The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1894-07-08
HERALD. se4-slxrEEN


Francis jeffrey derives his sole literary
celebrity from his connection with the
Edinburgh Review, of which he was
one of the founders, and which he edited
ing critics during the early part of this
century two were failures, and the third
did not try TO write, save to find fault
with others.
THE CONDEMNED AUTHORS.
Under the lash of these three men, and
fault-finding abilities, came the workS 81
all the great writers of English, that
brilliant galaxy of literary stars who
made the first third OF the present cen
of the letters. All Jared alike, for hardly
enc escaped condemnation that the nigh
and mighty critics of the reviews metsd
out, with apparent impartiaIty,. to the
deserving aud the worthless. The poets
Keats, Shelly and TennYson, the essay
lists Lamb Hunt and Hazlitt, the. novel
lists Charlotte Bronte and DisraeII, the
political writer Bentham. the historians
Macaulay and Hallam were each and eN,,
cry one told by the Quarterly Review"
that they had done nothing of which
Edinburgh Review was equally liberal
With its condemnation, and among the Ist
of authors en- whom its editors nasSe
unfaVorable judgment appear names no
less honorable than those of Byron, Col
eridge, Wordsworth, Southey, Ruskin,
while even Goethe himself, the literary
uncertain terms that he had mistaken
his vocation when he took up the pen.
In contemplating a roll OF the condemned
eGntaiming n4meS Of THIS na dfgTee o.
that, While the critical editors were mis-
taken in the judgments passed upon these
in many other concentrations their SEN
tence was undoubtedly just. The pages
of the two reviews are filled with men
tons of the works Of men whose names
are now either altogether forgotten or
are found only in the more voluminous
dictionaries of literature, SO that the
critics were not uniformly wrong in their
judgments. But, on the other hand, it
must be confessed that they sometimes
predicted a brilliant future for writer's
whose books never passed the first ed-
ton, so that. on the whole, the matter
cqualized itself, the undeServed praises
counterbalanCing the unmerited cenSure.
POLITICAL MALIGNITY.
The reviewers did their work thorough
ly, and when they made up their minds
that a poem or book no matter on what
subject. was worthless, they skinned not
only the work, but, in their enthusiasm,
the author, too. Unfortunately for the
justice of their criticisms, however, they
allowed political enmities to influence
their feelings, and consequently could
see nothing good in the works of a
man who was on the opposite side A
curious contrast is thus afforded to the
impartiality with which most American
critical writers treat the works brought
IS sent the leading magazines and news
papers for review, and is treated on its
merits, not with regard to the politics of
its author The British reviewer how
ever, was a politician and partisan first,
and a reviewer afterwards. If he did not
know the politics of the poet whose vol
ume of love odes and sonnetS were laid
on his desk, he went to work and found
cut and after this important Informal
ton had been obtained, he proceeded ac-
cordlngly, on the principle that a poet
or -Tgsf +sesf
side could not go wrong, either in fact or
meter, While an opposition poet must in
the very nature of the case, be unable to
write anything good. The early wears of
feelinS, but even this fact ought not it
seems, to. justify judging everything from
a political point of view. But the review
ers had their own opinion on this point,
and when a Wing poet sent his effusions
to Tory review he did so with the moral
certainly that he would receive no mer-
cy, but would be diSSected and hacked
and hacked and slashed with all the ven
ON that political animosity could inspire.
BLACkGUARDING THE AUTHORS.
Nor were the reviewers in the least
particular as to the language they used
EnghSh controversy has never been too
choice in its selection of words, and even
the greatest masters of literary debate
have Sullied their pages with PERSONAL
ties which. at this distance and interval
of time, read strangely out of harmony
WIN the supposed dignity OIL the writers.
1t is not pleasant to find Milton calling
one OF his opponents "a dirty cur "a
vile pimp," and other names that would
not now be tolerated on the pages or by
the readers of any newspaper that did
not pander to the tastes of the criminal
and vicious classes. Buffers "Hudibras'
is fair illustration of the style in which
an author of the same day as Milton car
ried on his quarrel with those of the op-
posing faction, and although it's foul ep-
ithets and vulgarity are highly Offensive