New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1890-01-22

and heir. Lord Carnarvon makes well-meant
endcavor TO soften the judgment OF posterl'y upon
a nOblcman who has certainly been dealt with
severely and against whose reputation num-
Der of circumstances have conspred. For man
TO have incurred the enmity Of two such ccnsors
as DR.. johnson and Harvey must be considered
a singular cOncoursc of intelictics, for the bitter
malignity Of the latter and the authoritative and
sweeping criticism of the former have sufhced!
with the majority, TO secure the condemnation OF
the accused, and virtually without a hearing
The number Of those who have actually read Lord
Chesterfclds letters to his son is probably small.
Most people are content to accept the dogmauc
and trucuent old Doctors sedce-ha hammer de-
scription Of them as combining the morals OF,
3 courtesan with the manners of a dancing master.
Few reflect, even if they remember, that john
son had a personal grudgc against Chesterfield,
whom he accuscd-withOut shadow of substantial
evidence-of purposey sighting him, because
when calling the Earl one day the photographer
was kept waiting few minutes. OF course, 100
everybody knows all about JOhnson's somewhat
melodramatic episte to the Earl, and the general
impression conveyed has been that the latter was
an exceedingly bad person who iu-used the
good Doctor quite shamefully.
As to the ethics of the letters TO his son, there
are views and views. There is DR.. Samuel john
sons view for one. and there IS the view OF
Sainte-Bcuvc for another. The latter could not
discover in Lord CheSterfeld's letters the marks
of depravity commonly taken for granted. He
gives the work, indeed, literary status which
NAV well perpex some good people, for he de-
clares that il occupies position midway between
the Memoirs of Grammont" and "Telemachus.
That is a thoroughly Saintc-Beuvian classification,
and il recognizes the singuarities Of Chester
fields didactic writings very completely The
fact is, that Philip Dormer was a man of brilliant
parts uncommon Judgment, keen wit and little
reverence. The religious element in his character
was not exactly absent, but it was latent The
chief peculiarities of his advice 10 his son are
those which grew ont of his Gallo aflnities.
Sante-Beuve calls him the La Rochefoucauld of
England, but the whole spirit of La Rochefou-
cauld is French as possible, and what really
alenated CheStcrfcld's contemporaries and
especially men utterly British as johnson, was
the exotic flavor of his intellectual productions
Chesterfield himself says in one of his letters TO
a friend that when sojourning in France ne was
often told by Frenchmen, You are like one of
ourselves which was the highest compliment
they could pay him. All his sympathies went
out to France which he studied TO such purpose
that in 1880 he predicted the Revolution. The
great weight laid by the French upon manners and
polish impressed him as the truest wisdom, and
whether writing 10 his son or To his eodson, we
find him continually dwelling upon the importance
of urbanity, graceful department, sell-poSsesson
and the art of pleasing in all its branches.
In the letters 10 his son there appears a cyni-
csm and sentiment toward women which GER
tainly suggest La Rochefoucauld and though
these the characteristics that offended johnson
and others greatly, il cannot be said that they
altogether justify the denuncation hcapcd upon
Il.
Of the first Georges was not exactly a school Of
morals. English public opinion doubt
even then strongly censorious, but the censor-
BUSINESS was not a little tainted by hypocrisy.
No doubt can be entertained concerning the en-
tire sincerity of the writer's purpose, which was
10 improve the mind and form the character Of
bis correspondents The death of his pre-
maturely overthrow Chesterheld's plans, and Lord
CarnarvOn well observes that one of the |
most curious facts in his career is the I
eagerness and enthusiasm with which, after suffer
ing this bitter and crushing disappointment, hc /
turned, in old age. 10 begin similar work on |
behalf of his godson, Philip StanhOpe. then child |
of five years only. Necessarily in addressing 50 |
tender and immature correspondent new tone |
had to be adopted There could be little |
here for epigrammatic turns and daShes Of wit. /
The object was to arouse a laudable ambition in a
child's mind TO hold out stimulating examples; |
10 implant a love of learning and culture and to /
teach, in the most attractive manner, the funda-
mental principles Of a sound morality.
1t is these letters to his godson that the Earl |
OF Carnarvon has here edited in most luxurious |
and splendid form. In reading them one can not |
but wonder how they affected the little boy 10 ,
whom they were written We strongly suspect |
that they must have bored him hugely, for young |
Philip evidently a boy Of hls period, not
gifted with budding genius, prone TO infantllc
foibles. having no fondness for those graccs upon
whose charms his learned godfather deli ntcd |
20 eXpatiate, and not particularly amcnabe 10
the pcrsuasions of his tutors the inIunctions |
of his parents and friends 1t must be SAID, too,
that there is great deal Of repetition in these
letters. IN tie strength of his desire that ms
godson should know French thoroughly, Lord
Chesterfield wrote the greater number of his letters
in that language which he used with uency, and I
Some idiomatic freedom. but not without frequent
errors. which have very properly,
been left just as they stand in the originals The
letters cover a space Of ten years. and as Philip
grows from childhood into bOyhOOd and
youth their tone becomes more crave and better
suited 10 a maturing intelligence. The ethics
of these cpistlcs are for the most part uneN-
ceptionablc and they afford evidence that age
brought 10 Chesterfield not only an abatement OF
bis earlier cynicsm, but a feeling not far removed
from picty In one letter only does he seem 10
revert to his old point Of view, and that contains
advice 10 the boy as to his behavior in the com
pany of women, whom he is recommended 10
fiatter unSparngly, the principle that
their vanity IS far in excess Of their
judgment. The incidental literary judgments 10
be found in the letters afford 10 little insight
TO the writer's character. and help TO explain
Ia
We should almost conclude that his whole in
tellectual bent was French rather than English
lie wont to complain that his countrymcn
had no manners Probably his long and fruitlcss
struggle against Walpole impicssel strongly upon
him the lack Of sweetness and light ia English
politics Even the democratic expressions let
q