895.
Hutton, Laurence (Editor). Letters of Charles Dickens to Wilkie
Collins. 1851-1870: Selected by Miss Georgina Hogarth,
London: J. R. Osgood, Mcllvaine and Company, 1892.
^Huxley, Leonard). The House of Smith. Elder. London: William
Clowes and Sons, Limited, 1923.
Irving, Laurence, Henry Irving: The Actor and Kis World. London:
Faber and Faber, 1951*
James, Henry. "Thackerayana." The Nation. XXI (December 9, 1857), 376.
Johnson, Edgar. Charles Dickens: His Tragedy and Triumph. 2 vols.
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1952.

244
^Maine, J. Henry Sumner). "Mr, Thackeray and the Four Georges. The
Saturday Review of Politics, Literature. Science, and Art,
I (December 8, 1855')"," 106-107.
Mason, Edward T. (Editor). Personal Traits of British Authors.
4 vols. Mew York: Charles Scribner*s Sons, 1891.
McAleer, Edward 0. (Editor). Dearest Isa: Robert Brownings Letters
to Isabella Blagden. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1951.
Melville, Lems. William Makepeace Thackeray: A Biography Including
Hitherto Uncollected Letters and Speeches and A Bibliography of
1300 Items. 2 vols. London: John Lane, 1910,
Merivale, Herman, and Frank T, Marzials. Life of W, M. Thackeray.
London: Walter Scott, 1891.
Mr. Thackeray at the Surrey Gardens. The Literary Gazette, and
Journal of Archaeology. Science, and Art, Ho, 2090 (February 7,
1357),~136138,
"Mr. Thackeray in Edinburgh. The Literary Gazette, and Journal of
Archaeology. Science, and Art. Ho. 2099 (April 11, 1857), 351-352.
Morley, John. Recollections. 2 vols. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1917.
Madge, Isadore Gilbert, and M, Earl Sears, A Thackeray Dictionary:
The Characters and Scenes of the Novels and Short Stories
Alphabetically Arranged, London: George Routledge and Sons,
Ltd., 1910.
Newspaper Gossip. The Saturday Review of Politics. Science, and Art.
II (June 23, 1360)7 799-800.
Nieoison, Harold. The Development of English Biography. London: The
Hogarth Press, 1959,
Partington, Wilfred. The Indiscretion of Anthony Trollope. Bookman.
LXXIV (February, 1933), 207.
Pym, Horace N. (Editor), Memoirs of Old Friends. Being Extracts from
the Journals and Letters of Caroline Fox of Pen.ierrick, Cornwall.
from 1835 to 1871. London: Smith, Elder, and Company, 1882.
Ray, Gordon M, (Editor), The Letters and Private Papers of William
Makepeace Thackeray: Collected and Edited by Gordon N. Ray.
4 vols, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945-1946.

245
. Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom. 1847-1363. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953.
. Thackeray: The Uses of Adversity. 1811-1846. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955*
(Editor). William Makepeace Thackeray: Contributions
to the Morning Chronicle. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1955.
"Recent Discoveries Concerning Thackeray," The Nation. XXXII
(January 27, 1881), 56-57,
Ritchie, Anne Thackeray. "Biographical Introductions," The Biographical
Edition of the Works of William. Makepeace Thackeray. 13 vols*
London: Smith, Elder, and Company, 1898-1899.
. "Note to Sir Leslie Stephens Life of W. M.
Thackeray. The Biographical Edition of the Works of William
Makepeace Thackeray (London: Smith, Elder, and Company, 1898-1899),
XIII, 688.
. "The First Editor: And the Founder," The C ornhJ.il
Magazine. n.s. XXFIII (January, 1910), 1-5.
__ "The First Number of The Comhill." The Cornhill
Magazine, n.s. I (July, 1896), 1-16.
. "Thackeray and his Biographers," Illustrated
London Hews. XCFIII (June 20, 1891), 811.
Ritchie, Hester Thackeray (Editor), Thackeray and His Daughter. The
Letters and Journals of Anne Thackeray Ritchie. With Many Letters
of William Makepeace Thackeray. Selected and Edited by Hester
Thackeray Ritchie. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1924.
Robertson Scott, J. W. The Story of the Pall Mall Gazette of its
First Editor. Frederick Greenwood. and of its Founder. George
Murray Smith. London: Oxford University Press, 1950.
Robinson, Howard. Britain s Post Office: A History of Development
from the Beginnings to the Present Day. London: Oxford
University Press, 1953.
. The British Post Office. A History. Princeton;
Princeton University Press, 1948.
Sadleir, Michael. Trollope. A Commentary. Revised Edition. New York:
Farrar, Straus, and Company, 1947.

246
Sala, George Augustus. The Life and Adventures of George Augustus
Sala. Written by Himself. Londons Cassell and Company,
Limited, 1896*
. Things I Have Seen and People I Have Known. 2 vols.
London: Cassell and Company, Limited, 1894
Smith, Peter. "The Gornhill MagazineNumber 1." A Review of English
Literature. IV (April, 1963), 23-24.
Spark, Muriel (Editor). The Bronte Letters. Londons Peter Nevill,
Ltd,, 1954.
Spielmann, M. H, The History of "Punch." Hew York: The Cassell
Publishing Company, 1395.
Stebbins, Lucy and Richard Poate, The Trollopes s The Ghronieles of a
Writing-Family. Hew Yorks Columbia University Press, 1945.
Stephen, Leslie. "Life of W. M. Thackeray." The Biographical Edition
of the Works of William Makepeace Thackeray (London: Smith, Elder,
and. Company, 1398-1399}, -HII, 639-717.
. Studies of a Biographer. 4 vols. London:
Duckworth and Company, 1902.
"Thackeray." The New York Daily Times V (October 29, 1355), 2.
Thackeray, William Makepeace. The Biographical Edition of the Works
of William Makepeace Thackeray. 13 vols. London: Smith, Elder,
and Company, 1898-1899.
"De Juventute," XII, 229-241.
"Nil Nisi Bonus," XII, 173-179*
"On Screens in Dining-Rooms," XII, 217-222.
"Small Beer Chronicle," XII, 302-308.
"Thorns in the Cushion," XII, 209-216.
. Thackerays Letters to an American Family With An
Introduction by Lucy ¥. Baxter and Original Drawings by Thackeray.
New Yorks The Century Company, 1904.
Trollope, Anthony, An Autobiography. Garden City, New York: Doubleday
and Company, Inc., n.d.
. Thackeray. "English Men of Letters." London:
Macmillan and Company, 1879.
. "W, M. Thackeray." The Gornhill Magazine. IX
(February, 1364), 134-137.

247
"The Virginians. The Literary Gazette, and Journal of Belies
Lettres. Science, and Art. Ho. 2129 (Hovesber 7, 1357), 1065-1066*
The Virginians.'1 The Saturday Review of Politics. Literature.
Science, and Art. VIX (Novetaber 19, 135977610-612.
Walpole, Hugh. Anthony Trollope. "The English Men of Letters.
lew fork: The Macmillan Company, 1928.
Wright, William Aldis (Editor)* More Letters of Edward Fitzgerald*
Londons Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1901.
[lates, Edmund]. "Echoes'from the London Clubs." The Hew York Times.
IX (May 26, i860), 2.
. Edmund Yates; His Recollections and Experiences*
2 vols. Londons Richard Bentley and Son, 1884*
Unpublished Sources
Trollopefs Diary for the Composition of Thackeray* Bodleian Library.
Trollope Papers II* MS, Don. C. 9, 10, 10%.
Trollope's Questions and Lady Ritchie's Answers, Bodleian Library.
Trollope Papers II. MS* Don. C. 10. f. 72, 73*

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Mark Douglas Hawthorne was born December 9, 1938, in Berea,
Ohio. He was graduated from New Hanover High School in Wilmington,
North Carolina, and from Wake Forest College in Winston-Salem, Worth
Carolina, With the degree of Bachelor of Arts in I960. From September,
I960, until February, 1962, he studied at the University of Florida
and worked as a graduate assistant in the Department of English until
he received the degree of Master of Arts, Prom February, 1962, until
the present time he has pursued his work toward the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy.
Mark Douglas Hawthorne is married to the former Mary Lydia
Seaber and is the father of one child. He is a member of Eta Sigma
Phi, Phi Beta Kappa, the Modern Language Association, and the South
Atlantic Modern Language Association.

This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the
chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved
by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the
College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was
approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
August 8, 1964
Supervisory Committees



142
after which he did not rise again to the great. After his most
successful novel, Thackeray, according to Trollope, created his most
successful character, Colonel Neweome, a Judgment that was already
stated in the Cornhill article. Yet even while Trollope may not place
all Thackeray*s work on an equally high level, he maintained that
Thackeray was superior to both George Eliot and Charles Dickens, the
two closest rivals.
The single paragraph in the autobiography that touches in
detail on Thackerays character must be quoted, despite its lengthi
On Christmas day I863 we were startled by the
news of Thackerays death. He had then for many
months given up the editorship of the Cornhill
Magazine.-a position for which he was hardly
fitted either by his habits or temperament,but
was still employed in writing for its pages. I
had known him only for four years, but had grown
into much intimacy with him and his family. I
regard him as one of the most tender-hearted
human beings I ever knew, who, with an exaggerated
contempt for the foibles of the world at large,
would entertain an almost equally exaggerated
sympathy with the joys and troubles of individuals
around him. He had been unfortunate in early
life-unfortunate in regard to money-unfortunate
with an afflicted wife-unfortunate in having his
home broken up before his children were fit to be
his companions. This threw him too much upon
clubs, and taught him to dislike general society.
But it never affected his heart, or clouded his
imagination. He could still revel in the pangs
and joys of fictitious life, and could still feel
as he did to the very lastthe duty of showing
to his readers the evil consequences of evil con
duct. It was perhaps his chief fault as a writer
that he could never abstain from that dash of
satire which he felt to be demanded by the weak
nesses which he saw around him. The satirist who
writes nothing but satire should irrite but little,
or it will seem that his satire springs rather from
his own caustic nature than from the sins of the


219
a pivotal point in the development of biographical writing and as
such reflects the development of the genre so clearly that it gains
an importance otherwise lacking*
Thackeray*s family, represented by Lady Ritchie and Leslie
Stephen, did not fail to see what Trollope had done in the biography,
and the immediate result was the severing of whatever ties had held
them to Trollope. This immediate reaction led to the denial of any
aid given to the writer, thus accounting for the widely spread miscon
ception that Trollope received no substantial aid from Lady Ritchie
or Edward Fitzgerald.-^ But this reaction only served, during the next
two decades, to make an authorized biography more necessary; while
the family reacted by greater silence, Thackerays old enemies,
particularly Disraeli in Endvmion (1880) and lates in Recollections
and Experiences (1884), used the biography as an excuse to renew their
attacks. The entrance of Lady Ritchie as the official biographer of
her father in the late 1890s came as a result of these attacks;
therefore, her sanctioning of the biography was the direct action that
broke Thackerays wish that there be no life written of him. That
Lady Ritchie resented Trollopes portrayal of her father was apparent
to him when he saw her at Smiths in February, 1882; in a postscript
to a letter to his wife Trollope wrote:
I dined at Smiths last night and met Annie
Thackeray, & we smiled at each other, and
we had a thorough good talk. I am very glad
because my memory of her father was wounded
by the feeling of a quarrel.^


57
eomynge The Cliche Waltham House is now the
property of one Mistress Wilkins, who has let
it to your lovynge lord & husband for 714
or 21 years, with mande and diverse clauses
which shall hereafter as time may serve be
explained to your excellente 1adiship42
Mr. Sadleir has described Waltham House, at Waltham Gross in Hertford
shire, as wa fine Georgian house of weathered brick, which had in
those days a large garden, good stabling and surroundings of great
rural beauty.In his autobiography Trollope described the advantages
that the new residence was to bring him;
In December 1359, while I was still very hard at
work on my novel {Tramlev Parsonage]. I came
over to take charge of the Eastern District,
and settled myself at a residence about twelve
miles from London, in Hertfordshire, but on
the borders both of Essex and Middlesex,
which was somewhat too grandly called Waltham
House, This I took on lease, and subsequently
bought after I spent about 5,1000 on improve
ments. From hence I was able to make myself
frequent both in Gornhill and Piccadilly, and
to live, when the opportunity came, among men
of my own pursuit,44
The move to Waltham House opened the London world to Trollope, while
he continued to have the rustic pleasures that Ireland had offered;
I was now settled at Waltham Gross, in a house
in which I could entertain a few friends
modestly, where we grew our cabbages and
strawberries, made our own butter, and killed
our own pigs, I occupied it for twelve
years, and they were years to me of great
prosperity.45
But this new world -was not dependent alone upon the change
of residence; much of it derived from his acquaintance with Thackeray,
With characteristic energy Trollope filed official reports, made
arrangements to move from Ireland, and on August 4 began composing a


198
It may be said that had Thackeray succeeded
in that attempt he would surely have ruined
himself, No man can be fit for the management
and performance of special work who has
learned nothing of it before his thirty-seventh
year; and no man could have been less so than
Thackeray, There are men who, though they be
not fit, are disposed to learn their lesson
and make themselves as fit as possible. Such
cannot be said to have been the case with this
man# For the special duties which he would
have been called upon to perform, consisting
to a great extent of the maintenance of dis
cipline over a large body of men, training
is required, and the service would have suf
fered for awhile under any untried elderly
tiro. Another man might have put himself
into hardness. Thackeray never would have
done so. The details of his work after the
first month would have been inexpressibly
wearisome to him. To have gone into the
city, and to have remained there every day
from eleven till five would have been all but
impossible to him. He would not have done
it. And then he would have been tormented
by the feeling that he was taking the pay and
not doing the work.90
Whereas this type of projection derived only from Trollopes own mind,
the implication is clearly suggested: Trollope was a good public
servant, but Thackeray could only have left the civil service with the
memory of a disgraceful job.n<^ But the implied contrast of the
writer and his subject moves into more personal grounds in this same
paragraph. Trollope, who worked during the days for the Post Office and
in his spare time as a novelist, had established a system for tabulating
his daily work and scorned those writers who, like Thackeray, were not
methodical:


94
accounts of what is going on here come back
to London, they have the oddest possible effect.
It seems so strange, first, that any one should
write themsecondly, that any one should print
them without being ashamed-and, thirdly, that
the information, with its curious travesties of
names and facts, should be credulously swallowed.
As an example, we may take a communication that
appeared in the Hew York Times of the 26th of
May, under the title of Echoes from the London
Clubs. It deals with English people in a
strain of extraordinary frankness, but we must
venture to reproduce some of its statements,
because it is impossible otherwise to estimate
what we should come to here If society and the
higher portion of the press did not constantly
keep newspaper gossip in decent bounds. . .
The fact is that he has so much literary gossip
to communicate that he cannot afford much space to
art. Principally he writes about the Cornhill
Magazine. He does not seem to agree with Mr.
Thackerays rose-coloured views of the success of
that publication, and no reader of the Hew York
Times is likely to believe that the author of
Vanity Fair has had much cause to streak himself
with the red paint that was, as he has told us,
the proper accompaniment of his triumphant. That
notable periodical, we read, "went up like a
rocket and came down like a stick. But particu
lars about the sale of the different numbers into
which he enters are wearisome, and open to question,
so he soon hurries to something a little more
personal. There have been four tremendously heavy
dinner parties given by Smith at his residence in
Gloucestar-terracs. Most of us remember the
circular in which Mr. Thackeray announced his
Magazine, and spoke of the claret of different
growths that figuratively adorned his editorial
board. This was poetry; but the correspondent sees
only prose, and gives the following unvarnished
account of these editorial repasts:"Thackeray is
of course the great gun of these banquets* and
comes out with the greatest geniality in his
power, speaking of G H. Lewes as Mr. Bede, and
drawing out each man to the extent to his ability.
A dinner, we fear, might well be tremendously heavy
at which the greatest geniality of the great gun is
shown by his calling Mr. Lewes Mr. Bede. There
then follows a story to the disadvantage of the host.


91
and (5) Trollope is, in contrast to Thackeray, placed in a favorable
light. These five points help us to understand the reality that is
hidden beneath the account. In the first place, Thackeray's joke, which
can be dated at the January dinner, as apparently futile not because
Smith was ignorant but because Smith thought quickly enough to top it
with a rapid repartee. In this respect Yates's account written within
four months of the event is probably more accurate than Trollope's
written several years later.6 But although Yates says that "a roar of
laughter cut him short," he twists the actual event by implying that
the laughter was directed at the publisher? however, Trollope did not
make Smith ignorant, only preoccupied, so that the misunderstanding of
the joke seems to be on Trollope's part, not on Smith's, Trollope's
version is careful to save Smith's intellectual character while making
Thackeray repeat the joke in a vain attempt. If Yates learned of the
joke on the day following the January dinner, as he did according to
Trollope, it is strange that he did not put it to use until four months
later? if Trollope spoke to Yates only after the first dinner as he
claims, it is strange that Yates mentions the decline of the Cornhill's
circulation and the possible touching up of Anne's "Little Scholars."
V, know that the Cornhill declined in circulation during the first few
months, but not to the extent of Yatess assertion and not financially
to the distress of the publisher? hence Yates is entirely unaware of
the actual facts and is probably guessing. In the matter of "Little
Scholars," however, his version appears to be based on a misconception
of the actual facts that might have derived from a Cornhill dinner.
Many years later, Lady Ritchie told George Smith,


226
Trollope was able, to maintain his own pride and lift himself higher
than otherwise. When he was called upon to write the biography,
Trollope was dependent upon the family for information so that he
could not make a direct attack, but he does portray Thackeray in such
a manner that the book becomes an attack rather than the expected
praise of Thackeray, The nature of the biography immediately
alienated Thackeray's family from the author and the book was allowed
to fall as a failure in relative oblivion. The changes brought in
biographical writing by Frauds, Strachey and Freud have shown that
Trollope's book was written against the prevailing sentiments of its
age, but in terms of the modern reader, the book is a revealing account
of the relationship between two authors traditionally thought of as
"close friends." It is this relationship that we have carefully
studied in the hopes that the unscrambling of the data in the little
biography will throw new light on the men who helped to make
Victorian literature and on the biography itself as a produce of a
certain aspect of the culture of the nineteenth century.
Notes
^John A, Garraty, The Nature of Biography (New York, 1957),
pp. 99-100.
O
Harold Nicolson, The Development of English Biography (London,
1959), p. 129.
3
See Adversity, p, 3.
^Trollope Letters. p. 472.
^Ritchie, "Thackeray and his Biographers," p. 811.


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Annan, Noel Gilroy, Leslie Stephen: His Thought and Character in
Relation to his Time. London: MacGibbon and Kee, Ltd., 1951.
Bevington, Merle Mowbray. The Saturday Review, 1855-1863: Representa
tive Educated Opinion in Victorian England. Hew York: Columbia
University Press, 1941.
Booth, Bradford A, Anthony Trollope: Aspects of his Life and Work.
Londons Edward ITulton and Company, Ltd., 1958,
. The Letters of Anthony Trollope. London: Oxford
University Press, 1951.
Brookfield, Charles and Frances, Mrs. Brookfield and Her Circle.
2 vols. London: Sir Isaac Pitman and Sons, Ltd., 1905.
Brown, John, Letters of Dr. John Brown With Letters from Ruskin.
Thackeray, and Others, London: Adam and Charles Black, 1907.
Carr, J. Comyns. Some Eminent Victorians: Personal Recollections in
the World of Arts and Letters. London: Duckworth and Company,
1903.
"Club Secrets." The Saturday Review of Politics. Literature. Science.
and Art. IX Tiarch 24, l86o)",~368-369.
The Correspondence of Thomas Carlyle and Ralph Waldo Baerson. 1834-
1872. 2 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1883*
"Dickens and His Publishers." Littell1s The Living Age. LX (March 5,
1359), 624.
Dickens, Charles. "In Memoriam," The Cornhill Magazine. IX (February,
1864), 129-132.
Downey, Edmund (Editor). Charles Lever: His Life in His Letters.
2 vols. Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1906.
The Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature. Science, and Art. XLV
(November, 1858), 434.
242


160
xjcmM talk in the evenings when he wished to
be silent and of these occasions he said in
self-defence, she was always the aggressor."
. Eventually her fabulous departure from
factual truth stirred Stephen to reproof, and as
his sister-in-law was exclaiming, "Indeed, I
tell my maid everything," he groaned, "Oh, yes
Annie, and we do wish you wouldnt," relapsing
again into the twilight of his thoughts while
Annies peals of laughter rang round the icy
dining-room.2-4-
Perhaps it is unfair to question the veracity of one of the major
sources of Thackerayan biography, but even Lady Ritchie herself invited
such criticism when she objected to James T, Fields paper in the
Atlantic Monthly by writing:
An anecdote I sh.4 like omitted is that one of
my father attempting to put his legs out of
the window (w£ of course he would not have thought
of really doing) another w£ seemed to me not
characteristic of him was his stopping in the
street to make a quotation about the Edinbro
speech it seemed to me that althoT I of course
understand that you meant to describe him as
laughing at himself, it would scarcely strike
anyone who read it without knowing him, in that
light.2?
To wish to suppress certain anecdotes either true or false because they
did not seem characteristic to the mans daughter is, indeed, presenting
a false picture to the world, particularly since a man does not always
behave in the same way when with his children as when accompanied by
his peers. The desire to suppress such material leads eventually to
the manipulation of factual details so that the writers preconceptions
will be communicated, not the unprejudiced truth. Thus Fitzgerald might
well be criticising his friends daughter for her biased, hero-worship
of her father, a criticism later repeated by Virginia Woolf, Lady Ritchies
step-niece, in the character of Mrs. Hilbsry in Right and Day.


19
Smith, Horace Mayhew, Douglas J err old, James Eannay, and Augustus
Sala,^ men who never rose above journalism and later resented
Thackerays rise to literary and social prominence.*0 Of those Yates
remembers enjoying Evans "annexea comfortable kind of hall, hung
with theatrical portraits, &c.where conversation could be carried
on51 were several whom Thackeray knew from the early 1840*s when he
was first connected with Punch; in fact, Thackeray earned a position on
the staff after Jerrold and Mark Lemon procured Albert Smiths dismissal
in December, 1843.^ Hence after 1843 there would have been some
friction between Thackeray and the Smiths? if Yatess account was meant
to include persons who might be seen at Evans at one time, there would
already be antagonisms hidden beneath the surface harmony. Since
Thackeray's feud with Jerrold for supremacy at Punch took place in
I846, J the most logical time in which Thackeray could have frequented
Evans with these men x-jould have been prior to this literary battle,
at a time in which Yates would have been about fifteen years old and
unknown except as the son of a fairly prominent family of actors,'5^'
If Thackeray (who was about thirty-five in 1846) knew Edmund Yates, the
relation must have been, even at the most, more the recognition of the
son of a late fellow member of the Garrick Club^ than the friendship
of peers. This obscure reference, however, does mean, that each of these
figures may have known of the existence of the other from a time prior
to Thackerays rise to fame.


56
The arduous arrangements, under the circumstances of his illness and
other obligations, forced Thackeray to abandon Philip, the novel he was
writing for monthly installments in the Cornhill: on August 23 be and
Smith had reached an alternative plans
For the new Magazine we are going to turn the
Comedy into a story in 6 numbers to be followed
by the 4 Georges in 4 numbersand not begin
the long story until July.39
As agreed, Thackeray turned The ¥olves and the Lamb into the short,
"comparatively unimportant story, Level the Widower.1"^ He knew the
weakness of the story and was, therefore, glad to welcome Anthony
Trollope to his staff if the latter could supply a novel before the
copy for the first number went to the printer in December.
When he returned to England from the West Indies in the
simmer of 1859, Trollope requested a transfer to England. His work was
of such a nature that he was often away from Dublin, his home, and a
transfer to the vicinity of London would unite his family and place
him within the reach of the publishers, the clubs, and the dinner
parties of the metropolis."^ When his request was granted, he searched
for a place to live that could be close to London and still preserve
the rural atmosphere of Ireland. By August 2 he was able to tell his
wife that a place had been leased:
To ye ladie of Waltham House in y Countie of
Herts. These
Deareste Madame
Havinge withe infinite trouble & pain inspected
& surveyed and poked manie and diverse holes in ye
aforesaid mansion, I have at ye laste hired and
taken it for moste excediente ladieshipto have
and to hold from ye term of St Michaels mass next


34
innocently to confide in a man at the Garrick Club whom he considered
a friend. This unknown man told Thackeray the identity of the author,
and for the first time Thackeray definitely knew the man who attacked
him.
It is easy to imagine Thackerays shock and indignation when
he discovered that a man he had known, and probably trusted for several
years, was the author of a slanderous column about him. As we have
seen, the relation of the two men was such that Thackeray was probably
quite friendly to his younger contemporary. It is not necessary to
assume either that "Yates was moved by an overzealous partisanship for
Dickens" or that Thackeray was compelled to place the matter before
the Committee of the Garrick Club "by his surmise that Dickens was
Yatess active ally." Thackerays anger at discovering that an
acquaintance whom he regarded as a friend had ridiculed him was motive
enough for his actions
Had your remarks been written by a person
unknown to me, I should have noticed them no
more than other calumnies: but as we have
shaken hands more than once, and met hitherto
on friendly terms, (You may write to one of
your employers, M? Carruthers of Edinburgh,
& ask whether very lately I did not speak of
you in the most friendly manner) I am obliged
to take notice of articles w-r I consider to
be, not offensive & unfriendly merely, but
slanderous and untrue.^-4
Only after discovering that his identity was known, did Yates solicit
Dickenss aid,^"^ yet there is no need to suppose that Thackeray knew
or surmised Yatess helper. It was not until November 24 that Dickens
116
confessed to Thackeray his part in the feud, and Thackerays letter
of November 26 expresses his surprise:


65
eye, the contents were delightful to the mind* In the 128 pages of
the large, extremely readable type was a liberal feast fit for any
palate, prepared by amateurs and professionals alike, and presented to
the pxiblic without signatures. The contents alone reveal the fulfill
ment of Thackerays desire to make the Cornhlll na man of the world
Magazine"s
(Anthony Trollope I] Framley Parsonage.
Chapter 1. 11 Ctenes omnia bona dlcere. Chapter 2.
The Framley Set and the Chaldicotes Set.
Chapter 3 Chaldicotes. . ..... 1
[Sir John Bowring3 The Chinese and the Outer
Barbarians ............ .26
[W. M. Thackeray,3 Lovel the Widower.Chapter 1,
The Bachelor of Beak Street. .......... .44
[G, H. LewesJ Studies in Animal LifeChapter 1. .61
Father Prouts Inauguration Ode to the Author
of "Vanity Fair. 75
[Sir John Burgoyne.3 Our Volunteers .77
(Thornton Hunt 3 A Man of Letters of the Last
Generation .......... ...85
[Allen Young .3 The Search for Sir John
Franklin (from the Private Journal of an
Officer of the Fox) 96
LMrs. Archer Clive3 The First Morning of 1860. 122
[W. M. Thackeray.3 Roundabout Papers.No. 1
On a Lazy Idle Boy ............... 124 ^
In this table of contents the Cornhlll offered fiction, poetry, the
personal essay, the scientific essay, the adventure narrative, and a
patriotic appeal to oppose the French, Between Thackeray and Smith the
new magazine had become not just a reality but a periodical of out
standing promise.
The public reception was immediate and far excelled the wildest
dreams of its editor or publisher:


195
la 1330 he left Cambridge, and vent to Weimar
either in that year or in 1831. Between Weimar
and Paris he spent some portion of his earlier
years, while his family,his mother, that is,
and his stepfather,were living in Devonshire.
It was then the purport of his life to become
an artist, and he studied drawing at Paris,
affecting especially Bonnington, the young
English artist who had himself painted at Paris
and who had died in 1828. He never learned to
draw,perhaps never could have learned. That
he was idle, and did not do his best, we may
take for granted. He was always idle, and only
on some occasions, when the spirit moved him
thoroughly, did he do his best even in after
life* But with drawing,or rather without it,
he did wonderfully well even when he did his
worst. He did illustrate his own books, and
everyone knows how incorrect were his delineations.
But as illustrations they were excellent. How
often have I wished that characters of my own
creating might be sketched as faultily, if with
the same appreciation of the intended purpose.
Let everyone look at the 'plates,'1 as they are
called in Vanity Fair, and compare each with the
scenes and the characters intended to be dis
played, and there see whether the artist,if we
may call him so,has not managed to convey in
the picture the exact feeling which he has described
in the text.'83
As soon as he had discarded the factual details, Trollope moves into his
own opinion; the illogical and awkward constructions immediately are
followed by smooth logical patterns and graceful cadences. Since the
discussion of Thaekeray's inability to draw and idleness fall within
the more fluent section of the paragraph, these elements, not the
factual, are emphasized. Because this type of emphasis is frequent in
the chapter, that which claims to be biographical is, in effect,
Trollopes personal opinion of Thaekeray's character pulled into a
structure by a few factual details. To see Trollopes opinion of
Thackeray is, then, to understand the chapter in its fullest light and
to appreciate Trollopes relation to his subject.


196
Trollope tells his reader early in the chapter, "Something of
his manner, something of his appearance I can say, something perhaps
of his condition of mind; because for some few years he was known to
me>tt'34 The nature of such an assertion is to cover his statements with
the aura of truth and throw the unsuspecting off guard. But the view
held by Trollope, as we have already seen in the autobiography, did not
allow him to present an image that was either agreeable to the subjects
daughter, who saw her father from a more sentimental viewpoint, or
accurate to Thackerays later biographers who could look upon their
subject without the blinders of personal antagonism. The relation
between the two novelists was not one that led the younger to an
unbiased view; therefore, when he attempted to soar to eulogy in the
last paragraph of the first chapter, perhaps to please Lady Ritchie,
who had offered important help, his choice of words is forced, overdone,
and sentimental:
Such is my idea of the man whom many call a
cynic, but whom I regard as one of the most
soft-hearted of human beings, sweet as
Charity itself, who went about the world
dropping pearls, doing good, and never
wilfully inflicting a wound,5
The absurd comparison of Charity or Christ and Thackeray might have
been moving if the earlier portions of the chapter had skillfully or at
least consistently led to it as an inevitable conclusion, but to move
from Trollopes censures into this kind of figurative language reduces
the concluding paragraph to bathos. If Trollope were attempting to
present an honestly objective view that weighed Thackerays good and
bad qualities and found him overcoming the bad, the final tribute would
be understandable, but Trollope created no such carefully balanced


119
over this sad condition of things just
revealed to me, I met Thackeray between the
two mounted heroes at the Horse Guards, and
told him the story. MDo you mean to say that
I am to find two thousand pounds? he said,
angrily, with some expletives, I explained that
I had not even suggested the doing of anything,
only that we might discuss the matter. Then
there came over his face a peculiar smile, and a
wink in his eye, and he whispered his suggestion
as though half ashamed of his meanness. "Ill
go half, he said, if anybody will do the rest.
And he did go half, at a day or two's notice,
though the gentleman was no more than simply a
friend. I am glad to be able to add that the
money was quickly repaid.
While Trollope does not mention that he lent Synge the other half
(even though the implication is too strong to miss), he does make several
statements that need to be scrutinized: (l) he insinuated that Synge
first approached him for the amount; (2) the characterization of
Thackeray is hardly laudatory? and (3) he asserted that Synge "was no
more than simply a friend of Thackerays. If we analyze these state
ments, several discrepancies between Trollope's account and the actual
episode become apparent. In 1846 Synge entered the Foreign Service and
was attached to the British legation at Washington from 1851 to July 1,
pry
1853. Thackeray had known him prior to this since on February 24
he told Mrs. Baxter that "my English acquaintance Synge has married a
28
charming young creature a great deal too good for him. J Gn March 1
he sent Mrs. Synge a note of apology for leaving Washington without
seeing her and asked her to visit him xjhen she was in London.^ Then
in the autumn and winter of 1853 Thackeray lent the Synges his home,
13 Young Street, while he was in Italy. ^ These happenings are nine
years before Thackeray loaned him money; therefore, Synge appears to


ISO
It was, I believe, in consequence of the
allusion to Catherine Hayes in "Pendennis" that an
incident occurred tilth comes within my own recol
lection. One evening my father received a letter
signed by a Mr. Briggs, announcing that a company
of young Irishmen had determined to chastise him
for this, and for various other supposed personal
insults of an equally serious nature, and intended
to come over one by one until their purpose was
accomplished# Mr. Briggs had taken lodgings opposite
to our house in Young Street, and was waiting until
my father should go out, to attack him.
In the window of our dining-room was presently
established a stout good-humoured-looking man in
a mustard-coloured coat, who was, so we are told,
a detective. He arrived immediately after break
fast, and spent the morning staring at the opposite
doorway, while my father finished his mornings
work. When lunch time came the detective descended
for his meal into the kitchen. Some friends arrived
to luncheon. My father said the situation was
becoming ridiculous and unbearable, and to our alarm
and excitement he walked straight across the street
and knocked at the door of 1%. Briggs lodging and
went in. We waited wondering in the bow-window;
at the end of twenty minutes or so the lodging-
house door opened, and he came out, unruffled and
composed. He had walked in, caused himself to be
announced suddenly by the landlady; had told Mr.
Briggs he was come to talk the matter over, and to
find out in what he had offended him. The young
manhe was a very young man-blustered at first,
then suddenly cooled down and listened to reason.
He had never heard of the real Catherine Hayes,
the murderess, before. He seems to have been
surprisingly amenable to explanation, and after ten
minutes conversation, to my father's great relief,
he actually promised to go back to Ireland. And
so he did, that very evening.52
Here is a possibility of Trollopes learning an anecdote from the daughter
rather than the father, although whichever may be the ultimate source
for the passage in Thackeray cannot with accuracy be determined. That
Lady Ritchie had remembered the episode and thought it iraportant enough
to add to her "Biographical Introductions" may well indicate that she


125
House was twelve miles from the city. In a letter to Follett Synge,
written later in December, Trollope explains that he had not seen
Thackeray for ten days prior to his death:
I saw him for the last time about ten days
before his death, and sat with him for half an
hour talking about himself. I never knew him
pleasanter or more at ease as to his bodily
ailments* How I seem to have loved that dear
head of his now that he has gone.
I had better tell the story all through. It
is bad to have to write it, but you will expect
to be told. He had suffered very much on the
Wednesday (23rd), but had got out in the after
noon. He was home early, and was so ill when
going to bed that his servant suggested he had
better stay. He was suffering from spasms and
retching, having been for some months free from
this complaint than for a long time previously.
He would not have the servant, .and was supposed
to go to bed. He was heard moving in the night. . .
It Is believed that he must have gone off between
two and three, and I hear his last hours were
painful. His arms and face were very rigidas I
was told by Leech who saw him in the morning
afterwards *45
One sentence in this tense account stands dramatically in relief after
having traced the relation of the men: !,Eow I seem to have loved that
dear head of his now that he has gone. The immediacy of such sentiment
is particularly meaningful when we remember the frictions between them
when they first met and the gradual lessening of their misunderstandings.
But the sentence is interesting from another vantage: Trollope was
i
increasingly aware of Thackeray* s merits after Thackeray the man had
been removed by death.


163
S 15 5
S 16 5
M 17 5
T IS 7
W 19
T 20 8
F 21 ¡L
S 22 5
S 23 5
M 24 7
T 25 3
27
A comparison of this table with the section for September, 1364, of
his notebooks, kept when he was writing The Claverlngs reveals the slow
pace of his compositions
Sept. 1
11-20
16
No. 4, 1-10
2
21-30
17
11-20
3
600
18
21-30
4
31-38
19
31-40
5
39-48
20
4148
6
21
No. 5. 1-12
7
Writing Malachis
22
13-24
3
Cove.
23
25-36
9
24
37-48
10
No. 3. 1-12
25
No. 6. 1-12
11
13-24
26
1324
12
25-36
27
25-32
-IX
37-48
28
33-42
14
29
43-48
-15
JO
No. 7. 1-3
While the average number of pages per day for The Claverlngs is ten,
Trollope averaged only about five per day, and at his best wrote only
seven, when writing the English Men of Letters volume. The volume was
hard for him to tirite because it vfs.s a biographical and critical review
of another novelist while The Claverlngs was a novel but also because
Trollope is obviously at odds with the task before him. He wanted to


31
all but pitiful shams On April 11, 1857, the same periodical
claimed that it "cannot be classed among Mr. Thackeray*s detractors"
but admitted that "we own to have felt somewhat tired and bored by the
perpetual flow of sarcasm and vehement denunciation which Mr. Thackeray
102
poured upon the devoted head of the defunct voluptuary George IV ."
On November 7, 1857, however, the reviewer for The Literary Gazette
found the first number of The Virginians promising,"*-^ but in January
through March, 1858, the periodical took a firm stand against
Thackerays recommendation that a special school be provided for the
children of literary men. This type of opposition"^ made him increas
ingly uneasy and only too glad to give up The Four Georges in June,
1857;-^ that he lost to his Whig opponent when he stood for Parliament
in July^ was, at least to some degree, a result of the unfavorable
image of him that these journalists placed before the public. These
gleanings help us to perceive the undercurrent of feeling antagonistic
to Thackeray at a time when his prominence was firmly established by
Vanity Fair, The History of Pendennis. The History of Henry Esmond, and
The Hewcernes. Thackeray was helpless against this continual attack;
he could not strike at his reviewers as long as they remained hidden in
the comfortable security of the unsigned column*
In 1855, Edmund Yates developed a scheme that won the approval
of the publisher Henry Vizetelly, and on June 30, The Illustrated Times
carried the article, "The Lounger at the Clubs," the first personal
gossip column.10^ When the staff divided the most prominent men of
letters among themselves, Sala wrote on Dickens, James Hannay on


154
and evil evil. There is not a line of which
she need be ashamed,-not a sentiment of which
she should not be proud. But she writes like a
lazy writer who dislikes her work, and who
allows her own want of energy to show itself in her
pages.-*-
Lady Ritchie wished to obey her father's commandment that
there be no biography of him, and when Edward Fitzgerald, Thackeray's
friend of long standing, suggested in 1865 that she commission Tom
Taylor to do a biography, she refused. On May 14 he withdrew his
proposali
I think it is much [the^ best to have no memoir of
your fathers as you say, he is in his Books. I
only suggested Tom Taylor in case there were any;
or to anticipate some stupid Cockney, should any
such project such a work.
While the family could not prevent unauthorized biographies or collec
tions of anecdotes, some did creep into print. On June 20, 1891,
seven years before she turned biographer herself in the "Biographical
Introductions," Lady Ritchie stated her positions
People sometimes regret that my father left no
autobiography, and that no important printed
book has been published about his life; but I
cannot help thinking that whatever may or may
not be published in the future, his life has
been told by himself, in his own pages, better
than any other person can tell it, for those
who have eyes to see and ears to hear; and that
it has been best read by those who best appre
ciated him and his works.12
Twelve years before she made this statement, Leslie Stephen summed up
the same position, and Leslie Stephen's comments are of additional
interest since they appeared the same year as Trollope's little volumes


90
the bibliopole, astonished; "behind the
screen? JOHNSON? God bless my soul, my
dear Mr. THACKERAY, theres no person of
the name of JOHNSON here, nor any one behind
the screenwhat on earth do you mean? A
roar of laughter cut him short; poor Mr. SMITH
had probably never heard of Dr* JOHNSON and his
screen dinner* The principal contributors to
the Cornhill are ANTONY TROLLOPE, who is
writing Framley Parsonage* in its pages;
GEORGE SALA, the biographer of HOGARTHs Big
HIGGINS, M0NCKT0N MILNES, and 0XFJF0RD, of
the Times; G. H. LEWES, who is writing the
Insect Life; HOLLINGSHEAD, HANNA Y, Mrs.
GASKELL, Sir JOHN BURGOYNE, Sir J. BONRING,
Gapt. ALLEN YOUNG, DASENT (second Editor of
the Times;) and a host of smaller fry* The
paper ealled "Little Scholars,1' in the current
number, was written by THACKERAYS eldest
daughterher first attempt at literary composi
tion; it is pretty, but bears traces of being
touched up by the paternal hand,as THACKERAY
himself once said to PETER CUNNINGHAM, who
was proudly pointing to some anonymous article
as his writing; "Ah! I thought I recognized
your hoof in it!" With the exception of
DICKENS and THACKERAY, perhaps, ANTONY TROLLOPE
is making more money than any English novelist.
He has a situation in the Post-Office, which
brings him over eight hundred a year; he gets
a thousand guineas for his "Framley Parsonage;
and in addition to this, had just completed and
published a novel with GHAHiAN & HALL; besides
all he is making by his reprints and new
editions. Some of his literary friends want
him to give up the Post-Office and devote all
his time to novel-writing, but he wisely looks
upon his official position as a source of
certain income, and intends to stick to it.^
In this piece of newspaper gossip Yates makes several statements which
are immediately important; (l) there have been four Cornhill dinners
(e.g., January, February, larch, and April); (2) Thackerays futile
attempt to joke is related; (3) Smith is made out to be ignorant of
literature; (4) Thackeray is accused of touching up "Little Scholars;


136
In the autobiography he tells that he resigned when Mr. Scudamore was
promoted over his head for a position, Assistant Secretary, for i^hieh
he hiraself had applied. According to Sadleir, Edmund Yates became
Scudamores confidential aide In 1367; therefore, when Scudamore was
advanced over Trollope, the novelist thought that he was the victim of
Yatess Intrigue. The final encounter of the two men, however, did
not separate their paths; as late as 1878, a year before Thackeray was
written, both men, in a party of nine, attended a dinner given by
T, H, S, Escott.^ If Trollope did break with Post Office on account
of Yates as has been postulated, it is interesting that Trollope became
a friend of Alfred Austin, whose publication of personal gossip
infuriated Robert Browning and who had doctored Yates during his sick
ness in Switzerland. Trollope became intimate enough with Austin during
the 1870's that they were regular correspondents, and as early as
May 5, 1371, .Austin was allowed a glance at a side of Trollope frequently
ignored, for on that date Trollope wrote to him, nWe are in all misery
of living among friends and pot-houses, going through that very worst
phases of life which consists in a continuous end ever-failing attempt
to he .lolly with nothing to do, While one treads on dangerous ground
when assessing the relation between two men by their friendship with a
third party, the relation between Yates and Trollope seems to be less
sharply antagonistic when the friendship of each with the then rather
disreputable Alfred Austin is brought into view. While two men may
remain in animosity while both befriend a third man, the third man becomes
the path by which the other two come to share common ideas and opinions.


68
Miile Mrs. Browning sent another contribution, Little Mattie, to
prove that I am not sulky, she defended herself by adding,
I am not a fast woman*I dont like coarse
subjects, or the coarse treatment of any
subject-But I am deeply convinced that the
conniption of our society requires, not shut
doors and windows, but light and airand
that it is exactly because pure & prosperous
women choose to Ignore vice, that miserable
women suffer wrong by it everywhere. Has
paterfamilias, with his Oriental traditions
and veiled female faces, very successfully
dealt with a certain class of evil? Hhat if
materfamilias, with her quick pure instincts
and honest innocent eyes, do more towards
their expulsion by simply looking at them &
calling them by their names
But Mrs. Browning's reaction would have been a relief compared to
Thackerays continual uneasiness when he rejected material, especially
material submitted by young ladies.^ Thackeray himself characterised
"the thorn in the cushion of the editorial chair in his fifth
Roundabout Paper (July, 1860)s
Ah! It stings me now as I write. It comes
with almost every mornings post. At night I
come home, and take my letters up to bed {not
daring to open them), and in the morning I
find one, two, three thorns on my pillow.
Three I extracted yesterday? two I found this
morning. They dont sting quite so sharply as
they did; but a skin is a skin, and they bite,
after all, most wickedly. It is all very fine
to advertise on the Magazine, "Contributions
are only to be sent to Messrs. Smith, Elder, &
Co., and not the Editor's private residence."
My dear sir, how little can you know man- or
woman-kind, if you fancy they will take that
sort of warning! How am I to know (though, to
be sure, I begin to know now), as I take the
letters off the tray, which of those envelopes
contains a real bona fide letter, and which a
thorn? One of the best invitations this year
I mistook for a thorn-letter, and kept it
without opening. This is what I call a thorn-
letters


7
Thackeray has a rather clearly defined place in English literary history
and deserves our attention because it is a pivotal point in the develop
ment of biographical writing.
Notes
1
Gordon N, Ray, Thackeray; The Uses of Adversity. 1311-1846
(New York, 1955), p. 1. Hereafter referred to as Adversity.
2Ibid.. p. 2.
%bid.. p. 3.
%ee, for example, Anne Thackeray Ritchie, "Thackeray and his
Biographers," Illustrated London News, XCVIII {June 20, 1891), 811; or
Adversity, pp. 1-9.
^Anthony Trollope, An Autobiography (Garden City, New York,
n.d*), p. 215. Also,see p. 109:' "Hith \Sir Rowland Hill] I never had
any sympathy, nor he with me. In figures and facts he was most accu
rate, but I never came across any one who so little understood the ways
of men. ..." Hereafter referred to as Autobiography. All quotations
will be presented without alteration of wording, spelling, or punctua
tion.
^Bradford A. Booth, The Letters of Anthony Trollope (London,
1951), p. 148. Hereafter referred to as Trollope Letters.
7
Edmund H, Yates, Edmund Yates: His Recollections and Experiences
(London, I8S4), II, 223. Hereafter referred to as Recollections and
Experiences.
#
-Trollope Letters, pp. 143-149, fn.2. Also see Recollections
and Experiences j, jjf 223.
^[Leonard Huxley], The House of Smith. Elder (London, 1923),
p. 104.


79
17
Anne Thackeray Fdtchie, "The First Editors And the Founder,
The Cornhill Magazine, n.s. XXVIII (January, X9X0), 2.
See Letter of January 23, 1360, from Thackeray to George Smith.
Thackeray Letters. I?, 172.
^^Autobiography, p, 138*
^Quoted in Robertson Scott, pp. 67-68,
21
Letter to George Smith. Thackeray Letters. IV, 154.
22
Letter of October 4 to George Smith, Ibid.. p. 156.
23Itdd., p. 159.
^Gordon S, Haight (ed,), The George Eliot Letters (New Haven,
1954-1955), HI, 210. Hereafter referred to as George Eliot Letters.
^Robertson Scott, p. 67.
?6
'-Letter of September 7 to George Smith. Thackeray Letters. IV, 150.
27
'"'Ritchie, "The First Number, p. 6.
'better of October 28* Thackeray Letters. IV, 153.
Circular of November 1* Ibid., pp. 159-160.
-Ritchie, nThe First Number, p. 5.
31
See bibliography, Melville, II, 289. He finished no. 24 on
September 7. Thackeray Letters. TV, 149.
^Thackeray Letters. IV, 148, fn.44.
^Ritchie, "Biographical Introductions, XI, xv.
-^Reference to his poor health is made in the following letters:
of May 15 to Mrs. Theresa Hatch (Thackeray Letters. IV, 140)j of
May 28 to Mrs. Blackwood (ibid.. p. 142)5 of August 23 to his daughters
(ibid.. p. 14S)? of September ? October 16 to Tennyson (ibid.. p. 151);
of October 1 to Mrs, Carmichael-Smyth (ibid., pp. 154-155); and of
December 16 to Mrs. Irvine (ibid.. p. I69).
35
Ibid., pp. 143-144#
-^Jisdom. p. 295.
^Ritchie, "The First Number," p. 6.


Thackeray, and Tates on Albert Smith; Hannay, however, made a
scathing summary of the merits of the three little essays of famous
men
Thackeray, By a Scholar.
Dickens. By a Dickensian.
Albert Smith. By an Ape.
The union of Hannay (who wrote one of the earliest unauthorised biog
raphies of Thackeray) and Thackeray could only have infuriated the
young Tates, and he "paid Hannay in his own coin, and with interest, on
Qg
a good many occasions. One of these occasions might very well have
been Yatess article on Thackeray in Town Talk on June 12, 1858,
While Yates had ample motivation to write the column on
Thackeray as a result of his alliance with Dickens, Forster, and
Jerrold and because of a personal feud with James Hannay, one of
Thackerays admirers, his version of the composition of the article is
probably true:
About the third week of my engagement Con Town Talkd
I went over to the printers, which was in Aldersgate
Street, close by the Post Office, at the close of my
official work, to make up the paper. All my contri
bution was in type, and I thought I should only have
to remain for half an hour to "see all straight, when
I was horrified at hearing from the head-printer that
in consequence of illness Mr. Watts Phillips had not
sent in his usual amount, and that another column of
original matter was absolutely requisite. There was
no help for it; I took off my coatliterally, I
remember, for it was a warm eveningmounted a high
stool at a high desk, and commenced to cudgel my
brains.
It happened that in the previous week's number I
had written a pen-and-ink sketch of Dickens, which
had given satisfaction; I thought I could not do
better than follow on with a similar portrait of his
great rival,


73
bred politeness and catch his unobtrusive
grace* If we are unwarrantably familiar, we
know who is not. If we repel by pertness, we
know who never does. If our language offends,
we know whose is always modest*^lJi
In "Small Beer Chronicle" (July, 1361) Thackeray hit again:
A short while since, a certain Reviewer
announced that I gave myself great pretensions
as a philosopher. I a philosopher! I advance
pretensions! My dear Saturday friend, And you?
Dont you teach everything to everybody? and
punish the naughty boys if they don't learn as
you bid them?1^2
While such thrusts might appear in Thackeray's skilled hands to be
humorous, the adverse attacks were among the "thorns in the cushions"
that he could best stop through slighting? as early as July, i860, he
declared s
. . it is not the fire of adverse critics
which affects or frightens the editorial bosom.
They may be right; they may be rogues who have
a personal spite; they may be dullards who kick
and bray as their nature is to do, and prefer
thistles to pineapples; they may be conscientious,
acute, deeply learned, delightful judges, who see
your joke in a moment, and the profound wisdom
lying underneath. Wise or dull, laudatory or
otherwise, we put their opinions aside,
The Saturday Review and Thackeray, however, both held as an ideal the
middle class gentleman; it was the Bohemian circle that had sided with
Yates that was particularly offensive.The relation between the
Saturday Review and the editor of the Cornhill had a basis other than
this personal animosity, but when it finally entered the fight between
the obscure papers and Thackeray, it was to raise the great Titmarsh
to his full wrath.


211
Thackeray's works but had found his association with the man to be
insulting to his own dignity. While we cannot censure Thackeray for
ill health during his last four years, we can attribute his insult to
Trollope at the Gomhill dinner, his reluctance to correspond over the
rejected story, and Ms general loftiness from the younger man to his
poor health. That Trollope was unable or unwilling to penetrate
beneath the surface created by the ill health reveals, if anything, his
lack of perception into Thackeray's character, a lack of perception
that led Mm to fortify the antagonism that he learned from Yates and
the publicity of the Garrick Club Affair prior to meeting Thackeray.
Although the relation between the two men appears to have been moving
to a greater intimacy, Thackeray's death prevented the development that
would have eventually given Trollope the needed insight into Thackeray's
character. When he vas commissioned to write the English Men of
Letters volume, he thought that he vs.s writing a work of love, but such
a lofty aspiration was only true of Ms treatment of Thackeray's
literary acMevement, He had difficulty with the first chapter because
he knew that his view differed radically from Lady Ritchie's, but rather
than present a view with which he did not sympathise, he delivered Ms
own opinion, slightly softened from the autobiography since he would be
responsible for it. Thackeray, therefore, is a biographical account
written by a man who greatly admired Ms subject's works while caring
little for the subject himself.


172
Thackeray was bora at Calcutta* on July 18, 1811."35 The second
question was not this simple; Trollope asked, "flames of his parents.
Any details as to the familyespecially his mother" Lady Ritchies
answer was quite full!
His Father was Richmond Thackeray the 7th son
of Wm Makepeace Thackeray lately of Hadley
on [?] They were both Indian civil servants.
Eis mother was Anne Beecher whose father was
also in the Coaipany's service. She went out
to India and married young. She was only 19
when my father was born. She was left a widow
in 1816 & was married a 7/ear or so afterwards to
Maj or Henry Carmichael Smith.
In Thackeray. Trollope utilised this information almost verbatim,
although a paragraph is inserted after the first sentence.
His father was Richmond Thackeray, son of W M,
Thackeray of Hadley, near Barnet, in Middlesex. . .
His father and grandfather were Indian civil
servants* His mother ms Arme Beecher, whose
father was also in the Companys service. She
married early in India, and was only nineteen
when her son was born. She was left a widow
in 1816, with only one child, and was married a
few years afterwards to Major Henry Garmichael
Smyth. . .3
Except for his ommission of Lady Ritchie's "the 7th" and "lately" in
the first sentence and the addition in the same place of geographical
details and the phrase "with only one child" in the last sentence, the
only changes are verbal and the alteration of "married a year or so
afterwards" to "married a few years later" for propriety's sake. This
information was inserted into the book with much less change than her
answer to Trollope's third question:


222
shelf of its own. Trollope is not seeking to praise the man to please
the family? instead he is contrasting the man and the artist in order
to show the superiority of the latter at the expense of the former.
The demands of length placed upon him by his editor prevented the
writing of a bulky volume, another characteristic of the Victorian
biographers. This need to condense, joined with his opinion of
Thackeray, gives Trollope's book greater affinity to Lytton Strachey*s
Eminent Victorians (191S) than to Forsters Dickens. If Trollope
consistently foreshadowed Strachey, as he apparently did from our
study of the text, the emphasis on criticism rather than biography
might result from his unwillingness to say too much about his subject
lest the family be too greatly embittered. Because he had received
help from Lady Ritchie and because he was still honest to himself,
if not to fact, he followed what might be called "the most tactful
path. This path allowed him the freedom to present the biographical and
the critical as he saw them, without unnecessary twisting of the one
to fit the other. The growth of the gulf between criticism and
biography, fostered by the lew Critics, is, in part, an outgrowth of the
development in biographical writing exemplified by Trollopethe
unwillingness to flatter when the author did not think flattery was
due. While Strachey and the debunkers were sble to belittle their
subjects, they were not dependent upon information given by the subjects
family; Trollope was, so he places his emphasis on criticism.


1
There shall be no rap on the knuckles*
I do nothing in that lia unless I m purposely
rubbed against the hair# But you city publishers
are so mcoss&only delicate* where, anything
passe at the West Ea&l I shall, never forget a
terrible ft tilling eorreepondem which. 1 lad
with W* Lon^aan because I wit mk a olergswaa
IdUm a lady Whan ho proposed to mrryHe, the
elergyraa 1 neon; not he ¥ Input But in that
instase HI hgnpna4 ekEreh principles were
perhaps in talca*1
This Section prescita the peon! upon which Trollope and Thackeray
were to clash on "Mrs. General Talboys.* The Victorian reading public,
in this mm, was aligned with Santh aai Thackeray? when the two
stories were nablished in the London tmm Laurence c&ipibsaat cosa
plained to Trollope that the i!lw serai tone of the stories* offended
the readers*^ The situation, therefor, was a division between
Trollope and the Victorian reading public $ that Saith and Thackeray
took aides with .4¡ha presrolng taste ma only natural else they saw
the Comhlll tas a fatally ¡aagaaine# With their knowledge of and
Trollope* ifporsnee of the current taste, we have the curious situa
tion that in the biography Trollope easts aspersions on the wary
attributes that sad Thackeray & successful editorhis ability to read
the oral thermometer of hi reading publie.
The genesis of Mrs* General Tslboye* Mgfet haw com from
Smith hiaiself in late October or early Kowesfeer, although in. his letter
of Howessbar 6, Trollop a@y be referring to an earlier letter, now
lost, in which he ted nentioned the story to Ssith. Severthelesa, in
this letter Trollope first proposes the story*


143
world in which he lives. I myself regard Esmond
as the greatest novel in the English language,
basing that judgment upon the excellence of
its language, on the clear individuality of the
characters, on the truth of its delineations
in regard to the time selected, and on its
great pathos* There are also in it a few scenes
so told that even Scott has never equalled the
telling. Let any one who doubts this read the
passage in which Lady Castlewood induces the
Duke of Hamilton to think that his nuptials
with Beatrice will be honoured if Colonel
Esmond will give away the bride. When he went
from us he left behind living novelists with
great names5 but I think that they who best
understood the matter felt that the greatest
master of fiction of this age had gone.
Here the adverse and the laudatory opinions merge in a rather confusing
manner; unlike the adverse criticism of the Comhill article, the
negative attributes do not serve here to emphasise the positive. Instead
they assume almost a balance in which neither fully emerges as predomi
nate. He relates that Thackeray was the editor of the Cornhill. but he
adds that he was unsuited for the positions in other words, the initial
judgment is negative. Then he relates his intimacy with Thackeray and
highly praises him only to follow this praise by castigating him for his
dislike of society and for being a satirist. These rapid shifts of
point of view remain until he reaches Thackeray the artist and his
.masterpiece; then the writer is entirely laudatory. The ambivalence of
the first two-thirds of the paragraph, however, weakens the final
praise; Trollope has taken his reader through so many shifts without
emphasizing the one side above the other that confusion rather than
reasoned criticism is the result. He almost drives the reader to think
that his judgment is unfounded, a conclusion that he later invites after


75
work was in chronically poor health. In Thackeray (1879) Trollope is
more lenient in his charges, perhaps because tmlike An Autobiography
it was to be published during the authors lifetime:
I was astonished that work should be required
in such haste, knowing that much preparation
had been made, and that the service of almost
any English novelist might have been obtained
if asked for in due time. It vas my readiness
that v;as needed, rather than any other gift!
The riddle was read to me after a time.
Thackeray had himself intended to begin with one
of his own great novels, but had put it off till
it was too late. Lovel the Widower was commenced
at the same time with my own story, but Lovel the
Widower was not substantial enough to appear as
the principal joint at the banquet. Though your
guests will undoubtedly dine off the little
delicacies you provide for them, there must be
a heavy saddle of mutton among the viands pre
pared. I was the saddle of mutton, Thackeray
having omitted to get his joint down to the fire
in time enough. My fitness lay in my capacity
for quick roasting.T06
Apparently Trollope did not know, or chose to forget, Thackerays begin
ning of Philip and the alteration of The Wolves and the Lamb into Lovel
the Widower. His ignorance concerning Thackerays occupations in 1859
and Thackeray's plan to run Lovel the Widower as his novel has caused
him to slant the accounts in such a way that Thackeray comes out on the
small end while he takes the praise upon himself. Lewis Melville
attacks Trollopes position by asserting
Thackeray had made no default, for "Lovel
the Widower" was the story he had intended to
contribute, and the invitation to Trollope arose
from the proprietors belief that a second serial
would strengthen the magazine, "Framley Parsonage"
vas given the place of honour in the new periodical,
indeed, and it was this that led Trollope to a
mistaken conclusion; but that was by Thackerays


212
Hates
^Koel Gilroy Annan, Leslie Stephen: His Thought and Character in
Relation to his Time (London, 1951), p." 63
%Iester Thackeray Ritchie, p* 137.
%he married a distant cousin, Sir Richmond Ritchie in 1377.
^Hester Thackeray Ritchie, p, 252.
^Trollope Letters. p. 316.
^Tbld., p. 323
7Ibid.. p* 346.
^Tbid.. p. 353.
9Ibid** p. 355.
^^Autobiography. p, 196.
11
Adversity, p. 2.
Ip
Ritchie, "Thackeray and his Biographers,3 p. 311.
^Adversity, p. 3.
"^Anne Thackeray Ritchie, "Note to Sir Leslie Stephen's 'Life of
W. M. Thaekeray,The Biographical Edition of the Works of William
Makepeace Thackeray (London, 1393-1399), XIII, 633.
^Leslie Stephen, "Life of W. M. Thackeray," The Biographical
Edition of the Works of William Makepeace Thackeray (London, 1393-1899),
XIII, 689.
16
Only the first chapter of the volume is an attempt to write a
life? the remainder is a critical review of Thackerays works.
^Thackeray, pp. 2-3.
lSRitehie, Thackeray and his Biographers," p. 311.
19
/John Morley, Recollections (Hew York, 1917), I, 92.
20Trollope Letters, pp. 410-411.


30
H. S. Maine registered an objection in The Saturday Review of
December 15 to the reports of Thackeray's lectures in the American
papers : "it is not the act of a good citizen to vituperate with
measureless acrimony a King who has been thirty years dead, before an
audience which firmly believes that the difference between an English
man and an American is exclusively caused by the influence exerted
over the former by the institution of Kingship. He continues by
saying that Thackeray, in his lecture on George I?, panders, probably
without knowing it, to a very popular prejudice.^ The Saturday
Review continued its attack on The Four Georges on January 3, 1357,
in an article by T. C Bandars, who suggests that the lecturer of the
future, wishing to give "an effective, if one-sided picture of
Victorian England," will only need to tell
how the greatest humorist of his day a man
in the highest rank of English literature, a
gentleman by birthwent from town to town,
and rehearsed his admirable productions at
the small charge of five shillings a headhow
he jested in the most lively way about royalty
and episcopacy, and future punishmentand how
he was rapturously applauded by a fashionable
audience, who privately piqued themselves on
nothing more than on being invited, or being
nearly invited, to the Queens balls, and on
regular attendance at church, and sound views
as to the eternity of damnation.
The reviewer for The Literary Gazette of February 7, 1357, insinuates
that Thackeray planned his lectures for the American, "whose abject
prostration before the very semblance of rank amazes us of aristocratic
Europe" and who either seeks to be descended from nobility or "to snap
his fingers at kings and knights, and to find out that they are after


185
(l)This ought to have been the happiest period
of his life, and should have been very happy,
(2) He had become fairly easy in his circumstances,
(3) He had succeeded in his work, and had made for
himself a great name, (4) He was fond of popularity,
and especially anxious to be loved by a small circle
of friends. (5) These good things he had thoroughly
achieved. (6) Immediately after the publication of
Vanity Fair he stood high among the literary heroes
of his country, and had endeared himself especially
to a special knot of friends. (7) His face and
figure, his six feet four in height, with his flowing
hair, already nearly gray, and his broken nose, his
broad forehead and ample chest, encountered every
where either love or respect; and his daughters to
him were all the world,the bairns of whom he says,
at the end of the White Squall ballad;
I thought, as day was breaking,
My little girls were waking,
And smiling, and making
A prayer at home for me.
(8) Nothing could have been more tender or endearing
than his relations with his children. (9) But still
there was a skeleton in his eupboard,or rather two
skeletons. (10) His home had been broken up by his
wifes malady, and his own health was shattered.
(11) When he was writing Pendennis, in 1849, he had
a severe fever, and then those spasms came, of which
four or five years afterwards he wrote to Mr, Reed. ^
(12) His home, as a home should be, was never restored
to him,or his health* (13) Just at that period of
life at which a man generally makes a happy exchange
in taking his wifes drawing-room in lieu of the
smoking-room of his club, and assumes those domestic
ways of living which are becoming and pleasant for
matured years, that drawing-room and those domestic
ways were closed against him. (14) The children were then
no more than babies, as far as eociety was concerned,
things to kiss and play with, and make a home happy if
they could only have had their mother with them*
(15) I have no doubt there were those who thought that
Thackeray was very jolly under his adversity.
(16) Jolly he was, (17) It was the manner of the man
to be so,if that continual playfulness which was
natural to him, lying over a melancholy which was as
continual, be compatible with jollity. (18) He laughed,
and ate, and drank, and threw his pearls about with
miraculous profusion. (19) But I fancy that he was far
from happy. (20) I remember once, when I was young,
receiving advice as to the manner in which I had better


39
innocently alluded to the same woman, Catherine Hayes, the murderess.
However, a popular Irish soprano, Miss Catherine Hayes, was then
performing at the Baymarket Theatre, and the Irish were quite proud
of her and of her spotless character.
A howl of indignation arose from the Hiberian
Press, which by-the-way, had not forgotten
Thackeray's "Irish Sketch-Book, and his
scathing satire in Punch. "The Battle of
Limerick." They wholly ignored Catherine Hayes
the murderess, and they charged "the Big Blubber
Man"as, with other abusive epithets, they
called Thackeraywith wilfully and scandalously
libelling the fair fame of Miss Catherine Hayes
the vocalist.132
The Irish press joined to abuse Thackeray for what it regarded to be
an insult to its national pride, and Thackeray was forced to realise
as early as 1S51 that he was surrounded by enemies,^3 That the Irish
press would enjoy a further strike at the novelist naturally follows,
so Trollope would see an unflattering picture of Thackeray. If the
Irish papers backed Yates and if Trollope knew only Yates's side, any
chance meeting with Yates in the Post Office in London would strengthen
Trollope's preconception. Trollope's Image of Thackeray's personality
at this time, therefore, could hardly be fair to the more prominent
author? instead Trollope saw Thackeray through the eyes of his opponents,
a vieitf that is important if his later relation with Thackeray is to be
understood.
The particular coloring of Trollope's view of Thackeray is
the result of Trollope's having been influenced by Edmund Yates and
those opposed to Thackeray. Because Yates was the middle man who knew
both Trollope and Thackeray when they did not know each other, it is not


95
[The full story of Thackerays joke and Smith's
reply is quoted here from Yatess columnA
list of the principal contributors to the
despised Magazine is then given*Antony Trollope,
George Sala, Big Higgins, Billy Russell, and so
on; and then the mention of Mr. Trollope's name
leads to an interesting calculation how much that
gentleman makes by writing novels, and how much
he has from, other sources; and thus the Americans
are kept up to the current of things, and know
all about English literature that is important and
interesting to know.
This account carefully reviex^s Yates's column, presenting four major
points! (1) the expressed purpose of the article is "to keep newspaper
gossip in decent bounds"; (2) the reviewer implicitly castigates the
policy of staff dinners; (3) "Little Scholars" is not mentioned; and
(4) the reviewer, although criticizing certain newspapers for publishing
slanderous rumors, puts Thackeray in a bad light by quoting such slander.
Perhaps, the reviewer was adhering to his own concept of the gentleman
by his silence concerning "Little Scholars," since an attack through a
young girls first literary attempt was, indeed, "ungentlemanly."
Besides this silence, however, the Saturday Reviews attaek against
those people and newspapers which spread personal gossip and against
Thackeray himself is blatant*
With his confidence in Yates made publie, Trollope began to
see the enormity of his actionnot only Thackeray for whom he had no
love but Smith, whom he admired, was brutally attacked. He chose the
best approach to ease out of the situation, a full confession to Smiths
Shortly after the Saturday Review article
article appeared Trollope walked into my room
and said he had come to confess that he had
given Yates the information on which his
article was founded. He expressed the deepest


25
S3
to her scion." ^ Since she may very well have invited the Edmund Yates
because of his father's fame, Yates's presence at Mrs. Gibson's salon
is likely. If so, Yates and Thackeray, who were both members of the
Garrick and the Fielding Clubs, would have further occasion to meet one
another. The third reference Yates makes to a familiarity with
Thackeray occurred on September 29, 1855, two days after Mrs. Yates tos
delivered of twins?
. , being at the Garrick and seeing Thackeray
there, I asked him for an autograph for a book
which I had just established. He sat down at once,
and wrote the following:
"Michaelmas Day, 1355.
My dear Yates,Am I to condole with, or congratu
late, you, on the announcement in to-day's paper?
May every year increase your happiness, and good
fortune attend your increases I know I am
writing in an affected manner, as you are pleased
to desire my autograph. I assure the friend for
whom it is destined that I am quite incapable of
being funny on a sudden, easily abashed, of a
modest retiring disposition, forty-four old, and
Yours truly, my dear Yates,
W, M Thackeray.
P.S.The T of the signature I do not think is
near so elegant as my ordinary T's arej in fact,
my attention was drawn off just as I was turning
it.
S. YATES, Esq.
(Private and confidential.)"0^
Here Thackeray's joviality and self-humor indicate a degree of acquaint
ance that cannot be explained without reference to the relation of the
two men both in the clubs and in social association outside the clubs.
Even in a man with Thackeray's disposition to joke,^ such familiarity
in a letter for an autograph book is unusual unless deriving from a
personal knowledge of the receiver, Thackeray's remarks on The Train,
a periodical that Yates and Sala tried to float in 1356, reveal the
same type of familiarity:


51
3. That Smith, Elder, & Co, shall pay Mr.
Thackeray 3502a, each month,
4. That the profits of all editions of the
novels published at a lower price than the
first edition shall be equally divided between Mr,
Thackeray and Smith, Elder, & Co.
65 Cornhill: February 19th, 1859.
Thackeray accepted the offer, and in a letter to his mother of the same
month mentioned that he will earn 8500 in the next 2 years from Smith &
11
Elder. Because Thackeray was still being harassed by the Garrick
1 P
Club Affair, which Yates planned to take to court in March, this
generous offer was welcomedj his excitement continued to run high on
March 29"
Then, for next year, I am engaged to write a
story (jFhilipj in 16 numbers for wtJ- I am to
receive-well, more than I have ever received
yet by 100i> a number. Think of that! and
after a little pause another story. I may
want to give up novel-writing but how refuse
when I am paid such prodigious sms? Why
didnt they buy me at 30? not the tired old
horse at 50?*^
George Smith, however, found himself in a quandary: he had
engaged Thackeray to write for the new magazine before he had located
an editor. He considered several people, but none responded to his
offers, Thomas Hughes, for example, was already obligated to Macmillan
and refused. Finally when he had been driven to his "wits end,""'^
the idea came: Why not Mr. Thackeray, and you yourself do what is
necessary to supplement any deficiencies on his part as a man of
business? Think of the writers who would be proud to contribute under
his editorship.-^ In a letter of April 14 Thackeray accepted the


50
Thackeray had first become acquainted with Smith, who hoped
to publish his works, when the young publisher invited him to dine with
Charlotte Bronte in November, 1849. Even though Miss Bronte and
Thackeray failed to become intimate, Smith's bid for Thackeray's work
paid off; he published The Kickleburvs on the Rhine (1850), Henry
Esmond (1852), The English Humourists (1853), and The Rose and the Ring
(1855). At the same time Thackeray issued the monthly numbers of The
Neweornes (October, 1853-August, 1855) and The Virginians (November,
1857-September, 1859) through his usual publishers, Bradbury & Evans,
at one shilling a number. When the idea of a shilling magazine came
to Smith, it was accompanied by the shrewd plan to have Thackeray
publish an installment of a novel in each issue; therefore, the public
would be paying the accustomed price for the monthly numbers of
Thackeray's novels and would also be purchasing the magazine.'
Having planned the format of the new magazine, George Smith
gave Thackeray the following proposals;
Smith, Elder, & Co, have it in contemplation
to commence the publication of a Monthly Magazine
on January 1st, I860. They are desirous of
inducing Mr, Thackeray to contribute to their
periodical, and they make the following proposal
to Mr. Thackeray;
1. That he shall write either one or two
novels of the ordinary size for publication in
the magazineone-twelfth portion of each novel
(estimated to be about equal to one number of a
serial) to appear in each number of the Magazine.
2. That Mr. Thackeray shall assign to Smith,
Elder, & Co. the right to publish the novels in
their magazine and in a separate form afterwards,
and to all sums to be received for the work from
American and Continental Publishers.


237
6. (p?. 5-6)
a. Lady Ritchie (3)s Thackeray at Cambridge.
b. [Edward Fitzgerald]: Thackeray and The Snob: his parody of
Tennysons "Timbuetoo."
c. Thackeray: parody quoted.
7. (p. 6)
Trollope: no other evidence of literary merit in The Snob.
8. (pp. 6-7)
a* Trollope: Thackerays morbid fear of snobbishness.
b. [Edward Fitzgerald]: The Gownsman.
c. Trollope: attribution of the dedication of The Gownsman to
Thackeray
d. Thackeray: dedication quoted.
9.
(pp. 7-8)
a. Lady Ritchie (6, 7, 10): Thackerays life immediately after
leaving Cambridge.
b. Trollope: Thackeray's inability to draw.
c. Dickens: Thackerays offer to illustrate The Pickwick Papers.
10.
(pp, &-10)
a. [Edward Fitzgerald]: Thackerays inheritance.
b. Lady Ritchie (5): the loss of the inheritance.
c. [Edward Fitzgerald]: The National Standard and The
Constitutional.
d. Trollope: the futility of investing money in such projects.
e. Thackeray: Lovel the Widower quoted.
[f. footnote: Macready's Diary.]
11-15. (pp. 10-13)
Trollope: digression on literature as a career.
16. (pp, 13-15)
a. Trollope: applies digression to Thackeray.
b. Lady Ritchie (ll): Thackeray's contributions to newspapers,
e.[?] : anecdote of Thackerays being asked to shorten the
Great Hoggarty Diamond.
d.[?3: Thackerays invention of pseudonym, Michael Angelo Titmarsh.
17. (pp. 15-16)
Trollope: Thackerays idleness.
IS. (p. 16)
a. [.Garrick Club Friends]: Thackeray's inferiority complex
b. Trollope: censure of Thackeray's feelings.
19. (pp. 16-17)
Trollope: Thackeray's consciousness of his ability but continued
uncertainty.


13
servant reached its peak. The importance of the mission* to secure a
new treaty with the Pasha for the transportation of the mails through
Egypt, made it one that would not have been entrusted to a man whose
ability or character x.?as doubted by his superior. Trollopes
dedication to the betterment of the Post Office won him the confidence
of Sir Rowland, even if it did not enhance the personal feelings on
either side. The same confidence is shown in Trollopes missions to
revise the Glasgow Post Office, to "cleanse the Augean stables" of the
postal system in the best Indies, and to make postal treaties with the
governments of Cuba and New Grenada.^1'
Yates's career as a civil servant up to i860 is quite bleak
when compared to Trollope's. Entering the Post Office service at St.
Martin's le Grand on March 11, 1847, he began under the dual secre
taryship, His first encounter with Rowland Hill, who later became his
29
friend, was the result of his "peppering, with peas and pellets of
n
saturated blotting-paper, of the passers-by from the windows of his
30
office. He characterized his public service in 1890 on the fiftieth
anniversary of penny postage;
His memories went back to the days of Col.
Maberly, his "first chief," who used to
impress upon him the necessity of not over
working himself. Mr. Yates assured the
group that he had given the Colonel the pledge
that he would not, and he had solemnly adhered
to that sacred obligation.31
Yates's public service, however, was not the trait that brought him
into contact with Trollopej rather the positions that he held in rela
tion to Colonel Maberly and Rowland Hill caused him to associate with
his more industrious fellow-worker.


121
of Thackeray's benevolence, it was Thackeray, who, unable to loan the
full amount brought the matter to Trollopes attention, not as in the
version told by Troll.ope. While Trollope's version heightens the
romantic qualities of the story, giving Thackeray 'character," it
raises Trollope to a more prominent position, the result of a desire
that was also apparent in his treatment of Thackeray as an editor. In
his diary for 1862 Thackeray made the cryptic entry of May 11,
"Trollope at Star & Garter." Since Trollope tells that Thackeray lent
the money "at a day or two's notice," this entry probably refers to
the meeting of the two men at which Thackeray asked Trollope to go
halves on the loan, because the entry for May 13 reads, "At Bankers
464O. Paid Graham 1000£ Synge 6001," and the one for May 15 closes the
settlement:
Synge agrees to make 9 half yearly payments
of 100L each beginning from October 1 and a
10th payment of 112.10 to close the transaction.
Trollopes final statement is also misleading; while he said that "the
money was quickly repaid," he was worried about the payment of the debt
shortly after Thackeray's death:
Synge, who is now Consul at Honolulu, borrowed,
before he went in May 1862, £>900 from Thackeray
and i>900 from me. It was agreed that £.100 should
be paid off quarterly. The first quarter to
Thackeray5- & the second to me,& so on. We each
received the first £100, but then there was a
stop. Last year, in the spring, 1 think, Synge's
father died, & there were some proceeds out of
which Thackeray received £400 & I £400, It was
then agreed that the remainder should be repaid
by quarterly payments of £50 instead of £100.


214
^Adversity. p* 115.
^Ibid.. p. 122.
^Actually he went there in the autumn of 1330 and remained until
March, 1331. Ibid. pp. 140-147.
^ Again The New York Times for October 29, 1855, helped to spread
this; "He lost his whole fortune on a run of ill-luck at ecarte, but
that was nothing particular.
^Thackeray. p. 8,
^Adversity. p. 162.
^%his sentence is one
book: that it should be so
Thackeray was many sided.
Thackeray1 s personality.
^Thackeray, p. 41.
51Ibid., p. 33.
52
Ritchie, "Biographical Introductions," If, xx.
53
Adversity, p, 187.
54Ibid.. p. 202.
^Thackeray. pp, 20-21.
p. 40.
p. .
P. 4.
p. 59.
immediately preceding paragraph Trollope mentioned Mr.
Reed and quoted the statement referred to heres In 1854 he says in
one of his letters to Mr. Reed,the only private letters of his which
I know to have been published; I am to-day just out of bed after
another, about the dozenth, severe fit of spasms which I have had this
year. My book would have been written but for them." Ibid.. p. 39.
6lIbid., pp. 39-41.
62Ibid., pp. 75-76.
5b'
57,
Ibid..
Ibid.,
58,
Ibid.
59,
60,
Ibid..
In the
of few honestly commendatory ones in the
is not unusual, for Trollopes view of
This is but one part of his opinion of


112
character. After the sen were in a position to associate in the club,
the formal subordination of contributor to editor merged into an
equality of club members. On this basis, Trollope learned to penetrate
the myth of Thackeray and to see the vibrant and sensitive actuality
beneath, and Thackeray discovered that beneath the blatant and coarse
exterior presented by Trollope was a man eager to be loved and to be
popular with his associates. These two shifts in outlook could only
have come if and when the novelists were in a proximity that allowed the
one to see the other frequently and on a more personal basis.
That Trollope had moved from the Yatess camp before his
election to membership in the Garrick in the spring of 1861 is,
perhaps, one of his reasons for rejecting John Maxwells offer of the
editorship of Temple Bar in August, 1861:
Mr. Maxwell has asked me to offer you i>1000
a year for three or five years, with the
ostensible editorship of Temple Bar, if you
will undertake to supply a novel and fill the
position that Mr. Sala now occupies.
All the real work of editorship will be
performedas heretoforeby Mr. Edmund Yates,
who would act with you as sub-editor.
Temple Bar had been launched in December, 1860, as a rival to the
Gornhill. and for its first editor Maxwell had drawn Sala from Thackerays
staff. Thackeray was friendly to Sala, and they parted on the best of
terms.Immediately thereafter Yates was picked as the acting editor:
My old friend George Sala had undertaken the
editorship, and had expressed a wish, in
which Mr. Maxwell concurred, that I should
act as assistant or working editor.6


28
breeding, which is fixed enough, and perfect
according to modern English style. I rather
dread explosions in his history. A big,
fierce, weeping, hungry man; not a strong one.8(5
The "explosion" that Carlyle dreaded might well have been similar to
Thackerays indignation over the article in a small paper, Town Talk.
written about him by Edmund Yates. Because this verbal battle, "The
Garrick Club Affair, helps us to understand the later relation of
Trollope, Thackeray, and Yates, we need to analyze the dispute and
its repercussions during the succeeding years. Since Trollope knew
Yates and did not know Thackeray at this time and since, except for a
short visit to London in July, Trollope was in Scotland, northern
England, or Ireland from May 11 until October, 1858, he had no active
part in the dispute; however, his image of Thackeray ms, as we will
see, formed by the Tates-Bickenss side of the quarrel and by the
periodical accounts antagonistic to Thackeray.
To set Yatess article into a historical context, it is
necessary to understand Thackerays public image as propagated by the
journalists. This image was not drawn totally by those who favored
Dickenss, because the Saturday Review, for example, condemned both
writers, complaining about Dickens's "vulgarity and emotional radical-
ism" and Thackerays "shallowness of philosophy." y Thackeray,
nevertheless, had already offended Disraeli in the Morning Chronicle.
Bulwer in Fraser s Magazine,^ Jerrold at the Punch table,92 Forster
in caricatures in private letters, and Charles Lever in Fraserss^
hence a considerable number of persons, misunderstanding his humor or
his philosophy, were not exactly fond of him. These two groups, those


96
regret, but said, 1 told the story not against
you, but against Thackeray, and his blunder in
seeming to compare you with that rascal Curie.
I am afraid I answered him rather angrily,
Trollope, however, took it very meekly, and said;
"I know I have done wrong, and you may say any
thing you like to me.n^
Sometime in June following the appearance of the Saturday Review's
attack, Thackeray wrote to Smith;
I have been lying awake half the night about
that paper in a sort of despair; but I think
I have found a climax dignified and humourous
enough at last, Heaven be praised, and that our
friend won't sin again. . ,3-3
The question of Thackeray's awareness of the identity of the person or
persons who attacked him in "Echoes from the London Clubs" remains
unanswered. We know that Trollope confessed Ms part in the affair to
Smith, but we do not know if he confessed to Thackeray, Even though
Thackeray probably had a very good idea that the writer of the article
was Yates, the person who had attended the dinners could have been any
one of a number who might profit from Thackeray's discomfort.
Thackeray, however, lias urged to write the Roundabout Paper, "On Screens
in Dining Rooms," by Mrs, Smith, who was particularly upset by Yates's
portrayal of her husband; from this source Thackeray may well have
learned of the identity of the staff member even if he did not learn it
from Smith himself.
Thackerays answer to the attack was not published until the
August number of the Cornhlll. Since copy went to the printers about
two weeks before publication, "On Screens in Dining Rooms" must have


The other passage that is definitely dependent on the Garrick Club
friends is used for more laudatory purposes until Trollopes final
clause of his comment on the informations
192
In inquiring about him from those who survive
him, and knew him well in those days, I
always hear the same account, "If I could
only tell you the impromptu lines whieh fell
from him!" "If I had only kept the drawings
from his pen, which used to be chucked about
as though they were worth nothing!" "If I could only
remember the drolleries!" Had they been kept, there
might now be many volumes of these sketches, as to
which the reviexjer says that their talent was
"altogether of the Hogarth kind." Could there be
any kind more valuable? Like Hogarth, he could
always make his picture tell his storyj though,
unlike Hogarth, he had not learned to draw.6s
If these passages, however, represent the only information that
Trollope gathered from this source, the friends were remarkably sterile
in their recollections. Several definitely dependent passages ?aight
have been built on information with which these men would have been
familiar although there Is no indication in the material that allows
a positive identification. The most important of these passages are as
follows s
(1) The anecdote of Thackerays being asked to
shorten The Great Koggarty Diamond.9
(2) Thackeray's reasons for the selection of the
pseudonym, Michael Angelo Titmarsh.?0
(3) The poem that an informant remembered for
forty years before giving It to Trollope.91
{4) Thackeray's defence of his leetures in 1357.92
(5) Thackeray's unsuccessful application for a
position in the Post Office.93
(6) Thackeray's unsuccessful stand for Parliament.94
Of these six passages only the sixth, which was mentioned by Lady
Ritchie, and the fifth, which may have come from Trollope's association


247
"The Virginians. The Literary Gazette, and Journal of Belies
Lettres. Science, and Art. Ho. 2129 (Hovesber 7, 1357), 1065-1066*
The Virginians.'1 The Saturday Review of Politics. Literature.
Science, and Art. VIX (Novetaber 19, 135977610-612.
Walpole, Hugh. Anthony Trollope. "The English Men of Letters.
lew fork: The Macmillan Company, 1928.
Wright, William Aldis (Editor)* More Letters of Edward Fitzgerald*
Londons Macmillan and Company, Ltd., 1901.
[lates, Edmund]. "Echoes'from the London Clubs." The Hew York Times.
IX (May 26, i860), 2.
. Edmund Yates; His Recollections and Experiences*
2 vols. Londons Richard Bentley and Son, 1884*
Unpublished Sources
Trollopefs Diary for the Composition of Thackeray* Bodleian Library.
Trollope Papers II* MS, Don. C. 9, 10, 10%.
Trollope's Questions and Lady Ritchie's Answers, Bodleian Library.
Trollope Papers II. MS* Don. C. 10. f. 72, 73*


ro^ICATION
I would like to dedies this dissertation to my wife
whose patience has been the grea- single factor in its
composition.


230
In Paris.
September
November 16 Leaves London on official
postal mission to Nest
Indies.
In Paris
November
Dickens writes Thackeray
concerning Yates, says that
November 17
lates came to him for advice*
Writes Dickens to say affair
no longer in his hands.
November 26
Writes Committee, telling of
Dickenss proposal.
November 23
Blames Dickens for Yatess
letters.
December 2
Yates publishes "The
Histrionic Baronet."
December 4
Club meets to decide on
Yates; Yates brings suit
against Doland.
December 5
Yates publishes another
article on Thackeray.
December 11
In Paris.
1822
January
Agrees to write series for February 19
Oorahill.
Yates abandons his suit.
March
Summer Returns to London fresa
West Indies.
Accepts editorship of
Cornhili.
April 14
September On vacation in Pyrenees,


194
were other people more qualified to write the memoir. The large number
of sources again raises the question of why Trollope happened to be
selected for the work. Lady Ritchie and Leslie Stephen must have known
his familiarity with Thackeray when they agreed to Morley's appeal for
permission, but they also would have known that Trollope placed
Thackerays literary achievement above that of any contemporary. The
selection, therefore, appears to have come as the result of a misguided
concept of Trollopes opinion of Thackeray the man so that when
Trollopes opinion ms published, they realised for the first time that
his opinion of Thackerays personality was not the same as they had
imagined. Perhaps, this realisation was in itself shocking enough for
their subsequent anger, since one of them had given help, but more
probably the manner in which Trollope manipulated his sources was
basic to their repulsion.
Having seen Trollopes reliance on his sources, we can more
fully understand those parts of the biographical chapter that directly
reflect his own opinion of Thackeray's personality. The stylistic
differences between the dependent and the original passages clearly
reveal, in many cases, Trollope's opinion, and because the original was
written with much great fluency, Trollopes opinion causes the factual
information to be subordinated in the readers mind. Earlier we
analysed the obvious difficulty Trollope had when he worked Lady
Ritchie's answers to questions six, seven, and ten into his account$
this short passage is the opening of a typically Trollopian criticism:


Ill
The force that finally brought Trollope end Thackeray
together was probably Trollopes election to membership in the Garriek
Club:
In 1861 I became a member of the Garrick Club,
with which institution I hare since been much
identified. I had belonged to it about two
years, xien, on Thackeray's death, I was in
vited to fill his place on the Committee, and
I have been one of that august body ever since.
Having up to that time lived very little among
men, having known hitherto nothing of clubs,
having even as a boy been banished from social
gatherings, I enjoyed infinitely at first the
gaiety of the Garrick.2
Trollope had made many friends in London since occupying Waltham House
in December, 1859, and the ones that brought him into the Garrick were
definitely of Thackeray's faction. By this time Trollope had com
pletely broken whatever ties he had to lates, or he would not have
been elected to the club; as late as April, 1873, the well known actor
Henry Irving was blackballed from membership on account of his friend
ship with Yates.3 Whether or not Trollope was personally allied to
Thackeray at this time, he was not overtly antagonistic since Thackeray
had risen in the club to a position of prominence. Prior to Trollope's
election the relation of the men tras characterized by misunderstandings
afterward the two men were brought into a closer relation and grew to
have greater understanding. Trollope's membership in the Garrick Club
is, therefore, the concrete action that was to bring the two novelists
into a friendship. Such is not unusual, for the misunderstandings of
I860 largely arose from feelings or actions that were misinterpreted by
Trollope, partly because of his preconceived idea of Thackeray's


107
Because of the earlier relation with Yates, Trollope*s behavior
seems to be more than social ignorance, hence it is necessary to
modify Mr, Sadleirs account of this episode. See Sadleir, p. 214,
^Edmund Yates], "Echoes from the London Clubs, The New York
Times. IX (May 26, I860), 2,
8
It should be noted that George Smiths own account differs sub
stantially from both Trollope and Yates: "Yatess account was obviously
at second-hand, and was blunderingly inaccurate. The fact was that
Thackeray, confusing one name with another, as he was apt to do, said,
This reminds me of one of Mr. Curies dinners; and then went on to
ask if Dr, Johnson was behind the screen. In Boswell's version, the
dinner took place at Tonsonsa man of honour and standing; Curie, as
every one knows, was an infamous book-seller of the Dr. Johnson period,
notorious for every sort of villainy. Thackeray's blunder in sub
stituting Curie's name for Tonsons aroused a laugh, partly at his
expense and partly at mine; and I answered rather sharply, perhaps,
There is no Dr. Johnson here." Quoted in Huxley, p. 105.
%ester Thackeray Fuller and ¥iolet Hammersley, Thackervs
Daughter: Some Recollections of Anne Thackeray Ritchie (London, 1952),
pp. 87-88.
in
"Club Secrets, The Saturday Review of Polities. Literature.
Science, and Art, IX (March 24, I860),368.
Newspaper Gossip," The Saturday Review of Politics. Literature.
Science, and Art. IX (June 23, "1860), 799-800,
-^Huxley, pp. 105-106.
~L%hackeray Letters. Hf, 189-190.
^Thackeray, "On Screens in Dining-Rooms," Works. XII, 220-222,
15
Trollope Letters. p* 64.
^Thackeray, pp. 55-56.
"^Trollope Letters. p. 66.
~lbid.. pp. 66-67.
^Ibld.. p. 80.
Of)
Ibid.. p. 74. Although Mr. Booth does "not find anything in the
next few numbers that answers this description, the correspondence of
his promise to have a story in Smiths hands by the 13th and his mailing
of "Mrs. General Talboys" on the 10th indicates that he is here refer
ring to the rejected story.


85
In a widely quoted passage from his autobiography George Smith describes
the first meeting of Trollope and Thackeray*
We lightened our labours in the service of
the Cornhill by monthly dinners. The principal
contributors used to assemble at my table in
Gloucester Square every month while we were in
London; and these "Cornhill dinners" were very
delightful and interesting. Thackeray always
attended, though he was often in an indifferent
state of health. At one of these dinners
Trollope was to meet Thackeray for the first
time and was equally looking forward to an
introduction to him. Just before dinner I
took him up to Thackeray and introduced him
with all the suitable empressment, Thackeray
curtly said, "How do?" and, to my wonder, and
Trollopes anger, turned on his heel! He was
suffering at the time from a malady which at that
particular moment caused him a sudden spasm of
pain; though we, of course, could not know this.
I well remember the expression on Trollopes face
at that moment, and no one who knew Trollope
will doubt that he could look furious on an
adequateand sometimes on an inadequate-
occasion! He came to me the next morning in a
very wrathful mood, and said that had it not
been that he was in my house for the first time,
he would have walked out of it. He vowed he
would never speak to Thackeray again, etc. etc.
I did my best to soothe him; and, though rather
violent and irritable, he had a fine nature
with a substratum of great kindliness, and I
believe he left my room in a happier frame of
mind than when he entered it. H and Thackeray
became after close friends.^
Smith makes four major points which will be of great importances
(1) Trollope first met Thackeray at a Gornhill dinner, the first that
Trollope attended and the first time that Trollope was in Smiths home;
(2) Thackeray, driven by a sudden pain, snubbed Trollope; (3) Trollope
was subsequently infuriated; and (4) Smith asserts that after Trollope
visited him the next morning, the friction was eased and the two
xiriters became "close friends."


22
Mr. Say describes "Albert Smiths set," the Bohemians in the Club, as
antagonistic to "the nerves of the quieter and more sedate members.
Again lates misdates the origin of his friendship with Albert Smith:
About this time, towards the close of the
year 1851 I made the personal acquaintance
of Albert Smith, with whom I speedily con
tracted an intimate friendship. ... I had
met him twice previous to this. Early in '47,
just after my appointment to the Post Office,
and while I was still the rawest of youths. .
His silence concerning Albert's membership in the Garrick Club,^ as
in the case of Dickens, seems to have been motivated by a desire to
obscure his early affinity with the circle that favored Dickens and
opposed Thackeray. Since lates wrote His Recollections and
Experiences in 1884 to justify his youthful behavior, he would hardly
admit his friendship with persons known to be antagonistic to
Thackeray. But 1%*. Harley was a close friend of Dickens, at least
close enough for Dickens to dedicate The Village Coquettes to him in
1837^ and Mr. Arcedeckne (whom Thackeray was characterizing as
Henry Foker in Penderaisenjoyed a "comic persecution" of Thackeray's
dignity at the Club. Despite how good naturedly Arcedeckne might have
taken his portrait in Pendennis. the coincidence of his being in the
Dickens' circle when he seconded Yates's nomination and Thackeray's
being absent appears auspicious. It almost seems as if Yates's elec
tion into the Garrick Club was some kind of power play that put Yates
in opposition to Thackeray from long before 1858,


21
some extent, the Club must have begun taking sides. The coincidence
.p-
of Thackerays being at Brighton when Edmund Yatess name was pro
posed for membership in the Garrick Club, therefore, seems to have been
premeditated rather than accidental.
Although Yates dates his acquaintan.ce with Dickens as begin
ning in 1854, his account of this first" meeting is highly improbable.
Since both had been members of the same club for at least five years,
Yatess insinuation that he had not seen the novelist becomes question
able. Although they may have been only chance acquaintances before
1854, Yates must have been intimate enough with Dickens for the
novelist to attend his sons christening dinner on October 14, 1854,
tilth more incentive than a conversation on one Sunday afternoon and the
gift of a book.^ It might very well have been that, while Yates was
not on intimate terms with Dickens until early 1854, the two knew one
another through mutual friends and through a speaking acquaintance at
the Club* If this is true, the circumstances surrounding Yatess
election to the Club and those surrounding his dismissal ten years
later are much more closely united than has hitherto been seen*
In his autobiography Yates left an account of his election:
I As soon as I was fairly launched in London, it
* was my mothers great wish that I should belong
to the Garrick Club, of which my father had been
an original member; and though I \4&s much under
the age prescribed by the regulations, my appear
ance was that of a full-grown man, and there was
little reason to fear that the fact of my having
attained my majority would be questioned. Accord
ingly, I was proposed by the veteran, comedian
Mr, Harley, and seconded by Andrew Arcedeckne; and
being well supported by members who had known my
father, I was elected into the Garrick in December,
1848, fully six months before I attained my eight
eenth year.


127
subject. Yet Trollope's refusal of Smith's plans is founded on other
considerations: he does "not feel up to writing a memoir and does
"not personally know enough," While the former excuse cannot be
measured in terms of possible implications, the latter is certainly
strange coming from a man who has been called Thackeray's close friend
and who would sixteen years later write a biography of him. That he
would need to rely on Hannay for information implies that he knew
little of Thackeray's life before the time of their meeting: in other
words, the friendship had not reached a point of intimacy in which
Thackeray had trusted Trollope with his feelings or opinions that
touched upon matters of personal interest. Trollope had been no
friend of Thackeray as Forster had been of Dickens or as Lockhart of
Scott. Perhaps, Thackeray, having been so frequently attacked in the
last years of his life, was unable to trust Trollope, particularly
since Trollope had already exposed him once before; perhaps, Trollope
had never tried to place himself in a position to be intimately trusted*
Regardless of the possibilities, the confession that he did not know
Thackeray enough as a man is basic to the opinion he held of his rival
as early as the article in the February, 1864, number of the Cornhill.
The most striking aspect of Trollope's eulogy is the prevail
ing sentimental tone introduced in the first paragraphs
Now, at the present, it is not so much that he
who has left us was known, admired, and valued,
as that he was loved. The fine grey head, the
dear face with its gentle smile, the sweet, manly
voice which we knew so well, with its few words
of kindest greeting: the gait, and manner, and
personal presence of him whom it so delighted


187
situations that prevented Thackerays happiness. The introduction of
tliis side is blunt and, perhaps, lacks proper taste following the
statement of the eighth sentence. He inserted the information from
Lads?- Ritchie in sentence 11, a sentence that logically follows the
final clause of 10, but in the next he again breaks his fluidity by
inserting a thought that refers back to sentence 8, This discussion
of Thackerays home life seems pulled into the sequence, even though
it adds to the negative circumstances, because Trollope is slowly
forgetting his original logical sequence and is moving into a new
thought? therefore, it presents the contradiction to sentence 8 that
Thackeray, while being tender or endearing to his daughters, found
no pleasure in his home life and sought refuge at his clubs. Obviously
Trollope does not wish to Imply this contradiction, but he in no way
resolves it, for he immediately in sentences 15 through 19 reverted
to the original pattern of sentences 1 through 6. In fact, the para
graph has a well developed and clearly logical sequence of ideas if
sentences 7 through 14, the ones in which he wandered from his subject,
were omitted. While there is no reason to suppose that these sentences
were inserted into an already developed paragraph, such would appear
to be the case, if Trollope had not consistently written in this manner
throughout the volume. It is further interesting that two, possibly
three, sources are utilized in this central portion; Trollope had
difficulty in using the material. He groped for a way to incorporate
them and finally, at the expense of his logical development, forced
them into his text. The same is true of sentences 20 through 23 in


200
Thackeray for personal aggrandizement gives additional sting to the
biography. If Trollope was a good public servant and was also able to
rise to prominence as a novelist, Thackeray, whom he says could not
have joined the two professions, was deficient and inferior.
Another section of the biography that reveals a similar impulse
on Trollopes part in the account of Thackerays unsuccessful stand as
a liberal candidate for Oxford. In 1368 Trollope had unsuccessfully
stood for Beverley in the same interest so that he had experienced a
a /
similar defeat. Although it would be expected that Trollope would
handle Thackerays defeat with a measure of sympathy, he uses it as an
opportunity to lash Thackeray for even contemplating that he could have
been successful if he had won;
There are, no doubt, many to whom a seat in
Parliament comes almost as the birthright of a
well-born and well-to-do English gentleman.
They go there with no more idea of shining
than they do when they are elected to a first-
class club;hardly with more idea of being
useful. It is the thing to do, and the House
of Commons is the place where a man ought to
befor a certain number of hours. Such men
neither succeed nor fail, for nothing is
expected of them. From such a one as
Thackeray something would have been expected,
which would not have been forthcoming. He
was too desultory for regular work,full of
thought, but too vague for practical questions.
He could not have endured to sit for two or
three hours at a time with his hat over his
eyes, pretending to listen, as is the duty
of a good legislator. He was a man intolerant
of tedium, and in the best of his time impatient
of slow work. Mor, though his liberal feelings
were very strong, were his political convictions
definite or accurate. He was a man who mentally
drank in much, feeding his fancy hourly with
what he saw, what he heard, what he read, and


US
^Dickens wrote: "We had our differences of opinion, I thought
that he too much feigned a want of earnestness, and that he made a
pretence of undervaluing his art, which was not good for the art that
he held in trust. But, when we fell upon these topics, it was never
gravely, and I have a lively image of him in ray mind, twisting both
his hands in his hair and stamping about, to make an end of the dis
cussion." "In Memorial, The Cornhill Magazine. IX (February, 1864), 130.
^Letter of January 24, 1864, to Wilkie Collins, Laurence Hutton
(ed,), Letters of Charles Dickens to Wilkie Collins. 1851-1870: Selected
by Miss Georgina Hogarth (London, 1892), p, U5.
^"Dickens, "In Memoriam," p. 132.
62Ibid.. pp. 130-131.
63IkM., p. 130.
^Trollope, H, Thackeray," p. 135.
'^Autobiography. p. 126,
66Ibid,. p. 127.
67
Recollections and Experiences. II, 231.
68
"Autobiography, pp. 211-212.
69Ibid,, p. 214.
70
' Saileir, pp. 205-206,
71
Recollections and Experiences. II, 232.
'Trollope Letters. p* 484.
73
Autobiography, p. 5*
74Ibid.. p. 72,
75
?Ibid., p. 174.
76Ibid.. p. 195.
77Ibid.. p. 89.
7%bid.. p. 190.


134
death. He did not succeed Thackeray, however, as one of Smith,
Elders leading novelists, though he did publish five novels through
Thackeray's old firm: to the end he was faithful to Chapman & Hall
through whom he published a total of thirty-two books between 1353 and
1832 He did, nevertheless, rise to prominence as one of Englands
most prolific and, for the period between 1364 and 1870, most popular
novelists. That he could have enjoyed such prosperity while Thackeray
lived is dubious, but the prosperity he did enjoy after Thackerays
death was initially rooted in Thackeray and Smiths choice of him as
the leading contributor to the first number of the Cornhill and the
positions left open for him at Thackerays death. Trollope may well
have seen that he rose by following Thackerays footsteps, because in
the Thackeray there is much self-identification of the writer with his
k
subject. On the other hand, Trollope raight easily have resented being
known as a disciple of Thackeray and have sought to break this concep
tion? if this assumption is accurate, Trollopes opinion of Thackeray
can again be compared to his opinion of Sir Rowland Hill, another man
who had enabled him to rise but with whom he differed in opinion.
Even if Trollope was antagonistic to Sir Rowland, he remained
in the Post Office until Sir Rowland retired. At this time a complex
of causes drove him to a violent resignation, Edmund Tates accounts for
the resignation of the man he had come to detest:
... he was, if not in the first, first in
the second, flight of novelists of the day;
he waswhat he had never been in his office-
popular in certain circles, notably at the
Garrick Club. He would have more leisure for


216
S6Tbid., p, 6.
S7Ibld.. p. 36.
S8Ibid.. p. 61.
^Autobiography, p. 212.
9%hackeray. pp. 34-35.
91
Ibid.. p, 36.
<52
Autobiography. p. 1D0
"Thackeray. pp. 35-36.
9%e Autobiography. chapter xvi, for a full account of Trollopes
campaign.
"Thackeray. pp. 48-49.
96Ibid.. p. 15.
97
y'ibid.. p. 20.
Qg
Ibid.. pp. 38-39.
"ibid., pp. 56-57.
100-,
Ibid., p. 57.
101Ibid.. p. 8.
102
Ibid., p. 17
^^Ibid.. p. 18,
104Mm pp. 19-20.
105Ibid.. pp. 45-46.
*1 /V*
Thackeray Letters. IV, 134, fn.17.


224
In each case we might aay that Trollope was attempting to -understand
his subject by a projection of his own personality into Thackeray; this
explanation, however, crumbles when we see that Trollope is consistently
showing us what a person who lacks his own personality, or who possesses
only negative traits, would be. This forcing of the subject into a
preconceived construction, while being of immense aid to the propagan
dist, is bad in biography, for it obscures the truth for secondary
considerations. When Freud writes a life of Leonardo da Vinci by
applying pre-conceived ideas to the sparse data or when a political
party orders a biography of the man supported by its opponent party,
the result is propaganda; in the same manner, Trollope, who has turned
the picture of Thackeray to represent negative traits that by contrast
illuminate his own personality, has written an "impure biography,-*-
The characteristic of his propaganda, that causes the book to look
foreward to Strachey and the debunkers as well as to the Freudian
School of Criticism, is the obvious purposefulness of the portrayal;
in no way can we attribute the final portrait of Thackeray to accident
or even to a lack of materials. Trollope had a certain opinion of
Thackeray; he did not waver from that opinion when he associated with
Thackeray; ana after Thackeray's death the opinion remained much the
same as it had been prior to the meeting of the two men, Strachey's
cynicism and contempt for hero-worship, the debunkers' desire to
undermine the reputations of great men, and the Freudians' attempt to
psychoanalyze their subjects are foreshadowed in Trollope's contempt
for Thackeray's awareness of snobs and his abilities as a speaker or
as a potential Civil Servant, in Trollope's attempt to belittle the


APPENDIX C
A PARAGRAPH ANALYSIS CF THACKERAY SHOWING
TROLLOPES CONTENT AND SOURCES
In the following analysis, each paragraph of the biograph
ical chapter of Thackeray is attributed to its source or sources;
where a paragraph has more than one source, the different ones are
listed in the order in which they appear in the text. In the case of
a questionable attribution, I have enclosed the source in brackets.
The parenthesis following Lady Ritchies name refer to the Identity of
the source; those following the number of the paragraph refer to the
pages covered by the paragraph in the 1879 edition.
1. (pp. 1-2)
a. Trollope: account of the series and the lack of a biography
of Thackeray.
b. Lady Ritchie (oral): account of Thackeray's disgust with
biography.
2. (pp* 2-3)
Trollope: account of Thackeray's mental operations that led
to the forbidding of a life; outline of the first chapter.
3. (p. 3)
a* Lady Ritchie (2): Thackerays birth and father.
b, Trollope: persons known by the writer who might be related.
4. (pp* 3-4)
a* Lady Ritchie (2): Thackerays father and mother.
b. [Lady Ritchie (oral)]: religious differences between Thackeray
and his mother*
5. (pp* 4-5)
George Venables: Thackerays life at Charterhouse*
236


239
39. (p. 36)
Thackeray: letter to Mr, Reed in which he continued to hope for
a position in the civil service*
40. (p. 37)
Thackeray: 1850 letter to The Morning Chronicle quoted.
41. (pp. 37-33)
Trollope: disagreement with Thackerays letter.
42. (pp. 33-39)
a, Trollope: poor procedures in serial writing.
b. Thackeray; letter to Mr. Reed describing sickness that dela;fed
Pendennis.
43. (pp. 39-41)
a. Trollope; reasons Thackeray should have been happy.
b, Thackeray: stanaa of Whits Squall quoted,
c* Lady Ritchie (22): Thackerays illness.
d. Trollope: reasons Thackeray was melancholy; advice given to
himself when young.
44. (p. 41)
Lady Ritchie (14): Thackeray and Amy Crowe.
45. (pp, 41-43)
a* Trollope: The Rewcomes.
b. Thackeray: quotations from John Leechs Pictures of Life and
Character and references to The Genius of Cruikshank.
46. (pp. 43-45)
a, Trollope: Thackerays lectures,
b. John Forster: Dickenss thoughts on lectures.
e. Trollope: Thackerays desire to earn money for his children,
d. Lady Ritchie (19): income of lectures to give inheritance to
his children.
47. (pp, 45-46)
a. Lady Ritchie (18, 19): Thackerays lectures.
b. Trollope: never heard Thackerays delivery but had to be
inferior to Dickenss,
43. (pp. 46-47)
a. Lady Ritchie (15, 16, 19): Thackerays trips to America,
his return, The Newoomes.
b. ^Newspaper reviews?^: English reaction to The Four Georges.


183
it before the book materialized even as a faint possibility and,
remembering it when he was writing, inserted it here. Two other
passages that had to derive from the same ultimate source are the
relation of Thackerayts revulsion of biography and his orders forbidding
one of himself and the account of Thackeray and his mother that is
sandwiched between the information taken from the second question and
George Venables*s letters
All who knew William Makepeace remember his
mother well, a handsome, spare, gray-haired
lady, whom Thackeray treated 'with a courtly
deference as trail as constant affection.
There was, however, something of discrepancy
between them as to matters of religion, Mrs*
Carmichael Smyth was disposed to the somewhat
austere observance of the evangelical section
of the Church, Such, certainly, never became
the case with, her son. There was disagreement
on the subject, and probably unhappiness at
intervals, but never, I think, quarrelling,
Thackeray*s house was his mothers home when
ever she pleased it, and the home also of his
stepfather,5S
Except for questions twenty-one and twenty-two, the remaining
questions concern bibliographical, not biographical, information and
are not pertinent to this study. Question twenty-one concerned the
inheritance Thackeray left to his daughters s
21, He told me shortly before his death that he was worth then
exactly the sum of money that he inherited on coming of age
He mentioned a sumI think it was £>30,000,
Ans. He left about £730 a year including 5000 for the
copyrights after all dues & taxes were paid.
This information is the basis of the following paragraph in which
Trollope joins his question and Lady Ritchies answer:


INTRODUCTION
A biography written by a novelist about a contemporary
novelist presents a unique phenomenon, but when that biography appears
against the wishes of its subject, the result is a work that raises
questions about its origin in the lives of the men concerned and its
importance in literary history. On the evening of November 20, 1862,
Henry Silver wrote in his diary that Thackeray, disliking Mary
Gordons life of John Wilson, said, JW did nothing worth record-and
the effect of the life upon him, Th?, was to make him tell his
daughters Mind, no biography of himself,"^ Even though Mr, Gordon N,
Ray attributes Thackerays strictures to an anxiety caused by the fear
of scandalous rumors that his enemies might circulate after his
death, Thackerays reticence was a typical reaction of a Mid-Victorian
writer* As early as March 24, 1840, Tennyson condemned biographical
writing in The Examiner:
For now the Poet cannot die,
Nor leave his music as of old,
But round him ere he scarce be cold
Begins the scandal and the cry:
"Proclaim the faults he would not show;
Break lock and seal, betray the trust;
Keep nothing sacred, *tis but just
The many-headed beast should know,"
("To After Reading a Life and Letters," 13-20)
1


APPENDIX B
THE TEXT OF YATES*S TOWN TALK ARTICLE
The full text of Edmund Yates*3 article* "Literary Talk," in the
June 13, 1858, number of Town Talk reads as follows:
Finding that our pen and ink portrait of Mr, Charles
Dickens has been much talked about and extensively quoted, we
purpose giving, each week, a sketch of some literary celebrity.
This week our subject is
Mr, W. M. THACKERAY,
HIS APPEARANCE.
Mr. Thackeray is forty-six years old, though from the
silvery whiteness of his hair, he appears somewhat older* He
is very tall, standing upward of six feet two inches, and as
he walks erect his height makes him conspicuous in every
assembly. His face is bloodless, and not particularly expres
sive, but remarkable for the fracture of the bridge of the
nose, the result of an accident in youth. He wears a small
grey whisker, but otherwise is clean shaven. No one meeting
him could fail to recognise in him a gentleman; his bearing
is cold and uninviting, his style of conversation either
openly cynical, or affectedly good natured and benevolent;
his bonhomie is forced, his vrit biting, his pride easily
touchedbut his appearance is invariably that of the cool,
suave, well-bred gentleman, who, whatever may be rankling
within, suffers no surface display of his emotions.
HIS CAREER.
For many years Mr. Thackeray, though a prolific writer, and
holding constant literary employment, was unknown by name to
the great bulk of the public. To Fraser*3 Magazine he was a
regular contributor, and very shortly after the commencement
of Punch, he joined Mr. Mark Lemonfs staff. In the Punch
pages, appeared many of his wisest, most thoughtful and
wittiest essays; "Mr. Brown's Letters to his Nephew" on love,
marriage, friendship, choice of a club, &e., contain an amount
of worldly wisdom, which, independently of the amusement to be
obtained from them, render them really valuable reading to
young men beginning life. The Book of Snobs, equally perfect
in its way, also originally appeared in Punch. Here, too,
were published his buffooneries, his Ballads of Policeman X,
his Jeamess Diary, and some other scraps, the mere form of
which consisted in outrages on authography, and of which
234


138
1875, and from June 29, 1877-January 2, 1878; and his self-evaluation
in An Autobiography, written immediately after the second trip. During
this time (1870-1878), he seems to be searching within himself to dis
cover that which had made him soar before his public and which he had
lost before the plunges of 1867 and 1870. All this self-examination
reaches a climax in his autobiography, the central book for any study
of Trollopes biography.
On April 30, 1876, Trollope, having finished his autobiography,
wrote his son,
I wish you to accept as a gift from me, given
you now, the accompanying pages which contain
a memoir of my life. My intention is that they
shall be published after my death, and be edited
by you. . The publication, if made at all,
should be effected as soon as possible after my
death.
The book was published in 1883, about nine months after the death of its
author, so Henry Trollope adhered to the wishes of his father. Since
the book would not appear during his life, Anthony Trollope wrote, we
may assume, as honestly as he could, taking into consideration his
knowledge that it would eventually be presented to the public. There
fore, the view of Thackeray that is present in the work is probably
founded more closely on Trollopes personal opinion than either the
eulogy or the English Men of Letters volume, and this view must be
appreciated before we can comprehend the full implications of the 1879
volume. Before foeusing upon this view, a few related items are
important. At the time of writing, Trollope claims to he on friendly
terms with John Forster and Wilkie Collins. While pointing out that


115
Even though Thackeray invited Trollope to dine at his home
"I p
on May 5, there remained some ill feeling on his part, though the
meager evidence seems to imply that the antagonism was such less than
earlier* On May 24, he wrote to Lucy Baxter*
I think Trollope is much more popular with
the Cornhill Magazine readers than I am*
and doubt whether I am not going down hill
considerably in public favor. It doesnt
concern me very much* .
At this time he was running The Adventures of Philip in the Cornhill
and Trollopes Framlev Parsonage had just finished serialization.
Neither Lovel the Widower nor The Four Georges had favorably struck the
public, and with Philip he hoped
to fetch up the ground v& I havenot lost,
I trust, biit only barely kept. I sang
purposely small; wishing to keep my strongest
for a later day, and give Trollope the honors
of Vlolono primo. Now I must go to work with
a vengeance.^4
But Philip probably ranks lowest in popularity among Thackerays novels^
while Framlev Parsonage even won Brownings approval:
. let me say, the looseness of idiom and
mistakes in the properties of words are nothing
extraordinary*not worse thannor so bad as,
those in some of Trollopes booksThe West
Indies for instance, which exceeds in slovenliness
any clever mans production within my experience:
these slips let you alone, by the bye, in "Framley
Parsonage, and begin to bother you again in the
first number of "Qrley Farm,"whence I conclude
that Thackeray will have "English spoken where
he rules the roast.16
Thackeray, therefore, had some reason for a professional jealousy,
especially since he was the editor of the magazine that was boasting his
rivals reputation at his own expense. Two months later on July 2,
G. H. Lewes observed,


29
who disliked Thackerays literary abilities and those who disliked him
for personal reasons, were united in their campaign against him in the
periodicals of the 1850s; therefore, the image of Thackeray presented
to the public was often unflattering. Thackerays admirers must not
be forgotten, for they also made themselves heard: Charlotte Bronte
preferred him to the Crystal Palace,94 Caroline Fox praised one of his
lectures with only slight reservation,*^ and Dr. John Brown condemned
Jenny Lind, the Brownings, and Dickens in order to praise him.^ But,
by far, the reviews in the pennyaliners and the cheaper periodicals
placed before the public were unfavorable.
The lew York Times for October 29, 1855, extensively compared
Dickens and Thackeray, exhibiting a rather detailed knowledge of
Thackerays life and a preference for his rival.^ The writer pre
sented a biased view of Thackerays art, making such statements as
"A highly respectable, gentlemanly selfishness is the alpha and omega
of Mr. THACKERAY's code of ethics. . THACKERAYS great fault is
his total absence of poesy. . Mr. THACKERAY has, like most literary
men, his peculiar prejudice. His is Anti-Irish, Then the article
concluded with an announcement of Thackerays lectures on The Four
We look forward with the keenest relish to his
Anatomy of the Four Royal Brutes, he is to have
next week under his dissection. They are
worthy of his knife, and will doubtless draw
crowds of admiring students.98


131
was the probable source, and that Trollope, having heard the anecdote
from her, inserted in the most convenient place in his account, the
passage describing Thackeray's residences. The third set of questions
is by far the most complex; questions twelve and thirteen appear in the
questionnaire as follows;
12 When was he married. What was your Mothers name
* Ans. Sept 1337, to Isabella Shawe daughter of Col Mathew
Shave.
13. When were the three girls born and how named
An§* 1337. 1839. 1340. Anne Jane Harriet.
Obviously Lady Ritchie has made a mistake in the date of her parents
marriage; actually Thackeray married Isabella Shawe on August 20, 1836,^
and Anne was born on Jume 9, 1937.^ To have later claimed such intimate
knowledge of her father, Lady Ritchie certainly reveals a total ignorance
here, especially since she places the date of her parent's marriage some
three months after her own birth. Rut Trollope had no other source, so
he used the incorrect date. These two questions are joined in the
opening sentence of a rather important paragraph;
In 1337 Thackeray married Isabella, daughter of
Colonel Matthew Shawe, and from this union there
came three daughters, Anne, Jane, and Harriet.
The name of the eldest, now Mrs. Richmond
Ritchie, who has followed so closely in her
father's steps, is a household word to the world
of novel readers; the second died as a child; the
younger lived to marry Leslie Stephen, who is too
veil known for me to say more than that he wrote,
the other day, the little volume on Dr. Johnson
in this series; but she, too, has now followed
her father. Of Thackeray's married life what
need be said shall be contained in a very few
words. It was grievously unhappy; but the misery


116
The fact is, Thackeray is so soured by the
want of success vhieh his writing of late has
had, that he is sardonic and bitter against
all who are successfuleven against his friend
Trollope, I hear, .
Thackeray may also be justified in such jealousy, because it must have
appeared to him that he had cut his own throat by keeping Trollope on
his staff and by not opposing his election for membership in the
Garrick Club after Trollope vas instrumental in placing him in an
unfavorable position in the public eye. Nevertheless, even if he knew
of Trollopes part, Thackeray was not one to hold personal grudges for
extended lengths of time5 in the autumn of 1861 he even sympathized with
Edmund Yates"So poor Yates has been having gastric fever* This
friction appears to be the last that disturbed the relation of the
two authors, at least from Thackerays side.
One area of thought that found Trollope and Thackeray in
opposing camps was the British reaction to the American Civil War.
While in the United States during 1861-1862, Trollope visited all the
states which had not then seceded. Outspoken in whatever he believed,
Trollope had no sympathy with the Southern causes
Jpf?
The Southern cause was bad. The South had
provoked the quarrel because its political
supremacy vas checked by the election of Mr,
Lincoln to the Presidency. It had to fight as
a little man against a big man, and fought
gallantly,and a feeling based on a misconception
as to American character that the Southerners
are better gentlemen than their Northern brethren,
did create great sympathy here; but I believe that
the country was too just to be led into political
action by a spirit of romance, and I vas warranted
in that belief


155
Mr. Thackeray intimated to Ms daughters during
his life that he wished them to have no concern in
any biography of their father. His known wishes were
necessarily regarded as final by them. The family
representatives of an eminent man may often feel it
to be not merely a right but a duty to publish his
life. But it is a duty for the discharge of which
they are responsible to their own consciences and
not to the public. The decision must rest upon the
particular circumstances of the ease, and involves
considerations which can be fully known to none but
the persons immediately concerned. . This alone
may be said; and I say it with the most entire con
viction of its truth. Nothing could be told of Mr,
Thackerays private life by those who have the
fullest means of knowledge which would not confirm
the highest estimate derivable from his writings
of the tenderness of his heart and the moral worth
of his nature; and all that could be told would
tend to justify the profound affection with which
they cherish his memory.13
The appearance of Trollope's volume, therefore, demands some definitions;
what to Thackerays family constituted abiography"? In the final volume
of the Biographical Edition of Thackerays Works of 1898-1899 Lady
Ritchie introduces Leslie Stephen's account of Thackerays life; "In
his biography of my father, reprinted from the 'Dictionary of National
Biography,' the whole framework of the life is given; the story he
purposely left for me to tell.^ Stephen himself called the article,
"little more than a condensed statement of facts."-*-5 in the opening of
1
the first chapter of Thackeray, entitled "Biographical," Trollope
prefaces his work by telling of Thackeray's condemnation of biography
and outlining his purpose;
Acting upon these instructions, his daughter,
while there were two living, and since that the
one surviving,have carried out the order which
has appeared to them to be sacred. Such being
the case, it certainly is not my purpose now to
write what may be called a life of Thackeray.


93
As Trollope pointed out in the suppressed portion of his
autobiography, latest column in The New York Times came to the atten
tion of the widely circulated Saturday Review. It will be remembered
that the Saturday Review had castigated both Thackeray and Yates in
1853 during the Garrick Club Affair and took a decidedly antagonistic
stand against Thackeray after the initial success of the Cornhill.
The interest in "Echoes from the London Clubs," however, was also
derived from the Saturday Review1s ideal of gentlemanly conduct.
Earlier in i860 a reviewer had criticised the publishing of club
secrets s
If you cannot keep a feeble circulation from
becoming utter stagnation and death in any
other way, you must do it by publishing what
nobody else will publish.
Later the same reviewer warned,
... by all the miles of English public
morality, a man who thinks it his duty
publicly to cast a slur on another man's
name, must stand the risk of being as
publicly called to account for it, and
having to make as. public a reparation.
On June 23, the Saturday Review seized upon Yates's article, enlarged
upon it, and soundly beat the principal figures5 the following two
passages from the long article, "Newspaper Gossip," are especially
pertinent s
In America they print what in English towns
is only said or whispered; and, as the gossip
sells well and is well paid for, it is sure to
be amply provided, English gossip is particu
larly acceptable, and the letters of the
London correspondent are accordingly a great
feature of a New York newspaper. Khen these


213
21Ibld.. p. 412.
22
Adversity, pp. 2-3
2\rilliam Aldis Wright (ed.), More Letters of Edward Fitzgerald
(London, 1901), p. 261,
24
\&nnan, pp, 63-64.
23Adversity pp, 436-437, fn4.
2^Trollope Letters. p, 413*
07
'The original document is in the Bodleian Library among the
Trollope Papers II. MS, Don. C, 9, 10, 10#.
2SSadleir, p. 351.
; 29
See his letter to -John Blackwood quoted above.
3CWpole, pp. 156-157.
31
All material quoted from the questionnaire preserves the spelling
and punctuation of the original. The question marks enclosed in
brackets indicate illegible words. The original document is in the
Bodleian Library among the Trollope Papers II, MS. Don, C. 10, f, 72,73.
-^Thackeray, p, 7.
33Ibid.. p. 31.
34The New York Times for October 29, 1855, for example, mentioned
that Mr, THACKERAY was born in India in the year 1811. . .#
35
Thackeray, p, 3.
-?0Xb:ld.. pp. 3-4*
37
Ibid,, pp. 4-5.
38
Ibid.. p. 5.
39Ibid.. p. 6.
^Adversity, p. 129.
^Ibid.. p. 127.
^Thackeray, p. 7.


232
Sala, who had been Cornhill September
contributor, accepts editor
ship of Temple Bar. Yates
rumors that Thackeray is
jealous. Thackeray on
continent.
Dickens writes warm letter September 23
of condolence to Yates.
Thinks Dickens has abandoned September 28
Yates,
October
Goes to Florence.
November 15
Writes to Thackeray,
after the rejection of
"Mrs. General Talboys."
First number of Temple Bar.
December
1861
January 5
Almost loses position on
Cornhill.
Spring
Elected to Garrick Club.
Sees both Trollope and Synge.
May 5
August 14
Leaves London for U, S. A
Yates, traveling in Switzer
land with wife and Alfred
Austin, has severe attack of
gastric fever? Thackeray
sympathizes with him.
Autumn
In Paris.
September
Death of Major Garmichael-
Smyth.
September 9
1862
Resigns editorship of Cornhill. March 6


of It esa from Clod, at ms la so is due
to hxmm fatilt. She becas ill, at her sit
failed her* Thar as a period during which
be would not believe that her Ills# was ser
than illness, at then he clung to iter and
waited cm her with m assiduity of affection
which only made his task the more painful to
hita, it last it became evident that she should
live in the ooffifaaioBehip of mm one with whoa
her life might be altogether quiet, am she bed
sines been domiciled with a lady with whoa she
has been happy 'Sms she ms$ after but a few
years of married life, taken away from him,
at he becas as it were a widower till the end
of his days*55
Trollop, probably aware of the scandal that the fallacious date would
have caused, silently ttted the birth years of the three children
the bulky second sentence is a typical Trollopica comment on the
factual data supplied by Ms sources* iter it no question of lie
easing ultimately fgm anywhere but Trollop* personal asqxsriaace*
The remainder of the paragraph, si the other hand, presante material
that Trollop would of necessity hove le&mt fresa sosa masher of the
family, possibly from Lady titehie herself* Doubtless Thackeamy would
not heve added the touches of his own affection or the euphemistic
description of & feminine companion if he had told the story to
Trollope, neither would Trollope have been so delicate here, when he is
later tactless enough to refer to Mrs* Thackeray* malady as "a
skeleton in [tbej cupboard,^ unless he heard the story told in those
terms. He may have heard it free sue of Thackeray*s old friend at
the Garrick Club, but they would not have adat these touches. If Lady
Biichie was the source, he did not not to relate it specifically for
the purposes of the volume* therefor, Trollope say wen Imm learned


240
49. (pp. 47-43)
a, l?J: Thackeray defense in 1857 of his lectures.
b. Trollope: Thackeray*s indiscretion in the lectures.
50. (pp. 48-49)
a. [?] : Thackerays unsuccessful stand for Oxford suggested
by Lady Ritchie (23)
b. Trollope: Thackerays unsuitability for Parliament.
51. (pp. 49-51)
Trollope: Thackeray and The Cornhill Magazine.
52.(pp. 51-52)
Trollope: the acceptance of Framley Parsonage.
53* (p. 52)
Trollope: the reasons for Framley Parsonages1s publication.
54. (PP. 52-53)
Trollope: contributors to the first number of the Cornhill.
55. (pp. 53-54)
Trollope: contributors to the Cornhill under Thackeray's editor
ship.
56. (pp. 54-55)
a. Trollope: Thackerays inability to be a good editor,
b* Thackeray: "Thoms in the Cushion" quoted.
57. (pp. 55-56)
Trollope: the rejected story.
58, (p, 56)
Trollope: Thackerays removal to Palace Green.
59. (pp. 56-57)
Trollope: faulty procedures in serial writing.
60. (p. 57)
Trollopes Thackerays lack of method in writing.
61. (pp. 57-58)
Trollope: Thackeray's death, funeral, and monument in West
minster Abbey.
62.
(p. 59)
Lady Ritchie (21): Thackerays inheritance for his daughters


245
. Thackeray: The Age of Wisdom. 1847-1363. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1953.
. Thackeray: The Uses of Adversity. 1811-1846. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1955*
(Editor). William Makepeace Thackeray: Contributions
to the Morning Chronicle. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1955.
"Recent Discoveries Concerning Thackeray," The Nation. XXXII
(January 27, 1881), 56-57,
Ritchie, Anne Thackeray. "Biographical Introductions," The Biographical
Edition of the Works of William. Makepeace Thackeray. 13 vols*
London: Smith, Elder, and Company, 1898-1899.
. "Note to Sir Leslie Stephens Life of W. M.
Thackeray. The Biographical Edition of the Works of William
Makepeace Thackeray (London: Smith, Elder, and Company, 1898-1899),
XIII, 688.
. "The First Editor: And the Founder," The C ornhJ.il
Magazine. n.s. XXFIII (January, 1910), 1-5.
__ "The First Number of The Comhill." The Cornhill
Magazine, n.s. I (July, 1896), 1-16.
. "Thackeray and his Biographers," Illustrated
London Hews. XCFIII (June 20, 1891), 811.
Ritchie, Hester Thackeray (Editor), Thackeray and His Daughter. The
Letters and Journals of Anne Thackeray Ritchie. With Many Letters
of William Makepeace Thackeray. Selected and Edited by Hester
Thackeray Ritchie. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1924.
Robertson Scott, J. W. The Story of the Pall Mall Gazette of its
First Editor. Frederick Greenwood. and of its Founder. George
Murray Smith. London: Oxford University Press, 1950.
Robinson, Howard. Britain s Post Office: A History of Development
from the Beginnings to the Present Day. London: Oxford
University Press, 1953.
. The British Post Office. A History. Princeton;
Princeton University Press, 1948.
Sadleir, Michael. Trollope. A Commentary. Revised Edition. New York:
Farrar, Straus, and Company, 1947.


246
Sala, George Augustus. The Life and Adventures of George Augustus
Sala. Written by Himself. Londons Cassell and Company,
Limited, 1896*
. Things I Have Seen and People I Have Known. 2 vols.
London: Cassell and Company, Limited, 1894
Smith, Peter. "The Gornhill MagazineNumber 1." A Review of English
Literature. IV (April, 1963), 23-24.
Spark, Muriel (Editor). The Bronte Letters. Londons Peter Nevill,
Ltd,, 1954.
Spielmann, M. H, The History of "Punch." Hew York: The Cassell
Publishing Company, 1395.
Stebbins, Lucy and Richard Poate, The Trollopes s The Ghronieles of a
Writing-Family. Hew Yorks Columbia University Press, 1945.
Stephen, Leslie. "Life of W. M. Thackeray." The Biographical Edition
of the Works of William Makepeace Thackeray (London: Smith, Elder,
and. Company, 1398-1399}, -HII, 639-717.
. Studies of a Biographer. 4 vols. London:
Duckworth and Company, 1902.
"Thackeray." The New York Daily Times V (October 29, 1355), 2.
Thackeray, William Makepeace. The Biographical Edition of the Works
of William Makepeace Thackeray. 13 vols. London: Smith, Elder,
and Company, 1898-1899.
"De Juventute," XII, 229-241.
"Nil Nisi Bonus," XII, 173-179*
"On Screens in Dining-Rooms," XII, 217-222.
"Small Beer Chronicle," XII, 302-308.
"Thorns in the Cushion," XII, 209-216.
. Thackerays Letters to an American Family With An
Introduction by Lucy ¥. Baxter and Original Drawings by Thackeray.
New Yorks The Century Company, 1904.
Trollope, Anthony, An Autobiography. Garden City, New York: Doubleday
and Company, Inc., n.d.
. Thackeray. "English Men of Letters." London:
Macmillan and Company, 1879.
. "W, M. Thackeray." The Gornhill Magazine. IX
(February, 1364), 134-137.


20
Having traveled on the continent after the completion of
Vanity Fair (July 2, 1843) and having begun the monthly prublication of
The History of Pendennis in November,^ Thackeray was free "from the
day-to-day struggle for existence.^( Already he had subdued Jerrold,
whom he saw as a living warning of the dangers into which ttngoverned
radicalism could lead.7 In November, 1336, however, Dickens had
written to Jerrold, whom he knew only as the author of the popular
comedy, Black-eyed Susan, to obtain an article for Bentleys
Miscellany.^ and by September, 1333, Jerrold was visiting in Dickenss
home,^ Thus by 1346, Jerrold was intimate enough with Dickens to Join
in protest against Thackerays attack on radicalism and personally on
Jerrolds writings in Punch.^ and on July 2, 1847, Thackeray expressed
his apprehension of this alliance in a letter to Mrs. Carrdchael-Smyth,
"Jerrold hates me, Ainsworth hates me, Dickens mistrusts me, Forster
says I am false as hell, and Buiwer curses meThis division of
the literary figures and Journalists into two camps, those favoring
Dickens and those favoring Thackeray, began as early as I846 and was
rather definite by the time that Vanity Fair established Thackerays
prominence.^ In the Garrick Club Dickens, Forster and Jerrold formed
a circle which included Albert and Arthur Smith, Andrew Arcedeckne,
and Wilkie Collins^ as well as the comedian John Pritt Harley.^5
Dickens seldom went to the Club even though the Bohemian group regarded
him as their leader. By December, 1848, Thackeray had inadvertently
alienated not only Douglas Jerrold but also the man who was to be
67
Dickenss biographer, John Forster, with the result that, at least to


82
S5See Wisdom, p. 300.
^William Makepeace Thackeray, "Thorns in the Cushion," The
Biographical Edition of the Works of William Makepeace Thackeray
(London, 1898-1899), XII, 213-214. Hereafter referred to as Works.
87,
Ritchie, "The First Humber," p. 10.
88,
Quoted in Robertson Scott, p. 76.
^Ritchie, "The First lumber," p. 6.
^Robertson Scott, p. 79.
91
' A third novel, Denis Duval, left unfinished at his death,
printed in March and June, I864.
9 See bibliography in Elwin, pp. 389-390.
9%hackeray Letters. IV, 225-226.
^Wisdom, p. 306.
95
Ray apparently otras the letter of this date, a cover letter for
Yatess contribution; if so, Yatess affirmation that he sent the poem
"without remark" is a later confusion of facts intended to belittle
Thackeray, See Recollections and Experiences. II, 58.
96
Thackeray Letters, IV, 171.
97Ibid.. p. 215, fn.2
98
Quoted from Henry William and Irene Laws The Book of Beresford
Hopes in Bevington, p. 28.
99
Wisdom, pp. 304-305.
10f)
Thaekeray, "Mil Nisi Bonum," Works. XII, 177.
101
xhaekeray, "De Juventute," Works. XIIf 232.
102
Thackeray, "Small Beer Chronicle," Works. XII, 303.
103
'Thackeray, "Thorns in the Cushion," Works. XII, 212.
10%sdom. pp. 305-306,
^Autobiography, pp, 114-115.


35
I grieve to gather from your letter that you
were Mr, Yatess adviser in the dispute between
me and him. His letter was the cause of my
appeal to the Garrick Club for protection from
insults against which I had no other remedy. 23.7
On December 2 Thackeray communicates his shock at Dickenss treachery
to Blackwood:
But the Beauty of Beauties now comes out
that Dickens advised Yates throughout Edwin
James says wrote every word of Yatess letters.
Isnt it a noble creature?-^
Even if Yates was one of the Dickenss circle, then, it is not neces
sary to regard Thackerays anger and persecution of the journalist as
Ka struggle for supremacy, or an outburst of jealousy between Thackeray
and Dickens" in which Yates was merely "the scapegoat or shuttlecock."-^
Yates had acted freely, though naively, in writing the article, not
seeking aid from Dickens until Thackeray had discovered his identity,
and Thackeray acted from justly hurt feelings because a man he had
trusted had proven a traitor to him, not knowing of Dickenss part until
after Yates was expelled from the Club and was seeking reinstatement
John Forsters single mention of the Garrick Club Affair in his biography
of Dickens seems to be the most just summary of the dispute between
Dickens and Thackeray engendered from this clash; "Neither was wholly
right, nor was either altogether in the wrong,"-^
This club dispute would be unimportant in a study of Trollopes
opinion of Thackeray if it did not have wide publicity at the time.
Trollope, it must be remembered, knew Yates but did not know Thackeray;
moreover, his absence from London during most of 1358 and early 1359


36
means that his first knowledge of the affair was through periodicals.
Thackeray inadvertently helped the publicity of the scandal by
ridiculing Tates as Young Grubstreet" in the ninth number of The
Virginians in July, and the penny press so persecuted Thackeray that
finally he spent much of his time on the continent.1-''-'' As early as
September 4 1858, the American miscellany Littells The hiving Age
picked up a feature from The Saturday Review, spreading an unfavorable
picture of Thackeray across the Atlantic? in this article, sarcastically
entitled "Gentlemen Authors," the writer attacks Thackeray, not because
Yates was in the right, but because Yates merely printed a "photograph"
of a man who earned money selling his features at public lectures.
Since the writer sees the entire dispute as Thackerays objection to a
personal description, especially to references to his "bloodless face"
and "broken nose," he argued that Thackeray had no grounds for anger
he had already fallen below the level of a gentleman by selling what
Yates tried to peddle,in November, The Eclectic Magazine reprinted
part of Yatess article,and on March 15, 1859, Littell*s The hiving
Age reprinted a squib from the Home Journal;
Punch is now not much good, and Thackeray, their
next best, is rapidly going down hill as a
saleable writer. His "Virginians has a very
small saleso small that from sheer shame he
actually returns some of the stipulated sum paid
him by the publishers. The trial brought by
Edmund Yates against the Garrick Club for
illegally expelling him, as an act of servile
flunkeyisa to Thackeray, comes on the beginning
of next month. In legal circles there is no
doubt of Yatess success. The trial will be


33
The image of Thackeray in the article, while very unflattering, reflects
the view of those opposed to him; it is a mixture of exaggerations,
half-truths, and malicious slander similar to the adverse reviews and
comments about Thackeray propagated by his enemies. But Yates is
probably truthful in his account of its composition,^-0 and in his
naive assumption that the article was not offensive or objectionable,
or likely to bring me into trouble.Associating with people
antagonistic to Thackeray, despite the acquaintance with the novelist,
Yates hastily threw together the impressions that he had picked up both
from his relation with Thackeray and from his friends who disliked him.
He knew the image of the novelist propagated by this circle and virote
in the vein of the other journalists. That he might well have been
attacking James Hannay through Thackeray is possible, but he was covered
by the obscurity of anonymity and such an attack could scarcely hurt.
Yet Hannays thrust and Yatess desire to stab back must have been a
part of the elaborate chain of events that led to the article. It does
not seem probable to assert that Yatess attack on Thackeray vra.s
motivated by personal dislike or envy on Yatess part, even though
these qualities can be read into the sketch, because Yates is silent
concerning events in Thackerays private life which even the Hew York
Times published and which Yates would surely have known from his rela-
tion with Thackeray. It is much more logical to assume that the
article is a careless recording of impressions received from periodicals
and from persons antagonistic to Thackeray mixed with the remembrance
of James Hannay's biting sarcasm. The mistake that Yates made was


54
Hot only did Thackeray and Smith need to settle the name of
the magazine, they had to reach a conception of what the Cornhill ms
to represent and to find contributors. In both problems, Thackeray
was as active as a man in poor health could be. In early September he
thought that "the Magazine must bear my cachet . and be a man of
the world Magazine.'*2 Sir Henry Thompson told Lady Ritchie that
Thackeray "told me that he intended to develop a new principlethat
he thought everyman, whatever his profession, might be able to tell
something about it which no one else could say, provided the writer
could write at all; and he wanted to utilize this element.^ To
Trollope, Thackeray wrote, "One of our chief objects in this magazine
is the getting out of novel spinning, and back into the world.'*2 In
the circular to prospective contributors, he was more explicit*
We hope for a large number of readers, and
must seek, in the first place, to amuse and
interest them. Fortunately for some folks,
novels are as daily bread to others; and
fiction of course must form a part, but only
a part, of our entertainment. We want, on the
other hand, as much reality as possible-
discussion and narrative of events interesting
to the public, personal adventures and observa
tions, familiar reports of scientific discoveries,
descriptions of Social Institutionsquicquid
agunt hominesa 'Great Eastern,' a battle in
China, a Race-Course, a popular Preacherthere
is hardly any subject we don't want to hear about,
from lettered and instructed men who are compe
tent to speak on it, . There are points on
which agreement is impossible, and on these we
need not touch. At our social table, we shall
suppose the ladies and children always present;
we shall not set up rival politicians by the
ears; we shall listen to every guest who has an
apt word to say; and, I hope, induce clergymen
of various denominations to say grace in their
turn.^9


169
father had made such a trip, would scarcely be capable of ascertaining
precise dates for an event that occurred before her parent's marriage.
The third unanswered question, seventeen, asked:
How were his books published & by whom
in Fraser
Punch
or in other periodicals or by what publishers
She answered this in part in another place, but the silence on her
part is easily attributed again to her lack of knowledge, since the
question demands of her a bibliographer's information that she obviously
did not have, because in her answer to question sixteen she inserts, as
an explanation of her omission of some material, "I have not got all
the original editions. These questions posed the necessity of more
knowledge than Lady Ritchie had, since she was only twenty-five when
her father died almost sixteen years before Trollope lias gathering
information. The most detailed and accurate memory of her father could
not predate her tenth birthday, the year Vanity Fair was published, and
probably no clearly adult view could be fomed prior to the time when
she was fifteen or sixteen, the period of The Four Georges and
Thackeray's lectures.
Three more questions were answered, but the answers were not
used in the biographical chapter, although the knowledge has become
infused into Trollope's account. The ninth question, "Mien was he in
Paris and for how long," like the eighth, demanded factual knowledge
beyond Lady Ritchie's ability. Apparently she referred to the dates
of some letters, for her answer cryptically reads:


227
"Recent Discoveries Concerning Thackeray," The Nation. XXXII
(January 27, 1881), 56.
/Edvard T. Mason (ed.), Personal Traits of British Authors (New
York, 1891), IV, 262-263.
^Thackeray. p. 2.
Q
Hisolson, pp. 65-66.
10roid.. pp. 9-io.


110
little out of his way to "save Trollope from Yates and Dickens, for
it remains difficult to see how a man of the world who idealized a
concept of the middle class gentleman could truly befriend a man so
unlike himself. Leslie Stephen, later Thackerays son-in-law, has left
his impressions of Anthony Trollope, and from his statement, which is
doubtless similar to Thackerays, Trollopes character could hardly
fit a concept of gentility:
Nobody ever met the adult Trollope in the
flesh without receiving one impression. . .
In person, Trollope resembled the ideal beefeater;
square and sturdy, and as downright as a box on
the ear. The simple, masculine character revealed
itself in every lineament and gesture. His talk
was as hearty and boisterous as a gust of a
north-eastera Kingsley north-easter, that is;
not blighting, but bracing and genial. The
first time I met him was in a low room, where he
was talking with a friend almost as square and
sturdy as himself. It seemed as if the roof was
in danger of being blown off by the vigour of
the conversational blasts. And yet, if I
remember rightly, they were not disputing, but
simply competing in the utterance of a perfectly
harmless sentiment in which they cordially agreed.
A talker of feeble lungs might be unable to get
his fair share in the discussion; but not because
Trollope was intentionally overbearing, or even
rough. His kindliness and cordially were as
unmistakable as his sincerity; and if he happened
to impinge upon his hearers sore points, it was
from clumsiness, not malignity. He was incapable
of shyness or diffidence, and would go at any
subject as gallantly as he rode at a stiff fence
in the hunting-field. His audacity sprang not
from conceit, but from a little over-confidence
in the power of downright common-sense.
Yet Thackeray overcame whatever natural repuganee he might have held and
in the last years of his life treated Trollope as fairly as could be
expected.


103
The story shall be done & shall be with
you without fail by 11 am Tuesday 13th
Instant18 pages exact. I say IS that you
may be able to make sure, & thinking that
that number may be most suitablebeing the
mean of 16 & 20If 20 (twenty) will suit you
better, & if you will say so by return, you
shall have 20 exactIf I dont hear again
from you it will be 18
It shall be among the most inward of my
inward thingsno one being privy to it but
my wife20
Obviously Trollope was fond of his idea for the story even before it
Tas written and hoped to overcome the ill feelings caused by !!The
Banks of Jordon." When "fes* General Tslboys" was written, fes.
Trollope did not care for it, but Trollope submitted it with greater
confidence than he had the earlier story:
I .have completed KF3 Talboys* My wife,
criticising it, says that it is ill-natured*
I would propose you should call it
Mrs General Talboys*
I hope and trust that there is not and never
has been any real General of that name. If so,
we must alter it. I shall always'call it
"Mrs Talboys at Romebut you will probably
chose to sink the Rome, as you have an article
in the same number about the eternal city.21
The story was set into page proofs by Smith before Thackeray vetoed it,
which means that Smith sanctioned the story while the editor did not,
Trollope must have learned of Thackeray's veto on either November 14 or
15, for on the 15th he wrote letters to both Smith and Thackeray. In
the former he merely asked for the return of the manuscript? in the
latter, the letter mentioned in Thackeray as being "as full of drollery
as I knew" how to make it," Trollope criticised certain of Thackeray's
characters and the conception of the Cornhill held and fostered by
its proprietor and its editor:


99
been recognised as Edmund lates, is actually both Yates and Trollope
and anyone who spreads gossip about his betters. But Trollope was
not touched by the paper as he thought he would be: 'The R* Paper is
not so severe as I thought it would bebut it is better so."^ If
Thackeray did not know Trollope's part in the affair before copy was
sent to the printers, the attack on writers and publishers of scandal
was general enough to express a gentlemans disdain at the unwarranted
behavior of his inferiors. If he did know of Trollope's part as Yates's
informer, Thackeray's silence and generalization of his attack arose,
perhaps, from a desire not to muddy his hands in the offensive practices
employed by those whom he regarded as his inferiors. Whichever the
case, Thackeray's treatment of the disagreeable episode silenced Yates
and prevented further "indiscretions by Trollope. That Thackeray
might have learned of Trollope's part is implied in their official
relation of contributor and editor during the latter part of I860, but
again it is more probable that Thaekeray was innocent of knowledge of
his contributor's guilt for some time and when he did learn of it was
willing to forgive the offence. As far as Trollope is concerned, there
were still moments of hard feelings to com, but w can assume that
Yates's attack on Smith turned Trollope against the younger man just
as the mannered reply of Thackeray began to win Trollope to his side.
But Trollope's view of Thackeray continued, though in a lesser degree,
to be colored by the initial impression that was fortified by Yates's
enmity.


97
occupied his time in the early weeks of July, shortly after the attack
in the Saturday Review. In this paper Thackeray presents a counter
attack i
That a writer should be taken to task about
his books is fair, and he must abide the praise
or the censure. But that a publisher should
be criticised for his dinners, and for the
conversation which did not take place there,-
is this tolerable press practice, legitimate
joking, or honourable warfare?
He then proceeds to defend himself and the Cornhill by pulling the
Saturday Review and The New York Times correspondent over the coals of
his wits
And suppose, Mr. Saturday Revieweryou censor
morum. you who pique yourself (and justly and
honourably in the main) upon your- character of
gentleman, as well as of writersuppose, not
that you yourself invent and indite absurd twaddle
about gentlemens private meetings and trans
actions, but pick this wretched garbage out of a
New York .sheet, and hold it up for your readers
amusementdont you think, my friend, that you
might have been better employed? Here, in my
Saturday Review, and in an American paper sub
sequently sent to me, I light, astonished, on an
account of the dinners of my friend and publisher,
which are described as "tremendously heavy," of
the conversation (which does not take place),
and of the .guests assembled at the table. I am
informed that the proprietor of the Cornhill.
and the host on these occasions, is "a very good
man, but totally unread;" and that on my asking
him whether Doctor Johnson was dining behind the
screen, he said, "God bless my soul, my dear sir,
theres no person by the name of Johnson here,
nor any one behind the screen," and that a roar of
laughter cut him short. I am informed by the same
New York correspondent that I have touehed up a
contributors article; that I once said to a
literary gentleman, who was proudly pointing to
an anonymous article as his writing, "Ah! I
thought 1 recognised your hoof in it." I am told
by the same authority that the Cornhill Magazine


24
becomes understandable, not only in the light of his desire in 1834 to
justify his behavior, but even more so, if his acquaintance with
Thackeray extended over several years and if throughout this time he
ms closely aligned with Dickens. These two occasions in 1852 point
to a more intimate acquaintance than Thackerays angry letter of
June 13, 1858, indicates. If Yates can be trusted at all in these
references, he seems to have maintained a strange role: he consciously
favored Dickens, but to Thackeray he appeared to be neutral, if not
slightly leaning to his side.
Yates has only four additional references to Thackeray that
can be placed between 1852 and 1858 whieh are important to the under
standing of their relation. The first, an anecdote that puts Thackeray
in an unfavorable light, can most easily be discarded:
I was walking with him tThackeray} one evening
from the club, and, passing a fish-shop in
New Street, he noticed two different tubs of
oysters, one marked "Is. a dozen, the other
"Is, 3d. a dozen." "H0w they must hate each
other!" said Thackeray, pointing them out.^-
The second presents a greater problem: Yates describes the receptions
of Mrs. Milner Gibson, mentioning Thaekeray as one of the persons who
frequented them and adding that she "never had a reception without
sending us a card."*2 Mr, Ray gives credence to the first part of this
assertion by stating that Thackeray "was frequently seen at the recep
tions ... of Mrs. Milner Gibson (or Mrs. Milliner Gibson, as that
somewhat overdressed lady was called), who gave offence in some
quarters by her excessive enterprise in attracting intellectual lions


128
us to estator in our oami! ¡walisg
going about tiie town*:it is of these things*
and of the things lost for ever, that we are
now thinkingI Me think of them a of treasure
which are sot only lost* hut which can never b
replaced. He who knew Thackeray will, have a
vacancy in his heart % irascat casket, which crust
resala vacant till he dies* C5ao loved hits almost
a one loves a. mss, tenderly and with thoughtful
nse#thiakiiig of hist when away from him as a
source of Joy which cannot be analysed, but is
full of comfort* On who loved him, loved him
thus because hi heart was as is the
heart of a MHr.*^
filis toa resches a clima la the final paragraph la which Trollop'
describes the funeral, % very large gatheringbetween 1000 and 1500
people,::,s that had boon held on Becesber 31 at Keasal Green:
Ife saw Ma laid low in hie tap!# grave at %lm
close of last year, m w saw the brethren of
his art, on after another, toad up on the
sisme at the grave foot to take a last look upon
the coffin which held him. It vm very ad.
There were 'there the faces of rough mm. red with
tear, who are sot used to the melting mood, The
grave was mrj simple, m became the sadness of
the soiwt* At such times It is better that the
very act of interment should be without pomp- or
sign of glory. But as weeks pas by us, they,
who love English literature, will desire t see
some preparation for placing a memento of him in
that shrine In which we keep the monuments of our
great men. It is to he regarded a a thing of
course, that there should be a bust of Thackeray
in Westminster Abbey,?!
The article, however, reveal Trollope4 s submerged adverse criticism
which, in this case, he used to heighten the image of Thackeray that he
is projecting; the balk of the comments, for example, is concerned with
Thackeray's relation to the Cornhill,^ After introducing this abject,
Trollope says,


159
twenty-three questions are brief, the questions are adequately-
answered, Since Lady Ritchie's help is extremely important in judging
the volume, each question and answer will be traced into the text.
Before we do this, however, it is necessary to mention the other
sources of Trollope's information. Edward Fitzgerald, in a letter
xjritten early in 1882, described his part in the volume when W. F.
Pollack's son was planning a biography of Thackeray:
... I td.ll answer as well as I can any questions
put to me; or look over, and annotate, any proof
sent to me, as I did in Mr. Trollope's case. MS.
I have not the eyes for* I almost wish your Son
had not undertaken the job for Scribner, remembering
Annie's telling me what her Father said not long
before his Death. "When I drop let there be
nothing witten of me." Mr. Trollope (unto whom I
wish you would make my respects) wrote his Book
under Annie's eyes (who misinformed him in many
ways)5 and, as your Walter is a Gentleman as well
as Mr. T., I will do all for him. X did for the
other; and positively I can do no more.23
If Lady Ritchie helped Trollope but misinformed him, added complica
tions enter the volume. Whether Fitzgerald means that she helped
further than the questionnaire is doubtful; if she did, Fitzgerald's
comment is analogous to her portrait painted by Noel Gilroy Annan in
his biography of Leslie Stephen;
Annie and Minny were by no means pliable, and since
Minny sided with her sister, Leslie found himself
to his chagrin only half her master. "Annie and
Minny used to call me the cold bath from my habit
of drenching Annie's little schemes and fancies
with chilling criticism." Stephen could never
realize that the weighty analysis applied to
destroying a chapter of Buckle had no relevance
in his sister-in-law's world. But there was
worse to come. Annie not only muddled her facts,
she muddled her figures. . Worst of all, she


37
before Lord Campbell, and Edwin James, the
queens counsel, will represent Tates. It is
said he intends to put Thackeray into the
witness bos; and, if so, the charming Titmarsh may
expect a ferocious mauling, *
Thackeray, of course knowing the limits to which the unflat
tering publicity was going, made numerous references in his letters to
the volume of squibs and articles printed against him;
August 25, 1358;
The little papers are still going on abusing
me about it I hearand dont care as I never
read one. The public does not care about the
story. .
December 2, 1858;
I wonder who possibly can have written that
article in the Scotsman? The other side has
been having it all their way for 6 months during
wt I have not been allowed to speak one word.127
December 4* 1858;
The Yates and Thackeray affair still roars on
bravely. Three articles this week. Two against
me and accusing me of persecuting Yatesprivate
letter from Higgins to tell me I am utterly in
the wrong, that Yatess article wasnt malicious. .
March 12, 1859:
Scores of the pennyaline fraternity have written
on his side, and a great number of them are agreed
that its the description of my no3e w£ makes me
so furiousMot one of them seems to understand
that to be accused of hypocrisy of base motives
for public & private conduct & so forthare the
points wi? makes me angryand I look for more press
libels immediately shoving how I have ruthlessly
persecuted an excellent & harmless young man. . '
March 29, 1859:
. . the more dignified and I may say sweller
course is to hold my tongue, and let the penny-
aliners fire away their abuse till the subject
dies out.^30


165
(as we shall see) must have been oral, the relation between these
documents and the completed book may form a basis from which the non-
Trollopian elements can be removed.
1. Date and place of his birth
Ans, Calcutta. July 18 1811
2. Names of his parents. Any details as to the family
especially his mother
Ans. His Father was Richmond Thackeray the 7th son of life
Makepeace Thackeray lately of Hadley on ra. They were
both Indian civil servants. His mother was Anne Becher
whose father was also in the Companys service. She went
to India and married young. She was only 19 when my
father was born. She was left a widow in 1816 & was
married a year or so afterwards to Major Henry Carmichael
Smith.
3. His education. Charter House when; for How long; Cambridge
how long & when at what college.
Ans. Feb. 1829. 17 years old.
Trinity Coll. Last letter from there Nov [?] 29
4. What fortune did he inherit.
No Answer.
5. Soon spent of course there is a story current as to this
Ans. Some went in an Indian Bank, a great deal in a news
paper which he & his Step-father started. About 1500 went
in cards.
6. low did he live & where on leaving Cambridge till he began to
earn money by writing in London
Ans. After leaving Cambridge he went to Weimar
7. Did he study drawing & where
Ans. He studied drawing in Paris under Bonington


47
120por the chronology of the Garrick Club Affair, see Appendix A.
121
John Forster, The Life of Charles Sickens (London, 1899), II, 697.
122Wisdon. pp. 282-284.
123uGantlenen Authors,* hlttell*s The Living Age, LVIII (September 4,
1858), 742-744.
124The Eclectic Magazine of Foreign Literature. Science, and Art.
XLV (November, 1858), 434.
125
"Dickens and Kis Publishers,'* Littell1 s The Living Age. LX
(March 5, 1858), 624.
1 o A
Letter to the Baxters. Thackeray Letters, I?, 109-110.
^Letter to Blackwood. Wisdom, p. 285*
128
Letter to his daughters. Thackeray Letters, I?, 121.
"^Letter to Charles Kingsley, Ibid.. pp. 133-135.
130
Letter to Duer Robinson. Ibid.. p, 135.
131Sadleir, p. 407.
132
Sala, Life and Adventures, p. 82.
l23Wisdom. pp. 133-135.


16
, with both of who I vas mor or leas
associated? and, as a bystander is said in
the old proverb to see most of the game, it
is probable that I, who interfered with
neither, had better opportunities for observing
their various peculiarities than if I had
occupied a less subordinate position.42
Between 1853 and 1858, the period that most interests us, Trollope was
seldom in London except for short trips? thus the acquaintance of the
two men was their meeting in Sir Rowland s office. After December,
1859} Trollope had more occasion to meet Yates, as we shall see later,
but the definite ties which can be established in the spring of 1858
and the early months of i860 had their origin in the years before 1858
when both men, though in different ranks of the Post Office, met in
Sir Rowlands office where Yatess position with his superior gave him
a firm standing.
To assume that a personal animosity existed between Yates
and Trollope at this time is to read the events of 1860 into the period
prior to 1858, a historical mistake. Trollope may well have disliked
Yates because he was Sir Rowlands henchman,^ but his infrequent
visits to "The Grand and the improbability of Ms knowing Yate-s in an
intimate relation indicate that the association was not colored by the
later antagonism. In fact, Trollopes letter of March 11, 1858,
implies an informal association in which the older Trollope freely
helped the younger man. In the early months of 1858, Trollope, as w
saw, was sent on an important postal mission to Egypt? while he was
there, Yates made a special, though much less important, trip to the
same country!


45
950n June 12, 1851, she entered in the diary: Went to Thackerays
lecture on the 'Humorists at Willis's Rooms. It was a very large
assembly, including Mrs. Carlyle, Dickens, and unnumerable noteworthy
people. Thackeray is a much older-looking man than I had expected? a
square, powerful face, and most acute and sparkling eyes, greyish hair
and eye brows. He reads in a definite, rather dry manner, but makes
you understand thoroughly what he is about. The lecture was full of
point, but the subject was not a very interesting one, and he tried to
fix our sympathy on his good-natured, volatile, and frivolous Hero
rather more than was meet. 'Poor Dick Steele,' one ends with, as one
began; and I cannot see, more than I did before, the element of great
ness in him." Horace H. Pym (ed.), Memoirs of Old Friends. Being
Extracts from the Journals and Letters of Caroline Fox of Penierrick.
Cornwall. from 1835 to 1871 (London. 1882), p. 269.
<^>u. . I heard Jenny Lind and cared nothing for her, I detest
Mrs. Browning and Festus. and prefer Thackeray 10 times over to
Dickens. . Letter of June 23, 1851, to Lady Trevelyan. John
Brown, Letters of Dr. John Brown With Letters from Buskin, Thackeray.
and Others (London. 1907), p. 88.
^Apparently the author knew enough about Thackeray to be able to
give a sketch of his birth, adolescence, and family; the writer may
have been informed of this material by English associates because his
being an American is clear from the view point of the article. If the
information cited (e.g., Thackeray's gambling and his study for the
bar) was common knowledge, the writer's obvious preference for Dickens
accounts for the misrepresentation; if the information was not common
knowledge, he must have learned of the factual details antagonistic to
Thackeray and from English periodicals directed against him.
Thackeray," The Hew York Daily Times. V (October 29, 1855), 2.
This article was reprinted in Littell's The Living Age. XLYII
(December 1, 1855), 562-565.
99
Quoted from The Saturday Review for December 15, 1855, in
Bevington, pp. 168-169.
^Quoted from The Saturday Review for January 2, 1859, in ibid..
P. 170.
IOIhj^ Thackeray at the Surrey Gardens," The Literary Gazette.
and Journal of Archaeology. Science, and Art. Ho. 2090 (February 7,
1857), p. 137.
"Mr. Thackeray in Edinburgh," The Literary Gazette. and Journal
of Archaeology. Science, and Art. Ho. 2099 (April 11, 1857),p. 351.


114
meant to an unknown man, who had not made
any mark then, but was merely pulling the
devil by the tail, in a struggle for bread.
Think of being expelled* from a club, as
tho one had been a eardsharper, a cheat, a
thief, a braggart about women!9
let Yates failed to learn his lesson, for he was later sent to prison
for libelling the Earl of Lonsdale from gossip picked up at the Carlton
Club,'*' and Sala relates the following episode from late in Yatess
life!
I remember once, at a dinner at poor Edmund
Yatess, his wife propounding to three of her
male guestsher husband, Dion Bouicault, and
myselfthe grave question whether we were
sorry--you know what I mean; sorry in the
all-round sense, unreservedly penitent, as
Catholics must declare themselves to be in a
confession genrale. Boucicault was the first
called upon to speak. The bright-witted
dramatist . replied, with truth beaming from
his expressive countenance, that he was deeply,
unfeignedly sorry for all his sins. Then came
my turn. I replied diplomatically, that I was
going to be sorry. Mieux tard que .jamais.
Then the dread query . was put to Edmund.
He looked at us; he looked at the ladies; he
looked into his plate, and then, bringing his
closed hand heavily on the table-cloth, he said,
sternly and decisively, No!
When dealing with such a person, Trollope was fully in the right to
refuse whatever offer Maxwell would have made, but more importantly the
refusal forced Trollope to move further toward Thackerays side and
further from Yatess. This movement is important to Trollopes
development of a view of Thackeray, for he had begun on Yatess side
and, as we shall see, was never able completely to overcome certain
attitudes toward Thackeray that were learned before meeting him.


122
Whether Thackeray has had any such payment I
cannot say I have not. They were to be made
by Messrs. Bedwell & Alslop the clerks of the
F. 0. who pay moneys for the consuls &c. They
can tell you whether Thackeray has had any
further instalment.34
These misrepresentations of the truth in Thackeray pose again the basic
question of the volume: if the traditional view of Trollopes close
friendship with Thackeray is accepted, why does he present Thackeray
in such a manner? In the case of his criticism of Thackerays
abilities as an editor the impulse that lowered Thackeray, perhaps,
stemmed from his own failure as an editor; in this case he is obviously
placing himself in a better position. Since both cases are rooted in
the writer's desire to excuse or to praise himself, the relation
between the two men could not have been the close friendship that is
often asserted to have existed; instead Trollope, while drawn to his
more prominent rivals side, retained an antagonism that he had learned
from Yates and which had been re-enforced during the early months of
1860.
During 1863, the last year of Thackeray's life, the two men
apparently found the closest degree of friendship that they were to
have. Thackeray entertained Mrs. Trollope on February 14?and on
May 10 had the Trollopes to a dinner. Other than these two affairs,
the only concrete evidence for a meeting of the two families was in
December,, about ten days before Thackerays death on December 24*^
Since Thackeray was in London all of 1863 except for two periods, ten
days in each April and August, there was ample time for more informal


66
The day when the first number was published
January i860messengers arrived to tell the
editor of the new thousands being wanted by
the publicj then more messengers came, and we
were told how the printers were kept working
till all hours, ... Mr. George Smith'?2 told
me that the calculations were all put out by
the enormous sale, which reached to some
120,000.73
No more than 80,000 copies had been ordered, but the great sale was
"without precedent in English periodical, literature"7^ and meant that
half a million people read the first number.^ Financially, however,
this unexpected success caused the publisher to lose money:
The calculations for the advertisements were
all put out by the enormous sale. The price
which pays for 10,000 announcements and the
paper and the printing ceases to be remunerative
when 120,000 notices are put forth. The pro
prietors actually lost upon the transactions
after a certain number had been reached.?0
Despite this initial loss Smith had the foresight to rejoice over the
prospects of the magazine. The entry for January 3, I860, in his
diary succinctly stated, "Called on Thackeray on my way to the City;
signed agreement respecting Roundabout Papers. Mr. Thackeray in
very good spirits at the success of the Cornhill,Perhaps, this
meeting was also the time when Smith doubled Thackerays salary, an
offer that caused Thackerays income from the magazine to rise to
3a6QO a month.7o At the end of the month Smith knew better how to
estimate sales: on January 27 he "ordered 80,000 to be printed.
Called in Bride Lane to see hoi; they were selling the second number of
the magazine. The demand very rapid," and on January 30 he "ordered
100,000 to be printed. . ."The editor and the publisher could


74
Since the Cornhill was the medium that brought Trollope and
Thackeray together, Trollopes views on Thackeray as an editor are
especially interesting* We have seen how Trollope earned, much to his
surprise, a major place on the magazines staff and how his relation to
the Cornhill was primarily through George Smith. Furthermore, we have
seen that Trollope was In a position more to hear of Yatess side of
the Garrick Club Affair than to sympathize with Thackeray. From these
premises we can assume that Trollope, who did not yet know Thackeray,
may already have formulated the divided image of him that was to become
apparent in the biography of 1879. In his autobiography (vjritten
between October, 1875, and April 30, 1876), when Trollope accounts for
the manner in which Framley Parsonage came to be placed first in a
magazine originally intended to have its main stay in a serialization
by Thackeray!
... the answer to this question must be
found in the habits of procrastination which
had at that time grown upon the editor. He
had, I imagine, undertaken the work himself,
and had postponed its commencement till there
was left to him no time for commencing. There
was still, it may be said, as much time for
him as for me. I think there was,for though
he had his magazine to look after, I had the
Post Office. But he thought, when unable to
trust his own energy, that he might rely upon
that of a new recruit.I65
Obviously Trollope, while praising his own unusual capacity for work,
never learned the burdens under which Thackeray worked in 1859. He has
forgotten that while Thackeray had to finish The Virginians for
Bradbury & Evans, he was working on the Cornhill. and on top of this


231.
MMMim finished.
September 7
Tf*tXii oa eoBtisaat*
SepteJer^Qetoba? 16
October 23
Offers sarrio to
QmMU*
October 26
Smith ask far & newel
by Deeaber 12.#
Brtalas Corahill to
Trollop, offers to
pibli&fc a story*
October 2$
llcsresbsr 3*4
So to London, meats
Smith vho eaggestf
IzMsm fuamm*
Iferetaber 4
tsMm SmmtmL %m
Rejects lates* posas
Wmrntibwt 17
seat to printers*
Peeesber 15
Deseaste*
to we Ireland$ settles
t Waltfe&a Cross*.
1860
Jassaary 1
Ssmaas work on Castle
I Paris#
Jmmry
Mcfaaoad.
First Comhill Dinner*
immsf-
Buys 2 Palace Oreen.
March 2$
leasing!*
3m ^oris fishes publishes
May 26
fate* artiele#
Mm gfiSlSK reprints
Tana 23
la. M SmSS rtlel*


145
friend of Thackeray's family. Since the influence remained strong,
Trollope, who was obviously drawn to Thackeray's works as the finest
in English literature, was unable to penetrate into Thackeray's
personality, unable to understand or finally to appreciate him as
anything other than a literary figure. Thackeray the man seems to have
been a myth never analyzed by Trollope.
Notes
^Leslie Stephen, Studies of a Biographer (London, 1902), I?, 171-172,
^Autobiography. p. 126.
^Laurence Irving, Henry Irving; The Actor and His World (London,
1951), pp. 230-232.
^Sadleir, p. 205.
^Sala, Life and Adventures, p. 354*
^Recollections and Experiences. II, 58.
7
Auiob1ographv. p. 127,
$
See Yates's original reply to Thackeray in Recollections and
Experiences. II, 15.
^Thackeray Letters. I?, 133-134, fn.17.
10-
Irving, p. 161.
11
Sala, Life and Adventures, pp. 324-325,
^^Da:iry for 1861, Thackeray Letters. I?, 397.
^William Makepeace Thackeray, Thackeray's Letters to An American
Family With An Introduction by Lucy W. Baxter and Original Drawings by
ThackeravTHew York, 1904), p. 174.
^Wisdom. pp. 303-304.
^Ibid., p. 388.


207
Pickwick had been published, and Oliver Twist
and Nicholas Hickleby were being published. All
the world was talking about the young author who
was assuming his position with a confidence in
his own powers which was fully justified both by
his present and future success. It was manifest
that he could make, not only his own fortune, but
that of his publishers, and that he was a literary
hero bound to be worshipped by all literary grades
of men, down to the devils'" of the printing-office.
At that time, Thackeray, the older man, was still
doubting, still hesitating, still struggling.
Everyone then had accepted the name of Charles
Dickens. That of William Thackeray was hardly
known beyond the circle of those who are careful
to make themselves acquainted with such matters. ^
He proceeds in the next paragraph to turn this difference into a problem,
avowing that he will not make a comparison between their genius!
They had begun to make their effort much at the
same time? and if there was any advantage in point
of position as they commenced, it was with
Thackeray, It might be said that the genius of
the one was brighter than that of the other, or,
at any rate, that it was more precocious. But
after-judgment has, I think, not declared either
of the suggestions to be true. I will make no
comparison between two such rivals, who were so
distinctly different from each, and each of whom,
within so very short a period, has come to stand
on a pedestal so high,the two exalted to so
equal a vocation* And if Dickens showed the best
of his power early in life, so did Thackeray the
best of his intellect. In no display of mental
force did he rise above Barry Lyndon.
At the end of the paragraph, Trollope finally states the problem: "Why
was Dickens already a great man when Thackeray was still a literary
Bohemian?"*^ Even though his solution does not extensively compare
"genius," or the manner in which each man saw reality and treated it
in his literary works, it does level a sharp blow at Thackeray's
character by the application of Trollope's personal and impressionistic


12
Iron posts suited for this purpose may be
erected at the corners of the streets .
or perhaps it may be found more desirable to
fix iron letter-boxes about five feet from the
ground wherever there are permanently built
walls.
When Oresswell proposed that these be erected, Golonel Maberly granted
permission; the pillar boxes were in use by the end of November, 1852.22
But Rowland Hill also claimed to have originated the pillar box in
1840; however, it was not until January, 1851, that he reported that
they might be tried in London and not until October 11, 1854, that an
official announcement of their use was published, The first in London
appeared finally in March, 1855,2^ Although Hill, who was in the
superior position, took the public credit for this innovation, the
correspondence on pillar boxes in the General Post Office refers to
the plan as "Mr. Trollopes suggestion."24 To the inferior this
"stealing of credit due to him was infuriating enough for him to
recall some twenty years later; therefore, Trollope had good reason
personally to dislike Rowland Hill on grounds other than a personality
clash.
In spite of personal animosity the reliability that Trollope
displayed in propagating Kills suggestions during the dual secretary
ship led to his being chosen for the special mission to the Pasha of
Egypt in 1858. Hill, now Sir Rowland, having successfully pushed the
Colonel from the Secretaryship, had taken control of the Post Office in
25
1854; therefore, Trollope's trip to Egypt must have come as a direct
order from Sir Rowland, the man under whom Trollopes career as a civil


17
My first special journey, howeverfirst and
most importantxjas merely due to my position
in the Secretarys office. It ms In the year
1858, and the terrible Indian Mutiny was at its
height. Submarine telegraphy was in its
infaney then, and the number of letters passing
between this country and India was so enormously
increased that supplementary mails were con
tinually being dispatched. The ordinary Indian
mail, made up in air-tight cases, was always
sent in charge of special officers appointed
for the purpose, and discharging no other duty
than that of travelling, with the mails in their
custody, from London to Marseilles, and from
Marseilles, on board one of the steamers of the
P. and 0. Company to Alexandria, where the
charge was transferred to the officers of the
Indian Post Office, who had travelled so far,
bringing the homeward letters.44
As soon as he heard that he was to make this trip, he wrote "to
Anthony Trollope . telling him I was coming, and asking him to
look out for me,"^ The nature of this request appears to be such
that the younger man knew Trollope and that some degree of friendship,
however slight, existed between them. Trollope left a letter in which
he tried to give Yates the information necessary for an enjoyable and
profitable stay in Egypt since he was unable to meet him;
Alexandria
11 March 1353
My dear Yates,
It is a matter of great regret to me that I
should miss you. But were I to stay now I should
lose my only opportunity of going to Jerusalem. I
had hoped to have got there and back before you
came out, but it has been impossible for me to
start till to-day, I shall probably still see you
on the 22nd. At Cairo see (above all) the newly-
opened catacombs of Sakkaraby taking a horse and
mounted guide you may see that and the Pyramids of
Ghiseh In one day. Hear the howling dervishes of
Cairo at one on Friday. They howl but once a week,
go to the citadel of Cairo, and the mosque of
Sultan Hassan. See, also, the tombs of the Caliphs,


199
There are those who would be ashamed to
subject themselves to sueh a taskmaster, and
who think that the man who works with his imagina
tion should allow himself to wait tillinspira
tion moves him# Tien I have heard such doctrine
preached, I have hardly been able to repress my
scorn. To me it would not be more absurd if the
shoemaker were to wait for inspiration, or the
tallow-chandler for the divine moment of melting.
If the man whose business it is to write has
eaten too many good things, or has drunk too much,
or smoked too many cigars,as men who write some
times will do,then his condition may be unfavour
able for workj but so will be the condition of a
shoemaker who has been similarly imprudent. I have
sometimes thought that the inspiration wanted has
been the remedy which time will give to the evil
results of such imprudence .Mens sana in corpore
sano. The author wants that as does every other
workman,that and a habit of industry. I was
once told that the surest aid to the writing of
a book was a piece of cobblers wax on my chair,
I certainly believe in the cobblers wax much
more than the inspiration.92
In his discussion of Thackeray and the civil service, Trollope adds that
Thackerays intention was
... to join literature with the Civil Service.
He had been taught to regard the Civil Service as
easy, and had counted upon himself as able to add
it to his novels, and his work with his Punch
brethren, and to his contributions generally to
the literature of the day. He might have done so,
could he have risen at five, and have sat at his
private desk for three hours before he began his
official routine at the public one, A capability
for grinding, sin aptitude for continuous task
work, a disposition to sit in one's chair as
though fixed to it by cobblers wax, will enable
a man in the prime of life to go through the
tedium of a second days work every day; but of
all men Thackeray was the last to bear the
wearisome perseverance of such a life.93
When Trollope's opinion in the autobiography is brought to bear on this
already adverse criticism, we can see that Trollope's impulse to belittle


221
the "book can hardly be called the offering of a hero-worshipper at
6
the shrine of his saint," could directly use it as a spring board
from their own portrayals
It is precisely this ambivalence in Trollopes account that
puts it also on the border line between criticism and biography; the
major bulk of the volume is critical rather than strictly biographical
as is the case with many of the volumes in the series. The result of
such a balance is that it can be approached from either angle.
Edward Mason, who included selections from Thackeray in his Personal
Traits of British Authors aptly described the volume:
Mr. Trollopes volume in the "English Men of
Letters" serieschiefly a literary review
is the nearest approach yet made to a
biography of Thackeray.'?
While the standard Victorian biography of a literary man (for example,
Forsters Sickens) is a bulky integration of critical examination and
biographical narration, Trollopes leans more to the critical side.
There is no more attempt to make the personality of the subject real to
the reader than to maintain a close adherence to the truth. While
earlier biography may have employed letters, diaries, or the works of
the subject to cast light on the personality, Trollope presented the
biographical primarily to elucidate the works:
In this preliminary chapter I will give such
incidents and anecdotes of his life as will
tell the reader perhaps all about him that a
reader is entitled to ask.
This difference in emphasis helps to distinguish the gulf between
criticism and biography that has grown since the 1880s. In the light
of the standard Victorian life, this places the small volume on a


235
he is now deservedly ashamed. It was with the publication
of the third or fourth number of Vanity Fair, that Mr.
Thackeray began to dawn upon the reading public as a great
genius. The greatest work, which, with perhaps the exception
of The Nevcomes, is the most perfect literary dissection of
the human heart, done with the cleverest and most unsparing
hand, had been offered to and rejected by several of the
first publishers in London. But the public saw and
recognised its valuej the great guns of literature, the
Quarterly and the Edinburgh, boomed forth their praises,
the light tirailleurs in the monthly and weekly press re
echoed the feux-de-ioie. and the novelists success tas
made, Pendennis followed, and was equally valued by the
literary world, but scarcely so popular tilth the public.
Then came Esmond, which fell almost still-born from the
press; and then The Isvcomes. perhaps the best of all.
The Virginians. now publishing, though admirably written,
lacks interest of plot, and is proportionately unsuccessful.
HIS SUCCESS,
commencing tilth Vanity Fair, culminated with his "Lectures
on the English Humorists of the Eighteenth Century," which
were attended by all the courts and fashion of London. The
prices were extravagant, the Lecturers adulation of birth
and position were extravagant, the success was extravagant.
No one succeeds better than Mr. Thackeray in cutting his
coat according to his cloth: here he flattered the
aristocracy, but when he crossed the Atlantic, George
Washington became the idol of his worship; the "Four Georges"
the objects of his bitterest attacks. These last-named
Lectures have been dead failures in England, though as literary
compositions they are most excellent. Our own opinion is,
that his success is on the wane; his writings never were
understood or appreciated even by the middle class; the
aristocracy have been alienated by his American onslaught on
their body, and the educated and refined are not sufficiently
numerous to constitute an audience; moreover, there is a want
of heart in all he writes, which is to be balanced by the most
brilliant sarcasm and the most perfect knowledge of the
workings of the human heart.*
* Thackeray Letters. I?, facsimile following p, 90


117
On the other hand, Thackeray, whose gentlemanly ideal caused him to
lean toward the Confederacy, was personally interested in the Southern
Of)
cause because of close friends then living in South Carolina.
Trollope published his sentiment in North America in May, 1862, immedi
ately after his return to England; Thackeray had already struck out in
his Roundabout Paper M0n Half a Loaf" in February. This disagreement
would be slight if Trollope was not the type of man eager to have his
own views expressed; with Trollopes being outspoken and Thackeray being
emotionally concerned with the Southern cause, some friction may have
existed. If so, the disagreement did not significantly enter into
their relation, because in 1862 Thackeray had already made a step that
was to ease the way to a closer intimacy between them.
That the intimacy did grow despite such differences was
largely the result of Thackerays resignation from the editorship of
Cornhill in March. While no significance can be placed on his
resigning while Trollope was in America, it is interesting that neither
Thackeray nor Smith seemed to consider him as a possible successor,
Smith first offered the position to Robert Browning, who refused because
he was not to receive the same pay as Thackeray. On April 8, George
Smith called on G. H. Lewes, who entered in his journal that the
publisher
spoke to me about the editorship of the Cornhill
Magazine which Thackeray has resigned. I de
clined taking any responsible position, but
agreed that if he would edit it responsibly, get
a subeditor, and some other adviser of whom I
approved, I would act as consulting editor. He
is to think over the proposition.^


197
view. He tells that Thackeray was idle* "had a morbid horror of a
snob,"world have disgraced the civil service,^ and had a tongue
that inadvertently insulted. !'hen he has so ardently created such
an image of his subject, the sudden reversal is unbelievable and hence
unconvincing. The reader is left with a sour taste by the attempt and
prefers to aecept the more earthly criticism as the true picture of
the man.
Because Trollope's view remained colored by his early associa
tion with Edmund Yates, the image of Thackeray presented by the volume
cannot be called laudatory? nevertheless, Trollope was being, at least
in the main, honest in presenting his view, however much it may have
differed from that taken by Lady Ritchie or Mr. Ray, each of whom wrote
from a peculiar preconception of the subject. If Trollope sees
Thackeray as essentially melancholy and crippled with pain and reads
this vision into periods of his life when he was neither, he is not
attempting to present a perverted view; he is merely attempting to
account for behavior that he is unable to comprehend since he did not
know Thackeray prior to I860. But his view of Thackeray is not only
colored by his personal prejudices and his lack of perception into
Thackeray's character; he also projects his own traits into Thackeray.
This quality becomes interesting because Trollope ultimately sets
Thackeray beside himself in order to build up his own ego. After he
has objectively related Thackeray's futile appeal to Lord Clanricarde
in 1848 for the position of Assistant Secretary at the General Post
Office, Trollope, who believed himself to have been a "valuable public
servant,commented on Thackeray's fitness for the position;


190
In 1329 a little periodical was brought out
at Cambridge, called The Snob, with an
assurance on the title that it was not con
ducted by members of the university. It is presumed
that Thackeray took a hand in editing this. He
certainly wrote, and published in the little
paper, some burlesque lines on the subject which
was given for the Chancellor's prize poem of the
year. This was Timbuctoo. and Tennyson was the
victor on the occasion.^4
Again Trollope was only told that Thackeray contributed to The Gownsman.
because he does not know any definitely attributed articles?
The Snob lived, I think, but nine weeks, and
was followed at an interval, in 1330, by The
Gownsman, which lived to the seventeenth number,
and at the opening of which Thackeray no doubt
had a hand.6$ It professed to be a continuation
of The Snob. It contains a dedication to all
proctors, which I should not be sorry to attri
bute to him,
"To all Proctors, past, present, and future
Whose taste it is our privilege to follow,
Whose virtue it is our duty to imitate,
Whose presence it is our interest to avoid."
There is, however, nothing beyond fancy to induce
me to believe that Thackeray was the author of the
dedication, and I do not know that there is any
evidence to show that he was connected with The
Snob beyond the writing of Timbuctoo.^
Since Trollope would not have known that Thackeray was connected with
these periodicals without help, he may have learned these details from
the man whom Thackeray had befriended while at Cambridge. Another case
of aid from Fitzgerald that has already been discussed was the informa
tion concerning the amount of Thackerays inheritance and the futile
attempt to float The National Standard. While these two sections may
have been constructed from information received through other sources,
the letters that Fitzgerald loaned to Trollope cover this period; since


4
Despite this unflattering account, Trollope had written a letter on
March 2, 1364, to Sir Rowland. Here his view was quite different:
As there is no longer any official connexion
between us, I may perhaps say a few words which
I could not have said while you were our secre
tary. ... I cannot let your resignation from
office pass without assuring you of my thorough
admiration for the great work of your life. I
have admired you for many years as one of the
essential benefactors, not only of your own
country, but of all the civilized world, I
think that the thing you have done has had in
it more of general utility than any other measure
which has been achieved in my time.0
Mr, Pearson Hill, Sir Rowland's son, might have seen "in this praise
either a refutation of the 'anti-Hillite* statement or a piece of
7
insincere and fulsome flattery," and the Postal, Telegraphic. and
Telephonic Gazette might have published the letter on November 30,
1883j to belittle Trollope's Autobiography which appeared during the
0
previous month. But, as Professor Bradford A. Booth has pointed out,
the two views are compatibles Trollope admired Sir Rowland's public
services, but he heartily disliked the Secretary's private character.
Trollope's view of Thackeray incorporates this same ambivalence.
Through George Smith7 and through a careless reading of the Autobiography
and Thackeray, a legend of a friendship between Trollope and Thackeray
has permeated accounts of both men. However, by scrutinizing the docu
ments that have been published and by attempting to reach a clear and
unbiased conception of the relation between these figures, we can further
understand the Thackeray and assess its value, not as a literary monument,
but as an important factor in the historical development of English
biographical writing. The conclusion to which we shall be led will


151
On the dates that Trollope dined at Thackerays house he
probably saw the eldest daughter, but he knew her primarily from their
relation to the Oornhlll. Since she became associated with this maga
zine in May, i860, when her "Little Scholars" appeared in its pages and
since she acted as her fathers secretary during the final years of
his life, there are good grounds for believing that she and Trollope
kneii rather much of each other before 1364. That this acquaintance was
no mere crossing of paths Is attested as early as 1865 in Lady Ritchies
journal:
Early in the year to Waltham Gross to stay
at the Trollopes'. It was a sweet prim chill
house wrapped in snow.
The Merivales were starring there too. I
remember so well saying to Rose Merivale how
terrible this pain of parting was and would it
ever cease? She said: "Life is over so quickly,
so very quickly," and now I feel how true that
is.
I can also remember in the bitter cold dark
morning hearing Mr. Trollope called at four oclock.
He told me he gave his man half a crown every time
he (Mr. Trollope) didnt get up! "The labourer is
worthy of his hire," said Mr. Trollope in his deep
cheerful lispy voiced
A young lady would not have accepted an invitation to visit a mans home,
especially for a length of time as this entry indicates, unless she
was rather well acquainted with her host. Later, presumably still in
the 1860s since no mention is made of her husband,^ the Trollopes and
Lady Ritchie enjoyed an excursion:
I once saw an artist at work in a little
wood near a knole on a certain day in July,
when we all started on a. happy expedition Mrs.
Millais invited me to join. Her sister was
there, and the Trollopes, and Mr. Charles


153
1 do not know how to write to you, or how to
be silent. I send one word to say that we
have thought of your grief, and of his
^Leslie Stephen'sj, with many tears.''
Lady Ritchie remained disconsolate over the death until well into 1876,
for on May 7, 1876, Trollope wrote to Miss Holmes!
I have not yet seen Annie T. though I have
been to see her two or three times. My
wife has seen her, and found her fairly well.
Him (Leslie Stephen) I have seen various
times. But a man recovers himself from all
that so much quicker than a woman,
On May 31 he forwarded a letter to her with a short note that added,
". . how glad I should be if I could see you."1" For at least sixteen
years, therefore, Trollope and Lady Ritchie were acquainted, although
the depth, of their acquaintance cannot be probed in any other way than
assuming that they knew each other personally, apparently liked each
other, and joined in common bonds of sorrow at least twice, at the
deaths of Thackeray and Minny Stephen. Trollope's closeness to
Thackeray's daughter is, perhaps, best stated by a passage in his auto
biography in which he praises her talent and gently raps her fingers
for faults inherited from her father:
There are two ladies of whom 1 would fain say
a word, though I feel that 1 am making my list
Cof contemporary novelists] too long, in order
that I may declare how much I have admired their
work. They are Annie Thackeray and Rhoda Broughton.
I have known them both, and have loved the former
almost as though she belonged to me. No two
writers were ever more dissimilar,except in this
that they are both feminine. Miss Thackeray's
characters are sweet, charming, and quite true
to human nature. In her writings she is always
endeavouring to prove that good produces good,


124
Charles Lever, a closer friend, 'was touched even deeper:
Poor Thackeray! I cannot say how I was shocked
at his death. He wrote his "Irish Sketch-Book,"
which he dedicated to me, in my old house at
Tempieogue, and it is with a heavy heart I think
of all our long evenings together,mingling our
plans for the future with many a jest and many a
story.
He was fortunate, however, to go dox-m in the
full blase of his geniusas few do. The fate of
most is to go on pouring water on the lees, that
people at last suspect they never got honest
liquor from the tap at all.41
Sven Thackerays archenemy, Edmund Yates, says that the news shocked
-and disturbed him;
The news came to me in the afternoon, as I was
calling upon a friend at the Reform Club, and
gave me a certain shock, as for ever destroying
the hope which. I had entertained that the breach
between me and the great writer might eventually
have been healed. For many months any bitterness
which I may have at one time entertained against
him had died out, and when I treated of his loss
in print I was able conscientiously to claim my
share of the great and general grief.42
Forster relates that the death was a "painful shock to Dickens,"43
especially since the rival novelists had only recently been reconciled.
Trollope's immediate reaction was similar, but touched with a greater
sentimentality. On Christmas Day he expressed his sentiment in the
moving lines to Edward Chapman:
I have been greatly cut up by Thaclcerays death,
which I only learned in the Times. It has not
been a merry Christmas with us. I loved him
dearly.44
That Trollope learned of Thackerays death in the newspapers rather than
from mutual friends is interesting, but understandable since Waltham


238
20-24. (pp. 17-20)
Trollope: comparison of Thackeray and Dickens.
25. (pp. 20-21)
a. Lady Ritchie (12, 13): Thackerays marriage and children.
b. Trollope: the three daughters.
c. Lady Ritchie (oral): Mrs. Thackerays illness.
26-30. (pp. 21-24)
a. Trollope: Thackerays connection to Punch.
b, Shirley Brooks: Thackeray on Punch.
e. Thackeray: a poem quoted in a discussion of his inferiority
as a poet.
31. (p. 25)
Trollope: The Irish Sketeh Book and Thackerays declaration of
his own identity.
32.(pp. 25-26)
Trollope: Vanity Pairs second comparison with Dickens.
33.(pp. 26-29)
a. Trollope: Thackerays popularity in 1848.
b. Kacready: Thackerays popularity attested in a memoir.
c. Abraham Hayward: article from Edinburgh Review for I848
extensively quoted.
34. (pp. 30-33)
Trollope: Thackerays effectiveness prior to Vanity Pair.
35. (pp. 30-33)
a. [Garrick Club FriendsJ: recollections of Thackeray's impromptu
remarks and sketches.
b. Edward Fitzgerald: loan of letters; Flore et Zephyr.
c. Trollope: Thackeray's acquaintances and his poor powers of
conversation,
d* [?]* a poem by Thackeray quoted for Trollope after forty years,
e, Trollope: Thackeray's burlesque resulted from melancholy.
36. (p. 33)
a. Lady Ritchie (15): Thackerays residences in London,
b. [Lady Ritchie (oral)]]: anecdote of Thackeray and the Irishman.
37.
(p
33-34)
?]: Thackerays application for a position at the Post Office
38, (pp. 34-36)
Trollope: Thackerays inability to be a good civil servant.


81
61
Trollope Letters, p. 54
Wisdom, p. 295.
^Thackeray Letters. IV, 168.
^^Trollope Letters. p. 54
65Wi
66.
67,
sdom. p. 295.
'Thackeray Letters. IV, 169-170.
Trollope Letters p. 55.
^%itchie, "The First Humber, p. 2.
69
Letter to George Smith. Thackeray Letters. IV, 162.
"^Ritchie, "The First lumber," p. 2.
71.
Anthony Trollope, Thackeray ("English Men of Letters"; London,
1879), p. 53- Hereafter referred to as Thackeray.
72
This sentence is worded, "Mr. Reginald Smith reminds me," in
Ritchie, "The First Humber," p. 1.
7%itehie, "Biographical Introductions," XI, xvili.
^Robertson Scott, p. 69.
7%isdom. p. 296.
76_,
Ritchie, "The First Humber," p. 1.
77.
Ritchie, "The First Editor," p. 2.
wisdom, p. 296.
7%.
Ritchie, "The First Editor," p. 2.
8%isdom p. 299.
81
'Ritchie, "The First Humber," p. 7.
82
Ibid., p. 12*
'^Thackeray Letters. IV, 266-267.
84Ibid.. p. 228,


156
In this preliminary chapter I will give such
incidents and anecdotes of his life as will
tell the reader perhaps all about him that a
reader is entitled to ask* I will tell how he
became an author, and will say how first he
worked and struggled, and then how he worked
and prospered, and became a household word in
English literature. Then I will tell
how Thackeray died, early indeed, but still
having done a good lifes work. Something of
his manner, something of his appearance I can
say, something perhaps of his condition of
mind; because for some few years he was known to
me. But of the continual intercourse of himself
with the world, and of himself with his own
works, I can tell little, because no record
of his life has been made public.^
The meaning of the word "biography as understood by these people is
apparently exemplified by John Forsters life of Charles Dickens, a
voluminous eomplilation of letters, memoirs, and personal or intimate
glances into the subject's personality accompanied by a desire to
eulogise the subject or probe into his emotions and private feelings.
If this type of work represented biographical writing to them, only
Lady Ritchie's commodious introductions begin to touch the genre.
Yet Trollopes single chapter opened, as we shall see, the way for
these introductions because they engendered vitriolic attacks by many
of Thackerays old enemies, especially Yates and Disraeli. The dif
ference between "the story" and the "framework," Lady Ritchie's own
terms for the subjective or personal probing of the subject's mind and
emotions and the more objective or public data which makes up the bulk
of the articles in the Dictionary of Rational Biography, accounts for
her reaction to Trollope's book:


62
Wanting to accept Smiths generous offer ("The price . was more than
double what I had yet received"),^4 Trollope began Framlev Parsonage on
the night of November 4 on the "journey back to Ireland, in the railway
carriage."55
Although Trollope had never written for serialization before
and had initial misgivings over the change of style that it demanded,^
he stopped work on Castle Richmond until Framley Parsonage was half-
finished.-^ Since he resumed work on the Irish novel on January 1,
1860,^8 p0rtion that he placed in Smiths hands must have been
considerable. Smith himself could hardly be anything but surprised at
the speed of Trollope's work, but Trollope, who was as methodical a
writer as England has yet produced, had prepared a plan for the writing
of novels before his mission to Egypt:
When I have commenced a new book, I have always
prepared a diary, divided into weeks, and
carried it on for the period which I have
allowed myself for the completion of the work.
In this I have entered, day by day, the number
of pages I have written, so that if at any time
I have slipped into idleness for a day or two,
the record of that idleness has been there,
staring me in the face, and demanding of me
increased labour, so that the deficiency might
be supplied. According to the circumstances of
the time,whether my other business might be
then heavy or light, or whether the book which
I was siting was or iras not wanted with speed,-
I have allotted myself so many pages a week. The
average number has been about 40* It has been
placed as low as 20, and has risen to 112. And
as a page is an ambiguous terra, my page has been
made to contain 250 words; and as words, if not
watched, will have a tendency to straggle, I
have had every word counted as I went. In the
bargains I have made with publishers I have,
not, of course, with their knowledge, but in my


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the interest
and patience of Dr. William Ruff, who directed this dissertation.
Without his continual encouragement and his help in procuring other-
wise inaccessible material, this dissertation would not have been
completed. I also wish to express my appreciation for the help that
I have received from Dr, August Staub and Dr. Alton C. Morris, who
were members of the Supervisory Committee.
iii


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Mark Douglas Hawthorne was born December 9, 1938, in Berea,
Ohio. He was graduated from New Hanover High School in Wilmington,
North Carolina, and from Wake Forest College in Winston-Salem, Worth
Carolina, With the degree of Bachelor of Arts in I960. From September,
I960, until February, 1962, he studied at the University of Florida
and worked as a graduate assistant in the Department of English until
he received the degree of Master of Arts, Prom February, 1962, until
the present time he has pursued his work toward the degree of Doctor
of Philosophy.
Mark Douglas Hawthorne is married to the former Mary Lydia
Seaber and is the father of one child. He is a member of Eta Sigma
Phi, Phi Beta Kappa, the Modern Language Association, and the South
Atlantic Modern Language Association.


176
4 What for time did he inherit
Ho Answer*
5. Soon spent of course there is a story current as to this
Ans, Some went in an Indian Bank, a great deal in a news
paper which he & his Step-father started. About 1500
went in cards.
In Thackeray, however, this answer is incorporated into materials that
obviously came from another source; in the following passage, quoted at
length, I have italicized the portions that ultimately derive from Lady
Ritchies answer!
In 1832, Thackeray came of age, and inherited
his fortune,as to which various stories have
been told. It seems to have amounted to about
five hundred a year, and to have passed through
his hands in a year or two, interest and
principal. It has been told of him that it was
all taken ax-ray from him at cards,46 but such
was not the truth. Some went in an Indian bank
in which he invested it. A portion was lost at
cards. But with some of it.the larger part as
I think.he endeavoured in concert with his
stepfather. to float a newspaper. which failed.
There seem to have been two newspapers in which
he was so concerned, The Rational Standard and
The Constitutional. On the latter he was engaged
with his stepfather, and in carrying that on he
lost the last of his money. The Rational
Standard had been running for some weeks when
Thackeray joined it, and lost his money with it.
It ran only for little more than twelve months,
and then, the money having gone, the periodical
came to an end.47
If Mr, Ray is correct, both Trollope and Ladjr Ritchie are wrong when
they place the greatest loss in the newspaper failure, for he asserts
''the bulk of Richmond Thackerays estate was lost in the collapse of the
great Indian agency-houses.1^ Trollope has, again probably for
propriety's sake, omitted any reference to the sum lost in gambling,


14
Two years after he began working,Yates was transferred to
the Colonels outer office. In this capacity he was brought into close
contact with Lord Clanricarde-^ and criticised for having beer on the
premises by Lord Hardwicke.-"^ He was, therefore, in Colonel Maberly's
outer office during the time in which Trollope was working under
orders from. Rowland Kill. It would be unlikely that any personal con
tact was made during this time, although. Yates might have known
Trollope's work through office gossip. The acquaintance of the two
men would have to be dated after 1853, the year Lord Hardvieke lost
his position as Postmaster-General, unless Trollopes mission to western
England in 1851 brought him tinder Colonel Maberly. Yatess first job
at "The Grand was in the Money Order Department of the Secretarys
Office so that from 1847 to 1849, he was under Hills commands
Mr. Hill with two or three clerks, prepared
statistical returns, suggested economics, and
also had the supervision of that secretarial
money-order department in which I worked.35
If Trollope worked directly under the orders of Hill, whose program of
reform was identical with his own work during these years, Yates very
well could have heard of him as early as 1847. When he was trans
ferred to Colonel Maberlys outer office, this knowledge possibly led
to a closer acquaintance. Hill acted during this time to forward his
reforms so that the otherwise awkward "arrangement of two secretaries
worked only because there was a separation of duties.Since the
situation was extremely delicate, Trollope, working under Hills super-
37
vision, also worked to some extent through the Colonels offiee.


CHAPTER IV
TROLLOPE'S OPINION OF THACKERAY FROM 1861 UNTIL 1876
Despite the conflicts between the two men in 1860* the relation
underwent a change to a calmer association in 1861, the year from which
we may date a more sympathetic acquaintance between Trollope and
Thackeray. Because Trollope's ill feelings were repressed during the
last two and one half years before Thackeray's death, the relation
between the two men gave the overt appearance witnessed by George Smith
when he remarked that they "became after close friends." This shift
in Trollope's view of Thackeray ultimately developed into the ambivalent
portrayal of the English Men of Letters volume. As we have seen,
Trollope broke whatever acquaintance he had with Yates after the
journalist put him in an embarrassing situation by betraying his confi
dence. If the realization of June, I860, was the beginning of a
gradual shift in feelings, Thackeray's mannerly response to the un
pleasant episode in August was just the catalyst to further the change
of outlook* The matter of the rejected stories, while preventing the
immediate shift of Trollope to Thackeray's camp, seems to reflect
Thackeray's fairness since he was acting in his desire to better the
quality of the magazine, not from a selfish desire to thwart Trollope*
From Thackeray's viewpoint, then, Trollope's faux pas was to be met
with understanding and to be forgiven. Thackeray, perhaps, went a
109


70
out Thackerays method of correcting contributions was not designed to
save his publishers profits: he corrected, not the manuscripts or
the galley proofs, but the page proofs, the most costly to work with,
for if a sizable passage were deleted, the pagination and the contents
90
of each fallowing page in the feature would have to shift position.
Even if Thackeray fell down in the mechanical part of his
work, his artistic contribution to the Comhill balances, if not over
shadows, his faults. Beside his contributions of the two novels, Lovel
the Widower and The .Adventures of Philip.^" twenty-eight Roundabout
Papers, The Four Georges, and seven other articles,^ Thackeray often
revised the material of his contributors. In the jubilee edition of
the Comhill (January, 1910) was printed a facsimile of three pages of
a story which Thackeray has revised and altered. Thackerays pen has
touched extensive passages, concentrating on diction and word choice
as well as on grammar and word order. Because he was not always compe
tent to do the revision himself, he sometimes suggested to the contribu
tor the manner in which the material should be altered:
The verses are so good that they ought to be
better. Why leave careless and loose rhymes
such as those marked? Why not polish the verses
more and more and make them as bright as they
possibly can be? ....
vows so dear and
Not hear the passionate words so fondly told
(2)
For all ay soul goes sorrowing to behold
How much &c.
5 x grasping pen? & mine & thine are but poor rhymes
7 stars. futurity
10, sea, me, see, be. The whole stanza is obscure,
earthly sea specially obscure.
17 Go then! & take with thee &e
7 Dimmed with a mist of tears my eyes I raise
Two tearful stars are all ray eyescan see
But thine into futurity should gaze'


149
79Ibld.. p. 113.
9Ibid.. p. 186.
81Ibld.. p. 187.
Tbid., pp. 145-146.
S3Ibid., p. 190.


161
Other than Lady Ritchie and Fitzgerald, Trollope sought the
help of old friends of Thackeray. On February 20, for example, he
acknowledged help from William Howard Russell, one of Thackerays
friends;
Dear Russell
Do not trouble yourself to make any MS.
My biographical chapter will be finished today.
I did not like to do it without letting you
know, and some dozen others, so that if there
were any little trifle to say, it might be
said. An Incident here or there I have got.
What passed between us at the Glub was
probably more valuable than any letter.
Yours always
ANTHONY TR0LL0JE26
Trollopes sources for the biographical chapter, then, seem to be
fourfold; Lady Ritchie, Edward Fitzgerald, Thackerays old friends,
and personal experience. The last, as will be seen, colored the others
so that the work is basically Trollopian even though details have been
gathered from a rather iri.de area after only a fortnights work.
As mentioned before, Trollope was an extremely methodical
writer and kept a notebook in which he registered the amount of work
done each day. The following table is his own daily tabulation for
the Thackeray, and in it the work done between February 9 and 20 has
been carefully recorded. Since he had each page counted to be recorded
at 250 words, we can assume from the table that he had the majority of
his information already gathered by the time he began, which perhaps
accounts for the blanks during the first weeks;


203
Trollope exerted on these lines and, perhaps, even the self-identifica
tion that brings his own personality into prominence. This type of
self-identification, joined with Trollopes belief that Thackeray1s
humor and wit were a veneer to conceal a melancholic nature, tends to
make Thackeray almost pathetics
"I have got to make it shorter!" Then he
would put his hands in his pockets, and
stretch himself, and straighten the lines of
his face, over which a smile would come, as
though this intimation from his editor were
the best joke in the world; and he would walk
away, with his heart bleeding, and every nerve
in an agony.9?
Furthermore, when Trollope adds to the melancholy his misconception that
Thackeray had been suffering from poor health through the majority of
his life, the pathetic is almost deepened, except that Trollope places
the blame for much of the melancholy on faulty writing procedures. In
the following passage, for example, he begins with the criticism of
writing in number, rendered trite by the quotation from Pope, and moves
to the mention of Thackerays health in such a Banner that the censure
of the first seven sentences is hardly eliminated by the bulky eighth:
Esmond was brought out as a whole. The other
appeared in numbers. "He lisped in numbers, for
the numbers came." It is a mode of pronunciation
in literature by no means very articulate, but
easy of production and lucrative. But though
easy it is seductive, and leads to idleness. An
author by means of it can raise money and reputa
tion on his book before he has written it, and
when the pang of parturition is over in regard
to one part, he feels himself entitled to a
period of ease because the amount required for
the next division will occupy him only half the
month. This to Thackeray was so alluring that
the entirety of the final half was not always


new novel for Chapman & Hall, his publishers. After the transfer was
definite and the lease on Waltham House had been obtained, Trollope
heard of Thackerays new magazine:
, . even in Ireland, where I was still living
in October, 1859, I had heard of the Comhill
Magazine. which was to come out on the 1st of
January 1860, under the editorship of Thackeray.
To be on the staff of a new and promising London periodical meant to
Trollope an entrance into the hitherto closed literary world. He
had "written from time to time certain short stories, which had been
published in different periodicals," and hoping to make an acquaint
ance with one of the top literary figures, he offered some stories to
Thackeray, whom he had never seen.^ On October 23 he wrote Thackeray
from Dublin modestly offering his services to the magazine:
Dear Sir,
I do not know how far the staff of your new
periodical may be complete. Perhaps you will
excuse my taking the liberty of offering to
make one of the number if it may be not so,
I will tell you exactly what would be my
views, and you will as frankly tell me whether
they would suit you.
I am writing a series of stories to be
calledunless I change the name, Tales of all
countries. I began them last summer with the
view of publishing them first in Harpers
magazine, & then of republishing them here.
He has two of them already in his hands.
My idea is to publish one a month, & to
republish the 12 in a single vol at the end
of a year. They wd run in this way for two
years. They would occupy, each, from 8 to
13 pages of a big-paged magazinesuch as
yours may probably be.
If it suited you to take one each alternate
month, I would send one for each alternate
month to Harpers. It does not suit him to
have to take one monthlyor I would send them
all to you, if you so wished.


173
His education. Charter House when; for How longj
Cambridge how long & when at what college.
She answered without mentioning Charterhouse:
Feb. 1829. 17 years old.
Trinity College. Last letter from there Hov £?3 29
Trollope printed a letter in Thackeray from George Venables, the man
who broke Thackerays nose at Charterhouse and later became a close
friend, to describe Thackerays "life and doings there,but
Trollope gives no dates because Lady Ritchie had remained silent.
Following Venable's letter, he utilizes the information supplied by
her answer: "In February, 1829, when he was not as yet eighteen,
Thackeray went up to Trinity College, Cambridge, and was, I think,
removed in 1830."-^5 Here he altered the age from Lady Ritchies precise,
but at first misleading, statement to a more general and more quickly
understood wording, but of greater importance is his alteration in the
date of Thackeray's removal, which he apparently changed himself
hence "I think"in order to connect Thackeray to The Gownsman which was
not founded until late 1829.As we shall see, the information that
he here used probably came from Fitzgerald, who first met Thackeray
at Cambridge in October, 1829,^ and may have known of Thackeray's con
tributions to The Gownsman., a student periodical that ran until
February 25, 1830.^* Following the discussion of The Snob and The
Gownsman. Trollope combined the answers to his sixth, seventh, and tenth
questions. These three questions and the respective answers are as
follows s


80
"^George Eliot Letters. HI, 195,
^Thackeray Letters, XV, 148-149,
4%erman Merivale and Prank T. Marzials, Life of W. M, Thackeray
(Londonj, 1891), P. 199.
1
^Autobiography. p. 108.
^Trollope Letters. pp, 47-46
43Sadleir, p. 201.
^Autobiography. p. 119.
4gIbid.. pp. 125-126.
^Autobiography. p. 111.
^Trollope Letters, p. 52.
4uAutobiography, p, 112.
49
Thackeray Letters. 17, 158-159. Also see Autobiography, p. 112,
and Trollope Letters, p. 53.
^Autobiography. p. 113.
51Ibid.. p. 115.
g^Bradford A. Booth, Anthony Troll one;
Work (London, 1958), p. 105.
Aspects of his Life and
53
Lucy and Richard Poate Stebbins, The Trollopes; The Chronicle
of a Writing Family (lew York, 1945), pp. 171-172.
5L
^Autobiography, p. 113.
5gIbid.. p. 115.
goIbid.. pp. 116-117.
57Ib:ld.f p. 124.
5S
'Sadleir, p. 407. He returned to Framley Parsonage on April 1, the
day after Castle Richmond was finished, and completed it on June 30.
-^Autobiography, pp. 98-99.
6Ibld.. p. 207.


241
63. (p. 59)
a* Trollope: Thackeray not a cynic.
b* Tom Taylors poem quoted to show Thaekeray was not a cynic.
64. (pp. 59-60)
Trollope: The Synge loan.
65. (pp. 60-61)
|Y] s anecdote from Thackerays American trip, showing him as a
satirist.
66. (p. 61)
Trollope: conclusion.


139
Forster "was not without his faults," Trollope added that after meeting
him in 1&48 Forster "has since been an intimate and valued friend" and
that Forster was a good editor because he "would always bray in a
literary mortar all critics who disagreed with [him], as though such
disagreement'were a personal offence requiring personal castigation."^
He later refers to Wilkie Collins as "my friend"^ and says of him:
Of Wilkie Collins it is impossible for a
true critic not to speak with admiration,
because he has excelled all his contemporaries
in a certain most difficult branch of his
art. . .76
Since Forster, the biographer of Dickens, and Collins, one of Dickenses
intimate friends (though hostile to Forster), were both hostile to
Thackeray, Trollopes affirmation of friendship, as in his earlier
relation to Yates, placed him in the group personally opposed to
Thackeray. This is significant for it further helps to account for the
picture of Thackeray that was to be created just three years later.
This alliance with people who personally disliked Thackeray, perhaps,
explains the strange omission of Thackeray's name from an important
sentence in the autobiography: "In our own century what literary names
stand higher than those of Byron, Tennyson, Scott, Dickens, Macaulay,
and Carlyle?"^ Yet while Thackeray's name is omitted, Trollope later
says that Dickens is inferior because his style "is jerky, ungrammatical,
and created by himself in defiance of rulesalmost as completely as
that created by Carlyle."^ Although a case cannot be built for
Trollope's opinion of Thackeray deriving from the followers of Dickens,
these references strongly imply that, at least in part, Trollope's


202
was present, as in the case of Yatess autobiography, is hardly the
case. Trollope was probably trying to be fully fair, even though in
his fairness he saw himself as the superior, not Thackeray.
In other passages in Thackeray. Trollope attempts to present
the psychological motivation behind his subjects behavior. After he
has mentioned Frasers request that Thackeray shorten The Great
Hoggarty Diamond. Trollope digresses Into the following account of
Thackerays personality:
I can understand all the disquietude of his
heart when that warning, as to the too great
length of his story, was given to him. He was
not a man capable of feeling at any time quite
assured in his position, and when that occurred
he was very far from assurance. I think that at
no time did he doubt ifce sufficiency of his own
mental qualification for the work he had taken
in hand; but he doubted all else. He doubted
the appreciation of the world; he doubted his
fitness for turning his intellect to valuable
account; he doubted his physical capacity,
dreading his own lack of industry; he doubted
his luck; he doubted the continual absence of
some of those misfortunes on which the works
of literary men are shipwrecked. Though he was
aware of his own power, he always to the last,
was afraid that his own deficiencies should be
too strong against him. It was his nature to
be idle,to put off his work,and then to be
angry with himself for putting it off.96
Here Trollope seems more to have analyzed the motives that forced him
to write three novels a year while working at the Post Office, the
desire to be idle that led to the guilty feeling that created his
notebook and the sense of inferiority that had hurt him so deeply when
Thackeray snubbed him or when Scudamore was advanced over his head.
The passionate syntactical arrangement suggests the depth of feeling


175
discrepancy when he discovered the date of Benningtons death from
another source and altered her faulty answer by changing the definite
wording to his own more general affecting especially Bennington, The
illogical construction of Trollopes second sentence (there being no
reason in the text for the addition of the temporal clause concerning
Thackerays parents) seems to have resulted from an inordinate elipsis
of a mention of Thackerays frequent visits to Devonshire, which Lady
Ritchie made abundantly clear in her answer to the tenth question*
Trollope appears to have been writing this passage, a factual connec
tive between a discussion of Thackeray's college activities and an
outspoken adverse criticism of Thackerays drawing, under much diffi
culty; he was uncertain in the first sentence exactly when Thackeray
went to Weimar^ and, with no transition other than the word Weimar,
introduced the illogical sentence. Apparently he thought that the
word then in the third sentence acted as a connective, but its
reference can be to Thackerays leaving Cambridge and going to Weimar,
to his spending time in Weimar and Paris, or to his parents living
in Devonshire. This awkwardness, while frequent in the factual
passages in Thackeray, is less notable in those passages that relate
details that Trollope knew from personal experience or that are
primarily Trollopes comments on Thackerays abilities or personality.
The fifth question and answer pose a textual problem unlike
any presented by the first ten questions. Actually the fifth question
was a continuation of the unanswered fourth, but Lady Ritchie had the
information to reply to five;


104
X trust ym to believe ne when X assure you
that X feel no mnoymm as against you at the
rejection of my story. As ispartial Editor met
do his duty* Fur morals must bo supplied, and
the mmm* of th responsible sas must be the
judge of the purity, A writer for a periodical
mofes* hiwelf subject to this judgment by tmdar-
taking such waste j sad a ma who allows himself to
bo irritated because judgment go against himself
is m ass* So mmh X sy, that 1 my he set dot
by you as disgusted, or angry, 02* s&lovolent.
But a fm web I rust say alee is defence of
tny own neme*
I will not How that I as imleeent, and pro
fess that sipeamislmessin so for m it is
equeaMsh tad not delicacyshould be- disre
garded by a writer* I of course look back for
ssssjjlss to justify ajyself is alluding to a salt
with illegitimate children, sd to the existence
of a warns who la not as pure m she should be*
1 think first of Fsffi Beane* Thm ing Sown
to out second modera great gunObserve hew civil
I m i you after the injury1 jm haw done msX
reflect upon the naughtinesses of Miss Beatrice,
all th nor naughty in that they are told only
by Mnifand also of th very wicked vmm at
Tunbridge VUs who was so surprised because young
Barrington did not Rdo as others use with herX
forget whether it was her daughter, or her niece,
or her protegee* Then there its that illegitimate
brat in Jane Kyre with th whole story of her
birth and Hatty Sorrel with ilwitt the whole
story of hm the child was gotten* X could think
of no pom Sogllsh novelist, pure up to th
CoraMH standard, except Dickens, but then X
vmssa&er Oliver Twist and blushed for what ay
aether m sisters reed in that very fio-fic
story* 1 have swationed our five greatest names,
& feel tmt X do not approach the- in naughtiness
any mor than t do in genius*
But in swh cases, yon will my, th# impurities
rest on th# heads of individual author,ad that
you mmt especially guard the Gcmfeill, But hew
have v stood there? History perhaps should b
told even to the squeamish, and therefore the
improprieties of the improper George met be
endured* %t hew about the innuendoes as to th
opera dancers which mad the children of
Terpsichore m mud thru the three Kingdoms?


118
A month later, May 8, Lewes accepted the positions
In the afternoon George Smith called with a
final proposal about the Cornhill which I
accepted, namely, that I am tc act as his
chief literary Adviser in the selection of
articles, and suggestion of subjects, he
bringing them to me and I only taking such
responsibility as is implied in my judgement.
Salary L60Q per annum. This is very handsome,
as the work promises to be light, and not
disagreeable. In the evening read some proofs
he sent up, and one m.s.^3
With this action Thackeray was no longer Trollopes superior on the
magazine; instead one of Trollopes closest friends, a man of whom he
wrote, ttGeorge Lewes has . been and still is one of my
dearest friends,"^ became the second editor of the Cornhill. With
this change the formal division that had severed the two novelists was
removed, and the gradual growth of intimacy that reached from Trollopes
election into the Garrick Club was allowed to follow the more natural
development between equals.
The most important episode that occurred after the resigna
tion of Thackeray from the editorship and before his death was the
joint loan of several hundred pounds to William Webb Follet Synge in
May, 1862, The most widely quoted source for this episode, however, has
been colored by the writer in such a manner that the true incidents are
obviously misrepresented. In Thackeray Trollope tells the story to
illustrate Thackerays benevolence;
I heard once a story of woe from a man who
was the dear friend of both of us. The
gentleman wanted a large sum of money instantly,
something under two thousand pounds,had no
natural friends who could provide it, but must
go utterly to the wall without it. Pondering


166
8. When was he at Weimar and for how long
Ho Answer.
9* When was he in Paris and for how long
Ans. 8 tf&e 1830
15 Dee 1830
Feb 1831
10. When did he first settle in London
Ans. Off and on after leaving College, His parents lived
in Devonshire & he used to go there and stay after his
marriage.
11.* For what work was he first paid & how much. Were not his
first payments very small,
Ans. Fraser, The Times. The Constitutional.
12. When was he married. What was your Mothers name
Ans. Sept 1837, to Isabella Shawe daughter of Col Mathew
Shawe
13. When were the three girls born and how named
Ans. 1837. 1839* 1840, Anne Jane Harriet.
14. There should be a word about Amy Crowe. How long was she with
you
Ans. From 1853 to 1862 when she married Ed, Thackeray
15. femes and dates of his London residences
Ans. Albion St 1837. Gt Coram St 1836-40
St James St Chambers
13 Young St Kensington 1847-1853
36 Onslow Sqr 1853-1862
Palace Green 1862-1363
16* A list of his writings as nearly chronological as possible with
dates of publication
Ans. Mrs. Perkins 2mas books, Ch & H.
Â¥ F. Pen- Bradbury & Evans
Esmond, Roundabout. Phillip. Smith & El


This dissertation was prepared under the direction of the
chairman of the candidate's supervisory committee and has been approved
by all members of that committee. It was submitted to the Dean of the
College of Arts and Sciences and to the Graduate Council, and was
approved as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
August 8, 1964
Supervisory Committees


233
Moves to 2 Palace Green,
Kensington,
March 31
In Paris,
April Returns from New York.
Loans Synge £.1300 with
Trollope.
May 11 Loans Synge £.1300 with
Thackeray.
In Paris.
September
1862
Invites Trollope to dine.
February 4
Visits Yorkshire with April 6-April 16
daughters.
Attack in The Athenaeum on
Annes Story of Elizabeth,
which leads to his trouble
with the National Shakes
peare Committee.
April 25
Invites Trollope to a
dinner.
May 10
In Belgium and France.
August 17-27
October 6 Frances Trollope dies
in Florence.
Last Roundabout Paper.
November
December 14 Sees Thackeray for last
time.
Dies.
December 24
Burial in Kensal Green
Cemetery,
December 29


244
^Maine, J. Henry Sumner). "Mr, Thackeray and the Four Georges. The
Saturday Review of Politics, Literature. Science, and Art,
I (December 8, 1855')"," 106-107.
Mason, Edward T. (Editor). Personal Traits of British Authors.
4 vols. Mew York: Charles Scribner*s Sons, 1891.
McAleer, Edward 0. (Editor). Dearest Isa: Robert Brownings Letters
to Isabella Blagden. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1951.
Melville, Lems. William Makepeace Thackeray: A Biography Including
Hitherto Uncollected Letters and Speeches and A Bibliography of
1300 Items. 2 vols. London: John Lane, 1910,
Merivale, Herman, and Frank T, Marzials. Life of W, M. Thackeray.
London: Walter Scott, 1891.
Mr. Thackeray at the Surrey Gardens. The Literary Gazette, and
Journal of Archaeology. Science, and Art, Ho, 2090 (February 7,
1357),~136138,
"Mr. Thackeray in Edinburgh. The Literary Gazette, and Journal of
Archaeology. Science, and Art. Ho. 2099 (April 11, 1857), 351-352.
Morley, John. Recollections. 2 vols. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1917.
Madge, Isadore Gilbert, and M, Earl Sears, A Thackeray Dictionary:
The Characters and Scenes of the Novels and Short Stories
Alphabetically Arranged, London: George Routledge and Sons,
Ltd., 1910.
Newspaper Gossip. The Saturday Review of Politics. Science, and Art.
II (June 23, 1360)7 799-800.
Nieoison, Harold. The Development of English Biography. London: The
Hogarth Press, 1959,
Partington, Wilfred. The Indiscretion of Anthony Trollope. Bookman.
LXXIV (February, 1933), 207.
Pym, Horace N. (Editor), Memoirs of Old Friends. Being Extracts from
the Journals and Letters of Caroline Fox of Pen.ierrick, Cornwall.
from 1835 to 1871. London: Smith, Elder, and Company, 1882.
Ray, Gordon M, (Editor), The Letters and Private Papers of William
Makepeace Thackeray: Collected and Edited by Gordon N. Ray.
4 vols, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945-1946.


60
My dear Mr. Trollope,Smith & Elder have sent
you their proposals; and the business part
done, let me come to the pleasure, and say how
very glad indeed I shall be to have you as
co-operator in our new magazine. And looking
over the annexed programme, you will see
whether you cant help us in many other ways
besides tale-telling. Whatever a man knows
about life and its doing, that let us hear
about. You must have tossed a good deal about
the world, and have countless sketches in your
memory and your portfolio. Please to think
if you can furbish up any of these besides a
novel. When events occur, and you have a
good lively tale, bear us in mind. One of
our chief objects in this magazine is the
getting out of novel spinning, and back into
the world. Dont understand me to disparage
our craft, especially your wares. I often say
I am like the pastry-cook, and dont care for
tarts, but prefer bread and cheese; but the
public love the tarts (luckily for us), and we
must bake and sell them. There was quite an
excitement in my family one evening when
Paterfamilias (who goes to sleep on a novel
almost always when he tries it after dinner)
came upstairs into the drawing-room wide awake
and calling for the second volume of The
Three Clerks. I hope the Cornhlll Magazine
will have as pleasant a story. And the
Chapmans, if they are the honest men I take
them to be, Ive no doubt have told you with
what sincere liking your works have been read
by yours very faithfully,
W. M, Thackeray.^*
Trollope was delighted, but the suddenness of the call found him
unprepared t
It was already the end of October, and a
portion of the work was required to be in the
printers hands within six weeks. Castle
Richmond was indeed half written, but that
was sold to Chapman. And it had already been
a principle with me in ray art, that no part of
a novel should be published till the entire
story was completed, I knew, from what I read
from month to month, that this hurried publica
tion of incompleted work was frequently, I
leading novelists of the day.


46
103
"The Virginians, The Literary Gazette, and Journal of Belles
Lettres. Science. and Art, No.' 2129 (November 7, 18577, pp. 1065-1066.
have concentrated only on the reviews of Thackeray*s lectures?
the reviews of his novels are, on the whole, more favorable. This
emphasis on the lectures, however, elucidates Yates's viewpoint con
cerning Thackeray's ability as a public lecturer in the final paragraph
of his Town Talk article,
^'fyisdom. p. 267.
106.
'Ibid.. pp. 269-270.
107,
Recollections and Experiences. I, 277-279.
108,
'Sala, Life and Adventures. pp. 269-271,
109
Recollections and Experiences, II, 10.
110
In a letter of May 25, 1889, Yates tells the same story to
Herman Merivale, who was writing a biography of Thackeray? "While the
press waited, to supply 'short copy, at a desk in a printing office,
with the master-printer at my elbow, urging me on, slip by slip being
carried off to the compositors, as it was written." Thackeray Letters.
IV, 133, fa.17.
111
Recollections and Experiences. II, 13.
112
"In my wretched nonsense, there is no single reference to
Thackeray's home-life, no mention of his Club, no 'gossip' of any kind,
no hintGod forbidtat Ms domestic trouble, no word of anything
that was not thoroughly patent & well known at the time." Letter to
Herman Merivale, Thackeray Letters, IV, 133, fn.17.
11%isiom. pp. 278-281,
^^etter to Edmund Yates of June 13, 1358,
IV, 90.
115
Recollections and experiences. II, 18.
Thackeray Letters.
116,
117
Thackeray Letters. IV, 117.
Ibid.. p. 118.
^^Wisdom, p. 285.
119
Recollections and Experiences. II, 32,


204
given to the task. His self reproaches and
bemoanings when sometimes the day for reappearing
would come terribly nigh, while yet the neeessary
amount of copy was far from being ready, were
often very ludicrous and very sadjludicrous
because he never told of his distress without
adding to it something of ridicule which was
irresistible, and sad because those who loved him
best were aware that physical suffering had
already fallen upon him, and that he was deterred
by illness from the exercise of continuous energy.98
While the pathetic tone that was apparent in the passages in which
Trollope attempted to probe Thackerays mind but, in reality, was
identifying himself with his subject is more poignant, the sympathy for
Thackeray is consistently qualified by placing contingent blames upon
him, as his poor procedure for siting in this case. Another case of
this mixture of syapathy and censure is in the part describing
Thackerays death, Trollope concludes his discussion of Thackerays
work on the Oornhill. "A man so susceptible, so prone to work by fits
and starts, so unmethodical, could not have been a good editor, before
he mentions Thackerays move to Palace Green. The next paragraph
begins, ,!!n 1863 he died in the house which he had built, ..." but
he does not return to this thought -until the second paragraph later
which opens, "He died on the day before Christmas, as has been said
above. . ."99 Between these two mentions of Thackerays death,
Trollope advises the beginning novelist to complete his work prior to
the publication of any part, using Thackeray, Mrs. Gaskell, and Dickens
as unfavorable examples, and inserts the following paragraph;


64
My dear Sir,
Allow me to congratulate you on the first
number of the magazine. Putting aside my own
contribution, as to which I am of course bound
to say nothing laudatory whatever I may think,
I certainly do conceive that nothing equal to it
of its kind was ever hitherto put forth
The great aim in such a work should be, I
think, to make it readable, an aim which has been
so constantly lost sight of in a great portion of
the pages of all magazines. In your first number
there is nothing that is not readablewith the
single exception above mentioned;and very little
that is not thoroughly worth reading.
Very faithfully yours
ANTHONY TROLLOPE
W, M, Thackeray Esq'
The first number of the Cornlilll. that excited such laudatory
exclamations, was a modest little magazine with a yellow cover designed
by Godfrey Sykes, a student at the school of art which had recently
been established under the protection of the Prince Consort at South
Kensington. The cover was not decided upon until November after
Thackeray had tried in vain to find an artist or to design one himself?
I have been with Mr. Keene [cartoonist for Punch]
and pressed him in vain. His hands he says are
quite too full* I spent a great part of yester
day at the Museum trying if I could devise a title
page myself but this morning bethought that my
friend Mr* Cole at the Boilers [South Kensington
Schools of ArtJ might find an artist to my purpose.
He introduced me to a gentleman there of the very
highest skill to whom I explained the design we
wanted, who took immediately my view of it and
will bring me a drawing as soon as done.k
Although another design had been tentatively chosen, Syke's drawing was
immediately selected: "What a fine engravingl what a beautiful
drawing!" Thackeray wrote; "there has beea nothing so ornamentally
good done anywhere that I know ofIf the cover was pleasing to the


6
December, 1363, when Thackeray died With the removal of Thackerays
personality, Trollopes devotion to Thackerays artistic achievement
appeared to be a hero-worship to Thackerays daughter Lady Ritchie.
Thus when John Morley wished to include a volume on Thackeray in the
English Men of Letters series, Lady Ritchie agreed and answered to the
best of her ability the questions sent by Trollope. Trollope used
'-i
these answers, but he filled in the spaces between them with his own
opinion. The result was a biography that placed the subjects works
at the top of the literary ladder but that projected a portrait of a
weak, indolent, inept, and melancholy personality. Since this was
obviously not what Lady Ritchie anticipated, she broke her relations
with Trollope and denied having helped him in any manner. It was not
until 1891 that she softened in her attitude, probably because the
1880s saw the publication of several attacks that were more violent
than Trollopes had been* The little biography is important, there
fore, because in it we can see the attack of a major Victorian figure
by another Victorian, foreshadowing the approach to Victorian biography
introduced by Lytton Strachey in his book Eminent Victorians (1913).
But more than merely foreshadowing Strachey, Trollope's volume breaks
with the Boswellian-Forster tradition by presenting a picture that
attempts to establish a certain truth, even though we shall see that
Trollopes "truth in this matter was not based on verifiable data.
Finally the book is important, for it foreshadows the split between
biography and criticism that underlies much twentieth century scholar
ship, especially in the school of the New Critics. Therefore,


55
Under these directions the Cornhill became a monthly family magazine
directed toward an upper-middle class reader,
Thackeray, immediately after accepting the editorship, set
to work finding suitable contributors. According to Lady Ritchie, he
"thought of articles and wrote letters and made suggestions; he asked
people to write for him; he went here and there on purpose to meet
likely contributors."-^ Since Thackeray was responsible for a number
of The Virginians each month until September,^ had begun writing
Philip for the Cornhill before he became editor,^ took his daughters
on a tour of the continent,^ and was in poor health,^ his work on the
magazine was only a little less than prodigious. As early as June 27
he was negotiating with Charles Lever,^ and he "soon had commitments
for the early numbers of the Cornhill from such celebrities as Arnold,
Mrs. Browning, Bulwer Lytton, Mrs, Gaskell, Lever, Lewes, Ruskin, and
Tennyson."as Lady Ritchie has pointed out, "Messrs. Smith & Elder
also worked hard and converted their editor's suggestions into facts
and reality, with an energy and a liberality very remarkable."^ In a
letter to his sons one of Thackeray's early contributors, G. H. Lewes,
described the manner in which the editor solicited his contributor and
and the publisher negotiated the payment:
You have heard I dare say that Mr. Thackeray
is about to edit a new Magazine. Well, as soon
as he had begun to make arrangements, he wrote
to ask me if I would help him. I replied that
I should be very willing indeed, if I saw
clearly that I could do so, and if the payment
was tempting. Whereupon Mr. Smith, the
publisher, drove here in his carriage, and
made me a tempting offer, which I accepted.


193
with the Post Office, can be attributed to a source outside the
Garrick Club, yet the friends at the Club, where Thackeray spent a
great portion of his time, would have been familiar with the details
of all six passages. Since Trollope received help from fellow Club
members, to ascribe these parts of the biographical chapter to this
source is well founded.
A final general source of information that was at Trollopes
disposal was material already in print before his writing. Of these
the greatest single source was, as is to be expected, Thackerays own
works. While Trollope quotes poems in several places,^ he also
utilises more extensive passages from Thackerays prose. Passages
from Lovel the Widower are purported to display Thackerays opinion of
the futile newspaper endeavora letter to The Morning Chronicle in
which Thackeray advocated governmental pensions for writers is sand
wiched, rather illogicaliy, between the account of Thackerays desire
to enter the civil service and Trollopes criticism of the procedure
77
of writing used by authors who wrote for serial publication.
np
Trollopes other published sources are quite varied; he used reviews,
Macreadys Diary. ^ Forsters Life of Dickens,"5 Dickenss !,In
81
Memoriam, and the letters of Thackeray to Mr, Reed, the only private
po
letters of Thackeray then in print. While this list is far from
complete, it does help to round out the amount of labor Trollope exerted
in gathering information for the sixty-one pages of his biographical
chapter. He had admitted to George Smith sixteen years earlier that he
did not know enough to write a life of Thackeray, and even in 1879 there


135
clubs, hunting, and whist, and at the same
time be earning more money; and he would have
opportunities for foreign and colonial travel,
and consequent book-making, such as he never
would have had again in the department, where
his official trips had already been much
discussed.?
While the final phrase of Yates's account apparently points to some
tension between Trollope and his superiors (even though many of his
trips had been on official postal work), Yates learned the reasons for
the retirement from Trollope's own version published posthumously the
same year as Recollections and Experiences. In An Autobiography
Trollope makes the resignation the result of long deliberations
In 1867 I made up my mind to take a step in life
which was not unattended with peril, which many
would call rash, and which, when taken, I should
he sure at some period to regret. This step was
the resignation of my place in the Post Office.
I have described how it was that I contrived to
combine the performances of its duties with my
other avocations in life. I got up always very
early; but even this did not suffice. I worked
always on Sundays,as to which no scruple of
religion made me unhappy,and not infrequently
I was driven to work at night. In the winter when
hunting was going on, I had to keep myself very much
on the alert. And during the London season, when
I was generally two or three days of the week in
town, I found the official work to be a burden.
I had determined some years previously, after
due consideration with my wife, to abandon the
Post Office when I had put by an income equal to
the pension to which I should be entitled if I
remained in the department till I was sixty.
That I had now done, and I sighed for liberty.
Trollope's resignation was accepted by his brother-in-law John Tilley,
now Secretary of the Post Office,^ and this man may have known that
these reasons were only part of Trollope's excuse for retirement.
Actually Trollopes resignation was the result of his being slighted.


77
and, on the other, "to improve magazine-writing proper into at an
imitation of literature," The result was mediocrity.Trollope,
of course, failed to realize this and instead asserted that "publishers
themselves have been the best editors of magazines":
The Cornhill . after Thackeray had left
it and before Leslie Stephen had taken it,
seemed to be in quite efficient hands,those
being the hands of proprietor and publisher.
In the biography of Thackeray, this personal awareness of the problems
of the editor led Trollope.into a biased view of Thackerays editorship:
The magazine was a great success, but justice
compels me to say that Thackeray was not a good
editor. As he would have been an indifferent
civil servant, an indifferent member of
Parliament, so was he perfunctory as an editor. .
I think it may be doubtful whether Thackeray
did bring himself to read the basketsful of
manuscripts with which he was deluged, but he
probably did, sooner or later, read the touching
little private notes by which they were
accompanied. . .113
With the editor of a magazine that had failed writing adverse criticism
of the editor of a magazine that was one of the most successful maga
zines of the nineteenth century and accusing the latter of being a
poor editor, a weird situation is set up, Trollope apparently had
reasons for condemning Thackerays editorshiphe made a point of saying
that he worked only for Smith and another point of saying that editors
should be the publishersand the main reason is his development of a
picture of Thackeray originally through Tates's eyes. That this picture
colored their early months of acquaintance id.ll be apparent when we look
at their relation in the spring of i860; that it remained until 1,879 is
apparent in Trollopes double view of his great rival.


179
The corresponding passage in which the majority of these residences are
mentioned is rather surprising, for these details have been subordinated
to other elements; again the italics are mines
In his youthful,all but boyish,days in
London, he delighted to "put himself up" at the
Bedford, in Covent Garden. Then in his early
married days he lived in Albion Street, and
from thence went to Great Corara Street, till
his household there was broken up by his wifes
illness, He afterwards took lodgings in St.
Jamess Chambers. and then a house in Young
Street, Kensington. Here he lived from 1847.
when he was achieving his great triumph with
Vanity Fair, dox-m to 1853. when he removed to
a house which he bought in Onslow Square. In
Young Street there had come to lodge opposite to
him an Irish gentleman, who, on the part of
his injured country, felt very angry with
Thackeray. The Irish Sketch Book had not been
complimentary, nor were the descriptions which
Thackeray had given generally of Irishmen; and
there was extant an absurd idea that in his
abominable heroine Catherine Hayes he had
alluded to Miss Catherine Hayes the Irish
singer. Word was taken to Thackeray that this
Irishman intended to come across the street
and avenge his country on the calumniators
person. Thackeray immediately called upon the
gentleman, and it is said that the visit was
pleasant to both parties. There certainly was
no blood shed.51
The anecdote, not deriving from the questionnaire, presents an interesting
problem. While it is the type of story a man might tell on himself
either in Trollopes presence, particularly since he had resided in
Ireland and would appreciate it, or in the presence of club members,
Lady Ritchie recited it as within her memory when she wrote the
"Biographical Introductions" in 1899. Her version is more complete
than Trollopes:


126
On December 25 Trollope wrote a brief, but from subsequent
events a very important, letter to George Smith:
You will of course insert in the next Cornhill
some short notice of him. Who will do it for
you? If you have no one better, I will do it
gladly. Lewes, or Bell, or Russell would do
it better. I only make the offer in the event
of your having no one better
He added a single sentence as a postscript: "Of course you will know
that what I offer Is a work of love."^ Smith accepted his proposal,
but because the copy for the January, 1364, number was already at the
printers, the February number was the memorial issue. Trollope submitted
his article before January 17, and on that date vetoed a more elaborate
plan proposed by Smith:
I received together at Norwich on Friday your
letters of the 13& 14¡ I In the former you
propose to insert my paper with papers & verse
from Dickens & Lord Houghton, and in the latter
you suggest a longer memoir for the March number..*
I prefer the former plan. I do not feel up to
writing a memoir, and I do not personally know
enough, and tho I might possibly borrow all that
can be said from Hannays excellent article I do
not care to borrow in that way. More of criticism
that Q?thai\ what I have attempted would I think
be almost out of place* I have said nothing that
I do not think and believe, but if I were to say
more I should perhaps run into rhodomontade or
else cool down into ordinary eulogy.47
Evidently neither Smith nor Trollope knew at this time that Thackeray
had ordered his daughter, "When I drop there is to be no life written
of me; mind this and consider it as my last testament and desire,"^
because the "longer memoir" was obviously against Thackerays wishes.
In fact, even James Kannays brief tribute was not appreciated by the
Thackeray family, although Hannay had long been acquainted with his


131
while Thackeray the man is adversely criticised. This sentiment is
most strikingly evident in two incidents that followed the writing of
the article. In the first, Trollope wrote to Smith on February 10
asking payment for it, the demanded payment being the one volume edition
of Esmond (1853), and, in the second, Trollope*s letter of thanks
after- Smith sent him the Laurence portrait of Thackeray reveals greater
concern for the artist than for the man:
This morning we hung Thackeray up in our
library, and we are very much obliged to you
for the present,not only in that it is in
itself so valuable, but more especially because
it is one so suited to our feelings. *
The next thing will be to have a perfect
edition of his worksfor which we must look
to you.
In both eases, it is Thackeray the artist who is praised.
Preceding Trollope's memorial article in the Gomhill was one
by Charles Dickens; this article provides a helpful contrast to
Trollopes. It must be remembered that Dickens and Thackeray were
estranged during the Garrick Club Affair of 1353 and were only reconciled
during the summer preceding Thackerays death; the split had been deep,
and both men ran high feelings against his rival. let Dickens tact
fully and with great taste only mentions the differences, never alluding
KQ
to the true proportions. In fact, Dickens had not wanted to tirite the
article in the first place: "At the solicitation of Mr. Smith and some
of his friends, I have done what I would most gladly have excused myself
from doingif I felt I couldwritten a couple of pages about him in
what was his own magazine.Dickenss motivation, therefore, was not


158
It is to be not less than 180 pp,, nor
more than 200j and perhaps I ought to write
down on paper what I mentioned to you, that the
fee is to be 200L (say two hundred poundsas
they put so mysteriously in legal documents
why, I wonder?)
Macmillan is quite as well pleased as I am at
your accession to our bando
I return Stephens letter, When the day
comes, I will tell you the printers to whom copy
is to be sent.
Yours always,
JOHN MOBLEY.2
After this, Trollope's major concern was to gather information,a
particularly trying endeavor since he had not known Thackeray before
1860, H began writing where he knew the mosta chapter on Henry
Esmond, but after sixteen pages he was desperates
... I have got the Thackeray in hand and a
terrible job I find it. There is absolutely
nothing to say,except washed out criticism.
But it had to be done, and no one would do it
so lovingly, 21
Meanwhile, he sought help on the biographical chapter; he xirote to
friends at the Garrick Club who might remember Thackeray and even sent
a questionnaire to Lady Ritchie. Because he began writing this chapter
on February 9, 1879, we can assume that he had finished gathering the
most necessary data.
Since Thackerays most recent biographer asserts that "if
biographical data of value occasionally found their way into print, it
was against the family's -wishes" and adds that "Trollope's appeal for
information . was neatly parried both by Lady Ritchie and by
Fitzgerald,the questions and Lady Ritchie's answers are of great
interest. While it is true that Lady Ritchie's answers to Trollope's


210
acMeveraent m better than others is not to fe a "close friend* to
the first san Trollop distinguished between his appreciation of Sir
Howland as a public servant and his dislike for the nan without feeling
hisself self -contradictory, and the soaso double perception is apparent
in this treatment of Thackeray* la this sense, Trollope*s opinion of
Thackeray rasalned similar, though probably act aa strong, to Tates *8,
for on May 25, 1889, fates held the view that Trollope is creating in
Thackeray (with added bitterness, of course)?
Throughout all these 3 years, Thackeray,
as author, has had no acre devoted worshipper?
eren now, 1 vfl go through a Stiff examination
paper, with iantaasrabla quotations fress Ms
veriest do your paper without any rending
l^M £&& fe. Item* & <-
stantly dipping into the Mjscellanies & the
Sallado* But for Thackeray, the snot, I shall
think, & say, to ay dying day, that Ms
treatment of ae was os of the wictesdsst,
cruellest, & msi dsps&bl acts of tyranny
ever perpetrated*?-^
With Trollop* view of Thackeray clearly before us, the only
feasible position that eon fee held concerning the biographical chapter
is one that accounts for the pejorative passages without eliminating
Trollope * dependence upon lady Ritchie, Edward fitsgerald, end
Thackeray* Garrick Club friends. To assume that they gave information
fatly knowing Trollope* pi&tm is afesurd, while to cussuns that
Trollope scl&ciouely gathered information Seacwiag as he did that he
would belittle his subject is to cast an unnecessary slur on Ms
purposes and bis character, because in ell likelihood Trollop vas
feeing fully honest to. his laforaer and to Mmself* This leaves us with
the moot reasonable conclusion Trollop obviously adsdred certain of


CHAPTER III
1860THE YEAR OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS
The year i860 could justly be called the "year- of misunder
standings in the relation between Thackeray and Trollope; it was the
year in which the two men met.. To understand the early part of the
year most clearly and without elouding our perspectives with prejudice
or preconceived notions demands a suspension of judgment and a detach
ment from the figures involved. This has been difficult in the past
and is, perhaps, humanly impossible. The three figures, Trollope,
Thackeray, and Yates, play roles that, while difficult to untangle,
need to be analyzed if lie are to comprehend Trollopes volume in the
English Men of Letters series. The conflicts and the misunderstandings
arose from the social function of a series of dinners given by the
publisher to the staff and contributors of the Cornhill. George Smith,
acting in a tradition followed by Mark Lemon of Punch, probably like
John Douglas Cook of the Saturday Review saw the dinners as a method
"of encouraging a sense of unity.But such a worthy goal was not the
result of the first four dinners, because these tended to put a division
between the editor and one of his major contributors, Anthony Trollope.
If we alter the chronological sequence of the first five
months of 1860 by looking at the two major pieces of evidence concerning
the Cornhill dinners, the proper sequence can be better understood.
84


101
That Thackeray had suffered when he wrote
it -was easy to see, fearing that he was
giving pain to one he would fain have pleased.
I wrote him a long letter in return, as full
of drollery as I knew how to make it. In
four or five days there came a reply in the
same spirit-boiling over with fun. He had
kept my letter by him, not daring to open
it,as he says that he did with that
eligible invitation. At last he had given
it to one of his girls to examine,to see
whether the thorn would be too sharp,
whether I had turned upon him with reproaches.
A man so susceptible, so prone to work by
fits and starts, so unmethodical, could not
have been a good editor.
To understand the full impact of this comment, and to see the way in
which Trollope has twisted the event to result in this picture, we
must begin in July, I860 when Trollope submitted "The Banks of Jordon
to George Smith.
Trollope wrote "The Banks of Jordon" in about ten days and
offered it to Smith with caution that sprang from a sense of inferiority,
possibly more pronounced because of the recent discovery of his indis
cretions
I have a story, written within the last ten
days, about the Holy LandI suppose it would
not be granted by you for the magazine. It would
min 30 pages & have to be divided in two,or
three if you preferred. But, as I said, I do
not presume it would be wanted, & therefore ask
the question almost idly*
The name is
The Banks of Jordon.
If you see it or hear of it elsewhere dont mention
it as being mine. Mot that I have any idea of
publishing it immediately.!^
When he actually submitted the story on August 1, Smith rejected it.
When Trollope replied to Smiths objections on August 9, he defended
himself against the standards of Victorian tastes


184
A little before his death Thackeray told
me that he had then succeeded in replacing
the fortune which he had lost as a young man.
He had, in fact, done better, for he left an
income of seven hundred and fifty pounds
behind him*59
The combination of information that he personally knew and that Lady
Ritchie offered to him again reveals the mosaic effect of the finished
work; Trollope seems to have known only rather broad generalities, the
details being filled in from other sources. Whereas he joined reliable
information in this case, he joined the information to hypothesis when
he used question twenty-two. His question reveals his knowledge of
Thackerays physical condition in the 1860s, while Lady Ritchies
answer reveals her ignorance of the exact time, actually before her
birth, that Thackeray began suffering.
22* For some years before his death he was a sufferer
When did that begin.
Ans. He had a dreadful fever while he was writing Pendennis.
At Rome he was again ill & ever afterwards suffered from
spasms & constant pain & uneasiness
I have quoted the corresponding paragraph at length and numbered each
sentence so that the development of one of the small divisions, typical
of Thackeray, can be more carefully analyzed; by seeing the structure
of Trollopes thought in this passage, the larger movements in the book,
those of considerable length, will be clearer. Earlier we saw how
Trollope combined several answers to form a rather incoherent sequence;
here we can perceive the same incoherence as Trollope x^eaves his source
material into his own analysis.


147
39
George Eliot Letters. I?, 122.
4McAleer, pp. 184*185*
^Edmund Downey (ed.), Charles Lever: His Life in Hjs Letters
(Edinburgh, 1906), II, 2,
42
Recollections and Experiences. II, 80-81*
4%orster, p. 711,
^Trollope Letters, p, 141.
45Ibid.. pp. 142-143
^Ibid.. p. 142.
47Md*i P- 144.
48
Hester Thackeray Ritchie (ed.), Thackeray and His Daughter. The
Letters and -Journals of Anne Thackeray Ritchie. With Many Letters of
William Makepeace Thackeray. Selected and Edited by Hester Thackeray
Ritchie (Hew York,~192XT7p. 129.
4''Anthony Trollope, BW. M. Thackeray," The Cornhill Magazine. IX
(February, 1864), 134
50
0 H. Lewes's entry for January 1, 1864, in his journal. George
Eliot Letters. IV, 126,
^ Trollope, M, Thackeray, p* 137.
52_
Trollope neither mentions nor alludes to any event before I860.
53
Trollope, ¥. M. Thackeray, p. 134*
54
Ibid., pp. 134-135.
55
Ibid., pp. 136 and 137.
56Ibld.. p. 136.
^^Trollope Letters. p. 146.
5SIbid.s p. 156.


146
Letter of May 13, 1861, to Isabella Blagden. Edward C.
McAleer (ed.}, Deai-est Isa: Robert Browning *s Letters to Isabella
Blagden (Austin, 1951), pp* 76-77
-^George Eliot Letters. Ill, 434.
^Thackeray Letters, I?, 255.
^Autobiography. pp* 130-131.
Wisdom, pp. 316-317.
21McAleer, p. 105.
22
George Eliot Letters. IV, 24.
23Ibid.. IV, 29.
^Autobio graphy. p. 122
2%haekeray. p. 60.
26
Sadleir, p. 254; Booth, p. 14.
27
Thackeray Letters. Ill, 210, fn.39.
28Mm PP. 210-211.
%bid.. pp. 219-220,
3Ibid.. p. 291.
^Ifisdom. pp. 348-352.
3%hackeray Letters. IV, 262-263.
33Ibid.. p. 400.
Trollope Letters, p. 143.
-^Thackeray Letters. IV, 408.
3^Ibid.. p. 411.
37
Letter from Trollope to ¥, W. Follett Synge. Trollope Letters.
p. 142
3%ldsom. pp. 404-405.


123
meetings, especially since both men belonged to the Garrick Club and
worked on the Cornhill staff. The major disturbance in Thackeray's
last year was The Athenaeum's savage attack on him through Anne's
The Story of Elisabeth, a novel that had run in the Cornhill between
September, 1862, and January, 1863, but Trollope was not involved in
this dispute, which began on April 23 and grew into a major scandal by
December when Thackeray was refused a position on the national
Shakespeare Committee. If anything, Trollope leaned toward Thackeray
during this dispute, or Thackeray, who was 'personally affected, would
not have entertained him at 2 Palace Green in May, Even though
Thackeray was under great attack from the Bohemians, he had taken the
action in the spring to reconcile himself to Dickens; therefore,
Dickens was on friendly terns with him when he died suddenly in
December.
The Christmas of 1863 was bleak to those who had been friends
of Thackeray. G. H, Lewes' entered in his diary that Christmas was
solemn, "In the morning I called on Owen Jones and Dallas, where I
39
heard of Thackerays sudden death. Writing to Isabella Blagden,
Robert Browning described the manner in which he learned of the death:
We had a sad Christmas of it with poor Thackerays
death: on the Wednesday (23) I was to have met
him at dinnerhe had sent to say he was unwell,
so his empty place was provocative of the usual
talk and tattlenext day, 24. I was certain to
meet him at dinner also, because the people promised
a wonderful Christmas Tree for children, a flock
of whom were invitedon arriving, I heard his name
mentioned"Hot too unwell to come? I askedhe
was dead,40


53
One of the next major problems that confronted Smith and his
new editor lias the selection of a name for the magazine. On September 29
a name had not yet been founds
Coire, Switzerland, September 29, 1859.
Have you found a title? St, LucS.us, who
founded the church of St. Peter. Cornhill. is
buried here. Help us, good St. Luciusf and
I will be your faithful W. M, T21
Since the offices of Smith, Elder, & Co. were located at 65 Cornhill,
the name, Cornhill Magazine, was appropriate and stuck in Thackerays