Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1855-04-13
The Transcript ON Charles Summer.

The Transcripts on Charles Summer.
Hon. Charles Sumner repeated, in this city, on
Monday evening last, an anti-slayery lecture,
which he had previously delivered to large audi
ences in Boston. The papers of the metropolis
were unanimous in their praises of the lecture
Il was described as one Of the most logical elo-
quent, earnest, and able addresses, that had ever
been delivered in that city. The method and
manner of Mr.. Sumner received, also, the high
est and most unqualified commendation. The
address, both in its composition and delivery, was
represented as one of the most finished efforts of
that distinguished orator Our citizens, after
hearing and seeing Mr.. Sumner conceded with
these concentrations. They heartily and I'M
quali6edly conceded, with one exception-that
exception was the profound scholar, subtle logi-
clan, and acute critic, who occupies the editorial
chair of the Transcript. That gentleman was
somerhat pleased with Mr.. Sumner in the alb
stract, but he was not pleased with him in the
concrete. He liked him in some points, but he
had serious dislike to HIM in detail. He was
reluctant to enter into an analysis of the logic,
rhetoric, and oratory of Mr.. Sumner, and to ex-
pose their defects to the profane crowd. But the
spontaneous impulse Of criticism-.he desire to
reduce all things to the laws of true symmetry
compelled him to write. And so he took Mr.
Sumner up. Tristram Shandy's father took up
Erasmus the diaologist, and cut into his philoso-
ply of noses with the keenness of pen knife
The critic of the Transcript takes up Mr.. Sum
per and attacks hun, with an equal amount OF
speculative subtlity and am6i-dexterity of criti-
eism. There is remarkable coincidence in the
antagonist positions of the two parties referred
to-Mr Shandy versus Erasmus-the Transcript
versus Charles Sumner. History, after all, is not
so original as she is supposed to be She repeats
herself. Where was there ever purer Shandysm,
except in ability, than in the following, from the
Transcript
"We confess that we were disappointed in
the lecture, and we think the audience were.
1t is true, it is always a pleasure to hear SEN
ator Sumner. His fine presence, his manly
utterance, his kindly and philanthropic i'm
pulses, his superb voice, always excite SYM
pathy, and give delight. We are constrained
to say, however, that on this occasion, his
logic, where he made most parade of it, was
diluted and sometimes imperceptible, while
the rhetorical passages, were somewhat heavy,
labored, and repetition of what we have
heard before from his own lips. Then there
are some faults about Mr.. Summers style of
oratory in general, which were unfortunately
conspicuous on Monday evening. He is too
elaborate, too stately. His most imprisoned
utterances for humanity smell Of the lamp
His constant classical illusions and repetitions
are simple pedantry, and weary, if they do not
disgust A great moral principle, an axiom
Of truth and mercy, is in no need of support
from Greek or Roman authority. 1t springs
from the universal heart of humanity, and
needs no Endorsement from selfish Cicero, or
cold Aristotle. Such displays may be tolera-
BILE in the labored essay; they grow intolerable
on the platform
Again-shall we say it:--Mr. Sumner is too
egotistical. The illusions to his speeches, his
sayings and doings, and what he intends to
say and do, are too numerous, and are in bad
taste. Mr.. Sumner has done good service in
the Anti Slavery cause, but there are in pub
lie life, older soldiers in that cause, we refrain
from adding, better soldiers"
How deep within the man who wrote that an
Initiating exposition of Mr. Summers pretensions
as an orator. must the seeds of verbal criticism
have been sown. There is no evidence that he
had any motive or occasion for writing it. There
and sentences which show that it came out spon.
taneously. The writer defed criticism in per-
forming the task of the critic. We trust, how
ever, that Mr.. Sumner will feel consoled in his
fall, by remembering whence came the shaft that
laid him low.
twas the Worcester Transcript that did it
that second Slawkenbergius, which, according to
its own opinion, writes up much genuine phi
losophy and writes down SO much pretence-
Some persons of opinion that the critic, in
the Transcript, as seen through the medium of
his attack on Mr.. Sumner, very much resembles
that remarkably captious dog referred to in hsto-
~, which barked at the moon, because it made
him wink to look at it. This opinion is too gene
raj for US to attempt to controvert it.