Part 4 (1/2)

I could now enter upon my own, and that carried me pretty far into the science. This was not done without difficulty. I had not a farthing on earth, nor a friend to give me one; pen, ink, and paper, therefore, were for the most part as completely out of my reach as a crown and sceptre.

There was, indeed, a resource, but the utmost caution and secrecy were necessary in applying to it. I beat out pieces of leather as smooth as possible and wrought my problems on them with a blunted awl; for the rest my memory was tenacious, and I could multiply and divide by it to a great extent.”

Strange to say, although he displayed so much ability and zeal in the study of mathematics, he was not destined to achieve distinction in that department of study. A very trifling incident led to the exercise of new gifts, and turned the tide of his evil fortune. A shopmate had made a few verses on the blunder of a painter in the village who was engaged to paint a lion for a sign-board, and had produced a dog instead. Gifford thought he could beat the verses of his shopmate, and accordingly tried his hand at rhyme. His a.s.sociates all agreed in p.r.o.nouncing young Gifford's verses the better of the two. This encouraged him to try again, and in the course of a short time he had composed about a dozen pieces. He says: ”They were talked of in my little circle, and I was sometimes invited to repeat them out of it. I never committed a line to paper--first, because I had no paper; and, second, because I was afraid, for my master had already threatened me for inadvertently hitching the name of one of his customers into a rhyme.” The rest of this account of his poetical adventures would be amusing if it were not for the pathos which underlies it, and the fact that it is the prelude to one of the most painful incidents in the sad story of Gifford's early life.

Referring to these recitals of his poetical pieces he says: ”These repet.i.tions were always attended by applause, and sometimes by favors more substantial; little collections were now and then made, and I have received sixpence in an evening(!). To one who had long lived in the absolute want of money such a resource seemed a Peruvian mine. I furnished myself by degrees with paper, etc., and, what was of more importance, with books of geometry and of the higher branches of algebra, which I cautiously concealed. Poetry even at this time was no amus.e.m.e.nt of mine. I only had recourse to it when I wanted money for my mathematical pursuits. But the clouds were gathering fast. My master's anger was raised to a terrible pitch by my indifference to his concerns, and still more by my presumptuous attempts at versification. I was required to give up my papers, and when I refused, was searched, my little h.o.a.rd of books discovered and removed, and all future repet.i.tions prohibited in the strictest manner. This was a severe stroke, I felt it most sensibly, and it was followed by another, severer still, a stroke which crushed the hopes I had so long and fondly cherished, and resigned me at once to despair. Mr. Hugh, Smerdon, the master of the school on whose succession I had calculated, died and was succeeded by a person not much older than myself, and certainly not so well qualified for the situation.”

Poor Gifford! hard, indeed, was thy lot; an orphan without friends, helpers, or sympathizers, having no proper leisure or means for study or recreation, and even the little pleasure and profit wrung from a few ciphering books and doggerel verses s.n.a.t.c.hed away by cruel hands; trodden down like a worm in the mire, and every particle of talent and ambition threatened with extinction! For six long years this misery lasted in one form or another, while he strove to hope on against hope, and found himself compelled to labor at a trade which he declares he hated from the first with a perfect hatred, and never, consequently, made any progress in. What could be more miserable and disheartening?

But to the industrious and patient, as ”to the upright, _there ariseth light in the darkness_.” No darker hour occurred in all Gifford's miserable boyhood and youth than that which is described in the sentences just quoted. And now the light is about to appear. A friend comes upon the scene, to whose generous interference the unhappy cobbler owed the educational advantages he afterward enjoyed. His obligations to this benefactor were always most readily and warmly expressed; for whatever faults Gifford might have, he was never charged with the meanness of forgetting his lowly origin, and the generous friend by whom he had been rescued from a wretched condition and introduced to a happier state of life. He speaks of his benefactor as bearing ”a name never to be p.r.o.nounced by him without veneration.” This gentleman, Mr.

Cooksley, was a surgeon in the neighborhood. He had accidentally heard of the young cobbler's poetry, and sought an interview with him. Gifford went down to the surgeon's house, and, encouraged by the kindness he received, told the story of his attempts at self-culture, and of the hards.h.i.+ps he had undergone. Deeply moved by the touching story, and convinced of the young man's natural abilities and desert of encouragement, Mr. Cooksley resolved, there and then, on liberating the youth from the thraldom of his situation. The first thing was to free him from the bonds of his apprentices.h.i.+p, and the next to give him the advantages of regular instruction. He was then twenty years of age, and he says, ”My handwriting was bad, and my language very incorrect.”

Accordingly, a subscription was started to furnish funds for this twofold purpose. It read as follows: ”A subscription for purchasing the remainder of the time of William Gifford, and for enabling him to improve himself in writing and English grammar.” The kindness of Cooksley and a few other friends, whose sympathies were enlisted by his generous zeal for the youth, enabled him to receive two years'

instruction from a clergyman, the Rev. Thomas Smerdon, who resided in the locality. Such was the progress made by Gifford, that at the end of that time his instructor p.r.o.nounced him quite prepared for the university. Again Mr. Cooksley proved a friend. By his efforts and promises of support Gifford was entered at Exeter College, Oxford.

Unfortunately his n.o.ble patron died before Gifford could take his degree. But he was not suffered to leave Oxford on account of Mr.

Cooksley's death. He found a second patron in Lord Grosvenor, by whose aid the grateful undergraduate was enabled to finish his term. The culture which he received in the university must have been very thorough and complete, evincing itself in refinement of manner as well as scholars.h.i.+p of no ordinary degree, for in the course of a few years after leaving Ashburton, we learn that the late shoemaker was taken into the family of Lord Grosvenor as private tutor and travelling companion to his son Lord Belgrave. The circ.u.mstance which led to Lord Grosvenor's patronage of Gifford was remarkable, and deserves to be recorded as an ill.u.s.tration of the fact that an accident may lead to the most important events in our history. But we must premise, first of all, as a safeguard against a false inference or false hopes, that _such_ accidents are sure to come in the way of _industrious, clever_ and _deserving_ men. If they occur to men of a different stamp they are of no avail. If William Gifford had not been a hard-working student, such a circ.u.mstance as the accidental perusal of one of his letters by a person for whom it was not intended could not have helped his fortunes in the least. It appears that he had been in the habit of corresponding with a friend in London on literary matters. His letters to this friend were sent under covers, and in order to save postage were left at Lord Grosvenor's. One day the address of the literary friend was omitted, and his lords.h.i.+p, supposing the letter to be for himself, opened and read it. The contents excited his admiration, and awakened his curiosity to know who the author could be. He was sent for, and after an interview, in which, for the second time in his life, he told the story of his early struggles to willing and sympathizing ears, he was invited by Lord Grosvenor to come and reside with him.

It is deeply gratifying to record instances of disinterested generosity of this kind, and to read the glowing language in which the thankful young student refers to the kindness of his n.o.ble patron. Referring to the invitation to live with Lord Grosvenor, and his promise of honorable maintenance, Gifford says, ”These were not words of course, they were more than fulfilled in every point. I did go and reside with him, and I experienced a warm and cordial reception, and a kind and affectionate esteem that has known neither diminution nor interruption, from that hour to this, a period of twenty years.”

In 1794, his ”Baviad” was published, in imitation of the satires of Persius, and in the following year the ”Maeviad,” after the style of Horace. These names were taken from the third Eclogue of Virgil--

”He may with foxes plough and milk he-goats, Who praises _Bavius_ or on _Maevius_ dotes.”

These terribly virulent satires, like those of Boileau and Pope, were aimed at contemporary poets of an inferior order, and like them, too, were most crus.h.i.+ng in their effect. The _Della Cruscan School_[26] never smiled, or rather smirked, again after the issue of the Baviad and Maeviad. But it is a rare thing to meet with a critic or a satirist who escapes the danger of committing a fault in condemning one. Gifford did not escape this danger. His lines certainly did not answer to the epigram--

”Satire should, like a polished razor keen, Wound with a touch that's scarcely felt or seen.”

[26] The name Cruscan was taken from the Florentine Academy, by Robert Merry, the founder of this school of mawkish and affected poetasters.

His unhappy victims were hacked and hewed in pieces in a merciless and barbarous manner; while the spectators enjoyed the savage sport, and accorded the cruel executioner a wreath of laurel for the vigor and talent displayed in his unenviable task. These satires first made Gifford's name in the world of letters. But his fame as a scholar was established chiefly on his translations of Persius and Juvenal, and his excellent editions, with valuable notes, of the early ”English Dramatists.” Speaking of Gifford's edition of Ben Jonson's dramatic and other works, John Kemble, the most accomplished actor of his day, says, ”It is the best edition, by the ablest of modern commentators, through whose learned and generous labors old Ben's forgotten works and injured character are restored to the merited admiration and esteem of the world.”

The celebrity thus obtained, along with the friends.h.i.+p of the leading Tory politicians of the day, secured for Gifford the position of editor of the _London Quarterly_. It ought to be stated that when Mr. Channing started the _Anti-Jacobin_ in 1797, Gifford was entrusted with the conduct of that journal, and had thus acquired a little experience of journalism. His connection with this paper, which came out weekly, lasted only for a year. But he managed the _Quarterly_, as we have said, for fifteen years, that is, from 1809, the date of its commencement, to 1824, when ill-health compelled him to lay his pen aside.

The plan of this new journal had originated with John Murray, the famous publisher, and had received the hearty support of Walter Scott, Egbert Southey, Canning, Rose, Disraeli, and Hookham Frere. The first number, containing three articles by Walter Scott, was published on the 1st February, 1809, and was immediately sold out, a second edition being called for. Canning wrote for the second number, and Southey became a constant and most prolific contributor. ”For the first hundred and twenty-six numbers he wrote ninety-four articles, many of them of great permanent value.”[27] At John Murray's ”drawing-rooms,” where the leading literary men of the day were wont to a.s.semble at four o'clock, Gifford met with a brilliant a.s.semblage of poets, novelists, historians, artists, and others. Murray the publisher delighted ”to gather together such men as Byron, Scott, Moore, Campbell, Southey, Gifford, Hallam, Lockhart, Was.h.i.+ngton Irving, and Mrs. Somerville; and, more than this, he invited such artists as Lawrence, Wilkie, Phillips, Newton, and Pickersgill, to meet them and paint them, that they might hang forever on his walls.”[28] It was in reference to one of Murray's ”publishers'

dinners” Byron wrote the lines in which occurs the following allusion to Gifford:

”A party dines with me to-day, All clever men who make their way; Crabbe, Malcolm, Hamilton, and Chantrey Are all partakers of my pantry.

My room's so full--we've Gifford here, Reading MS. with Hookham Frere, p.r.o.nouncing on the nouns and particles Of some of our forthcoming articles.”

[27] ”History of Booksellers.” H. Curwen. Chatto & Windus. P. 175.

[28] Ibid., pp. 180, 181.

A writer in the _Literary Gazette_,[29] who had the pleasure of Gifford's personal acquaintance, has made the following interesting notes upon his private character, and his conduct as an editor. ”He never stipulated for any salary as editor; at first he received 200, and at last 900 per annum, but never engaged for a particular sum. He several times returned money to Murray, saying 'he had been too liberal.' Perhaps he was the only man on this side the Tweed who thought so! He was perfectly indifferent about wealth, I do not know a better proof of this than the fact that he was richer, by a very considerable sum, at the time of his death than he was at all aware of. In unison with his contempt of money was his disregard of any external distinction; he had a strong natural aversion to anything like pomp or parade. Yet he was by no means insensible to an honorable distinction, and when the University of Oxford, about two years before his death, offered to give him a doctor's degree, he observed, 'Twenty years ago it would have been gratifying, but now it would only be written on my coffin.'

[29] Quoted in ”The Lives of Eminent Englishmen.”

Fullarton _&_ Co., Glasgow, 1838. Vol. viii. pp. 317, 318.

”His disregard for external show was the more remarkable, as a contrary feeling is generally observable in persons who have risen from penury to wealth. But Gifford was a gentleman in feeling and in conduct, and you were never led to suspect he was sprung from an obscure origin except when he reminded you of it by an anecdote relative to it. And this recalls one of the stories he used to tell with irresistible drollery, the merit of which entirely depended on his manner. It was simply this: At the cobblers' board, of which Gifford had been a member, there was but one candle allowed for the whole coterie of operatives; it was, of course, a matter of importance that this candle should give as much light as possible. This was only to be done by repeated snuffings; but snuffers being a piece of fantastic c.o.xcombry they were not pampered with: the members of the board took it in turn to perform the office of the forbidden luxury with their finger and thumb. The candle was handed, therefore, to each in succession, with the word '_sneaf_' (Anglice, snuff) bellowed in his ears. Gifford used to p.r.o.nounce this word in the legitimate broad Devons.h.i.+re dialect, and accompanied his story with expressive gestures. Now on paper this is absolutely nothing, but in Gifford's mouth it was exquisitely humorous. I should not, however, have mentioned it, were it not that it appears to me one of the best instances I could give of his humility in recurring to his former condition.... He was a man of very deep and warm affections. If I were desired to point out the distinguis.h.i.+ng excellence of his private character, I should refer to his fervent sincerity of heart. He was particularly kind to children and fond of their society. My sister, when young, used sometimes to spend a month with him, on which occasions he would hire a pianoforte, and once he actually had a juvenile ball at his house for her amus.e.m.e.nt.”

Speaking of the spirit he displayed as editor of the _Quarterly_, the same writer says: ”He disliked incurring an obligation which might in any degree shackle the expression of his free opinion. Agreeably to this, he laid down a rule, from which he never departed, that every writer in the _Quarterly_ would receive at least so much per sheet. On one occasion, a gentleman holding office under Government sent him an article, which, after undergoing some serious mutilations at his hands preparatory to being ushered into the world, was accepted. But the usual sum being sent to the author, he rejected it with disdain, conceiving it a high dishonor to be paid for anything--the independent placeman!

Gifford, in answer, informed him of the invariable rule of the _Review_ adding, that he could send the money to any charitable inst.i.tution, or dispose of it in any manner he should direct, but that the money must be paid. The doughty official, convinced that the virtue of his article would force it into the _Review_ at all events, stood firm in his refusal; greatly to his dismay the article was returned. He revenged himself by never sending another.”