plebeian, aspires to aristocratic society. But I said that it was easy
to condescend, and that Bulwer knew he could not put off his rank, and
that he would have all the advantages of it in spite of his authorship.
We talked about the position of men of letters in England, and they said
that the aristocracy hated and despised and feared them; and I asked why
it was that literary men, having really so much power in their hands,
were content to live unrecognized in the State.

Douglas Jerrold talked of Thackeray and his success in America, and said
that he himself purposed going and had been invited thither to lecture.
I asked him whether it was pleasant to a writer of plays to see them
performed; and he said it was intolerable, the presentation of the
author's idea being so imperfect; and Dr. ------ observed that it was
excruciating to hear one of his own songs sung. Jerrold spoke of the
Duke of Devonshire with great warmth, as a true, honest, simple, most
kind-hearted man, from whom he himself had received great courtesies and
kindnesses (not, as I understood, in the way of patronage or essential
favors); and I (Heaven forgive me!) queried within myself whether this
English reforming author would have been quite so sensible of the Duke's
excellence if his Grace had not been a duke. But indeed, a nobleman, who
is at the same time a true and whole-hearted man, feeling his brotherhood
with men, does really deserve some credit for it.

In the course of the evening, Jerrold spoke with high appreciation of
Emerson; and of Longfellow, whose Hiawatha he considered a wonderful
performance; and of Lowell, whose Fable for Critics he especially
admired. I mentioned Thoreau, and proposed to send his works to Dr.
------, who, being connected with the Illustrated News, and otherwise a
writer, might be inclined to draw attention to then. Douglas Jerrold
asked why he should not have them too. I hesitated a little, but as he