In the calamity before us, Time, that great autocrat, who in its tremendous march destroys authors, also annihilates critics; and acting in this instance with a new kind of benevolence, takes up some who have been violently thrown down, and fixes them in their proper place; and daily enfeebling unjust criticism, has restored an injured author to his full honours.
It is, however, lamentable enough that authors must participate in that courage which faces the cannon’s mouth, or cease to be authors; for military enterprise is not the taste of modest, retired, and timorous characters. The late Mr. Cumberland used to say that authors must not be thin-skinned, but shelled like the rhinoceros; there are, however, more delicately tempered animals among them, new-born lambs, who shudder at a touch, and die under a pressure.
As for those great authors (though the greatest shrink from ridicule) who still retain public favour, they must be 141 patient, proud, and fearless—patient of that obloquy which still will stain their honour from literary echoers; proud, while they are sensible that their literary offspring is not
|
Deformed, unfinished, sent before its time Into this breathing world, scarce half made up. |
And fearless of all critics, when they recollect the reply of Bentley to one who threatened to write him down, “that no author was ever written down but by himself.”
An author must consider himself as an arrow shot into the world; his impulse must be stronger than the current of air that carries him on—else he fall!
The character I had proposed to illustrate this calamity was the caustic Dr. Kenrick, who, once during several years, was, in his “London Review,” one of the great disturbers of literary repose. The turn of his criticism; the airiness, or the asperity of his sarcasm; the arrogance with which he treated some of our great authors, would prove very amusing, and serve to display a certain talent of criticism. The life of Kenrick, too, would have afforded some wholesome instruction concerning the morality of a critic. But the rich materials are not at hand! He was a man of talents, who ran a race with the press; could criticise all the genius of the age faster than it could be produced; could make his own malignity look like wit, and turn the wit of others into absurdity, by placing it topsy-turvy. As thus, when he attacked “The Traveller” of Goldsmith, which he called “a flimsy poem,” he discussed the subject as a grave political pamphlet, condemning the whole system, as raised on false principles. “The Deserted Village” was sneeringly pronounced to be “pretty;” but then it had “neither fancy, dignity, genius, or fire.” When he reviewed Johnson’s “Tour to the Hebrides,” he decrees that the whole book was written “by one who had seen but little,” and therefore could not be very interesting. His virulent attack on Johnson’s Shakspeare may be preserved for its total want of literary decency; and his “Love in the Suds, a Town Eclogue,” where he has placed Garrick with an infamous character, may be useful to show how far witty malignity will advance in the violation of moral decency. He libelled all the genius of the age, and was proud of doing it.[100] 142 Johnson and Akenside preserved a stern silence: but poor Goldsmith, the child of Nature, could not resist attempting to execute martial law, by caning the critic; for which being blamed, he published a defence of himself in the papers. I shall transcribe his feelings on Kenrick’s excessive and illiberal criticism.
“The law gives us no protection against this injury. The insults we receive before the public, by being more open, are the more distressing; by treating them with silent contempt, we do not pay a sufficient deference to the opinion of the world. By recurring to legal redress, we too often expose the weakness of the law, which only serves to increase our mortification by failing to relieve us. In short, every man should singly consider himself as a guardian of the liberty of the press, and, as far as his influence can extend, should endeavour to prevent its licentiousness becoming at last the grave of its freedom.”[101]
Here then is another calamity arising from the calamity of undue severity of criticism, which authors bring on themselves by their excessive anxiety, which throws them into some extremely ridiculous attitudes; and surprisingly influences even authors of good sense and temper. Scott, of Amwell, the Quaker and Poet, was, doubtless, a modest and amiable man, for Johnson declared “he loved him.” When his poems were collected, they were reviewed in the “Critical Review” very offensively to the poet; for the critic, alluding to the numerous embellishments of the volume, observed that
“There is a profusion of ornaments and finery about this 143 book not quite suitable to the plainness and simplicity of the Barclean system; but Mr. Scott is fond of the Muses, and wishes, we suppose, like Captain Macheath, to see his ladies well dressed.”