On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (6)
-
April % ; 185&1 • ; ^ » ft jg ^&E A & B ...
-
S*"fW ifhti»i> JL iltvllTiirE*
-
Critics are not the legislators, but the...
-
Shakspeare is the inexhaustible theme of...
-
It is not often we can counsel our reade...
-
WHO WROTE THE WAVERLEY NOVELS ? Wlw xoro...
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
April % ; 185&1 • ; ^ » Ft Jg ^&E A & B ...
April % 185 & 1 ; ^ » ft jg ^& E A & B % . 875
S*"Fw Ifhti»I≫ Jl Iltvlltiire*
ilttattee *
Critics Are Not The Legislators, But The...
Critics are not the legislators , but the judges and police of literature . They ao not make laws-they interpret and try to enforce them . — Mtitinburyh Revieio .
Shakspeare Is The Inexhaustible Theme Of...
Shakspeare is the inexhaustible theme of English writers , as Goqstshe is of the Germans , and in both cases there is sufficient matter for interminable discussion on what Shakspeare wrote , and what Goethe meant ; . The first condition—that of a correct text--is , unhappily , not only impossible in Shakspeabe ' s case , but is not in so absolute and definite a state of impossibility that men are willing to resign themselves to it , and judge the writings only by those general excellences which defective texts fail to disguise . Of Chaucek , of Spenser , nay , of Shakspeare's own fellow dramatists , especially Bex Jonson , we have unimpeachable texts . But the greatest 'poet yet known to the world is known only through a text which is hopelessly corrupt .
In the new number of the Edinburgh Review there is an article of unusual excellence on Shaijspeare ' s text , with especial reference to the volume discovered by Mr . Collier , containing 20 , 000 corrections on the margin . We have seen no such 'writing on that volume as this in the Edinburgh , and commend all our readers to it . The writer very skilfully argues that from the nature of the case these corrections are either all conjectural , and in no wise more authoritative than the conjectures of other critics , or else the
corrector mnst have had some authentic source from which lie drew ; to admit that some may "be authentic is , however , to open the door to endless dispute , since no evidence is ready to distinguish between what is conjectural and wliat is authentic ; and inasmuch as the nature of these corrections for the most part points to an authentic source- —in the opinion of the Edinburgh Reviewer—the tattle must now shift its ground , and critics must set themselves , if possible , to distinguish between what is conjectural and what authentic .
The same review contains an article on Bodyand Mind , . which , will be read with interest , although not in itself remarkable ; an able review of Brewster's JLife of . Newton , and an . intemperate ' review of RusTcinism , written probably by some R . A ., or by the irate friend of some R . A . That Mr . Ruskin lays himself open to attack in . almost every chapter he writes , no one , ndw-a-days , need be told : but foi an influential journal like the Edinburgh Review to print an article in which the animus is strong but the intelligence feeble , and in which Mr . Ruskin is proved to be a shallow " prater , " whose " jargon" only noodles can admire , is not to affect
the reputation of Mr . Ruskin ^ but to discredit the Review . The contradictions which are pointed out in this article , at least those that are real , would have served as excellent indications of the caution necessary in reading Mr . Ruskin , had they been temperately put , and set in tolerable argument ; but the writer will find the public slow to believe him against Mr . Ruskin . What , indeed , can any one think of a critic who retorts on Mr . Ruskin tiiat " Maclise is certainly the artist in the whole Royal Academy who has carried to its highest pitch that finish which Mr . Ruskin admires in the Pre-Raphaelite school !"
The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal has nothing in it this quarter which calls for notice here except an angry and supremely foolish review of Professor Baden Powell ' s work , by a Mr . Alexander Thomson of Banchory , who is afflicted to think that a Clergyman of the Church of England and an Oxford Professor , should hold the " dreary speculations of Laplace , Lamarck , Oken , and the author of The Vestiges . " As a specimen , at once , of Mr . Alexander Thomson's logic and charity read
this : — If Professor Powell ' s theory of creation bo true , and can bo proved to be true , then there is an oud of all rovealocl i-oligion , and of all natural relir / ion too , — there caimot be an Almighty personal God creating aud sustaining all things . Perhaps the most painful and the most dangerous part of the book to common readers is the mixture of arguments tending to destroy all religion , with professions of respect for Christianity-. Surely the author cannot be ignorant of the tendency of his oion reasonings .
How characteristic this passage is of the amiable and philosophic temper rendering polemics on the Development Hypothesis so agreeable I First , Mr . Thomson boldly asserts that the theory does away with all revealed religion , and " all natural religion too , " i f religion depended on a scientific hypothesis ; and , having sutisfied his own mind with this logic , Mr . Thomson straightway accuses Professor Powell , of hypocrisy . How sincerely he Mtnself looks at the question , may be gathered from this : — We admit thixt wo do not find a perfect syetoua of philosophy , either moral ov
Bweutitto , in tbo Holy Soripturos . Thoy wore given to man for a higher and more important purpose fchau to touch abstract knowlodgo . But we do not admit that there w one word or statement in Soripturo inoonsistont with sound philosophy , or opposed to U ; and wo go a efeap farther and maintain that the steady progress of Truth in every dojpartraout , —bo it Biblical criticism , mental philosophy , physical scionoo or antiquarian research ,- —is rapidly adding to the proofs , already innumamble , that the Bible contains the words , while all nature diaplays the works , of the Almighty Creator and Preserver of all things , and that His words and His works wra over in parfoot harmony—thoy cannot oontmdiot each other .
It Is Not Often We Can Counsel Our Reade...
It is not often we can counsel our readers to read , except for amusement , the criticisms of Frenchmen on Shakspeaub ; but we counsel them not to
pass overM . Montegut ' s article on Hamlet in the last Revue des Dezac Mondes , an article which , in France , will be very striking because it exposed a fallacy running through French art . Indeed this fallacy , although not sbl widely accepted in England , is also frequently to be met with here , BT « Montegut protests against the potion of poetical " types . " Shakspearb , as indeed all great poets , does not paint types , he paints individuals . Haklet is not a type the metaphysical dreamer . fle is an historical inclividuality—not only complex , because human , but specially complicated witli the temporal conditions of his age and rank . There are points in M . Motttegut ' s paper which will be questioned , but the whole cannot be read without interest .
Who Wrote The Waverley Novels ? Wlw Xoro...
WHO WROTE THE WAVERLEY NOVELS ? Wlw xorote . the Wavcrley Novels ? Being an Investigation into certain Mysterious Circ ? imstances attending their Production , and an Inquiry into the Literary Aid which Sir Walter Scott may have received from many Persons . London : Smith and Elder . Qujsen Elizabeth once proposed to have the suspected author of an offensive pamphlet racked in order to extort confession from him . " Nay , Madam , " said Bacon , " never rack his person , but rack his style . Command him to write another pamphlet , and I will undertake to pronounce whether he be the author of this . " Some persons who are credited with more than their own , are obliging enough voluntarily to place themselves on the critical rack . For example , it was at one time reported that the novels of a very fertile living author were written by his wife ; but circumstances at length induced tlie lady to publish a novel avowedly her own , and that example of her quality as an authoress set the report at rest for ever .
Unfortunately , no such test is possible with regard to those for whom W . J . F ., the author of the above-named pamphlet , claims the chief authorship of the Waverley Novels , We have mo opportunity of racking their style , for their right hand has long forgotten its cunning , and they have -left nothing behind them which will enable us to gauge their power . Their works belong ^ tb the same famous category with fcacbelors wives and old maids'children . We know , indeed , of a brain and hand lying these four-and-twenty years under the sod at Melrose which have left behind them indisputable proof of
a genius inspired with all the powers exhibited in tie Waverley Novels , of a memory stored with all the knowledge required for writing them , of a nature characterised by all the tastes and idiosyncrasies betrayed in them . That this brain should have produced the Waverley Novels has hitherto seemed no more surprising to the majority of well-informed mankind than that the man who wrote Hamlet should have written As you Like It , than that the conqueror of Jena was the conqueror of . Austerlitz , than that the vine which bears purple clusters one year should bear other purple clusters the next . A sufficient cause for the existence of the Waverley Novels seemed to be given in the genius of Scott .
But now we are called on to revise this opinion . According to W . J . F » , those novels—at least the best of tliem produced between 1814 and 1823 , were not written by Walter Scott , who has unfairly monopolised the credit of them , but by his brother , Thomas Scott , and Elizabeth IMacCulloch , the wife of the said Thomas ; the husband contributing the humorous character aiid dialogue , and the military sketches , and the wife supplying the descriptions of scenery , the feminine characters , and the construction of the plot . The utmost Walter did , it appears , was to throw in some of his dead historical lore among the living scenes that were due to the joint genius of Tharases and Elizabeth , and to add a few limbs and flourishes of style . But the vital part of The Antiquary , Guy Mannering , and the rest was all begotten in
Canada , by a man whose hand shook with drank , and a woman who " may possibly" have written some feeble poems and articles signed " Eliza , " in the corner of an American newspaper . It was not possible for Walter Scott , a practised writer , to have produced the best df the Waverley Novels in such rapid succession , but it was possible for Elizabeth MacCulloch and her husband . And what is yet more remarkable , the man . and woman , who had genius enough to produce works which won not only a world of fame but a world of money , were contented to live an utterly obscure life , and to > get nothing but a miserable gleaning of hundreds that you may count by units , while their brother pocketed his tens of thousands wad carried away immortal fame as the fruit of their labours . Yet more ; Thomas and Elizabeth Scott
had several children , yet none of those children have , apparently , breathed a word in vindication of their parents * rights . . Not a probable case , certainly , considering what we know of human nature . However , le vrai rfest pas tovjours le vraisemblable , and we are prepared to bow to sufficient evidence . " When W . J , F . has backed , his case by adequate proof , we will unlearn half our piety towards Walter Scott , place him in a humble niche of ouv temple , and moke room for W . J . F , * s " strange gods " —Thomas and Elizabeth . At present , however , we are for from feeling coerced by his evidence , and wo have taken up his pamphlet , not as a matter of any importance , but simply as a literary—or rather , an illiterate—curiosity . From an editorial note in the Irish Quarterly we gather that the initials W- J- F . represent " a gentleman who has obtained a respectable literary status , " and having been amused ourselves , we propose to amuse our readers , with the indications afforded in this pamphlet as to the amount of logical ability and literary acquirement with which such a " status" may be obtained .
The chief points in "W . J . F . ' s argument are—1 . That an anonymous letter , published in a Quebec newspaper in 1820 , states that the writer saw the manuscript of the Antiquary in Thomas Scott ' s handwriting , aud thai Elizabeth Scott " wrote the character of Flora Mac Ivor . " 2 . That Thomw Scott is pronounced by all who knew him to have possessed great hamow and Btary-telHng faculty , and that his wife had a * ' talent < for writing * ' am was stored with Scotch traditions . 3 . That the dates in Ltockhart's Ufc vxs irrcconeilcable with the production of the novels by falter Scott . 4- flJha among the letters not suppressed by Locklmrt there is one written sifcortl ; after the appearance of Waverley , in which Walter urges his brother to tr
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), April 19, 1856, page 15, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_19041856/page/15/
-