University of Virginia Library


Page 254

Attribution Analyses

This current examination validates Ray as a careful and knowledgeable evaluator of potential Thackeray articles. Although Ray did not provide any specifics regarding eleven of his attributions, the appropriate "echoes, parallels, and peculiarities" do exist. The 1844 and 1846 Morning Chronicle reviews of Water Color exhibitions and the 1846 review of Benjamin Haydon's Lectures on Painting and Design display Thackeray's characteristic humor, writing style, and artistic opinions. The March 1844 review of Ireland and its Rulers, since 1829 ties nicely with a Morning Chronicle reference in Thackeray's March 1844 financial records, and the opinions expressed in an April 1844 review of a travel book by D'Arlincourt are representative of Thackeray's other writings on the French and the Irish. The March 1845 review of Egypt under Mehemet Ali contains a subtle reference to Thackeray's own 1844 exploits in Egypt, and the references to "Gil Blas," "Hajji Baba," "Falstaff," and "S. Panza" in the 1846 review of Travels in the Punjab all have a Thackerayan flavor. The July 1846 review of The Gastronomic Regenerator reflects Thackeray's long-term friendship with Alexis Soyer, and the September 1846 review of Life at the Water Cure contains tell-tale pet phrases of Thackeray. Of all of Ray's attributions perhaps the late 1846 reviews of a volume of the memoirs of Madame d'Arblay (Fanny Burney) and of a brochure entitled Royal Palaces have the least overt support, but even in these cases the expressive language and opinions seem to be Thackeray's.

In fact, a case can also be built for the probable attribution of one of the articles suggested by Gulliver but not included by Ray – the July 15 and 25, 1844, two-part review of Twiss's biography of a former British Lord Chancellor, Lord Eldon. In addition to stylistic and point-of-view arguments, Gulliver supported his attribution by referring to a comment on this biography in Thackeray's Four Georges lectures. Indeed, Edgar Harden has since shown that in the mid–1850s Thackeray consulted this biography in preparation of his lecture on George IV (Harden, English Humourists 213, 266). However, there are more contemporaneous references to Twiss and/or Eldon in Thackeray's writings – as in the December 26, 1846, publication in Punch of chapter 43 of the Snobs of England, the May 1847 number of Vanity Fair, and the April 1849 number of Pendennis – which demonstrate Thackeray's intimate acquaintance with this biography (Thackeray, The Oxford Thackeray 9:444–445; 11:189; 12:367). Further, as shown elsewhere, Thackeray depended on the Morning Chronicle for roughly one-third of his income in May and June 1844, and the attribution of these reviews to Thackeray is consistent with the reasonable expectation that he would have continued to write for this needed revenue in July (Simons, Pecuniary Explication 117–118).

Attributions based solely on arguments of "style" are by their very nature suspect; however, I submit that attributions can reasonably be made on a broader basis of content, circumstances, and sometimes even cash payment records. Indeed, through a page-by-page examination of a file of the 1840s Morning Chronicle, encompassing over 400 previously unattributed literary and artistic reviews, I have identified a number of articles not previously mentioned by Ray which more than meet Ray's "echoes, parallels, and peculiarities" test. In two cases external financial data support the attribution; in other cases circumstantial


Page 255
evidence increases the likelihood of Thackeray's authorship. Accordingly, I offer ten new attributions, which collectively place more meat on the bones of the skeletal framework of Thackeray's Morning Chronicle writings. In his review of Ray's Thackeray's Contributions to the Morning Chronicle Robert Metzdorf, although concurring with Ray's verdicts, gently chided Ray for not providing the specifics of the detailed supporting arguments for his "somewhat tenuous attributions" (335–337). Accordingly, the following subsections provide individual, specific, and fully articulated rationales whose persuasiveness can be evaluated.

"The Exhibition of the Louvre," April 1, 1842. Thackeray was in Paris in the spring of 1842; and the article published in the April 1, 1842, Morning Chronicle entitled "The Exhibition of the Louvre," dated March 18 and designated as "From a Correspondent," appears to be his. According to Charles Mackay, Thackeray was a free-lance contributor of fine arts articles for the Chronicle during the early 1840s. More specifically, Thackeray attended opening day (March 15) at the 1842 Salon,4 and it would have been unlike him not to seek to profit from that exhibition by publishing a review. And the 1842 Morning Chronicle review of the exhibition at the Louvre bears striking similarities to Thackeray's 1838 Times review of the Salon. Unlike essentially all the non-Thackeray contemporary newspaper art reviews, both of these reviews are overtly humorous. Further, both articles have similar extended and personal introductions; both joke about the large number of poor-quality works exhibited; both satirize the alleged vanity of French artists; both epigrammatically attack artistic pomposity; both regard French portraits and landscapes as inferior to their English counterparts; both single out for praise the artists Biard and Winterhalter; and both are full of archetypically Thackerayan gentle mockery. Finally, this Salon review, coincident with Thackeray's last March visit to Paris of the decade, is the only independent review (not reprinted from another paper) which the Morning Chronicle published on the Salon during the entire first decade of the Victorian era.

"Exhibition of the Royal Academy," May 8 and 10, 1844. The attribution of the two Morning Chronicle art exhibition reviews published on May 8 and 10, 1844, is supported both by financial information in Thackeray's letters as well as by a detailed comparison of these articles with a Thackeray review of the same exhibition published in the June 1844 issue of Fraser's Magazine. The financial argument is straightforward. I have noted previously that Thackeray received 2.5 guineas per column for his work for the Morning Chronicle. In a letter dated June 1, 1844, Thackeray noted that he didn't "do above 20£" a month for the Chronicle; however, previous scholarship had attributed only two May 1844 articles to Thackeray which together total 4.8 columns and are thus valued at twelve and a half pounds. There are a limited number of candidates which might reasonably support Thackeray's comment, first of which is the 2.75 columns of previously unattributed May 8 and May 10 art reviews in the Morning Chronicle – articles which would bring the value of Thackeray's May Morning Chronicle writings to nearly 20 pounds, in line with his June 1 observation.


Page 256

Stimulated by this financial fit, I have elsewhere reported a detailed comparison of the Morning Chronicle reviews with Thackeray's June 1844 Fraser's Magazine article "May Gambols; or, Titmarsh in the Picture Galleries" (Simons, "'Show Me the Money'" 94–95) which is repeated here for completeness. There is an extraordinary degree of agreement with regard not only to opinion, but also to specific wordings. For example, Edwin Landseer's Coming Events cast their Shadows before is discussed in both reviews: in Fraser's Thackeray claims that the picture "perfectly chills the spectator," in the Morning Chronicle the reviewer exclaims that "your teeth begin to chatter as you look at the picture." Regarding the same painter's Shoeing, Fraser's notes that "the blacksmith only becomes impalpable"; the Morning Chronicle suggests that "the man's figure ... is somewhat unsubstantial." With regard to Turner's Rain, Speed, Steam, the Morning Chronicle columnist exclaims that the picture "actually succeeds in placing a railroad engine and train before you which are bearing down at the spectator at the rate of fifty miles an hour" and further praises the picture's "wonderful effects." In Fraser's Magazine Thackeray rhapsodizes that "there comes a train down upon you, really moving at the rate of fifty miles an hour," and adds that the means of the picture are "not less wonderful than the effects are." Fraser's Magazine praises Elmore's Rienzi addressing the People as "one of the very best pictures in the gallery"; the Morning Chronicle asserts that that picture "strikes us as being one of the best pictures in the exhibition." Fraser's argues that the subject of Poole's Moors beleaguered in Valencia is "worse than last year, when the artist only painted the plague of London"; the Morning Chronicle asserts that the subject of this work is "even more horrible than its predecessor." With regard to Herbert's Trial of the Seven Bishops, the Morning Chronicle reviewer declares that "the artist has not had fair play," while Fraser's Magazine asserts that "Painters have not fair-play in these parade pictures." A number of other similar points of comparison testify to the common authorship of the Morning Chronicle and Fraser's Magazine reviews. Yet, it should also be noted that each review also contains ideas and expressive wording that are not in its counterpart; thus, the attribution of these Morning Chronicle reviews to Thackeray meaningfully extends our knowledge of both his journalistic endeavors and his artistic criticism.

"Ellen Middleton. A Tale. By Lady Georgiana Fullerton," June 20, 1844. Thackeray often philosophized in his Morning Chronicle reviews regarding the importance of realistic writing and the proper attributes of novels. Accordingly, some introductory comments in the June 20, 1844, Morning Chronicle review of the novel Ellen Middleton are of particular interest:

We are promised at the commencement an every-day picture of life, and the artist is true to her purpose, and to an evident horror of pretence – avoids every digression, eschews sentiment, unless it comes naturally in the current of the story, shrinks even from exuberance of description, and indulges in no exaggeration of character. There is nothing to attract the reader of falsified taste, no limnings of high life or eminent persons, no piquant anecdotes, no personal satire – so untainted is it with the follies and peculiarities of our day, that it might have been written an hundred years back by Fielding, if he could have divested himself of his coarseness, or by Goldsmith in his simplest vein.


Page 257

This is so distinctively Thackeray's literary credo – including his well-documented praise for pictures of everyday life, horror of pretence, aversion to oversentimentality, disdain for exuberance of description and exaggeration of character, distaste for fashionable "high life," regard for Fielding mixed with concern for his coarseness, and admiration for Goldsmith – that it strongly suggests that Thackeray wrote that review. Those who are familiar with Thackeray's work might look askance on the comments critiquing "digression" and "personal satire," but digression was only to assert its sway in Thackeray's writings in later years, and as for "personal satire," Thackeray – perhaps with self-induced amnesia regarding the very personal attacks he had made on Bulwer – considered himself a social satirist, not a personal satirist. In an 1848 letter to Edward Chapman, Thackeray decried "a literary war in which a man descends to describing odious personal peculiarities in his rival" and added "Make fun of my books, my style, my public works – but of me a gentleman – O for shame" (Ray, Letters 2:456).

Other evidence also suggests that Thackeray is the author of this review. The reviewer writes:

[T]here is a novel of our day which "Ellen Middleton" resembles still more [than "Caleb Williams"], although the resemblance be not such as to render imitation possible. This is the "Mathilde" of Mr. Eugene Sue, a story ... portrayed with a minuteness and warmth which binds us through ever so many volumes to the heroine's fate. "Ellen Middleton" is "Mathilde" without the melodrama, without exaggeration. ... But it has the same sustained tone of passion, the same depth of interest throughout.

This comment is particularly relevant because when Thackeray read Mathilde in 1841 his first thought was likewise about the possibility of imitation (Ray, Letters 2:32). Moreover, a review of Mathilde in the July 1842 issue of Foreign Quarterly Review which is probably by Thackeray offers similar sentiments to describe that novel, referring to Mathilde's "unnaturalness," "exaggeration," and simultaneous high level of sustained "interest" and "foundation of truth and spirit." Lastly, one finds the Morning Chronicle reviewer's high praise for the author of Ellen Middleton, Lady Georgiana Fullerton, echoed in Thackeray's letters (Harden, Letters Supp. 1:583).

"Spain, Tangier, &c., visited in 1840 and 1841. By X. Y. Z," June 26, 1845. This review of a travel book is most likely by Thackeray. One might suspect that Thackeray is the author based on the reviewer's (1) repeatedly echoing Thackeray's well-known aesthetics, as in his praise that "the charm of this work is the absence of all pretence" and in its true-to-life portrayals; or (2) use of artistic terms of comparison, as frequently employed by Thackeray, i.e., the author "moralizes like a Hogarth upon scenes that are as finished as the best of Wilkie's"; or (3) ability to turn an ironic phrase, as in the reference to "that cheerless chamber in which Mr. Barry has, with a truly democratic spirit, doomed the Lords, for their sins, to sit." However, the strongest arguments for Thackeray's authorship of this review lie in two points of content which connect Catholic Spain with Thackeray's particular concerns regarding Catholic Ireland. Thackeray had written earlier that spring, in an article published June 9, 1845, in the Calcutta Star, that if England


Page 258
respected and supported the Irish Catholic church (through the Maynooth grant) then Ireland would become "the loyal kingdom of the three, rallying round the old fashioned Monarchy, the old fashioned laws, the old fashioned Conservative Catholic religion" (Summerfield 222). It is, accordingly, striking that the Morning Chronicle reviewer seizes upon precisely the same argument and quotes a lengthy like-minded extract from the book because it "is so applicable to the discussions on the Maynooth grant." Moreover, the reviewer goes on to stress the similarity between the book's comments on "The Madrid Idlers" and the Irish "incessant loungers" in Dublin and Kingston; Thackeray had discussed at length the idle "shabby sauntering people" between Kingston and Dublin in the opening pages of his Irish Sketch Book (Thackeray, Oxford Thackeray 5:5–9). Thus, style and content both suggest that Thackeray is the likely author.

"Exhibition of the Society of British Artists in Suffolk Street," March 30, 1846. In 1945, in an appendix to volume 2 of The Letters and Private Papers of William Makepeace Thackeray, Gordon Ray announced the attribution to Thackeray of Morning Chronicle reviews of the 1846 exhibitions of the Old and New Water Colour Societies and of the Royal Academy. Indeed, it is surprising that Ray did not also attribute to Thackeray the review of the exhibition of the Society of British Artists (SBA) which was published on March 30, 1846. Presumably this omission was inadvertent, since the SBA review includes evidence of Thackeray's touch, echoes his previously stated opinions, and demonstrates his particular style in the same fashion and to the same degree as do the exhibition reviews included by Ray.

The SBA review begins with an extended humorous complaint regarding exhibition crowding: the reviewer blithely notes he had to "thread a street full of countless chariots, and at the gates, to penetrate through a regiment of flunkies" and still had to "inspect a masterpiece through the tails of a gentleman's coat." Structurally, thematically, and stylistically, this introduction is vintage Thackeray. Moreover, in typical Thackeray fashion this review contains an oblique satirical comment about Benjamin Haydon, dryly acclaims "a laudable scarcity" of portraits, introduces "the veterinary college of art" as "that most popular branch of the profession," and with regard to historical pictures in deadpan fashion asserts that "The dead body of Harold is discovered in two places." I submit that this through-and-through marbling of serious art review with strands of humor is uniquely Thackerayan. Moreover, in conformity with Thackeray's previously demonstrated artistic views, this reviewer, (1) although he simultaneously criticizes "the unfortunate dirtiness of his palette," gives Frederic Hurlstone pride of place as the lead SBA exhibitor; (2) notes the arresting colors of Alfred Woolmer; and (3) praises the heads drawn by Charles Baxter.

Lastly, one should note that this March 30 review fits a pattern of essentially weekly Morning Chronicle contributions by Thackeray in the early spring of 1846 (known Thackeray articles were published on March 16, March 23, April 6, April 11, April 21, and April 27) and that it is expected that the reviewer of the Water Colour and Royal Academy exhibitions would also review the Society of British Artists exhibition.

"Londres et les Anglais des Temps Modernes. Par Dr. Buraud-Riofrey," July 24, 1846. Thackeray often mused about the inability of the


Page 259
French to understand the English. In his Punch essay "On an Interesting French Exile" (Thackeray, Oxford Thackeray 8:367–371), for example, Thackeray talks about those foreigners "who live but four hours' distance from us [the French]" visit London with but a poor understanding of the English language, and misunderstand everything they see. Thackeray's particular complaint focuses on French writers who misrepresent England. A French journalist, Ledru Rollin, wrote what Thackeray considered to be "an odious picture" of England based on hearsay: "I doubt whether the Frenchman has ever seen at all the dear old country of ours, which he reviles and curses, and abuses." According to Thackeray even G. W. M. Reynolds, author of The Mysteries of London, a penny dreadful that misrepresents English life, gave no information to Rollin.

An 1849 Punch essay entitled "Two or Three Theatres at Paris" (Thackeray, Oxford Thackeray 8:472-476) satirically plays upon the same theme using a similar example: "I have been to see a piece of a piece called the Mystères de Londres [presumably the play by Féval, not the serial by Reynolds] and most awful mysteries they are indeed. We little know what is going on around and below us, and that London may be enveloped in a vast murderous conspiracy. ..." This same theme of French failure to understand the English also runs through several of Thackeray's 1843 Foreign Quarterly Review essays.

In an 1846 Morning Chronicle review of Londres et les Anglais des Temps Modernes which contains a number of suggestive stylistic markers of Thackeray's authorship, one finds the same discussion in almost the same language:

Is it conceivable that when Paris and London are scarcely removed one day's journey from each other, that such a work as the "Mysteres de Londres" shall have obtained vogue among our neighbours as a fair representation of English life? Is it the custom of young lords to disguise themselves as policemen, for the purpose of carrying on their sentimental intrigues? Do Englishmen divide their lives between boxing and getting drunk? We give this as but one example, probably a striking one, of the misapprehension under which our neighbours lie as to Englishmen and their modes of life; but we have no hesitation in saying that such trash as this, sometimes a little better and sometimes a little worse, is the manner in which Englishmen are represented in the imaginative literature of France.

Incidentally, Thackeray argues in his review that Buraud-Riofrey is an exception to the general rule and is an accurate French reporter of English life; nevertheless, this review apparently provided Thackeray with an opportunity to give voice to one of his hobby horses.

"A Pilgrimage to the Temples and Tombs of Egypt, Nubia, and Palestine, in 1845–6. By Mrs. Romer," September 4, 1846. This critical review is Thackeray-like in its expressive diction, ironic reflections on Mrs. Romer's exaggerations, expressed weariness with obsolete romantic styles, and privileging of the human and quotidian as opposed to the exotic. The reviewer's curiosity regarding forbidden and unseen (by men) "hareems" mirrors Thackeray's comments in Notes on a Journey from Cornhill to Grand Cairo, as do the reviewer's comments on Abou Gosh and the one-eyed sheikh. Further, the reviewer's comment that "Once a man has seen the Pyramids, or the Great Horn, and the last


Page 260
account of these always becomes welcome ...," while it does not have to have been written by an Eastern traveler, certainly reads like the observation of one who has been to these places, as Thackeray himself had been in 1844. The most persuasive circumstantial evidence for Thackeray's authorship, however, comes from one of the reviewer's side comments.

Thackeray often used names in his writings to represent special qualities. In particular, Thackeray took from Byron the names Zuleikah (or Zuleika) and Medora as representing exotic women of the East, but typically with ironic implications.5 Thus, when the Morning Chronicle reviewer punctures the romance of the East with the comments that "Zuleikah is a fat matron, with corked eyebrows, who has been transferred from the Pasha to the Bey; Medora consoles herself in her lord's absence with she-buffons and inharmonious singers," I submit that there is a strong probability that Thackeray is the reviewer.

"Heidelberg. A Romance. By G. P. R. James, Esq.," September 23, 1846. From April through October 1847, under the running title "Punch's Prize Novelists," Thackeray published a series of mini-novel spoofs of the styles of several leading novelists. This series was later republished in collected form as Novels by Eminent Hands. In addition to satirizing his own writing ("Je-mes Pl-sh, Esq."), Thackeray mimicked and exaggerated the peculiarities of Edward Bulwer-Lytton ("George de Barnwell"), James Fenimore Cooper ("The Stars and Stripes"), Benjamin Disraeli ("Codlingsby"), Catherine Gore ("Lords and Liveries"), Charles Lever ("Phil. Fogarty"), and George Payne Rainsford James ("Barbazure"). In the introduction to his critical edition of "Punch's Prize Novelists" Edgar Harden has noted that this series had "clear origins in book reviews that he [Thackeray] was writing for The Morning Chronicle in 1844–1846" ("Historical Introduction" 73). Specifically: the Bulwer spoof "George de Barnwell" can be loosely paired with Thackeray's April 21, 1846, review of Bulwer's New Timon; "Stars and Stripes" mocks those aspects of Cooper's writing which Thackeray called out in his review of Cooper's Ravensnest on August 27, 1846; "Codlingsby" is a take-off on Disraeli's Coningsby which Thackeray reviewed on May 13, 1844; "Lords and Liveries" has the "careless, out-speaking, coarse, sarcastic" authorial voice that Thackeray critiqued in Gore's Sketches of English Character on May 4, 1846; and "Phil. Fogarty" displays the positive and negative attributes of Lever's writing which Thackeray noted in his April 3, 1845, review of Lever's St. Patrick's Eve. This parallelism suggests that there may well also be an as yet unattributed Thackeray Morning Chronicle review of the romance novelist G. P. R. James to serve as a prequel and source document for "Barbazure." Indeed, there is a September 23, 1846, Morning Chronicle review of James's Heidelberg. A Romance that perfectly fits that bill. This review runs in virtual lockstep with


Page 261
"Barbazure"; both begin by commenting on two cavaliers on horseback, both emphasize the melodramatic nature of the narrative and the overly romantic description of the countryside, and so on. Indeed, even if there had never been a "Barbazure," the Morning Chronicle review's joking style which mocks romance and at the same time displays an underlying affection for the work is distinctly Thackerayan; with Thackeray's established pattern of basing his literary spoofs on his prior reviews there can be little doubt that Thackeray is the author of this review.

"Exhibition of the New Society of Painters in Water Colours, Pall- Mall," April 17, 1848. On April 14, 1848, Thackeray wrote in a letter to his mother that "I am writing a little for the Chronicle and getting good pay always thinking, plunging about, thinking as usual" (Ray, Letters 2:373). Nevertheless, through the first half of that month there was little that could reasonably be associated with Thackeray. On April 17, however, an art review entitled "Exhibition of the New Society of Painters in Water Colours, Pall-Mall" was published which circumstantial evidence suggests is likely by Thackeray. In overall approach and format the article is very similar to a Thackeray article "The Exhibitions of the Societies of Water Colour Painters," which was published in the Morning Chronicle in 1846, and is unlike 1843 and 1845 Morning Chronicle exhibition reviews by other writers which are mere assemblages of ratings with little explanation. As Thackeray normally did, this reviewer begins with an extended joke – in this case referring to "a ferocious encounter conducted with the fierce pugilistic competition which distinguishes Englishmen" as having occurred at an overcrowded entry point. Artistically, there are points of equivalency in the analyses of several artists discussed in the 1848 and 1846 reviews. Thus, the 1848 review speaks of Mr. Wehnert's works as having extraordinary power and being painted with "excellent care" and adds "We remember to have seen no watercolour drawing more vigorous"; in 1846 Thackeray refers to works by that same artist as "quivering with an agony frightful to witness" and expresses no doubt as to "the power, vigour, and careful execution of the painter." Similarly, in 1846 Thackeray criticized figures drawn by Mr. Riviere; the 1848 reviewer critiques Mr. Riviere's figures for their "ugliness of countenance." Female figures by Miss Egerton are praised in both reviews. Mr. Absalon and Miss Setchel, water colorists whom Thackeray had praised as early as 1842 ([Thackeray], "An Exhibition Gossip"), receive strong praise again in the 1848 review. As a further indicator, the 1848 reviewer identifies himself as an "Eastern traveler"; he testifies to recalling similar images to those shown in a painting of Egypt and further notes that "everything is correct except the sky," which he argues has a wrong tone. Thackeray, of course, had visited Cairo in 1844, and would be one of a limited number of art critics of the era able to judge the verisimilitude of Egyptian scenes and the color of the Egyptian sky.

Other possible Thackeray reviews in the Morning Chronicle. A number of other literary reviews "sound like" Thackeray but evidence is lacking to claim attribution. Interested readers might want to examine some or all of these articles to enjoy their expressiveness, language, and sometimes humor; explore their social contents and subtexts; or make their own assessments as to authorship and significance. Some candidates are:


Page 262

"The Prize Comedy, the Committee, and the Candidates," June 17, 1844. This tongue-in-cheek review by a "quiet and easy observer" of a Punch brochure appears to be an "inside job" – and Thackeray, was, of course, the only common denominator between Punch and the Morning Chronicle. Moreover, this article's extended exaggeration of Bulwer's initials is found in several of Thackeray's literary reviews.

"King Alfred: a Poem," June 20, 1844. This review of a "Monster Epic Poem" of forty-eight books begins: "Monsters have been ere now. Men, it has been said or sung, have made monsters for and of themselves. There have been (it is whispered) women, also, who have made monsters of men. We have had monster meetings, monster speeches, monster trials, and monster traversers." I suggest this comment reflects Thackeray's sense of humor and his free-wheeling review style.

"The Story of a Feather,"July 1, 1844. This review of a Douglas Jerrold story both eloquently praises Jerrold's insight and benevolence and gently chides him for "making all the lords selfish and all the bishops luxurious." This accurately reflects Thackeray's attitude toward Jerrold and is similar in approach to known Thackeray reviews of Jerrold's work.

"Thiers' History. Histoire du Consulat, par A. Thiers," March 22, 1845. Thackeray was something of an expert on recent French history and he sought to review works of this kind. The attitudes expressed toward Thiers and French political figures reflect Thackeray's known opinions, and the style of the review is consistent with Thackeray's writings on similar subjects.

"Faucher upon England. Etudes sur l'Angleterre. Par Leon Faucher," November 24, 1845. This is an entertainingly written and thoughtful commentary on a Thackeray interest area, the French view of England. On November 28, 1845, Thackeray wrote in a letter: "The Chronicle articles are very well liked – they relieve the dullness of that estimable paper" (Ray, Letters 2:216) – this might well be the article Thackeray had in mind.

"Poems by Thomas Hood," January 13, 1846. This Morning Chronicle review praises Hood in Thackeray-like language and describes the Thackeray favorite "Bridge of Sighs" as "the most meek and touching of wails." A comparison with Thackeray's subsequent 1860 Roundabout Paper in Cornhill on Hood (Oxford Thackeray 17:460–472) reveals similarities which suggest common authorship.

"Second Love, and Other Tales, from the Note-book of a Traveller," September 3, 1846. The reviewer gently lectures the author on ways to improve his writing by making his plots more probable. The reviewer's suggestion that the author adopt "a vow to eschew gipsies for the term of his natural life" and the reviewer's satiric take on second loves both suggest Thackeray's sense of humor and literary style.

"Hochelaga; or England in the New World," September 8, 1846. This review, written during a period when Thackeray was writing a great deal for the Morning Chronicle, has several Thackeray earmarks: expressive language, humor, well-turned phrases, a love of travel, and a particular appreciation for Eliot Warburton, the book's editor and well-known Eastern travel writer.

"Lionel Deerhurst: or, Fashionable Life under the Regency. Edited by the Countess of Blessington," October 8, 1846. Although Thackeray attacked most


Page 263
silver-fork novels, he never attacked the Countess of Blessington's novels. The Morning Chronicle reviewer adroitly avoids assigning the Countess any responsibility for this bad novel in a manner consistent with Thackeray's cleverness as a writer and reflective of their close personal relationship.

"Early Travels in Palestine," October 12, 1848. This joyous satiric commentary on the fantastic travel writings of Sir John Maundeville appeared to Harold Gulliver as a likely referent for Thackeray's October 18, 1848, claim that "he had begun to blaze away in the Chronicle again" (Ray, Letters 2:442; Gulliver, Apprenticeship 144–145, 242–243). I agree.


In a letter dated March 15, 1842, Thackeray wrote "I met a friend just now in the Louvre...." See Harden, Letters Supp. 1:118.


See the 1839 Fraser's Magazine article "Our Annual Execution" (Oxford Thackeray 2:37:), the 1840 Paris Sketch Book (Oxford Thackeray 2:170), the 1846 From Cornhill to Grand Cairo (Oxford Thackeray 9:246), the 1847 Punch article "Love Songs of the Fat Contributor" (Oxford Thackeray 7:113), the 1847–1848 Vanity Fair (Oxford Thackeray 11:645), the 1848 Our Street (Oxford Thackeray 10:125); the 1848–49 Pendennis (Oxford Thackeray 12:30, 666); the 1851 Keepsake article entitled "Voltigeur" (Oxford Thackeray 10:594), and the 1851 Punch article An Ingleez Family (Oxford Thackeray 8:548).