Chapter i.

A crust for the critics.

In our last initial chapter we may be supposed to have treated that

formidable set of men who are called critics with more freedom than

becomes us; since they exact, and indeed generally receive, great

condescension from authors. We shall in this, therefore, give the

reasons of our conduct to this august body; and here we shall,

perhaps, place them in a light in which they have not hitherto been

seen.

This word critic is of Greek derivation, and signifies judgment. Hence

I presume some persons who have not understood the original, and have

seen the English translation of the primitive, have concluded that it

meant judgment in the legal sense, in which it is frequently used as

equivalent to condemnation.

I am the rather inclined to be of that opinion, as the greatest number

of critics hath of late years been found amongst the lawyers. Many of

these gentlemen, from despair, perhaps, of ever rising to the bench in

Westminster-hall, have placed themselves on the benches at the

playhouse, where they have exerted their judicial capacity, and have

given judgment, _i.e._, condemned without mercy.

The gentlemen would, perhaps, be well enough pleased, if we were to

leave them thus compared to one of the most important and honourable

offices in the commonwealth, and, if we intended to apply to their

favour, we would do so; but, as we design to deal very sincerely and

plainly too with them, we must remind them of another officer of

justice of a much lower rank; to whom, as they not only pronounce, but

execute, their own judgment, they bear likewise some remote

resemblance.

But in reality there is another light, in which these modern critics

may, with great justice and propriety, be seen; and this is that of a

common slanderer. If a person who prys into the characters of others,

with no other design but to discover their faults, and to publish them

to the world, deserves the title of a slanderer of the reputations of

men, why should not a critic, who reads with the same malevolent view,

be as properly stiled the slanderer of the reputation of books?

Vice hath not, I believe, a more abject slave; society produces not a

more odious vermin; nor can the devil receive a guest more worthy of

him, nor possibly more welcome to him, than a slanderer. The world, I

am afraid, regards not this monster with half the abhorrence which he

deserves; and I am more afraid to assign the reason of this criminal

lenity shown towards him; yet it is certain that the thief looks

innocent in the comparison; nay, the murderer himself can seldom stand

in competition with his guilt: for slander is a more cruel weapon than

a sword, as the wounds which the former gives are always incurable.

One method, indeed, there is of killing, and that the basest and most

execrable of all, which bears an exact analogy to the vice here

disclaimed against, and that is poison: a means of revenge so base,

and yet so horrible, that it was once wisely distinguished by our laws

from all other murders, in the peculiar severity of the punishment.

Besides the dreadful mischiefs done by slander, and the baseness of

the means by which they are effected, there are other circumstances

that highly aggravate its atrocious quality; for it often proceeds

from no provocation, and seldom promises itself any reward, unless

some black and infernal mind may propose a reward in the thoughts of

having procured the ruin and misery of another.

Shakespear hath nobly touched this vice, when he says--

“Who steals my purse steals trash; 't is something, nothing;

'Twas mine, 'tis his, and hath been slave to thousands:

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that WHICH NOT ENRICHES HIM,

BUT MAKES ME POOR INDEED.”

With all this my good reader will doubtless agree; but much of it will

probably seem too severe, when applied to the slanderer of books. But

let it here be considered that both proceed from the same wicked

disposition of mind, and are alike void of the excuse of temptation.

Nor shall we conclude the injury done this way to be very slight, when

we consider a book as the author's offspring, and indeed as the child

of his brain.

The reader who hath suffered his muse to continue hitherto in a virgin

state can have but a very inadequate idea of this kind of paternal

fondness. To such we may parody the tender exclamation of Macduff,

“Alas! Thou hast written no book.” But the author whose muse hath

brought forth will feel the pathetic strain, perhaps will accompany me

with tears (especially if his darling be already no more), while I

mention the uneasiness with which the big muse bears about her burden,

the painful labour with which she produces it, and, lastly, the care,

the fondness, with which the tender father nourishes his favourite,

till it be brought to maturity, and produced into the world.

Nor is there any paternal fondness which seems less to savour of

absolute instinct, and which may so well be reconciled to worldly

wisdom, as this. These children may most truly be called the riches of

their father; and many of them have with true filial piety fed their

parent in his old age: so that not only the affection, but the

interest, of the author may be highly injured by these slanderers,

whose poisonous breath brings his book to an untimely end.

Lastly, the slander of a book is, in truth, the slander of the author:

for, as no one can call another bastard, without calling the mother a

whore, so neither can any one give the names of sad stuff, horrid

nonsense, &c., to a book, without calling the author a blockhead;

which, though in a moral sense it is a preferable appellation to that

of villain, is perhaps rather more injurious to his worldly interest.

Now, however ludicrous all this may appear to some, others, I doubt

not, will feel and acknowledge the truth of it; nay, may, perhaps,

think I have not treated the subject with decent solemnity; but surely

a man may speak truth with a smiling countenance. In reality, to

depreciate a book maliciously, or even wantonly, is at least a very

ill-natured office; and a morose snarling critic may, I believe, be

suspected to be a bad man.

I will therefore endeavour, in the remaining part of this chapter, to

explain the marks of this character, and to show what criticism I here

intend to obviate: for I can never be understood, unless by the very

persons here meant, to insinuate that there are no proper judges of

writing, or to endeavour to exclude from the commonwealth of

literature any of those noble critics to whose labours the learned

world are so greatly indebted. Such were Aristotle, Horace, and

Longinus, among the antients, Dacier and Bossu among the French, and

some perhaps among us; who have certainly been duly authorised to

execute at least a judicial authority _in foro literario_.

But without ascertaining all the proper qualifications of a critic,

which I have touched on elsewhere, I think I may very boldly object to

the censures of any one past upon works which he hath not himself

read. Such censurers as these, whether they speak from their own guess

or suspicion, or from the report and opinion of others, may properly

be said to slander the reputation of the book they condemn.

Such may likewise be suspected of deserving this character, who,

without assigning any particular faults, condemn the whole in general

defamatory terms; such as vile, dull, d--d stuff, &c., and

particularly by the use of the monosyllable low; a word which becomes

the mouth of no critic who is not RIGHT HONOURABLE.

Again, though there may be some faults justly assigned in the work,

yet, if those are not in the most essential parts, or if they are

compensated by greater beauties, it will savour rather of the malice

of a slanderer than of the judgment of a true critic to pass a severe

sentence upon the whole, merely on account of some vicious part. This

is directly contrary to the sentiments of Horace:

_Verum ubi plura nitent in carmine, non ego paucis

Offendor maculis, quas aut incuria fudit,

Aut humana parum cavit natura----_

But where the beauties, more in number, shine,

I am not angry, when a casual line

(That with some trivial faults unequal flows)

A careless hand or human frailty shows.--MR FRANCIS.

For, as Martial says, _Aliter non fit, Avite, liber_. No book can be

otherwise composed. All beauty of character, as well as of

countenance, and indeed of everything human, is to be tried in this

manner. Cruel indeed would it be if such a work as this history, which

hath employed some thousands of hours in the composing, should be

liable to be condemned, because some particular chapter, or perhaps

chapters, may be obnoxious to very just and sensible objections. And

yet nothing is more common than the most rigorous sentence upon books

supported by such objections, which, if they were rightly taken (and

that they are not always), do by no means go to the merit of the

whole. In the theatre especially, a single expression which doth not

coincide with the taste of the audience, or with any individual critic

of that audience, is sure to be hissed; and one scene which should be

disapproved would hazard the whole piece. To write within such severe

rules as these is as impossible as to live up to some splenetic

opinions: and if we judge according to the sentiments of some critics,

and of some Christians, no author will be saved in this world, and no

man in the next.