extent of Lamb's liking for a poor and able man, whom I knew well for at
least forty years. I know that at one time Lamb valued him, and that he
always thought highly of his intellect, as indeed he has testified in his
famous remonstrance to Southey. And in Mr. Hunt's autobiography I find
abundant evidence of his admiration for Lamb, in a generous eulogy upon
him.

Charles Lamb, William Hazlitt, and Leigh Hunt, formed a remarkable trio of
men, each of whom was decidedly different from the others. Only one of
them (Hunt) cared much for praise. Hazlitt's sole ambition was to sell his
essays, which he rated scarcely beyond their marketable value; and Lamb
saw enough of the manner in which praise and censure were at that time
distributed, to place any high value on immediate success. Of posterity
neither of them thought. Leigh Hunt, from temperament, was more alive to
pleasant influences (sunshine, freedom for work, rural walks,
complimentary words) than the others. Hazlitt cared little for these
things; a fierce argument or a well-contested game at rackets was more to
his taste; whilst Lamb's pleasures (except, perhaps, from his pipe) lay
amongst the books of the old English writers. His soul delighted in
communion with ancient generations, more especially with men who had been
unjustly forgotten. Hazlitt's mind attached itself to abstract subjects;
Lamb's was more practical, and embraced men. Hunt was somewhat indifferent
to persons as well as to things, except in the cases of Shelley and Keats,
and his own family; yet he liked poetry and poetical subjects. Hazlitt
(who was ordinarily very shy) was the best talker of the three. Lamb said
the most pithy and brilliant things. Hunt displayed the most ingenuity.
All three sympathized often with the same persons or the same books; and
this, no doubt, cemented the intimacy that existed between them for so
many years. Moreover, each of them understood the others, and placed just
value on their objections when any difference of opinion (not infrequent)