Current:

Leader (1850-1860), 18th July 1857, Edition 2 of 2, Page 17, ^>«i x iLtlttjltttt^*

Page 17
Page 17
17 of 24

On this page

  • Departments (1)
    • ^>«i x iLtlttjltttt^*
  • Text (4)
  • Transcript

    • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

      Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

      No. 382, Jui,Y Ifi. 1857.1 The Leader. 6...

      No . 382 , Jui , y Ifi . 1857 . 1 THE LEADER . 669

      ^≫«I X Iltlttjltttt^*

      litoattttt .

      <*^^Sjss^55^^

      <*^^ SJSS ^ 55 ^^

      Our Contemporary, The Saturday Review, H...

      Our contemporary , the Saturday Review , haying taken somewhat seriously to heart the slight sketch of its character and position we gave a fortnight ago , undertakes a long and laboured reply to our brief statement in three dense columns of its laJ week ' s number . It professes itself specia ^ P ^ nd aggrieved at having been attacked at all m such a quarter ; but if the Leader is ai liberal as our contemporary generously represents ^ to be , it was surely quite natural that we should object to sectarianism and intolerance in literature as well as in politics and religion . And this was the whole point of the obnoxious sketch . We simply intimated that our contemporary s position is

      essentially a narrow and sectarian one , that its criticism was characteristically cold and negative , and that its sympathies were unpopular . But so far from questioning its right to occupy such a position , we expressly stated that , though rather Quixotic , there was much in the attempt to maintain it which interested and pleased us . Our contemporary , however , resents this general estimate of its position , and endeavours to rebut it by reiterated professions , explanations , and illustrations . But the article headed < Light Literature and the Saturday Review ; intended as a triumphant proof that we are wrong , affords decisive , though , course , unconscious and indirect evidence , that the

      representation was essentially just . Our readers may remember that after having noticed the narrow and isolated position of the paper , we touched , incidentally , on some of the causes and consequences of this . An explanation of its general character we suggested might be found in the fact , that its contributors were a clique of University men . Our contemporary censures this reference as irrelevant . " Whether the writers of this journal , " it gravely says , " are so fortunate as to be on good terms with each other , and to have enjoyed the benefit of a University education , are questions which may be of some importance to themselves , but can have but little interest for the public . " These points , however , are by no means so unimportant as our contemporary seems to think . They have a direct influence on the character of the journal , or we should not have noticed

      them . A University education , i turned to proper account , is no doubt a good thing ; but at best it only starts a man in life , and the training of the schools is only introductory to the wider education of the world . Mere University tuition may easily become an evil . If a man , after leaving college , still looks at the world from a lecture-room point of view , and converting the narrow tests of academic distinction into an absolute standard of excellence , allows his college traditions to colour his feelings , contract his views , and pervert his judgment , he is in great danger of becoming a proscr and a pedant , instead of a wise and useful member of society . Suppose a number of such men , associating continually with each other , and you have a University clique . No doubt there is

      something amiable and interesting in such a uuion . It is good and pleasant anywhere , but especially at college and amongst undergraduates , to see brethren dwelling together in unity . Nothing is more delight ful than to witness the ardent friendships that thus spring up between sets of men who are always to be f ound in each other ' s rooms ; but though interesting in a social point of view , it may be doubted whether such unions are the best schools for acquiring broad , impartial views , wide sympathies , and sound judgments . On the contrary , such exclusive intercourse tends rather to narrow than enlarge the mind . The men have their strong partialities and aversions in common ; they foster

      each other ' s literary and political loves and hates ; and amongst undergraduates there is no great harm in this . There is an evident sincerity , a freshness of enthusiasm in their passionate denunciation of popular authors , and their equally passionate defence of unknown or forgotten heroes , which gives an irresistible charm even to their extrcmest views . But if , after leaving college , they continue to associate on the same terms , cherishing each other ' s limited views and partial sympathies , after the boyish enthusiasm which made them interesting has passed away , you have a clique of cynical , nil admimri critics , instead of ardent debaters and amiable enthusiasts . Suppose such a clique to decide that their views aro important enough to possess a weekly

      organ , and you lmvc a Saturday lleoiew . Their previous training , no doubt , gives to such writers somo advantages ia discharging the duties of their new position . The article buforo us proves that the united brethren have their virtues . They arc modest , —they live on good terms witli each other , and have had a university education ; they have a patriotism more genuine than is to be found in other writers ; they thank God they arc not as other journalists aro—shallow dreamers , and vain enthusiasts—nor oven us theso poor popular writers ; thoy steer between the extremes of despotism and democracy , as the true regenerators of society . They arc benevolent—there is kindness ovcu in the severity of their paternal chastisement—they rebuke only to reform ; their ' only object' in criticising a celebrated writer has been * to load him 1 ; o form a just cstinmto of the vocation for which , nature designed liiiu . ' . Finally—they aro magnanimous : they allow that Mr . Romson is amusing , and that Mr . Ai . muvt Smith is sensible ; they have ' never denied even Mr . Jkiuiold ' s talents . ' But thoro is a rcvovso to the medal . Nothing is altogether perfect ; and ,

      notwithstanding their virtues , even Saturday Reviewe . have , as we ventured to hint , their failings and partialities like other men . "Vy e suggested that one of the natural results of our contemporary ' s position was , that it should attack popular writers and popular literature . If one journal , for instance , were notoriously more popular , and enjoyed a far wider circulation than any other , it would naturally be the object of special attack . Now the Times , with all its errors and mistakes , is admitted to reflect the popular feeling in . the main far better and more faithfully than any other journal , and scarcely a number of the Saturday Review appears in which it is not bitterly assailed . Again , if there were any author ' beyond comparison the most popular writer of the day , ' of course he would be the object of especial vituperation ; and accordingly we find that the Saturday Review pursues Mr . Dickens with a stolid

      pertinacity of attack which was at first rather inexplicable to tiiose who were ignorant of the principle on which its criticism was conducted , but which now ceases to excite surprise . Our contemporary is indignant , however , at the supposition that it attacks Mr . Dickens because he is popular , and proceeds to offer an elaborate account of ' our position' in reference to Mr . Dickens , our quarrel' with that gentleman , ' our charge' against him , ' our only object in criticising him / & c . But really the reasons offered in explanation and defence are so poor and puerile , that it is difficult , and certainly for thenown sake needless , to speak of them seriously . If they are sincerely offered , which we see no reason to doubt , this only shows what intellectual blindness as well as self-deception a false position naturally tends to produce . We shall briefly refer to the alleged grounds of attack as illustrating the general position of the Saturday Reviewers and their way of defending it .

      Tliey attack Mr . Dickens , not because he is a popular writer , but because , being so , he makes himself , as they say , * a legislator and philosopher / and thinks himself at liberty to speak on the most important subjects . This , they consider , ' little less than a crime . ' It may well be asked , Why ? Why is Mr . Dickens , or any other distinguished writer , to be prohibited from speak . ing seriously on the public questions of the day ? That because a man writes interesting books , lie should forfeit the common rights of a citizen is a dogma of the Saturday Reviewers , w hich very aptly illustrates the way in which they strain at a gnat and swallow a camel . "We do not think , " they say , in grave censure , on our having written a distinguished name without the usual prefix , " that a man forfeits the rights of society by writing books / ' but it appears that lie does forfeit the ordinary privileges of a citizen and a patriot , if he is

      unhappily guilty of writing interesting ones . But , in reality , the charge is altogether unfounded . Mr . Dickens has not come forward as a public man , 01 offered himself in the character of a legislator and political philosopher at all . With the exception of one or two speeches , the last of which was delivered some years ago , he lias taken no active part in public affairs , and steadily declined repeated invitations to do so . Had he offered himself , like Mr , Thackeray , as a candidate for a seat in Parliament , there would have been at least some colourable ground for the charge of the Saturday Reviewers , We are far from saying that he is not at perfect liberty to do this without violating any law except the capricious one framed by the Reviewers j but as the case stands , their charge is utterly baseless . Mr . Dickens has strictly confined himself within the limits of his art , in pleasantly satirizing some of the

      admitted short-comings of Government Officials . Tlie Saturday Reviewers , however , seeing much , deeper into a millstone than their neighbours , discover crime and treason , a deep-laid conspiracy to undermine the constitution , and destroy the country , in these humorous sketches . They altogether deny the right of a popular author to touch upon such subjects , which are , it would appear , sacred to Saturday Reviewers . This is another of the critical canons elaborated by the painful industry of our contemporary . Fortunately , it is as novel as it is irrational and unjust . From the days of Aristophanes till now , the follies mid vices of men in , authority have been recognized as the legitimate objects of satire for the poet , wit , or humorist of the day . With us such sketches have been specially popular , and our literature contains an amusing gallery of official incapables , from Justice Shallow and honest

      Dog-BisuRY downwards . But our contemporary decides that such sketches arc no longer tolerable , and having laid down the law , proceeds to make an example of Mr . Dickens as a notorious offender . Notwithstanding , however , the hard words , the weak , prolix reasoning , and ' damnable iteration / with which the now doctrine is enforced , wo continue to believe that a humourist is at perfect liberty to satirize , in a pleasant spirit , the weak points of existing institutions . He may do it well or ill , and that is a proper question for criticism ; but he is not to be condemned as a criminal for doing it at all . And our indignant contemporary may rest assured that justice will bo done by the critics and the public , without tho assistance of the policeman , which it seems disposed to recommend .

      But tho most ninusing part of our contemporary ' s assault on Mr . Dickens is the point at which it is chiefly made . His pleasant fiction of tho Circumlocution Ollicc is , in the eyes of the Saturday . Reviewers , the head and front ; of his offending . It is horo that tho truo 1 ) ogisbkiiy spirit comes out— -tho amusing official gravity , the stolid official zoal , the utter inability to poroeivo ajoko . They look upon tho Circumlocution Ofllco not only us a complete failure in point of wt , but as a moral and political oflonoo of tho gravest mag . nlludc . They small treason iu that * How not to do il / and think it flut perjury to call a prince ' s brother a Barnacle . Can it bo that they have a latent

  • Citation
    • Leader (1850-1860), July 18, 1857, page 17, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_18071857/page/17/