for in the Pickwick trial, thus rendering comparison
inapposite. Nevertheless one was bound to
contrast them.
Thackeray's features were impassive, and his voice knew no
inflection. But his elocution in other respects was perfect,
admirably
distinct and
impressive from its complete
obliteration of the reader.
The
selection was from the reign of George the Third; and no
part of it was more attentively listened to than his passing
allusion to himself. 'I came,' he says, 'from India as a
child, and our ship touched at an island on the way home,
where my black servant took me a long walk over rocks and
hills until we reached a garden, where we saw a man walking.
"That is he," said the black man, "that is Bonaparte! He
eats three sheep every day, and all the little children he
can lay hands on!"' One went to hear Thackeray, to see
Thackeray; and the child and the black man and the ogre were
there on the stage before one. But so well did the lecturer
perform his part, that ten minutes later one had forgotten
him, and saw only George Selwyn and his friend Horace
Walpole, and Horace's friend, Miss Berry - whom by the way I
too knew and remember. One saw the 'poor society
ghastly in
its pleasures, its loves, its revelries,' and the redeeming
vision of 'her father's
darling, the Princess Amelia,
pathetic for her beauty, her
sweetness, her early death, and
for the
extremepassionatetenderness with which her father
loved her.' The story told, as Thackeray told it, was as
delightful to listen to as to read.
Not so with Dickens. He disappointed me. He made no attempt
to rep
resent the different
characters by
varied utterance;
but
whenever something
unusually comic was said, or about to
be said, he had a habit of turning his eyes up to the
ceiling; so that,
knowing what was coming, one nervously
anticipated the upcast look, and for the moment lost the
illusion. In both entertainments, the reader was naturally
the central point of interest. But in the case of Dickens,
when
curiosity was satisfied, he alone possessed one;
Pickwick and Mrs. Bardell were put out of court.
Was it not Charles Lamb, or was it Hazlitt, that could not
bear to see Shakespeare upon the stage? I agree with him. I
have never seen a Falstaff that did not make me miserable.
He is even more impossible to impersonate than Hamlet. A
player will spoil you the
character of Hamlet, but he cannot
spoil his thoughts. Depend upon it, we are
fortunate not to
have seen Shakespeare in his ghost of Royal Denmark.
In 1861 I married Lady Katharine Egerton, second daughter of
Lord Wilton, and we took up our abode in Warwick Square,
which, by the way, I had seen a few years before as a turnip
field. My wife was an
accomplished pianiste, so we had a
great deal of music, and saw much of the artist world. I may
mention one
artistic dinner
amongst our early efforts at
housekeeping, which nearly ended with a catastrophe.
Millais and Dicky Doyle were of the party; music was
rep
resented by Joachim, Piatti, and Halle. The late Lord and
Lady de Ros were also of the number. Lady de Ros, who was a
daughter of the Duke of Richmond, had danced at the ball
given by her father at Brussels the night before Waterloo.
As Lord de Ros was then Governor of the Tower, it will be
understood that he was a
veteran of some
standing. The great
musical trio were enchanting all ears with their faultless
performance, when the sweet and soul-stirring notes of the
Adagio were suddenly interrupted by a loud crash and a
shriek. Old Lord de Ros was listening to the music on a sofa
at the further end of the room. Over his head was a large
picture in a heavy frame. What vibrations, what careless
hanging, what
mischievous Ate or Discord was at the bottom of
it, who knows? Down came the picture on the top of the poor
old General's head, and knocked him
senseless on the floor.