The London University Magazine

THEY have but badly read the signs of the times, who do not perceive that a great moral revolution has commenced in the world, of which the increased influence of the press, is at once a cause and an effect; a cause, for it has generated a spirit of inquiry," whose appetite increaseth by that, which it feedeth upon;" an effect, for the new wants, that have been thus created, have opened new marts for the disposal of literary wares-demand, as usual, being followed by supply. In nothing is this more conspicuous than in periodical literature. Within the memory of man, magazines were ill-arranged miscellanies of trashy tales, that would have disgraced even the Minerva press; essays, that a well-instructed school-boy would be ashamed to own, and verses, which exhibited nothing but bad rhyme and worse reason. The reviews of the same period were equally deficient; a meagre analysis of the work, a character of it drawn up like some of the ordinary booksellers' puffs, and, sometimes, one or two general observations, constituted the substance of their articles. Essays extending the author's views of the subject, condensing and simplifying his information, which, frequently, at the present day, make the review more valuable than the original work, there were none. Criticism was the mere jargon of the Johnsonian school, and the deadly influence, which Aristotle had so long exerted, in physical and scientific inquiry, found a parallel in the authority obtained by the opinions of Doctor Johnson in the world of criticism. The Edinburgh Review first dispelled the charm. The appearance of its first number forms an era in the history of literature; it was like the onslaught of the republican armies of France on the disciplined forces of Austria and Prussia; men had obstinately persevered in one uniform system of tactics, from whose traditionary rules they dared not to depart; but a new enemy advancing, with

massive force and unequalled rapidity, broke their lines, and disorganized their strength, before they had time to execute their first hereditary manœuvre. Distinguished by vigorous intellect, original thought, and nervous diction, on it went, conquering and to conquer, until it left the worshippers of tradition and hereditary wisdom so far behind, that they had time to rally their forces, and form a fresh army in the rear of the conqueror. The Edinburgh Review had been too rapid in its progress; it had shocked too many old associations, assaulted too many prejudices, and treated with disdain too many opinions, which long habits of reverence had almost impressed with the character of sanctity. Perhaps, also, its energies were sometimes improperly directed, and its powers too ostentatiously asserted; it is not always prudent " to use the strength of a giant as a giant." To attempt an autocracy in the republic of letters, is an effort, that no literary superiority can maintain; mutual interest will teach the necessity of combining against the dictator; the literary Cæsar will always find a literary Brutus. The lovers of "things as they are "made a stand, the blue and yellow was met by the drab colour, and the Quarterly took the field. Its first proceedings were characterized by no small share of wisdom; some of the aged maxims, which they had undertaken to defend, were too absurd to be received in the present age; these they resigned without a struggle; and, in defence of the rest, they adopted many of the improvements, which their adversaries had introduced into literary warfare. The characteristic of the Edinburgh was strength; that of the Quarterly polish: the attack of the one was like the charge of soldiers, owing their success more to innate valour than to acquired discipline; the other advanced with the measured pace, the regulated step, "the pride, pomp, and circumstance" of the orderly battalion. The Edinburgh knocked out the brains of an adversary like a Cherokee, and cut him to pieces with a butcher's hatchet; the Quarterly slew with the stiletto, and dissected with the anatomist's knife. The great Whig journal, when tempted to rob a man of his character, advanced to him with the firmness of a highwayman; their Tory rival assumed a treacherous smile, and, amused him with pleasing diction, while picking his pockets.

The Quarterly, according to the established maxims of English law, had, in this respect, a decided advantage over its rival; highwaymen are hanged, pickpockets only transported: when, therefore, in any of their felonious proceedings they were so unfortunate as to grapple with 66 a rough customer," blue-and-yellow ran the risk of life, while drab colour was sure of escaping at the worst with a ducking. Byron gibbetted some half dozen of the Scotch reviewers, but, the forces of its rival have continued to escape with life and limb, from every encounter.

Two schools of criticism, entirely new, were thus formed; and, to these all the other periodicals are reducible; one preferring originality of thought to all the graces of diction, the other insisting on obedience to certain established rules, and looking more to the manner than to the matter of every work. The Magazines, with some little difference, have advanced in the same paths, Blackwood and the New Monthly being their leaders; but, it is rather remarkable that they have in some degree chosen that school of criticism, which belonged to their political opponents. Blackwood reviews in the style of the Edinburgh; the New Monthly, a more polished gentleman, prefers the elegance and graces of

the Quarterly. Not that Blackwood is destitute of grace, or its rival of vigour, but, that the strongly defined features of the former present the appearance of Hercules, while those of the latter rather remind us of the graceful Antinous. Far be it from us to depreciate their merits-to both we are indebted for much amusement and much instruction—and, we should deplore the fall of either as a great national calamity. There is, however, one great evil that has grown with the growth and strengthened with the strength of these great leaders of periodical literature,the deadly virus of PARTY-SPIRIT has sullied their pages, warped their opinions, and perverted their judgment. Of this, the instances are so numerous, that the reader's memory will supply him in abundance. It is a sad and painful spectacle to see the powers of a mighty mind directed to crush genius in the bud, to blight the opening flower, whose bloom might have delighted the world, because we meet with some immature views of religion and politics, that do not, precisely, agree with the fantastic standard adopted by party*—it is criminal to cast the youthful aspirant into the burning fiery furnace, because, he will not bow down and worship the golden image, which Nebuchadnezzar the king has set up; but, it is a crime, to which every one of the leading periodicals must plead guilty. There does, then, appear room for a Magazine, unconnected with any sect or party, neither supported by their patronage, nor oppressed by their advocacy; a Magazine whose principle is to encourage merit, wherever it may be found, and foster youthful genius, wherever it may be discovered. Literature is not, of necessity, connected either with religion or politics,who dreams of asking, whether Milton and Shakespeare were Whigs or Tories, whether they frequented the church or the meeting-house? A man of sense would deem such a question about as wise as to ask whether they wore slippers or jackboots, whether they curled their hair or cut it into a modest crop. Might not the same principle be extended to cotemporary literature? We are sure that it might: we are equally sure that it ought. But, an unmeaning outcry has been, lately, raised against institutions and publications, which do not advocate some peculiar religious principle; and, the absence of a fixed system is denounced as a symptom of Deism, Atheism, or any other ism, that the authors of the clamour deem likely to be odious. This is equally foolish and wicked. It is foolish,

* D'Israeli well delineates the proper duties and acquirements of a reviewer in the following words. "To describe the character of a perfect journalist, would only be an ideal portrait. There are, however, some acquirements which are indispensable. He must be tolerably conversant with the subjects upon which he treats; and this is by no means a common acquirement: he must possess the literary history of his own times; a science, which Fontenelle observes, is almost distinct from any other. This is the result of an active curiosity, which leads us to take a lively interest in the tastes and pursuits of the age, while it saves the journalist from some ridiculous blunders. We often see the mind of a reviewer half a century remote from the work reviewed. A fine feeling of the various manners of writers is necessary, a luminous conception, that they may be impressively intelligible, and, a style adapted to fix the attention of the indolent and to win the untractable; but candour is the brightest gem of criticism. He ought not to throw every thing into the crucible, nor should he suffer the whole to pass untouched, as if he trembled to notice it. Lampoons and satires in time will lose their effect, as well as insipid panegyrics. He must learn to resist the seductions of his own pen, the affectation of composing a treatise on the subject rather than on the book he criticises, proud that he gives in a dozen pages what the author himself has not been able to give in his whole volume. Should he gain confidence by a popular delusion and unworthy conduct, as is sometimes the case, his labours will be prejudicial to genius and to humanity."—D'Israeli's Curiosities of Literature.

« Zurück Weiter »

Books

The London University Magazine, Band 1