The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-07-08

now there is no reason to believe that
the people of Buffers time saw anything
improper in his words or the tone of his
utterarces. But these reviews, 1t should
century, on the works of men who died
but yesterday. The blackguardism in
which they indulge is, therefore, all the
more surprising, and emphasizes the
changes that have come to pass IN the
interest of literary decency during the
memory of men still living. Granting so
much, however, it certainly CRATES harSh-
ly on the ears to hear one of these grave
reviewers call Hazlitt, the elegant critic,
a loathesome Ounce, or TO find Cotton;
the clerical author of ''Lacon, described
as a bankrupt wine merchant and
deer" 1t is equally curious to discover
an allusicn to Broughnan disguised unasr
the words "a he fsh-Woman' Whli ie
Martin the benefactor of his kind, is
mentioned as an Irish jackass, Jeremy
Bentham as IAN old shrew; Colerldge
as a ''conceited manniSin; William COD
bett as IAN old ruffian, and the great
political writer, McCulloch,, as AN OBJ
scure and indolent lout,'' "a liar IAN
Infamous liar and IAN Infatuated black
guard" With such heroic beginning;
no one need be surprised when assured
on the authority of 'Blackwood's Maya
zine" that Leigh Hunt had "a sinking
BREATH" that Thackery was a. AN 1;., over
grown lump" that Byron was "a llmpy;
or that Macauiay, according to the Lon
don Quarterly" was IAN ugly, cross
made, splay-footed shapeless nltre
jumping OF d lellON' Win a iiN''s+- -
ear to ear
MACAULAY- AND CROKER.
This choice description of the greatest
master of English who wrote during the
present century was published at the me.
t tilee Edin n5 s ReView that series of
brilliant historical and character Stuqles
which revolutionized the art OF review
writing, and brought the essay f INTO e *
! view of this TACT it is interesting 70 ilnd
him described by Croker, of the LONDON
Quarterly as IAN obscure fellow ana
his productions characterized as lmper.
tinent nonsense with a, strong unge or
insolence." Not satisfied, however, with
so mild a treatment, Croker returns 10
the charge, and further on in his cr1tlque
speaks of a Macaulay essay as having
smart, rapid, pop-gun impertnence.e;;
brisk, airy, new set truisms; mingled with
conscious audacity of impudence; the
whole living and amusing, and much com com
mended among the doWagers, especially
the smut Macaulay never forgot the
affront and later on got his revenge. so
| long as Croker confined his literary et-
! forts to fault finding he was SAFE but in
an evil hour he allowed some one to per-
/ suade him to undertake the editing of
''Boswelrs Life of johnson" and when
! the book appeared, Macauay had his re-
! came from the press, and tore it limb
from limb. He pointed out mistakes IN
dates, and mistakes in matters of fact;
he showed how every school-boy ought to
! have known what Mr.. Croker did not
| know; how any urchin should be thrashed
| for making blunders that the unlucky
Croker made; he ridiculed the arrange
1 ment, the logic, the rhetoric, the. gram
mar the spelling, the punctuation; he
said it was like a certain leg of mutton
on which DIR. Johnson once dined, and
! which he pronounced as bad as bad
could be; i'll fed, i'll killed, i'll kept and i'll
( dressed Croker's work was, he thought,
/ ill-compiled, ill-arranged and Imprinted.
! This was in 1881, and the feud this
aroused went briskly on through success
! sive numbers of the London and the Ed
! inburgh, until the appearance of the first
/ two volumes of Macaulays history in
! 1910, when it was Cookers turn, and he
devoted seventy pages to showing "the
more prominent errors and defects" of
Macaulay's pop-gun effusion.' Then the
war took a fresh start with an answer
! by Macaulay, and continued until Croker
/ died, in 1857, two years before the hiSto-
/ rian.
HUNT AND "BLACKWOOD'S."
! The fight between Macaulay and Croker
was somewhat even. as each had access
J to the columns of a review in which to
to show UP to his own satisfaction the
shortcomings of the other. Poor Leigh
Hunt, however, when attacked by Lock-
hart, the editor of "Blackwood's Maya
zine had no recourse, but was forced
in Western parlance, to grin and bear
3 it, as well as he could. Hunt was what
would now be called a Liberal, while
Lockhart was Tory, and this fact of
itself was enough to embitter the editor
his capacity for foul abuse. After speak
ing of 1.-The hatred and contempt we feel
for Mr.. Leigh Hunt the editor says it
is due not so much Ito his shameless ir-
to his prohigate attacks on the kings
sons, to his lOW-bOrn inSOlence to the