August 19, 2025 • 29 mins
In Spirit of the Age; Or, Contemporary Portraits, William Hazlitt masterfully captures the essence of his era through insightful monographs on a constellation of literary luminaries. Meet the likes of Jeremy Bentham, the architect of utilitarian philosophy, and William Godwin, who elevated morality beyond human reach. Delve into the minds of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, Edward Irving, and Sir Walter Scott, as Hazlitt reveals their distinct contributions to literature and society. From the eloquence of Thomas Campbell, known for Pleasures of Hope, to the impactful thoughts of William Wordsworth and Thomas Malthus, Hazlitt provides a vivid portrayal of his contemporaries. Engaging comparisons between the works of Charles Lamb and Washington Irving further enrich this collection, making it a fascinating exploration of the literary landscape of his time. Summary by Craig Campbell.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Chapter thirteen of the Spirit of the Age or Contemporary
Portraits by William Hazlett. This is a LibriVox recording. All
LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information
or to volunteer, please visit librevox dot org. Chapter thirteen,
(00:23):
Francis Jeffrey. The Quarterly Review arose out of the Edinburgh,
not as a corollary, but in contradiction to it. An
article appeared in the latter, on Don Pedro Savalos, which
stung the chorries to the quick by the free way
(00:44):
in which it spoke of men and things. And something
must be done to check these escapades of the Edinburgh.
It was not to be endured that the truth should
out in this manner, even occasionally and in jest. A
startling shock was thus given to established prejudices. The mask
(01:07):
was taken off from grave hypocrisy, and the most serious
consequences were to be apprehended. The persons who wrote and
this Review seemed to have their hands full of truths,
and now and then, in a fit of spleen or gaiety,
let some of them fly. And while this practice continued,
(01:27):
it was impossible to say that the monarchy or the
hierarchy was safe. Some of the arrows glanced, others might
stick and in the end prove fatal. It was not
the principles of the Edinburgh Review, but the spirit that
was looked at with jealousy and alarm. The principles were
(01:48):
by no means decidedly hostile to existing institutions, but the
spirit was that of fair and free discussion. A field
was open to argument and wit. Every question was tried
upon its own ostensible merits, and there was no fault play.
The tone was that of a studied impartiality, which many
(02:10):
called trimming, or of a skeptical indifference. This tone of
impartiality and indifference, however, did not at all suit those
who profited or existed by abuses, who breathed the very
air of corruption. They know well enough that those who
are not for them are against them. They wanted a
(02:33):
publication impervious like to truth and candor, that hood winked itself,
should lead public opinion blindfold, that should stick at nothing
to serve the turn of a party that should be
the exclusive organ of prejudice, the sordid tool of power,
that should go the whole length of want of principle
(02:55):
in palliating every dishonest measure of want of decilancy, in
defaming every honest man that should prejudge every question, produce
every opponent that should give no quarter to fair inquiry,
or liberal sentiment, that should be ugly all over with hypocrisy,
(03:17):
and present one foul blotch of servility, intolerance, falsehood, spite
and ill manners. The Quarterly Review was accordingly set up
sithence no fairy lights, no quackoning ray, nor stir of pulse,
nor object to entice abroad the spirits, but the poistered
(03:41):
heart sits glat at home like pagod in a niche obscure.
This event was accordingly hailed, and the omen has been
fulfilled as a great relief to all those of His
Majesty's subjects who are firmly convinced that the only way
of having things remain exactly as they are is to
(04:04):
put a stop to all inquiries, whether they are right
or wrong, and that if you cannot answer a man's argument,
you may at least try to take away his character.
We do not implicitly bow to the political opinions, nor
to the critical decisions of the Edinburgh Review, but we
(04:24):
must do justice to the talent with which they are
supported and to the tone of manly explicitness in which
they are delivered. Footnote. The style of philosophical criticism, which
has been the boast of the Edinburgh Review, was first
introduced into the Monthly Review about the year seventeen ninety
(04:46):
six in a series of articles by mister William Taylor
of Norwich and of footnote. They are eminently characteristic of
the spirit of the age, as it is the express
object of the Quarterly Review to discountenance and extinguish that spirit,
(05:06):
both in theory and practice. The Edinburgh Review stands upon
the ground of opinion. It asserts the supremacy of intellect.
The pre eminence it claims, is from an acknowledged superiority
of talent and information and literary attainment. And it does
(05:27):
not build one tittle of its influence on ignorance or prejudice,
or authority or personal malevolence. It takes up a question
and argues it pro and con with great knowledge and
boldness and skill. It points out an absurdity and runs
it down fairly, and according to the evidence educed in
(05:51):
the former case. Its conclusions may be wrong. There may
be a bias in the mind of the writer, but
he states the arguments and circumstances on both sides from
which a judgment is to be formed. It is not
his cue. He has neither the effrontery nor the meanness
to falsify facts or to suppress objections. In the latter case,
(06:14):
or where a vein of sarcasm or irony is resorted to,
the ridicule is not barbed by some illusion false or
true to private history. The object of it has brought
the infliction on himself by some literary folly or political delinquency,
which is referred to as the understood and justifiable provocation.
(06:38):
Instead of being held up to scorn as a knave
for not being a tool, or as a blockhead for
thinking for himself. In the Edinburgh Review, the talents of
those on the opposite side are always extolled planore in
the Quarterly Review. They are denied altogether, and the justice
(06:59):
that is in this way withheld from them is compensated
by a proportionable supply of personal abuse. A man of
genius who is a lord and who publishes with mister
Murray may now and then stand as good a chance
as a lord who is not a man of genius,
and who publishes with monsieurs longman. But this is the
(07:23):
utmost extent of the impartiality of the Quarterly. From its account,
you would take Lord Byron and mister Stewart Rose for
two very petty poets. But mister Morris Magdalene Muse is
sent to Bradwell without mercy to beat him in silt stockings.
In the Quarterly, nothing is regarded but the political creed
(07:47):
or external circumstances of the writer. In the Edinburgh nothing
is ever averted to but his literary merits. Or if
there is a bias of any kind, it rises from
an affectation of magnanimity and candor in giving heaped measure
to those on the aristocratic side in politics, and being
(08:11):
critically severe on others. Thus, Sir Walter Scott is latted
to disguise for his romantic powers, without any allusion to
his political demerits, as if this would be compromising the
dignity of genius and of criticism by the introduction of
party spirit. While Lord Byron is called to a grave
(08:34):
moral reckoning. There is, however, little of the count of
morality in the Edinburgh Review, and it is quite free
from that of religion. It keeps to its province, which
is that of criticism, or to the discussion of debatable topics,
and acquits itself in both with force and spirit. This
(08:56):
is the natural consequence of the composition of the two reviews.
The one appeals with confidence to its own intellectual resources,
to the variety of its topics, to its very character
and existence as a literary journal, which depend on it
setting up no pretensions but those which it can make
(09:17):
good by the talent and ingenuity it can bring to
bear upon them. It therefore meets every question, whether of
a lighter or a graver, cast on its own grounds.
The other blinks every question, for it has no confidence
but in the powers that be, shuts itself up in
(09:39):
the impregnable fastness of authority, or makes some paltry, cowardly
attack under cover of anonymous criticism on individuals, or dispenses
its award of merit entirely according to the rank or
party of the writer. The faults of the Edinburgh Review
(09:59):
arise to the very consciousness of critical and logical power
in political questions. It relies too little on the broad
basis of liberty and humanity, enters too much into mere
dry formalities, deals too often in moot points, and descends
too readily to a sort of special pleading in defense
(10:22):
of rome truths and natural feelings. In matters of taste
and criticism, its tone is sometimes apt to be supercillous
and cavalier, from its habitual faculty of analyzing defects and
beauties according to given principles, from its quickness in deciding,
(10:43):
from its facility in illustrating its views. In this latter department,
it has been guilty of some capital oversights. The chief
was in its treatment of the lyrical ballads at their
first appearance, not in its reach of their purialities, but
in its denial of their beauties, because they were included
(11:07):
in no school, because they were reducible to no previous
standard or theory of poetical excellence. For this, however, considerable
reparation has been made by the prompt and liberal spirit
that has been shown in bringing forward other examples of
poetical genius. Its capital sin, in a doctrinal point of view,
(11:30):
has been we shrewdly suspect in the uniform and unqualified
encouragement it has bestowed on mister Malthus's system. We do
not mean that the Edinburgh Review was to join in
the general hue and cry that was raised against this writer.
But while it asserted the soundness of many of his
(11:52):
arguments and yielded its assent to the truths he has divulged,
it need not have screened his errors. On this subject alone,
we think the Quarterly has the advantage of it. But
as the Quarterly Review is a mere mass and tissue
of prejudices on all subjects, it is the foibo of
(12:14):
the Edinburgh Review to effect the somewhat fastidious air of
superiority over prejudices of all kinds, and a determination not
to indulge in any of the amiable weaknesses of our nature,
except as it can give a reason for the faith
that is in it. Luckily it is seldom reduced to this.
(12:37):
Alternative reasons are with it as plenty as blackberries. Mister
Jeffrey is the editor of the Edinburgh Review, and is
understood to have contributed nearly a fourth part of the
articles from its commencement. No man is better qualified for
this situation, nor indeed so much so. He is certainly
(13:00):
a person in advance of the age. And yet perfectly fitted,
both from knowledge and habits of mind, to put a
curb upon its rash and headlong spirit. He is thoroughly
acquainted with the progress and pretensions of modern literature and philosophy,
and to this he adds the natural acuteness and discrimination
(13:23):
of the logician, with the habitual caution and coolness of
his profession. If the Edinburgh Review may be considered as
the organ of or at alle pledged to a party,
that party is at least a respectable one, and is
placed in the middle of two extremes. The editor is
(13:45):
bound to lend a patient hearing to the most paradoxical
opinions and extravagant theories which have resulted in our times
from the infinite agitation of wit. But he is disposed
to qualify them by a number of practical objections, of
speculative doubts, of checks and drawbacks arising out of actual
(14:09):
circumstances and prevailing opinions, or the frailties of human nature.
He has a great range of knowledge, an incessant activity
of mind, but the suspension of his judgment, the well
balanced moderation of his sentiments, is the consequence of the
(14:29):
very discursiveness of his reason, but may be considered as
a commonplace conclusion is often the result of a comprehensive
view of all the circumstances of a case. Paradox, violence, nay,
even originality of conception, is not seldom owing to our
dwelling long and pertinaciously on some one part of a subject,
(14:55):
instead of attending to the whole. Mister Jeffrey either a
bigot nor an enthusiast. He is not the dupe of
the prejudices of others, nor of his own. He is
not wedded to any dogma. He is not long the
sport of any whim. Before he can settle on any
(15:16):
fond or fantastic opinion, another starts up to match it,
like beads on sparkling wine. A too restless display of talent,
A two distinguished statement of awe that can be said
for and against a question is perhaps the great fault
that is to be attributed to him, where there is
(15:37):
so much power and prejudice to contend with. On the
opposite scale, it may be thought that the balance of
truth can hardly be held with a slack or an
even hand, and that the infusion of a little more
visionary speculation, or of a little more popular indignation into
the Great Whig Review, would be an advantage both to
(15:59):
itself to the cause of freedom. Much of this effect
is chargeable less on an epicurean levity of feeling, or
on party trammels, than on real sanguineness of disposition and
a certain fineness of professional tact. Our sprightly Scotsman is
(16:20):
not of a desponding and gloomy turn of mind. He
argues well for the future hopes of mankind from the
smallest beginnings, watches the slow, gradual, reluctant growth of liberal views,
and smiling sees the alloy of reform blossom at the
end of a hundred years. While the habitual subtlety of
(16:43):
his mind makes him perceive decided advantages, where vulgar ignorance
or passion sees only doubts and difficulties, and a flaw
in an adversary's argument stands him instead of the shout
of a mob, the votes of a majority, or the
fate of a pitched battle. The editor is satisfied with
(17:07):
his own conclusions and does not make himself uneasy about
the fate of mankind. The issue he thinks will verify
his moderate and well founded expectations. We believe also that
late events have given a more decided turn to mister
Jeffrey's mind, and that he feels that, as in the
(17:27):
struggle between liberty and slavery, the views of the one
party have been laid bare with their success, so the
exertions of the other side should become more strenuous, and
a more positive stand be made against the avowed and
appalling encroachments of priestcraft and arbitrary power. The characteristics of
(17:51):
mister Jeffrey's general style as a writer correspond, we think,
with what we have here stated as the characteristics of
his mind. He is a master of the files. He
makes an exalting display of the dazzling fence of wit
and argument. His strength consists in great range of knowledge
(18:12):
and equal familiarity with the principles and details of a subject,
and in a glancing brilliancy and rapidity of style. Indeed,
we doubt whether the brilliancy of his manner does not
resolve itself into the rapidity, the variety and aptness of
his illustrations. His pen is never at a loss, never
(18:36):
stand still, and would dazzle for this reason alone. Like
an eye that is ever in motion, mister Jeffrey is
far from a flowery or affected writer. He has few
tropes or figures, still less any odd startling thoughts or
quaint innovations in expression. But he has a constant supply
(18:57):
of ingenious solutions and pertinent eggs examples. He never proses,
never grows doubt, never wears an argument to tatters, and
by the number, the liveliness and facility of his transitions
keeps up that appearance of vivacity of novel and sparkling
effect for which others are too often indebted to singularity
(19:20):
of combination or tinsel ornaments. It may be discovered by
a nice observer that mister Jeffrey's style of composition is
that of a person accustomed to public speaking. There is
no pause, no meagerness, no inanimateness, but a flow of
redundance in volubility, like that of a stream or of
(19:43):
a rolling stone. The language is more copious than select,
and sometimes two or three words perform the office of one.
This copiousness and facility is perhaps an advantage in extempore speaking,
where to sty up or break is allowed in the
discourse and where any word or any number of words
(20:05):
almost is better than coming to a dead stand. But
in written compositions it gives an air of either too
much carelessness or too much labor. Mister Jeffrey's excellence as
a public speaker has betrayed him into this peculiarity. He
makes fewer bloods in addressing an audience than any one
(20:27):
we remember to have heard. There is not a hair's
breath space between any two of his words, nor is
there a single expression, either ill chosen or out of
its place. He speaks without stopping to take breath, with ease,
with point, with elegance, and without spinning the thread of
his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument. He
(20:51):
may be said to weave words into any shape he
pleases for use or ornament, as a glass blower molds
the vitreous fluid with his breath, and his sentences shine
like glass from their polished smoothness, and are equally transparent.
His style of eloquence, indeed, is remarkable for neatness, for
(21:13):
correctness and epigrammatic point, and he has applied this as
a standard to his written compositions, where the very same
degree of correctness and precision produces from the contrast between
writing and speaking an agreeable diffuseness, freedom and animation. Whenever
(21:35):
the Scotch Advocate has appeared at the bar of the
English House of Lords, he has been admired by those
who were in the habit of attending to speeches there
as having the greatest fluency of language and the greatest
subtlety of distinction of any one of the profession. The
law reporters were as little able to follow him from
(21:56):
the extreme rapidity of his utterances as from the tenuity
and if invescent nature of his reasoning. Mister Jeffrey's conversation
is equally lively, various, and instructive. There is no subject
on which he is not off fate, no company in
which he is not ready to scatter his pearls a sport.
(22:18):
Whether it be politics or poetry, or science, or anecdote,
or wit or raillery. He takes up his cue without effort,
without preparation, and appears equally incapable of tiring himself or
his hearers. His only difficulty seems to be not to speak,
but to be silent. There is a constitutional buoyancy and
(22:42):
elexticity of mind about him that cannot subside into repose,
much less sink into dullness. There may be more original talkers,
persons who occasionally surprise or interest you, more few, if any,
with a more uninterrupted flow of cheerfulness and animal spirits,
(23:03):
with a greater fund of information, and with fewer specimens
of the batheos in their conversation. He is never observed,
nor has he any favorite point which he is always
bringing forward. It cannot be denied that there is something
bordering on petulance of manner, but it is of that
least offensive kind, which may be accounted for from merit
(23:27):
and from success, and implies no exclusive pretensions nor the
least particle of ill will to others. On the contrary,
mister Jeffrey is profuse of his encomiums and admiration of others,
but still with a certain reservation of the right to
differ or to blame. He cannot rest on one side
(23:49):
of a question. He is obliged by a mercurial habit
and disposition to vary his point of view. If he
is ever tedious, it is from the excess of life
he oppresses, from the sense of airy lightness. He is
always setting out on a fresh scent, there are always
relays of topics. The hardness is put to, and he
(24:12):
rattles away as delightfully and as briskly as ever new
causes are called. He holds a brief in his hand
for every possible question. This is a fault. Mister Jeffrey
is not obtrusive, is not impatient of opposition, is not
unwilling to be interrupted. But what is said by another
(24:33):
seems to make no impression on him. He is bound
to dispute, to answer it, as if he was in court,
where as if it were in a paltry debating society
where young beginners are trying their hands. This is not
to maintain a character or for want of good nature.
It is a thoughtless habit. He cannot help cross examining
(24:57):
a witness, or stating the adverse view of a question.
He listens not to judge, but to reply. In consequence
of this, you can as little tell the impression your
observations make on him, as what weight to assign to his.
Mister Jeffrey shines in mixed company. He is not good
at a tape to tay. You can only show your
(25:19):
wisdom or your wit in general society. But in private
your follies or your weaknesses are not the least interesting topics,
and our critic has neither any of his own to confess,
nor does he take the light in hearing those of others. Indeed,
in Scotland generally, the display of personal character, the indulging
(25:43):
your whims and humors in the presence of a friend,
is not much encouraged. Everyone there is looked upon in
the light of a machine or a collection of topics.
They turn you round like a cylinder to see what
use they can make of you, and drag you into
a dispute with as little ceremony as they would drag
(26:04):
out an article from an encyclopedia. They criticize everything, analyze everything,
argue upon everything, dogmatize upon everything. And the bundle of
your habits, feelings, humors, follies and pursuits is regarded by
them no more than a bundle of old clothes. They
(26:25):
stop you in a sentiment by a question or a stare,
and cut you short in a narrative. By the time
of night, the accomplished and ingenious person of whom we
speak has been a little infected by the tone of
his countrymen. He is too didactic, too pugnacious, too full
of electrical shocks, too much like a votaic battery, and
(26:49):
reposes too little on his own excellent good sense, his
own love of ease, his cordial frankness of disposition, and
unaffected candor he ought to have belonged to us. The
severest of critics, as he has been sometimes turned, is
(27:10):
the best natured of men. Whatever there may be of
wavering or indecision in mister Jeffrey's reasoning, or of harshness
in his critical decisions, in his disposition, there is nothing
but simplicity and kindness. He is a person that no
one knows without esteeming, and to both in his public
(27:33):
connections and private friendships, shows the same manly uprightness and
unbiased independence of spirit. At a distance in his writings
or even in his manner, there may be something to
excite a little uneasiness and apprehension in his conduct, there
is nothing to accept against. He is a person of
(27:57):
strict integrity himself, without pretense or affectation, and knows how
to respect this quality in others without prudery or intolerance.
He can censure a friend or a stranger, and serve
him effectually. At the same time, he expresses his disapprobation,
(28:17):
but not as an excuse for closing up the avenues
of his liberality. He is a scotchman without one particle
of hypocrisy, of a civility or selfishness. In his composition.
He has not been spoiled by fortune, has not been
tempted by power. Is firm without violence, friendly without weakness,
(28:41):
a critic and even tempered, a causist and an honest man,
And amidst the toils of his profession and the destructions
of the world, retains the gaiety, the unpretending carelessness and
simplicity of youth. Mister Jeffrey in his person is slight.
It's a confidence of much expression, and a voice of
(29:05):
great flexibility and acuteness of tone. End of Chapter thirteen.
Chapter thirteen of the Spirit of the Age or Contemporary
Portraits by William Hazlett. This is a LibriVox recording. All
LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information
or to volunteer, please visit librevox dot org. Chapter thirteen,
(00:23):
Francis Jeffrey. The Quarterly Review arose out of the Edinburgh,
not as a corollary, but in contradiction to it. An
article appeared in the latter, on Don Pedro Savalos, which
stung the chorries to the quick by the free way
(00:44):
in which it spoke of men and things. And something
must be done to check these escapades of the Edinburgh.
It was not to be endured that the truth should
out in this manner, even occasionally and in jest. A
startling shock was thus given to established prejudices. The mask
(01:07):
was taken off from grave hypocrisy, and the most serious
consequences were to be apprehended. The persons who wrote and
this Review seemed to have their hands full of truths,
and now and then, in a fit of spleen or gaiety,
let some of them fly. And while this practice continued,
(01:27):
it was impossible to say that the monarchy or the
hierarchy was safe. Some of the arrows glanced, others might
stick and in the end prove fatal. It was not
the principles of the Edinburgh Review, but the spirit that
was looked at with jealousy and alarm. The principles were
(01:48):
by no means decidedly hostile to existing institutions, but the
spirit was that of fair and free discussion. A field
was open to argument and wit. Every question was tried
upon its own ostensible merits, and there was no fault play.
The tone was that of a studied impartiality, which many
(02:10):
called trimming, or of a skeptical indifference. This tone of
impartiality and indifference, however, did not at all suit those
who profited or existed by abuses, who breathed the very
air of corruption. They know well enough that those who
are not for them are against them. They wanted a
(02:33):
publication impervious like to truth and candor, that hood winked itself,
should lead public opinion blindfold, that should stick at nothing
to serve the turn of a party that should be
the exclusive organ of prejudice, the sordid tool of power,
that should go the whole length of want of principle
(02:55):
in palliating every dishonest measure of want of decilancy, in
defaming every honest man that should prejudge every question, produce
every opponent that should give no quarter to fair inquiry,
or liberal sentiment, that should be ugly all over with hypocrisy,
(03:17):
and present one foul blotch of servility, intolerance, falsehood, spite
and ill manners. The Quarterly Review was accordingly set up
sithence no fairy lights, no quackoning ray, nor stir of pulse,
nor object to entice abroad the spirits, but the poistered
(03:41):
heart sits glat at home like pagod in a niche obscure.
This event was accordingly hailed, and the omen has been
fulfilled as a great relief to all those of His
Majesty's subjects who are firmly convinced that the only way
of having things remain exactly as they are is to
(04:04):
put a stop to all inquiries, whether they are right
or wrong, and that if you cannot answer a man's argument,
you may at least try to take away his character.
We do not implicitly bow to the political opinions, nor
to the critical decisions of the Edinburgh Review, but we
(04:24):
must do justice to the talent with which they are
supported and to the tone of manly explicitness in which
they are delivered. Footnote. The style of philosophical criticism, which
has been the boast of the Edinburgh Review, was first
introduced into the Monthly Review about the year seventeen ninety
(04:46):
six in a series of articles by mister William Taylor
of Norwich and of footnote. They are eminently characteristic of
the spirit of the age, as it is the express
object of the Quarterly Review to discountenance and extinguish that spirit,
(05:06):
both in theory and practice. The Edinburgh Review stands upon
the ground of opinion. It asserts the supremacy of intellect.
The pre eminence it claims, is from an acknowledged superiority
of talent and information and literary attainment. And it does
(05:27):
not build one tittle of its influence on ignorance or prejudice,
or authority or personal malevolence. It takes up a question
and argues it pro and con with great knowledge and
boldness and skill. It points out an absurdity and runs
it down fairly, and according to the evidence educed in
(05:51):
the former case. Its conclusions may be wrong. There may
be a bias in the mind of the writer, but
he states the arguments and circumstances on both sides from
which a judgment is to be formed. It is not
his cue. He has neither the effrontery nor the meanness
to falsify facts or to suppress objections. In the latter case,
(06:14):
or where a vein of sarcasm or irony is resorted to,
the ridicule is not barbed by some illusion false or
true to private history. The object of it has brought
the infliction on himself by some literary folly or political delinquency,
which is referred to as the understood and justifiable provocation.
(06:38):
Instead of being held up to scorn as a knave
for not being a tool, or as a blockhead for
thinking for himself. In the Edinburgh Review, the talents of
those on the opposite side are always extolled planore in
the Quarterly Review. They are denied altogether, and the justice
(06:59):
that is in this way withheld from them is compensated
by a proportionable supply of personal abuse. A man of
genius who is a lord and who publishes with mister
Murray may now and then stand as good a chance
as a lord who is not a man of genius,
and who publishes with monsieurs longman. But this is the
(07:23):
utmost extent of the impartiality of the Quarterly. From its account,
you would take Lord Byron and mister Stewart Rose for
two very petty poets. But mister Morris Magdalene Muse is
sent to Bradwell without mercy to beat him in silt stockings.
In the Quarterly, nothing is regarded but the political creed
(07:47):
or external circumstances of the writer. In the Edinburgh nothing
is ever averted to but his literary merits. Or if
there is a bias of any kind, it rises from
an affectation of magnanimity and candor in giving heaped measure
to those on the aristocratic side in politics, and being
(08:11):
critically severe on others. Thus, Sir Walter Scott is latted
to disguise for his romantic powers, without any allusion to
his political demerits, as if this would be compromising the
dignity of genius and of criticism by the introduction of
party spirit. While Lord Byron is called to a grave
(08:34):
moral reckoning. There is, however, little of the count of
morality in the Edinburgh Review, and it is quite free
from that of religion. It keeps to its province, which
is that of criticism, or to the discussion of debatable topics,
and acquits itself in both with force and spirit. This
(08:56):
is the natural consequence of the composition of the two reviews.
The one appeals with confidence to its own intellectual resources,
to the variety of its topics, to its very character
and existence as a literary journal, which depend on it
setting up no pretensions but those which it can make
(09:17):
good by the talent and ingenuity it can bring to
bear upon them. It therefore meets every question, whether of
a lighter or a graver, cast on its own grounds.
The other blinks every question, for it has no confidence
but in the powers that be, shuts itself up in
(09:39):
the impregnable fastness of authority, or makes some paltry, cowardly
attack under cover of anonymous criticism on individuals, or dispenses
its award of merit entirely according to the rank or
party of the writer. The faults of the Edinburgh Review
(09:59):
arise to the very consciousness of critical and logical power
in political questions. It relies too little on the broad
basis of liberty and humanity, enters too much into mere
dry formalities, deals too often in moot points, and descends
too readily to a sort of special pleading in defense
(10:22):
of rome truths and natural feelings. In matters of taste
and criticism, its tone is sometimes apt to be supercillous
and cavalier, from its habitual faculty of analyzing defects and
beauties according to given principles, from its quickness in deciding,
(10:43):
from its facility in illustrating its views. In this latter department,
it has been guilty of some capital oversights. The chief
was in its treatment of the lyrical ballads at their
first appearance, not in its reach of their purialities, but
in its denial of their beauties, because they were included
(11:07):
in no school, because they were reducible to no previous
standard or theory of poetical excellence. For this, however, considerable
reparation has been made by the prompt and liberal spirit
that has been shown in bringing forward other examples of
poetical genius. Its capital sin, in a doctrinal point of view,
(11:30):
has been we shrewdly suspect in the uniform and unqualified
encouragement it has bestowed on mister Malthus's system. We do
not mean that the Edinburgh Review was to join in
the general hue and cry that was raised against this writer.
But while it asserted the soundness of many of his
(11:52):
arguments and yielded its assent to the truths he has divulged,
it need not have screened his errors. On this subject alone,
we think the Quarterly has the advantage of it. But
as the Quarterly Review is a mere mass and tissue
of prejudices on all subjects, it is the foibo of
(12:14):
the Edinburgh Review to effect the somewhat fastidious air of
superiority over prejudices of all kinds, and a determination not
to indulge in any of the amiable weaknesses of our nature,
except as it can give a reason for the faith
that is in it. Luckily it is seldom reduced to this.
(12:37):
Alternative reasons are with it as plenty as blackberries. Mister
Jeffrey is the editor of the Edinburgh Review, and is
understood to have contributed nearly a fourth part of the
articles from its commencement. No man is better qualified for
this situation, nor indeed so much so. He is certainly
(13:00):
a person in advance of the age. And yet perfectly fitted,
both from knowledge and habits of mind, to put a
curb upon its rash and headlong spirit. He is thoroughly
acquainted with the progress and pretensions of modern literature and philosophy,
and to this he adds the natural acuteness and discrimination
(13:23):
of the logician, with the habitual caution and coolness of
his profession. If the Edinburgh Review may be considered as
the organ of or at alle pledged to a party,
that party is at least a respectable one, and is
placed in the middle of two extremes. The editor is
(13:45):
bound to lend a patient hearing to the most paradoxical
opinions and extravagant theories which have resulted in our times
from the infinite agitation of wit. But he is disposed
to qualify them by a number of practical objections, of
speculative doubts, of checks and drawbacks arising out of actual
(14:09):
circumstances and prevailing opinions, or the frailties of human nature.
He has a great range of knowledge, an incessant activity
of mind, but the suspension of his judgment, the well
balanced moderation of his sentiments, is the consequence of the
(14:29):
very discursiveness of his reason, but may be considered as
a commonplace conclusion is often the result of a comprehensive
view of all the circumstances of a case. Paradox, violence, nay,
even originality of conception, is not seldom owing to our
dwelling long and pertinaciously on some one part of a subject,
(14:55):
instead of attending to the whole. Mister Jeffrey either a
bigot nor an enthusiast. He is not the dupe of
the prejudices of others, nor of his own. He is
not wedded to any dogma. He is not long the
sport of any whim. Before he can settle on any
(15:16):
fond or fantastic opinion, another starts up to match it,
like beads on sparkling wine. A too restless display of talent,
A two distinguished statement of awe that can be said
for and against a question is perhaps the great fault
that is to be attributed to him, where there is
(15:37):
so much power and prejudice to contend with. On the
opposite scale, it may be thought that the balance of
truth can hardly be held with a slack or an
even hand, and that the infusion of a little more
visionary speculation, or of a little more popular indignation into
the Great Whig Review, would be an advantage both to
(15:59):
itself to the cause of freedom. Much of this effect
is chargeable less on an epicurean levity of feeling, or
on party trammels, than on real sanguineness of disposition and
a certain fineness of professional tact. Our sprightly Scotsman is
(16:20):
not of a desponding and gloomy turn of mind. He
argues well for the future hopes of mankind from the
smallest beginnings, watches the slow, gradual, reluctant growth of liberal views,
and smiling sees the alloy of reform blossom at the
end of a hundred years. While the habitual subtlety of
(16:43):
his mind makes him perceive decided advantages, where vulgar ignorance
or passion sees only doubts and difficulties, and a flaw
in an adversary's argument stands him instead of the shout
of a mob, the votes of a majority, or the
fate of a pitched battle. The editor is satisfied with
(17:07):
his own conclusions and does not make himself uneasy about
the fate of mankind. The issue he thinks will verify
his moderate and well founded expectations. We believe also that
late events have given a more decided turn to mister
Jeffrey's mind, and that he feels that, as in the
(17:27):
struggle between liberty and slavery, the views of the one
party have been laid bare with their success, so the
exertions of the other side should become more strenuous, and
a more positive stand be made against the avowed and
appalling encroachments of priestcraft and arbitrary power. The characteristics of
(17:51):
mister Jeffrey's general style as a writer correspond, we think,
with what we have here stated as the characteristics of
his mind. He is a master of the files. He
makes an exalting display of the dazzling fence of wit
and argument. His strength consists in great range of knowledge
(18:12):
and equal familiarity with the principles and details of a subject,
and in a glancing brilliancy and rapidity of style. Indeed,
we doubt whether the brilliancy of his manner does not
resolve itself into the rapidity, the variety and aptness of
his illustrations. His pen is never at a loss, never
(18:36):
stand still, and would dazzle for this reason alone. Like
an eye that is ever in motion, mister Jeffrey is
far from a flowery or affected writer. He has few
tropes or figures, still less any odd startling thoughts or
quaint innovations in expression. But he has a constant supply
(18:57):
of ingenious solutions and pertinent eggs examples. He never proses,
never grows doubt, never wears an argument to tatters, and
by the number, the liveliness and facility of his transitions
keeps up that appearance of vivacity of novel and sparkling
effect for which others are too often indebted to singularity
(19:20):
of combination or tinsel ornaments. It may be discovered by
a nice observer that mister Jeffrey's style of composition is
that of a person accustomed to public speaking. There is
no pause, no meagerness, no inanimateness, but a flow of
redundance in volubility, like that of a stream or of
(19:43):
a rolling stone. The language is more copious than select,
and sometimes two or three words perform the office of one.
This copiousness and facility is perhaps an advantage in extempore speaking,
where to sty up or break is allowed in the
discourse and where any word or any number of words
(20:05):
almost is better than coming to a dead stand. But
in written compositions it gives an air of either too
much carelessness or too much labor. Mister Jeffrey's excellence as
a public speaker has betrayed him into this peculiarity. He
makes fewer bloods in addressing an audience than any one
(20:27):
we remember to have heard. There is not a hair's
breath space between any two of his words, nor is
there a single expression, either ill chosen or out of
its place. He speaks without stopping to take breath, with ease,
with point, with elegance, and without spinning the thread of
his verbosity finer than the staple of his argument. He
(20:51):
may be said to weave words into any shape he
pleases for use or ornament, as a glass blower molds
the vitreous fluid with his breath, and his sentences shine
like glass from their polished smoothness, and are equally transparent.
His style of eloquence, indeed, is remarkable for neatness, for
(21:13):
correctness and epigrammatic point, and he has applied this as
a standard to his written compositions, where the very same
degree of correctness and precision produces from the contrast between
writing and speaking an agreeable diffuseness, freedom and animation. Whenever
(21:35):
the Scotch Advocate has appeared at the bar of the
English House of Lords, he has been admired by those
who were in the habit of attending to speeches there
as having the greatest fluency of language and the greatest
subtlety of distinction of any one of the profession. The
law reporters were as little able to follow him from
(21:56):
the extreme rapidity of his utterances as from the tenuity
and if invescent nature of his reasoning. Mister Jeffrey's conversation
is equally lively, various, and instructive. There is no subject
on which he is not off fate, no company in
which he is not ready to scatter his pearls a sport.
(22:18):
Whether it be politics or poetry, or science, or anecdote,
or wit or raillery. He takes up his cue without effort,
without preparation, and appears equally incapable of tiring himself or
his hearers. His only difficulty seems to be not to speak,
but to be silent. There is a constitutional buoyancy and
(22:42):
elexticity of mind about him that cannot subside into repose,
much less sink into dullness. There may be more original talkers,
persons who occasionally surprise or interest you, more few, if any,
with a more uninterrupted flow of cheerfulness and animal spirits,
(23:03):
with a greater fund of information, and with fewer specimens
of the batheos in their conversation. He is never observed,
nor has he any favorite point which he is always
bringing forward. It cannot be denied that there is something
bordering on petulance of manner, but it is of that
least offensive kind, which may be accounted for from merit
(23:27):
and from success, and implies no exclusive pretensions nor the
least particle of ill will to others. On the contrary,
mister Jeffrey is profuse of his encomiums and admiration of others,
but still with a certain reservation of the right to
differ or to blame. He cannot rest on one side
(23:49):
of a question. He is obliged by a mercurial habit
and disposition to vary his point of view. If he
is ever tedious, it is from the excess of life
he oppresses, from the sense of airy lightness. He is
always setting out on a fresh scent, there are always
relays of topics. The hardness is put to, and he
(24:12):
rattles away as delightfully and as briskly as ever new
causes are called. He holds a brief in his hand
for every possible question. This is a fault. Mister Jeffrey
is not obtrusive, is not impatient of opposition, is not
unwilling to be interrupted. But what is said by another
(24:33):
seems to make no impression on him. He is bound
to dispute, to answer it, as if he was in court,
where as if it were in a paltry debating society
where young beginners are trying their hands. This is not
to maintain a character or for want of good nature.
It is a thoughtless habit. He cannot help cross examining
(24:57):
a witness, or stating the adverse view of a question.
He listens not to judge, but to reply. In consequence
of this, you can as little tell the impression your
observations make on him, as what weight to assign to his.
Mister Jeffrey shines in mixed company. He is not good
at a tape to tay. You can only show your
(25:19):
wisdom or your wit in general society. But in private
your follies or your weaknesses are not the least interesting topics,
and our critic has neither any of his own to confess,
nor does he take the light in hearing those of others. Indeed,
in Scotland generally, the display of personal character, the indulging
(25:43):
your whims and humors in the presence of a friend,
is not much encouraged. Everyone there is looked upon in
the light of a machine or a collection of topics.
They turn you round like a cylinder to see what
use they can make of you, and drag you into
a dispute with as little ceremony as they would drag
(26:04):
out an article from an encyclopedia. They criticize everything, analyze everything,
argue upon everything, dogmatize upon everything. And the bundle of
your habits, feelings, humors, follies and pursuits is regarded by
them no more than a bundle of old clothes. They
(26:25):
stop you in a sentiment by a question or a stare,
and cut you short in a narrative. By the time
of night, the accomplished and ingenious person of whom we
speak has been a little infected by the tone of
his countrymen. He is too didactic, too pugnacious, too full
of electrical shocks, too much like a votaic battery, and
(26:49):
reposes too little on his own excellent good sense, his
own love of ease, his cordial frankness of disposition, and
unaffected candor he ought to have belonged to us. The
severest of critics, as he has been sometimes turned, is
(27:10):
the best natured of men. Whatever there may be of
wavering or indecision in mister Jeffrey's reasoning, or of harshness
in his critical decisions, in his disposition, there is nothing
but simplicity and kindness. He is a person that no
one knows without esteeming, and to both in his public
(27:33):
connections and private friendships, shows the same manly uprightness and
unbiased independence of spirit. At a distance in his writings
or even in his manner, there may be something to
excite a little uneasiness and apprehension in his conduct, there
is nothing to accept against. He is a person of
(27:57):
strict integrity himself, without pretense or affectation, and knows how
to respect this quality in others without prudery or intolerance.
He can censure a friend or a stranger, and serve
him effectually. At the same time, he expresses his disapprobation,
(28:17):
but not as an excuse for closing up the avenues
of his liberality. He is a scotchman without one particle
of hypocrisy, of a civility or selfishness. In his composition.
He has not been spoiled by fortune, has not been
tempted by power. Is firm without violence, friendly without weakness,
(28:41):
a critic and even tempered, a causist and an honest man,
And amidst the toils of his profession and the destructions
of the world, retains the gaiety, the unpretending carelessness and
simplicity of youth. Mister Jeffrey in his person is slight.
It's a confidence of much expression, and a voice of
(29:05):
great flexibility and acuteness of tone. End of Chapter thirteen.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.