Early in 1839, on the conclusion of “Oliver Twist,” Charles Dickens
handed over the editorship of _Bentley’s Miscellany_ to Harrison
Ainsworth; and with this transfer, George Cruikshank’s etching-needle
passed from the pages of the old to those of the new editor.
Cruikshank by no means stood alone as illustrator at the outset of
_Bentley’s Miscellany_. Samuel Lover illustrated his own “Handy Andy,”
and Buss and Phiz appeared as etchers. Dickens, in announcing vol. ii.
in a theatrical address, said: “The scenery will continue to be supplied
by the creative pencil of Mr. George Cruikshank.” In the second volume,
by way of illustration to “The Autobiography of a Joke”--Dr Charles
Mackay’s first appearance, he tells me, as a magazine writer--Cruikshank
drew one of his wonderful jovial bottles dancing upon the table. It was
in the third volume, beginning with the year 1838, that Cruikshank stood
alone as illustrator. Early in 1839, Dickens transferred the editorship
of the _Miscellany_ to one of his “most intimate and valued friends,”
Mr. Ainsworth.
In the first volume of 1840 we find illustrations by Alfred Crowquill
in the Miscellany; in the second volume of the same year Leech appeared,
both on wood and steel. The woodcuts--especially one of “a highly
respectable man”--are full of humour and fresh observation.
Extraordinary as the advance had been which Cruikshank had made by his
powerful dramatic illustrations to “Oliver Twist,” his illustrations to
Mr. Ainsworth’s romances, and particularly to “The Tower of London,”
and “Windsor Castle,” and “The Miser’s Daughter”--proved that he had
yet higher laurels to win. His etchings on steel show a greatly superior
technical handling to his earlier work with the needle. He obtained
effects which Rembrandt would not have disdained. He showed for the
first time that he could realize a middle distance, as well as a
foreground and a background. And then he had in perfect subjection, and
ready to his hand and mind, all the vast store of observation of men
and things, he had been inde-fatigably accumulating from his boyhood His
plates to these three works are absolutely astonishing, when they are
analysed, for the amount of original thought,--for the technical skill
in rendering infinite varieties of light and shade, of emotion, of
scenery,--which they comprehend.
It is deeply to be lamented that Cruikshank’s connection with Harrison
Ainsworth *--a connection in which the artist found some of his finer
inspirations--was marred by quarrels, and was sundered finally with a
controversy, which is the counterpart of that he engaged in with the
biographer and the friends of Charles Dickens. I suspect that Thackeray
involuntarily led Cruikshank to claim more than his proper share in the
successes he and Harrison Ainsworth had together.
* Mr. Ainsworth died while these volumes were passing
through the press, January 1882.
“With regard to the modern romance of ‘Jack Sheppard,’” Thackeray
remarks, “in which the latter personage (Jonathan Wild) makes a second
appearance, it seems to us that Mr. Cruikshank really created the tale,
and that Mr. Ainsworth, as it were, only put words to it. Let any reader
of the novel think over it for a while, now that it is some months since
he has perused and laid it down--let him think, and tell us what he
remembers of the tale. George Cruikshank’s pictures--always George
Cruikshank’s pictures. The storm in the Thames, for instance; all the
author’s laboured description of that event has passed clean away--we
have before our mind’s eye the fine plates of Cruikshank. The poor
wretch cowering under the bridge arch, as the waves come rushing in,
and the boats are whirling away in the drift of the great swollen black
waters; and let any man look at that second plate of the murder on the
Thames, and he must acknowledge how much more brilliant the artist’s
description is than the writer’s, and what a real genius for the
terrible as well as for the ridiculous the former has; how awful is the
gloom of the old bridge, a few lights glimmering from the houses here
and there, but not so as to be reflected on the water at all, which is
too turbid and raging; a great heavy rack of clouds goes sweeping over
the bridge, and men with flaring torches--the murderers--are borne away
with the stream.
“The author requires many pages to describe the fury of the storm, which
Mr. Cruikshank has represented in one. First, he has to prepare you with
the something inexpressibly melancholy in sailing on a dark night upon
the Thames; ‘the ripple of the water,’ ‘the darkling current,’ ‘the
indistinctly seen craft,’ the solemn shadows,’ and other phenomena
visible on rivers at night, are detailed (with not unskilful rhetoric)
in order to bring the reader into a proper state of mind for the deeper
gloom and horror which is to ensue. Then follow pages of description....
See what a tremendous war of words (and good loud words too; Mr.
Ainsworth’s description is a good and spirited one) the author is
obliged to pour in upon the reader before he can effect his purpose upon
the latter, and inspire him with a proper terror. The painter does it at
a glance, and old Wood’s dilemma in the midst of that tremendous storm,
with the little infant at his bosom, is remembered afterwards, not from
the words, but from the visible image of them that the artist has
left us.” Thackeray rates these “Jack Sheppard” plates among the most
finished and the most successful of Cruikshank’s performances; dwelling
lovingly on the conscientiousness of the artist, and that shrewd
pervading idea of _form_ which is one of his principal characteristics.
They bear witness to the minuteness as well as to the fidelity of the
artist’s observation. Not the smallest object, nor its proper place in
his design, escapes his eye. He has stored up in the camera of his brain
the many ways in which a chair may fall, as well as the thousand and
one lights and shadows of expression which play upon a man’s face as he
progresses through the chapters of his life.
Thackeray, let it be said, was always unjust to Harrison Ainsworth. He
caricatured him unmercifully in _Punch_, and never lost an opportunity
of being amusing at his expense. His reasoning in regard to “Jack
Sheppard” is manifestly unjust and unsound. “Jack Sheppard” was the
natural sequence to “Rook-wood,” which, in popular parlance, had taken
the town by storm, and had suddenly made the young author famous.
“Dick Turpin’s Ride to York” became the talk of all England. Colnaghi
published a separate set of illustrations, by Hall, of the principal
scenes described by Mr. Ainsworth. Cruikshank was called in only to
furnish some illustrations to the second edition.
The success of “Rookwood” directed the mind of Bulwer to “Paul
Clifford,” and probably suggested to Dickens his “Oliver Twist.” Even
Cruikshank himself admits that “Jack Sheppard” was “originated” by the
author. A fashion for highwaymen and burglars as heroes of romance had
been set by Ainsworth; and Bulwer and Dickens dived into the haunts of
thieves to get at their _argot_, or “patter flash,” * and their ways of
thinking and acting. Both made great hits. “Paul Clifford” and “Oliver
Twist” were the two books of the day. Mr. Ainsworth, irritated at the
unceremonious manner in which his ground had been invaded, put forth
“Jack Sheppard” (1839), on assuming the editorship of _Bentley’s
Miscellany_. It was as natural a step from “Rookwood,” especially after
“Paul Clifford” and “Oliver Twist,” as chapter two is from chapter one,
Mr. Ainsworth had his revenge upon the trespassers, for “Jack” threw
“Oliver,” for the moment, into the background. This gave umbrage to Mr.
John Forster. Mr. Ainsworth says:--“I am sorry to think that the success
of ‘Jack Sheppard’ should have led him (Forster) to regard me as a
momentary rival to his idol, but he assuredly treated me as one.
My little burglar was certainly the lion of the day. The story was
dramatised and played simultaneously at half a dozen theatres. Every
street-boy yelled ‘Nix my dolly’ and ‘Jolly nose.’ and large profits
were made by managers. My own share of theatrical plunder was only
twenty pounds, sent me by Davidge, of the Coburg Theatre. For the
Adelphi version, made by Buckstone, I never made a single sixpence,
although it filled the house to overflowing, and people said that every
errand-boy looked forward to the day when he should develop into a
full-blown burglar.”
* “I got my slang in a much easier way,” said Mr. Ainsworth;
“I picked up the memoirs of one Vaux--James Hardy Vaux--a
returned transport. The book was full of adventures, and had
at the end a kind of slang dictionary. Out of this I got all
my ‘patter.’ Having read it thoroughly, and mastered it, I
could use it with perfect facility.”
It would be doing Cruikshank shameful injustice to deny the attraction
of his marvellous etchings, full of life, keen observation, and that
happy dramatic power he had, which led him to feel and to embody the
conception an author whom he illustrated; but, at the same time, it
would be folly to accept him at his own estimate of his share in the
“Jack Sheppard” success. Mrs. Keeley has quite as strong a right to some
of the common glory as George. It is surprising that he never laid
claim to Paul Bedford’s “Jolly Nose.” * While the excitement lasted,
Cruikshank made no claim to any share in the story, and he enjoyed to
the full the immense success of his etchings.
On the completion of “Jack Sheppard” and the “Tower of London,”
Cruikshank quarrelled with Mr. Bentley, ** He had a tendency, as one of
his best friends has remarked, to quarrel with all persons with whom
he had business relations; and when he did quarrel, his words knew no
bounds. In his “Popgun” he has drawn himself holding a publisher by the
nose with a pair of tongs. *** His temporary separation from Mr. Bentley
led him to start a magazine of his own, the _Omnibus_, and to turn
from Mr. Ainsworth to Laman Blanchard as literary co-operator. Of this
presently.
* G. Cruikshank lithographed an illustration to the “Jack
Sheppard” quadrilles, “from Rodwel’s celebrated romance,” in
which he represented Paul Bedford as Blueskin, Mrs. Keeley
as Jack Sheppard, etc., dancing and singing in chorus, “Nix
my dolly, pals.” Mrs. Keeley remembers Cruikshank going
behind the scenes to sketch her and Paul Bedford “in
character,” and she remarks that this was the only time she
ever saw him.
** “The mention of his illustrations to ‘Oliver Twist’ led
to some other talk concerning his connection with _Bentley’s
Miscellany_, and he expressed his interest when I told him
that my first appearances in print were in the pages of that
magazine, when I was yet in my ‘teens,’ my various
contributions being in verse. But this was after he had
ceased to illustrate it, and when the chief etchings for its
pages were supplied by John Leech. He told me of his
misunderstandings with Mr. Bentley, and he has referred to
them, in a paper in his _Omnibus_, as follows: ‘To “Oliver
Twist” and “Jack Sheppard” I devoted my best exertions; but,
so far from effecting a monopoly of my labours, the
publisher in question (Mr. Bentley) has not, for a
twelvemonth past, had from me more than a single plate for
his monthly _Miscellany_, nor will he ever have more than
that single plate per month, nor shall I ever illustrate any
other work that he may publish.’ These single plates that he
here mentions are the poorest that ever proceeded from his
etching-needle, and would appear to have been wilfully and
defiantly badly drawn, under the compulsion of an agreement
that the artist was bound to carry out. He lived, however,
to execute other and better work for Mr. Bentley, notably
some additional illustrations to the evergreen ‘Ingoldsby
Legends.’ Cruikshank used to place his watch upon the table
and run his etching point over his design at the utmost
speed. The outline made, he turned the plate over to his
brother Robert, who finished it. Sands bit it up, and then
it was forwarded to Bentley. The results fell so far short
of George Cruikshank working _con amore_, that at last Mr.
Bentley was content to set the unmanageable artist free. The
secession of Cruikshank from the _Miscellany_ made room for
John Leech.”--_Cuthbert Bede_.
*** The publisher threatened the artist with an action, and
compelled him to withdraw the pamphlet from circulation.
On the retirement of Ainsworth from _Bentley’s Miscellany_, business
relations were resumed between himself and the artist; and Cruikshank
was advertised as illustrator of _Ainsworth’s Magazine_. And at this
point Cruikshank passed from his humorous to his more ambitious and
higher phase.
“The Tower of London” appears to have made a strong effect on
Cruikshank’s mind. In the _Omnibus_ he drew some curious bits of
observation of the wreck of that part of the Tower which the fire had
attacked, and in his illustrations to Ainsworth’s story he manifested a
desire to express the historical power as an artist that was in him. He
composed pictures free from exaggeration, and grand and impressive both
in conception and treatment. Having substituted steel plates for copper,
he felt that he was upon more lasting work, and he laboured hard to
produce pictures of the highest finish. He was right: some of the finest
work he has left lies between Ainsworth’s pages, and indicates a range
of power in the artist which he was never destined to prove fully. The
fates had been against him in early life; and he was, although even much
later he could not bring his eager and intrepid mind to admit it,
too old to take his seat in an academy, and get through the drudgery,
without which not even the most bountifully gifted artist can do himself
justice. In these Rembrandt-like scenes in the Tower, he taught the
world that his idea that he was a great historical painter who had lost
his way, was no wild and vain fancy.
The new arrangement was one of the most lucrative Cruikshank ever
enjoyed, receiving forty pounds monthly for his plates. It opened a
connection, during which Cruikshank executed, as he rightly believed,
“a hundred and forty-four of the very best designs and etchings” he ever
produced. It is a pity that such a connection should have ended in
an unworthy quarrel in which Cruikshank, with his usual vehemence and
wildness in statement, made charges against his author which it was
utterly impossible for him to justify. He has described their relations
in this way:--
“I must here first state that, as large sums of money had been realized
from my ideas and suggestions for the work of ‘Oliver Twist,’ it
occurred to me one day that I would try and get a little of the same
material from the same source; and as Mr. Ainsworth and I were at the
time upon the most friendly--I may say brotherly--terms, I suggested
to him that we should jointly produce a work on our own account, and
publish it in monthly numbers, and get Mr. Bentley to join us as
the publisher. Mr. Ainsworth was delighted with the idea of such a
partnership, and at once acceded to the proposition; and when I told him
I had a capital subject for the first work, he inquired what it was; and
upon my telling him it was the Tower of London, with some incidents in
the life of Lady Jane Grey, he was still more delighted, and then I
told him that I had long since seen the room in the Tower where that
beautiful and accomplished dear lady was imprisoned, and other parts of
that fortress, to which the public were not admitted; and if he would
then go with me to the Tower, I would show these places to him. He at
once accepted my offer, and off we went to Hungerford Stairs, now the
site of the Charing Cross Railway Station; and whilst waiting on the
beach for a boat to go to London Bridge, we there met my dear friend,
the late W. Jerdan, the well-known editor and part proprietor of the
_Literary Gazette_, who inquired where we were going to. My reply was,
that I was taking Mr. Ainsworth a prisoner to the Tower. With this joke
we parted. I then took Mr. Ainsworth to the royal prison, and when
we arrived there, I introduced him to my friend Mr. Stacey, the
storekeeper, in whose department were these ‘Chambers of Horrors’; and
then and there did Mr. Ainsworth, for the first time, see the apartment
in which the dear Lady Jane was placed until the day she was beheaded,
or, in other words, the day on which she was murdered! and which place I
had long before made sketches of, for the purpose of introducing them in
a ‘Life of Lady Jane Grey,’ and which for many years I had intended to
place before the public. I have now most distinctly to state that Mr.
Ainsworth _wrote up to most of my suggestions and designs_, although
some of the subjects we jointly arranged, to introduce into the work;
and I used every month to send him the tracings or outlines of the
sketches or drawings from which I was making the etchings to illustrate
the work, in order that he might write up to them, and that they should
be accurately described.” Cruikshank goes on to assert that the plates
were printed before the manuscript was printed, and sometimes before the
manuscript was written.
The “Tower of London” was a great success. Cruikshank states that, while
it was running, one bookseller told him that if he and Ainsworth brought
out “another work similar in style and interest,” he would take 20,000
a month to begin with, while another offered to take 25,000, or even
30,000. On the completion of “The Tower,” according to Cruikshank, he
suggested to Ainsworth “The Plague and the Fire of London.”
“Oh!” exclaimed the author, “that is first-rate.”
It was understood, according to Cruikshank, that both author and artist
should set to work on the new subject; but the author unceremoniously
seized the artist’s idea, and sold his story to the _Sunday Times_.
After a time, on the intercession of their mutual friend Mr. Pettigrew,
Cruikshank says that he consented to work again with the author who had
stolen his idea. He even went further; he suggested another story to
him, viz., “The Miser’s Daughter,” which he had intended to have worked
out by another author in his _Omnibus_.
“The _next romance_ by Mr. Ainsworth,” says Cruikshank, “which _appeared
in his magazine_, was ‘Windsor Castle,’ and the illustrations to the
first part of that work were done by Tony Johannot--the remainder by me;
and I will now explain how it came to pass that we two brother artists
came to be employed upon the same work. After Mr. Ainsworth had finished
‘Old St. Paul’s,’ he, of course, wanted to produce another work, and to
have it _illustrated_; and, as under the then existing circumstances he
could not apply to me, he had to engage another artist. And why he did
not employ Mr. Franklin on this occasion I know not, but I believe he
went over to Paris, and engaged Tony Johannot to make the drawings and
etchings for ‘Windsor Castle;’ and these illustrations were done whilst
I was working on my _Omnibus_. But whether he found this plan to be too
inconvenient or otherwise, I cannot tell; but, as he induced my friend
Pettigrew to come to me and negotiate for a ‘treaty of peace,’ it is, I
think, pretty evident that he wanted the assistance of my head and hand
work again. After ‘Windsor Castle’ came the ‘Romance of St. James’s; or,
The Court of Queen Anne;’ and after that, Mr. Harrison Ainsworth _sold
his magazine_ to his publishers! So it really appeared as if all this
gentleman’s promises, like pie-crust, were made to be broken; and, as
in this instance, also, there was not any written agreement, the
arrangements which he had made, and the engagements he had entered into
with me when I agreed to work with him in his magazine, all broke down,
and I, as it were, again ‘thrown overboard,’ or ‘left in the lurch.’
And thus ended the second edition of this authors extraordinary conduct
towards the artist.”
Cruikshank lays equal stress, in support of his pretensions, on the
appearance (March 1842) of a drawing made by him, at Ainsworth’s
suggestion, “of the ‘author’ and the ‘artist’ seated, in council, or
conversing together in his library.” It is a charming sketch, and both
portraits are excellent; but how it proves that the ‘artist’ did the
author’s work, or any part of it, as well as his own, it is difficult
to conceive. Cruikshank asserted that “after the second edition of Mr.
Ainsworth’s extraordinary conduct, the penitent author again sent
Mr. Pettigrew to entreat him to be friends once more, and resume work
together.” “When I heard this,” says Cruikshank, “my friend the doctor
found it was not at all necessary to feel my pulse; for he could plainly
see that it beat rather fiercely when, in reply, I said, ‘No,
Pettigrew. Mr. Ainsworth has acted towards me in what I consider a most
dishonourable manner upon _two_ occasions, and I will take care that he
shall not do so a _third_ time.”
To all this Mr. Harrison Ainsworth made answer:--
A FEW WORDS ABOUT GEORGE CRUIKSHANK.*
* This was Mr. Ainsworth’s final explanation, addressed to
P. J. for publication.
“On the production at the Adelphi Theatre of the late Mr. Andrew
Halliday’s drama, founded on the ‘Miser’s Daughter,’ George. Cruikshank
sent a letter to the _Times_, loudly complaining of the omission of his
name from the playbill, and asserting that he had suggested the title
and general plan of the story.
“A more preposterous assertion was never made. Had there been any truth
whatever in the claim thus impudently advanced, why was it not made
long before? The story was written thirty years previously--namely, in
1842--and after that long interval the old artist sets up this absurd
pretension.
“I believed him to be in his dotage, and was confirmed in the opinion
when I found he laboured under a similar delusion in regard to ‘Oliver
Twist.’
“For myself, I desire to state emphatically, that not a single
line--not a word--in any of my novels was written by their illustrator,
Cruikshank. In no instance did he even see a proof. The subjects were
arranged with him early in the month, and about the fifteenth he used
to send me tracings of the plates. That was all.
“As explanatory of the original design of the ‘Miser’s Daughter,’ as
well as to dispose of Cruikshank’s unwarrantable assertion that he had
furnished the original scheme of the story, I will now cite the preface
to the cheap edition of the work, published in 1850, by Chapman and
Hall. If Cruikshank had any claim to the authorship of the tale, why did
he not make it then?
“To expose the folly and wickedness of accumulating wealth for no other
purpose than to hoard it up, and to exhibit the utter misery of a being
who should thus voluntarily surrender himself to the dominion of Mammon,
is the chief object of these pages. And I believe they will be found to
convey a useful lesson, and one not wholly inapplicable to the times;
for though the Miser may now be a rarer character than heretofore, the
greed of gain was never more generally indulged in, nor the worship of
the golden calf more widely spread and less reproved than at present. I
have shown that all high and generous feelings, all good principles,
and even natural affection itself, will become blunted, and in the end
completely destroyed, by the inordinate and all-engrossing passion for
gain: and I have shown the truth,--a truth borne out by the history of
every such wretched votary of wealth. The sin carries its own punishment
with it; and is made the means of chastising the sinner. Dead to every
feeling except that of adding to his store, the miser becomes incapable
of enjoyment except such as is afforded by the contemplation of his
useless treasure, and at last he is deprived even of this selfish and
unhallowed gratification, for dread of losing his gold far outweighs
delight in its possession. Distrust of all around him darkens his
declining days; those who should be dearest to him appear his worst
enemies; he becomes a prey to the designer, until at length, while
haunted by vague terrors, and despairingly clinging to his hoards, they
are snatched from his grasp by the ruthless hand of death. ‘So is he
that layeth up treasure for himself, and is not rich towards God.’
“Other and lighter portions of the tale refer to the adventures of a
young man on his first introduction to town-life about the middle of
the last century, when Ranelagh was in its zenith, and Vauxhall and
Marylebone. Gardens in vogue; when the Thames boasted its Folly, and
when coffee-houses filled the places of clubs. The descriptions I
believe to be tolerably accurate, and they are at all events carefully
done, with the view of giving a correct idea of the manners, habits, and
pursuits of our great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers. Temptations
to pleasurable excess were no doubt sufficiently abundant then, but not
more abundant than nowadays, when casinos and other places of licentious
resort are tolerated; and our modern youth have as much to fear from the
allurement of vice as their predecessors. Apart, indeed, from a certain
grossness in conversation, our forefathers were to the full as decorous
as ourselves, and quite as moral, though they did not cloak their faults
so carefully. Consequently, vice in those days was less dangerous,
because less specious and more easily shunned than at a time when its
ugliness is better concealed.
“It was part of my original scheme to describe the secret proceedings
of the Jacobites in Lancashire and Cheshire, prior to the Rebellion
of Forty-five, with Prince Charles’s entrance into Manchester in that
memorable year, and the subsequent march to Derby. * But I found these
details incompatible with my main plan, and was therefore obliged to
relinquish them; contenting myself with a slight sketch of a conspiracy
in London, hatched by certain adherents of the young Chevalier. Cord
well Firebras is no fictitious personage.
* This has since been done in the ‘Manchester Rebels,’
published in 1873.
“The incident of the payment of the mortgage-money is founded on fact.
A similar occurrence took place about the period in question, and the
paymaster was a proud Welsh baronet, as described, with a pedigree as
old as the hills. The particulars were related to me by my excellent
friend Mrs. Hughes, to whom I am indebted for many valuable suggestions.
It is, perhaps, needless to say, that in consequence of the alteration
of the law respecting the foreclosure of mortgages, such a circumstance
could not take place now.
“_Ne sutor ultra crepidam_. Had Cruikshank been capable of constructing
a story, why did he not exercise his talent when he had no connection
with Mr. Dickens or myself? But I never heard of such a tale being
published.
“I have been connected with many distinguished artists--with Sir John
Gilbert, with Tony Johannot, with Hablot K. Browne, John Franklin, and
others, and never heard that any one of them claimed a share in the
authorship of the works he illustrated.
“But overweening vanity formed a strong part of Cruikshank’s character.
He boasted so much of the assistance he had rendered authors, that at
last he believed he had written their works. Had he been connected with
Fielding, he would no doubt have asserted that he wrote a great portion
of ‘Tom Jones.’ Moreover, he was excessively troublesome and obtrusive
in his suggestions. Mr. Dickens declared to me that he could not stand
it, and should send him printed matter in future.
“It would be unjust, however, to deny that there was not wonderful
cleverness and quickness about Cruikshank, and I am indebted to him for
many valuable hints and suggestions.
“While writing the ‘Tower of London,’ which first appeared in monthly
numbers, I used always to spend a day with the artist at the beginning
of each month in the Tower itself; and since every facility was afforded
us by the authorities, we left no part of the old fortress unexplored.
To these visits I look back with the greatest pleasure, and feel that
I could not have had a more agreeable companion than the then genial
George Cruikshank.
“As an illustration of another part of the artist’s character, I may
relate this little incident. On the completion of the ‘Tower,’ I gave a
dinner at the Sussex Hotel, Bouverie Street, (where a good deal of the
work had been written, the hotel being near the printing offices of
Messrs. Bradbury and Evans), to about sixty of my friends, including the
Fort Major and Acting Governor of the Tower, the Keeper of the
Regalia, Mr. Justice Talfourd, Dickens, Maclise, Barham, Forster, Laman
Blanchard, James Crossley of Manchester, Grainger, John Hughes, and many
others. George Cruikshank occupied the vice-chair. As the guests were
dispersing, several of them adjourned to the coffee-room, and of these
Cruikshank took charge, saying to me as I was about to drive home to the
Harrow Road,--
“‘Now understand--this part of the entertainment is to be mine!’
“‘Very well,’ I replied. ‘So be it.’
“But he must have forgotten the proposition, since if I recollect
aright, I had a considerable sum to pay next morning for ‘coffee and
cigars.’
“On the completion of the ‘Tower,’ I did not go on with Cruikshank, but
contributed ‘Old Saint Paul’s’ to a weekly paper. This story--one of the
most popular I have ever written--was republished in three volumes, with
some admirable illustrations by John Franklin.
“Cruikshank’s illustrations to ‘Guy Fawkes,’ which appeared in the
_Miscellany_, simultaneously with the ‘Tower,’ were very inferior to
those furnished by him for the latter story, and excited the ire of
Mr. Bentley, with whom the artist had quarrelled. But the publisher’s
complaints were unheeded, as were my own remonstrances.
“On my retirement from the _Miscellany_, at the close of the year 1841,
I resolved to bring out a magazine of my own, and with that view went
to Paris to secure the famous Tony Johannot as illustrator of ‘Windsor
Castle,’ a romance which I intended should form the principal feature of
the proposed magazine.
“I found M. Tony Johannot a most charming person, as he had been
described to me, and passed several pleasant days in his society.
He agreed to send me four plates, the subjects of which I gave him,
together with designs for the cover of the magazine, and the title-page
of story, and performed his promise to my entire satisfaction.
“On my return I was induced by my friend Mr. Pettigrew to engage George
Cruikshank as the illustrator of the magazine, on terms infinitely more
advantageous to the artist than those he had received from Mr. Bentley
for his illustrations to ‘Jack Sheppard’ and ‘Guy Fawkes.’
“Now commenced the ‘Miser’s Daughter,’ to which I have already adverted.
This was succeeded by ‘Windsor Castle,’--four of the illustrations being
furnished, as already mentioned, by Tony Johannot, and the remainder by
Cruikshank. The numerous woodcuts were executed by Alfred Delamotte.
“The last story of mine, illustrated by Cruikshank, was ‘Saint James’s,
or the Court of Queen Anne,’ published in 1844. Since that date I saw
very little of the artist.
“My first acquaintance with George Cruikshank occurred in 1835, when he
made some capital illustrations to an edition of ‘Rookwood’ brought
out by Mr. John Macrone, of St. James’s Square--a young and spirited
publisher, whose premature death was much to be lamented.
“Next came ‘Jack Sheppard,’ which succeeded ‘Oliver Twist’ in _Bentley’s
Miscellany_, and obtained an extraordinary success.
“From their Hogarthian character, and careful attention to detail, I
consider these by far the best of Cruikshank’s designs. They raised him
to a point he had never before attained.
“I think it proper to mention that more than a third of the work was
written before Cruikshank began to illustrate it.
“Of Cruikshank as a teetotaler I can say nothing, because I saw nothing
of him. When I knew him, he was extremely convivial, and used to sing a
capital comic song, and dance the sailor’s hornpipe, almost as well as
the great T. P. Cooke. Perhaps he may have rather exceeded the bounds
of discretion, but if he took a little too much, he was hearty and
good-humoured, and would never have boasted as he afterwards did of
writing portions of ‘Oliver Twist’ and the ‘Miser’s Daughter.’
“W. H. A.”
Before parting finally with this most unpleasant part of my task, I must
quote Cruikshank’s summing-up of his pretensions in regard to Dickens
and Ainsworth, to say nothing of “other men”:--
“I now feel it necessary to inform the public that the usual or ordinary
way of producing illustrated novels or romances is, for an author either
to write out, from his own ideas, the whole of the tale, or in parts;
the manuscript or letterpress of which is then handed to an artist to
read and select subjects from for his illustrations, or sometimes for
the author to suggest to the artist such subjects, scenes, or parts, as
he might wish to be illustrated. And I, being known generally only as
an artist, or illustrator, it would therefore very naturally be supposed
that, in all cases, I have merely worked out other men’s ideas. But,
if I have the opportunity, I shall be able to show that other men have
sometimes worked out my ideas--but this will be for another occasion.
And I will now explain that ‘Oliver Twist,’ ‘The Tower of London,’ ‘The
Miser’s Daughter,’ etc., were produced in an entirely different manner
from what would be considered as the usual course; for _I_, _the artist,
suggested to the authors of these works the original idea, or subject_,
for them to write out--furnishing, at the same time, the _principal
characters and the scenes_. And then, as the tale had to be produced in
monthly parts, the _writer, or author_, and the artist, had every month
to arrange and settle what scenes, or subjects, and characters were to
be introduced; and the author had to _weave_ in such scenes as I wished
to represent, and sometimes I had to work out his suggestions.
“And as to Mr. W. Harrison Ainsworth’s ‘singular delusion’ of an artist
claiming to be the originator of works which he had merely illustrated,
no more absurd or contemptible and rubbishing nonsense could ever be
conceived; for no artist could possibly be in his right mind who would
make such a claim, and it becomes a serious question as to whether any
one who brings forth such nonsense can be in _his_ right mind; and if
this author has really lost his memory, and as an invalid is suffering
under ‘_singular delusions_,’ he has my pity and commiseration.
“I lay no claim to anything that has _originated_ from the mind of Mr.
Ainsworth, or any other man; but where the original idea has emanated
from my own mind, that I feel I have a right to claim, and by that right
I will stand firm; and I trust that at no distant date I may be able to
publish what I have already stated, to show the world how these ideas
originated in my mind, and why I wished to place them before the
public.” Cruikshank added that many friends, already passed ‘away,’ would
have vouched for the accuracy of the foregoing. He cited two, however,
on whose testimony in his favour _I know_ he would not have relied;
namely, Douglas Jerrold and Laman Blanchard. These had never heard
of Cruikhsank’s claim as originator of “Oliver Twist,” or any of
Ainsworth’s novels, for the good reason that they had died before he put
it forth. Blanchard, indeed, had experience akin to that of Ainsworth.
An old friend of his and mine, returned lately from a twenty years’
sojourn at the antipodes. I asked him if he remembered any incidents
of the time when Laman Blanchard was editing the _Omnibus_. At first he
could recall nothing, but after a long pause he said:
“All I remember is something very like a quarrel, one night, when
Cruikshank was spending the evening at Blanchard’s house. A friend
praised a little poem that had appeared in the last number. Whereupon
Cruikshank remarked that it was his idea as well as his illustration.
“I don’t call to mind another occasion,” said the traveller, “when I saw
Blanchard give way to a violent passion; but on this he did. The idea
and the poem were one of his bright and graceful fancies; and he
rose and denied that Cruikshank had had the least share in it with a
fierceness that confounded him.”
[Illustration: 316]