« PreviousContinue »
THE REVEREND SYDNEY SMITH,
THE ORIGINAL PROJECTOR OF THE EDINBURGH REVIEW,
LONG ITS BRIGHTEST ORNAMENT,
AND ALWAYS MY TRUE AND INDULGENT FRIEND,
I now Wedicate this Repablication;
FROM LOVE OF OLD RECOLLECTIONS,
AND IN TOKEN
OF UNCHANGED AFFECTION AND ESTEEM.
FROM THE NEW YORK EVENING MIRROR. “The true Jeffrey whom we meet with in these volumes, presents a character somewhat of this sort :
" He was formed undoubtedly to be the first critic of the age : and of poetry, he was probably the best jud that ever lived. An intellect of the highest capacity and of a very rare order of completeness,-educated by perfect acquaintance with the best systems of metaphysical philosophy,-is, in him, pervaded and informed those moral perceptions which indeed form so invariable an adjunct of the highest kind of great understanding that they ought perhaps to be treated as merely the loftiest sort of mental qualities. His perception of truth almost an instinct, and his love of it truly conscientious. His objects, in taking up any work or subject, are appreciate and to judge; his searching and sensitive intelligence makes him sure of the former, and the soun ness of his views fits him for the other. His temper is admirable. He seems to have no prepossessions-to free from all vanity and jealousy--to possess a tone of impartiality and generous candour, almost cavalier in loftiness. He has not a particle of cant, none of the formality or pretension of professional style ; but on the ce trary, writes thoroughly like a gentleman, and with the air of perfect breeding. He inspires you with entire co fidence and a cordial liking. All his own displays are in the truest good taste-simple, easy, natural, with ambition or effort. He has the powers, the morals, and the manners of the best style of writing. There a however, hut two persons who stand so prominently before the world, that they deserve to be set for comparis with Jeffrey: they, of course are Carlyle and Macauley. We should distinguish them by saying that Macau is a good reviewer, but a sorry critic; Carlyle an admirable critic, but a miserable reviewer ; while we look Jeffrey as being at once the best critic and the best reviewer of the age.
“We must content ourselves with this brief note tending to propitiate the regard of the reader, in advar for the Lord Jeffrey; for our limits forbid extracts. Else, we could show a specimen of the most exquisite bea in composition, and of the noblest eloquence, that the literature of any age can furnish. But the strength of J frey does not lie in a paragraph, and sentences; but in the vigour, soundness and candour of the whole criticisi
STEREOTYPED BY J. C. D. CHRISTMAN & co.
C. SHERMAN & Co., PRINTERS.
No reasonable man, I suppose, could contemplate without alarm, a project for reprinting, with his name, a long series of miscellaneous papers-written hastily, in the intervals of graver occupations, and published anonymously, during the long course of Forty preceding years !—especially if, before such a suggestion was made, he had come to be placed in a Situation which made any recurrence to past indiscretions, or rash judgments, peculiarly unbecoming: I expect therefore to be very readily believed, when I say that the project of this publication did not originate, and never would have originated with me: And that I have been induced to consent to it, only after great hesitation; and not without misgivingswhich have not yet been entirely got over. The true account of the matter is this.
The papers in question are ihe lawful property, and substantially at the disposal, of the publishers of the Edinburgh Review:-And they, having conceived an opinion that such a publication would be for their advantage, expressed a strong desire that I should allow it to go out with the sanction of my name, and the benefit of such suggestions as I might be disposed to offer for its improvement: and having, in the end, most liberally agreed that I should have the sole power both of determining to what extent it should be carried, and also of selecting the materials of which it should be composed, I was at last persuaded to agree to the proposition: and this the more readily, in consequence of intimation having been received of a similar publication being in contemplation in the United States of America ;* over which, of course, I could not, under any arrangements, expect to exercise the same efficient control.
With all this, however, I still feel that I am exposed to the imputation, not only of great presumption, in supposing that any of these old things could be worth reprinting, but
of a more serious Impropriety, in thus openly acknowledging, and giving a voluntary sanction 10 the republication (of some at least) of the following pieces: And I am far from being sure that there may not be just grounds for such an imputation. In palliation of the offence, however-if such offence shall be taken-I would be leave humbly to state, First, that what I now venture to reprint, is but a small part-less I believe than a third, —of what I actually contributed to the Review; and, Secondly, that I have honestly endeavoured to select from that great mass-not those articles which I might think most likely still to attract notice, by boldness of view, severity of remark, or vivacity of expression—but those, much rather, which, by enforcing what appeared to me just principles and useful opinions, I really thought had a tendency to make men happier and better.
I am quite aware of the arrogance which may be ascribed to this statement—and even of the ridicule which may attach to it. Nevertheless, it is the only apology which I now wish to make—or could seriously think of making, for the present publication : And if it should be thought utterly to fail me. I shall certainly feel that I have been betrayed into an act, not of imprudence merely, but of great impropriety. I trust, however, that I shall not be driven back on so painful a conviction.
The Edinburgh Review, it is well known, aimed high from the beginning :-And, refusing to confine itself to the humble task of pronouncing on the mere literary merits of the works that came before it, professed 10 go deeply into the Principles on which its judgments were to be rested; as well as to take large and Original views of all the important questions to which those works might relate. And, on the whole, I think it is now pretty generally admitted that it attained the end it aimed at. Many errors there were, of course--and some considerable blunders :-abundance of indiscretions, especially in the earlier numbers; and far too many excesses, both of party zeal, overweening confidence, and intemperate blame. But with all these drawbacks, I think it must be allowed to have substantially succeededin familiarising the public mind (that is, the minds of very many individuals) with higher
Carey & Hart, Philadelphia, announced that a selection would be made from the Edinburgh Review, at the time they first published a selection of Mr. Macauley's “ Critical Miscel. lanies,” and wrote to a friend of Lord Jeffrey, soliciting a list of that writer's articles. The pub. lishers of the Review afterwards concluded to print these “Contributions," and at the author's request, forwarded a copy of the work to C. & H., from which the present edition is printed, verbatim, without abridgment. — (American Publishers.)
speculations, and sounder and larger views of the great objects of human pursuit, than had ever before been brought as effectually home to their apprehensions; and also, in permanently raising the standard, and increasing the influence of all such Occasional writings; not only in this country, but over the greater part of Europe, and the free States of America: While it proportionally enlarged the capacity, and improved the relish of the growing multitudes to whom such writings were addressed, for “the stronger meats” which were then first provided for their digestion.
With these convictions and impressions, it will not I think be expected, or required of me, that I should look back from any station--upon the part I took in originating and conducting such a work, without some mixture of agreeable feelings: And, while I seek not to decline my full share of the faults and follies to which I have alluded, I trust I may be al. lowed to take credit, at the same time, for some participation in the Merits by which these were, to a certain extent at least, redeemed or atoned for.
If I might be permitted farther to state, in what particular department, and generally, on account of what, I should most wish to claim a share of those merits, I should
certainly say, that it was by having constantly endeavoured to combine Ethical precepts with Literary Criticism, and earnestly sought to impress my readers with a sense, both of the close connection between sound'Intellectual attainments and the higher elements of Duty and Enjoyment; and of the just and ultimate subordination of the former to the latter. The praise in short to which I aspire, and to merit which I am conscious that my efforts were most constantly directed, is, that I have, more uniformly and earnestly than any preceding critic, made the Moral tendencies of the works under consideration a leading subject of discussion; and neglected no opportunity, in reviews of Poems and Novels as well as of graver productions, of elucidating the true constituents of human happiness and virtue: and combating those besetting prejudices and errors of opinion which appear so often to withhold men from the path of their duty-or to array them in foolish and fatal hostility to each other. I cannot, of course, do more, in this place, than intimate this proud claim : But for the proof-or at least the explanation of it, I think I may venture to refer to the greater part of the papers thai follow,
I wrote the first article in the first Number of the Review, in October 1802:—and sen my last contribution to it, in October 1840! It is a long period, to have persevered in wel or in ill doing! But I was by no means equally alert in the service during all the inter mediate time. I was sole Editor, from 1803 till late in 1829; and during that period was no doubt a large and regular contributor. In that last year, however, I received the great honou of being elected, by my brethren of the Bar, to the office of Dean of the Faculty of Adve cates :-When it immediately occurred to me that it was not quite fitting that the officia head of a great Law Corporation should continue to be the conductor of what might be fairly enough represented as, in many respects, a Party. Journal: and I consequently withdrew a once and altogether from the management:*—which has ever since been in such hands, a can have left those who take an interest in its success, no cause to regret my retirement But I should not have acted up to the spirit of this resignation, nor felt that I had redeeme the pledge of neutrality I meant to give by it, if I had not at the same time substantiall: ceased to contribute to, or to concern myself, in any way, with the conduct or future fortune of the Review. I wrote nothing for it, accordingly, for a considerable time subsequent t 1829: and during the whole fourteen years that have since elapsed, have sent in all bu Four papers to that work-none of them on political subjects. I ceased, in reality to be contributor, in 1829.
In a professed Reprint of former publications I did not of course think myself entitled t make (and accordingly I have not made) any change in the substance of what was original] published-nor even in the expression, except where a slight verbal correction seemed nece: sary, to clear the meaning, or to remedy some mere slip of the pen. I have not howeve held myself equally precluded from making occasional retrenchments from the papers as the first appeared, though these are mostly confined to the citations that had been given from th books reviewed—at least in the three first of these volumes: But notice, I believe, is give of all the considerable omissions—with some intimation of the reasons)-in the places wher they occur.
It will be observed that, in the Arrangement of the pieces composing this collection, have not followed, in any degree, the Chronological order of the original publications: thoug the actual date of its first appearance is prefixed to each paper. The great extent and vei
* For my own sake in part, but principally for the honour of my Conservative Brethren w! ultimately concurred in my appointment, I think it right to state, that this resignation was in r degree a matter of compromise or arrangement, with a view to that appointment :-The fact bi ing, on the contrary, that I gave no hint of my purpose, in any quarter, till after the election w over-or at all events till after the withdrawal of the learned and distinguished Person who ha been put in nomination against me, had made it certain that my return would be unanimou His perseverance, I doubt not, miglie have endangered that result: For, though considerably n junior, his eminence in the profession was, even then I believe, quite' equal to mine. But generously deferred to my Seniority.
miscellaneous nature of the subjects discussed, seemed to make such a course ineligible; and rather to suggest the propriety of a distribution with reference to these subjects. I have now attempted therefore to class them under a few general Heads or titles, with a view to such a connection: And, though not very artificially digested, or strictly adhered to, I think the convenience of most readers will be found to have been consulted by this arrangement. The particular papers in each group or division, have also been placed in the order, rather of their natural dependence, or analogy to each other, than of the times when they were respectively written. I am now sensible that, by adopting this plan, I have brought more strikingly into view, the repetitions, as well as the discrepancies and small inconsistencies, which I take to be incident to this kind of writing. But this is a reproach, or disadvantage, to which I must be content to submit: and from which I do not apprehend that I shall have much to suffer, in the judgment of good-natured readers. There are many more important matters as to which I am conscious that I shall need all their indulgence: But to which I do not think it necessary, as I am sure it would not be prudent, now to direct their attention.
Before closing this notice, there is a little matter as to which several of my friends have suggested that I ought to take this opportunity of giving an explanation. My own first impression was, that this was unnecessary; and, but for the illustrious name which is connected with the subject, I should still be of that opinion. As it is, I cannot now refuse to say a few words on it.
In the second volume of Mr. Lockhart's Life of Sir Walter Scott, there are (at page 219) several extracts from a letter of Sir Walter to Mr. George Ellis, dated in December 1808, and referring among other things to the projected establishment of the Quarterly Review: in connection with which topic, the following passage occurs—"Jeffrey has offered terms of pacification-engaging that no party politics should again appear in his Review. I told him I thought it was now too late; and reminded him that I had often pointed out to him the consequences of letting his work become a party tool. He said, he did not care for the consequences; They were but four men he feared as opponents, &c. All this was in great good humour. He has no suspicion of our Review whatever."
Now though I have no particular recollection of the conversation here alluded to, and should never dream, at any rate, of setting up any recollection of so distant an occurrence in opposition to a contemporary record of it by such a man as Sir Walter Scott-I feel myself fully warranted in saying that the words I have put in italics are calculated to convey an inaccurate impression of any thing I could possibly have said on that occasion ;-and that I am morally certain that I never offered to come under any such engagement as these words, in their broad and unqualified sense, would seem to imply. Of course, I impute no intentional misrepresentation to Sir Walter Scott. Of that he was as incapable, as I trust I am of the baseness of making the imputation. Neither can I think it possible that he should have misunderstood me at the time. But in hastily writing a familiar letter I am satisfied that he bas expressed himself inaccurately—or at least imperfectly--and used words which convey a far larger and more peremptory meaning than truly belonged to any thing I could have uttered. My reasons for this conviction I think may be stated, to the satisfaction even of those to whom the circumstances of the parties may yet be unknown.
My first reason is, that I most certainly had no power to come under any such engagement, without the consent of the original and leading Contributors,—from whom no such consent could then have been expected. I was not the Proprietor of the work—nor the representative, in any sense, of the proprietors—but merely the chosen (and removeable) manager for the leading contributors; the greater part of whom certainly then looked upon the Political influence of the Review, as that which gave it its chief value and importance. This condition of things was matter of notoriety at Edinburgh at the time. But at all events nobody was more thoroughly aware of it than Sir Walter Scott. He has himself mentioned, in the passage already quoted, that he had frequently before remonstrated with me on what he thought the intemperate tone of some our political articles: and though I generally made the best defence I could for them, I distinctly remember more than one occasion on which, after admitting that the youthful ardour of some of our associates had carried them farther than I could approve of, I begged him to consider that it was quite impossible for me always to repress this and to remember that I was but a Feudal monarch, who had but a slender control over his greater Barons—and really could not prevent them from occasionally waging a little private war, upon griefs or resentments of their own. I am as certain of having repeatedly expressed this sentiment, and used this illustration to Sir Walter Scott, as I am of my own existence.
But in the next place it requires no precise recollection of words or occasions, to enable me now to say, that, neither in 1808, nor for long periods before and after, did my party principles (or prejudices or predilections) sit so loosely upon me, as that I should ever have agreed to lay them aside, or to desist from their assertion, merely to secure the assistance of a contributor (however distinguished), to what would then have been a mere literary undertaking. For the value I then set on those principles I may still venture to refer to twenty-five years spent as their uncompromising advocate—at the hazard at least, if not to the injury, of my personal and professional interests. I have no wish at this moment to recall the particulars of that advocacy: But I think I may safely say that if, in December