of the old days of Maginn and other Bohemians whose
portraits are drawn in 'Pendennis.' But besides other qualities which
justified the friendship and confidence of his supporters, Cook had the
faculty of recognising good writing when he saw it. Newspapers have
occasionally succeeded by lowering instead of raising the standard of
journalism, but the 'Saturday Review' marked at the time as distinct an
advance above the previous level as the old 'Edinburgh Review.' In his
fifteen years' editorship of the 'Saturday Review,' Cook collected as
distinguished a set of contributors as has ever been attracted to an
English newspaper. Many of them became eminent in other ways. Maine and
Sir W. Harcourt were, I believe, among the earliest recruits, following
Cook from the 'Morning Chronicle.' Others, such as Professor Freeman,
Mark Pattison, Mr. Goldwin Smith, Mr. John Morley, the late Lord Justice
Bowen, and many other well-known writers, joined at different periods
and with more or less regularity, but from the first the new journal was
wanting neither in ability nor audacity.[66] Two of the chief
contributors who became close friends of Fitzjames's enjoyed a
reputation among their friends altogether out of proportion to their
public recognition. The first was George Stovin Venables. He was a
fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge. He had been a first-classman in the
Classical Tripos of 1832, when he was placed next to W. H. Thompson,
afterwards Master of Trinity. He too was an apostle and an intimate both
of Tennyson and Thackeray. Indeed, the legend ran that it was his fist
which, at Charterhouse School, had disfigured Thackeray's nose for life.
He was tall, strikingly handsome, and of singularly dignified
appearance. Though recognised as an intellectual equal by many of the
ablest men of his time, he chose paths in which little general
reputation could be won. He made a large income at the parliamentary
bar, and amused himself by contributing regularly to the 'Saturday
Review.'[67] Stories used to be current of the extraordinary facility
with which he could turn out his work, and I imagine that the style of
the new periodical was determined more by his writing than by that of
any of his colleagues. The political utterances were supposed to be
supercilious, and were certainly not marked by any fiery enthusiasm.
Venables had an objection to the usual editorial 'we,' and one result
was that the theories of the paper were laid down wit