“The world has always been fond of personal details respecting men
who have been celebrated.” These were the words of Lord Beaconsfield,
and with them he prefixed his description of the personal appearance
of Isaac D’Israeli; but we hardly need the dictum of our greatest
statesman to convince ourselves that at all events every honest
literature-lover takes a very real interest in the individuality of
those men whose names are perpetually on his lips. It is not enough
for such a one merely to make himself familiar with their writings. It
does not suffice for him that the _Essays of Elia_, for instance, can
be got by heart, but he feels that he must also be able to linger in
the playground at Christ’s with the “lame-footed boy,” and in after
years pace the Temple gardens with the gentle-faced scholar, before he
can properly be said to have made Lamb’s thoughts his own. At the best
it is but a very incomplete notion that most of us possess as to the
actual personality of even the most prominent of our British writers.
The almost womanly beauty of Sidney, and the keen eyes and razor face
of Pope, would, perhaps, be recognised as easily as the well-known form
of Dr. Johnson; but taking them _en masse_ even a widely-read man might
be forgiven if, from amongst the scraps of hearsay and curtly-recorded
impressions on which at rare intervals he may alight, he cannot very
readily conjure up the ghosts of the very men whose books he has
studied, and to whose haunts he has been an eager pilgrim.
Such a power the following pages have attempted to supply. They
contain an account of the face, figure, dress, voice, and manner of
our best-known writers ranging from Geoffrey Chaucer to Mrs. Henry
Wood,--drawn in all cases when it is possible by their contemporaries,
and when through lack of material this endeavour has failed, the task
of portrait-painting has devolved either on other writers who owed
their inspiration to the offices of a mutual friend, or on those whose
literary ability and untiring research have qualified them for the
task. Infinite toil has not always been rewarded, and it would be easy
to supply at least half a dozen names whose absence is to be regretted.
Beaumont and Fletcher are as much read as Thomas Otway, and William
Wotton has perhaps as much right of entrance as his famous opponent
Richard Bentley, but as a small child pointed out when the book was
first proposed: “_You can’t find what isn’t there._” And the worth of
the book naturally consists in keeping to the lines already indicated.
An asterisk placed under the given reference means that the writer
of that particular portrait (who is not necessarily the writer of
that particular book) did not actually see his subject, but that he
is describing a picture, or else that he is building up one from
substantiated evidence. Sometimes, as in the case of Suckling, this
distinction leads to the same book supplying two portraits, only one of
which is at first hand.
When a date is placed at the foot of a description, it refers to the
appearance presented at that time, and not to the period when the words
were penned.
British writers only are named, and amongst them there is of course no
living author.
Chaucer’s birth-date has been given as _About_ 1340, for the
traditional year of 1328 is based on little more than the inscription
on his tomb, which was not placed there until the middle of the
sixteenth century, while according to his own deposition as witness,
his birth could not have taken place until about twelve years later.
In only one other instance has there been a departure from recognised
precedent, and that is in the case of Thomas de Quincey. In defiance
of almost every compiler and present-day writer, I have entered the
name in the Q’s and spelt it as here written. The reason for this
is threefold: First, he himself invariably spelt his name with a
small d. Second, Hood, Wordsworth, and Lamb, and, I believe, all his
other contemporaries did the same. Third, de Quincey himself was
so determined about the matter that he actually dropped the prefix
altogether for some little time, and was known as Mr. Quincey. “His
name I write with a small d in the de, as he wrote it himself. He would
not have wished it indexed among the D’s, but the Q’s,” wrote the Rev.
Francis Jacox, who was one of his Lasswade friends, and in spite of his
recent and skilful biographers, it must be conceded that after all the
little man had the greatest right to his own name.
I am glad to take this opportunity of thanking those who have helped
me, and who will not let me speak my thanks direct. It is a pleasant
thought that while working amongst the literary men of the past, I
have received nothing but kindness from those of to-day. First and
foremost to Mr. George Augustus Sala, to whom I am infinitely indebted;
also to Mrs. Huntingford, Mrs. and Mr. Frederick Chapman, Mr. Henry M.
Trollope, Dr. W. F. Fitz-Patrick, and Mr. S. C. Hall: to all these,
as well as to my own personal friends, I offer my hearty and sincere
thanks.