On this page
- Departments (1)
-
Text (4)
-
1070 THE LEADER. [SatttrDay .
-
Xitttaiuxt.-
-
Critics are not the legislators, but the...
-
"The Agerof Reviews is passed," we are o...
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.
1070 The Leader. [Satttrday .
1070 THE LEADER . [ SatttrDay .
Xitttaiuxt.-
Xitttaiuxt .-
Critics Are Not The Legislators, But The...
Critics are not the legislators , but the judges and police of literature . They do not make laws—they interpret and try to enforce them . —Edinburgh Review .
"The Agerof Reviews Is Passed," We Are O...
"The Agerof Reviews is passed , " we are often told . Jt would be a matter of regret to us could we believe the assertion ; for whatever improvements may take place in journalism , they can never really make Newspapers supply the one eminent quality of Reviews—we mean the careful and extensive treatment of particular subjects . Reviews enable us to have elaborate essays , in lieu of volumes , on certain subjects , well worth careful treatment , yet not naturally requiring voluminous treatment ; and further admit of criticisms more exhaustive and mature than journalism can pretend to furnish . In the British Quarterly we always find thought , learning , earnestness , and abundance of antagonistic matter provoking thought . The number just out ( besides very able articles on Oxford and Sir W . Hamilton ) contains two very notable papers , one on the Theology of the Old Testament , and another on Shakspeare and Goethe , both calling for some notice at our hands . The Old Testament is , unhappily for Christianity , so linked on to the New , that the two cannot be separated . The savage Hebrew God , the Lord of Hosts , the "jealous God , visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation , " must be accepted , however shocking to one's reverence , because the proof of Christ ' s divinity is derived from the fulfilment of prophecies . If , therefore , the Old Testament must be accepted , the acute theologian has to make it acceptable by explaining away the " difficulties" which alarm the timid . In the article before us this is attempted , with an ability we readily acknowledge , although , we need scarcely say , without in the least altering our opinions . Theological writing is all of one cast . A certain boldness of assertion captivates the willing captive ; and when the rebel confronts this , he finds the bold assertor has " covered a retreat" in , an unexpected corner . As an example : — " As for the hypothesis of a gradual evolution of a pure monotheism out of an original polytheism—an hypothesis which , in various shapes , has found advocates among recent German writers , —we shall content ourselves with saying that when its supporters shall discover some basis of fact on which to rest it—when they shall produce a single instance of a nation setting out from polytheism and arguing itself into monotheism , we shall admit that they are entitled to be heard on its behalf . In the meantime all history is against them . " This magnificent paradox Mill be greedily accepted . When recalcitrants like ourselves , venture to question it , and say : Had not Greece and Rome their polytheism , nml did they not evolve therefrom into monotheism ? we foresee ( experience in polemics having warned us ) that the escape will be made through the words " arguing itself into ! " The Greeks and Romans did not argue themselves into monotheism , they were argued into it ! ( Xenophanes , Socrates , et id omne genus , were not a " nation . " ) The ergo is plain : The Monotheism of the Jews was no evolution of human thought , but a divine revelation ! Another point mooted , and skilfully mooted , is the anthropomorphism of the Old Testament . The writer ingeniously argues that it is all " figurative , " and necessarily so . " Should any i ' ccl startled at this assertion , we beg them to consider whether ifc l : e possible for us to conceive or speak of ( Jod at all positively , except tear' " ivQpmirov-Of the infinite and the eternal , as he is in himself , we can know nothing ; all our knowledge of him must lie relative ; and lienee we have no means of conceiving of him except l > y ascribiny to him certain attributes expressive of the relation in which he stands to his creatures . A ( Jod without attributes is to us no God at all . Hut wo can arrive at . the conception of such attributes in ( Jod oidy by instituting ; : in analogy between his relation to his work and our relation to ours . " Very true ; but to us it seems that this admitted impossibility of our knowing the Infinite should make us as humble « is we sue arrogant in our language , respecting him—should inspire us with a calm faith , a faith of reliance upon his will , and not make us set up an Image drawn from our own imperfection . We know nothing of him as he is ; but—and here lies the fallacy we ; arc combating—our ignorance should restrain that very assumption of knowledge implied in ' * ascribing certain attributes expressive of the relation in which he stands to us . " Do we know that relation ? When we call ( Jod a "jealous ( Jod , " do we know the relation which we express l > v jealousy ? When we say that he is angry at our disbelief , do we know the relation to him of our disbelief ? Do we not rather assume the relation of sin , and then argue anthropically from that assumption ? We have argued elsewhere in these columns the question of sin , and need not therefore dwell upon it , now ; but in the following passage ; let us eall attention to two general but not very creditable topics , always to he met with in theological writings : the implication of immorality in disbelief , and the insistancc on fear as a sound religious basis : — " Now it is certainly not , pleasant to think ofdod us a being who hales niii and will condignly punish ' it ., when ime is bent on throwing the . glare of human genius over the vices and follies of men mid it . is undoubtedly very disagreeable to hclievo that . ' ( Jod in : mgry with men , ' and in ' a terrible ( Jod , ' when one cannot , hut haw the consciousness ' that , in order to make out a case , uyainsl the . 1 tilde , he has beau f / uiltt / of profit / extensive , falsehood and misrepresentation . Hutjts there is no logic winch renders it imperative that objective realities should givo way to » ul > -
Jective feelings , the nearest advance we can make towards these gentleme * express our regret that they should have allowed their emotions so to get thebtt ° of their judgment , as to blind them to what enlightened reason , no less than S " ture , proclaims as a fundamental truth in morals—that God is displeased with ^^ must punish sin . Take this away , and you destroy the foundations of moral obli tion , and reduce responsibility to a mere matter of feeling or of convenieif ' Deny that God is susceptible of anger , and , as Cicero , Seneca , and Lactantius showed long ago , you virtually annihilate religion : for a God incapable of dis pleasure is equally incapable of complacency ; a God who cannot punish cannot bless ; and why should one worship or fear a God from whom one has nothing to expect or fear ?"
Is there no love in a mother ' s heart for the baby in her arms , because she cannot be angry with it when it will grasp the flame of the candle or will pull down that China vase and break it ? " The child knows ' no better , " you will say ; but what is the mother ' s superior wisdom compared with that of the Infinite , who not only knows the weakness of his children but who made that weakness ? Let us quit this disagreeable topic , and announce by way of news that
Edward Miall has in preparation a work to arrest the attention of all speculative thinkers ; it is to be called " The Basis of Belief ; or , an Examination of the Claims of Christianity as a Divine Revelation in the light of recognised fact and principle . " Having made this announcement , we turn to quieter themes , and first to the paper on Shakspeare and Goethe , before mentioned . It is a psychological study , or rather let us say notes towards such a study , of the two greatest intellects of modern times . The writer very properly repudiates the hackneyed saying : —
" ' All that we know of Shakspeare is , that he was born at Stratford-on-Avon ; married and had children there ; went to London , where he commenced actor , and wrote plays and poems ; returned to Stratford , made his will , died , and was buried . ' It is our . own fault , and not the fault of the materials , if we do not know a great deal more about Shakspeare than that ; if we do not realize , for example , those distinct and indubitable facts about him—his special reputation among the critics of his time , as * a man not so much of erudition as of prodigious natural genius ; his gentleness and openness of disposition ; his popular and sociable habits ; his extreme ease , and , as some thought , negligence in composition ; and above all , and most characteristic of all , his excessive ilnency in speech . ' He sometimes required stopping' is Ben Jonson ' s expression ; and whoever does not see a whole volume of revelation respecting Shakspeare in that single trait , has no eye for seeing anything . " in
It is absurd to s ^ y that Shakspeare expressed himself his works ; the truth is , we have so little of a clue to what really may be taken as an expression of himself ; yet many things one can ascertain : — " Let any competent person whatever read the Sonnets , and then , with their impression on him , pass to the plays , and he will inevitably become aware of Shakspeare ' s personal fondness for certain themes or trains of thought , particularly that of the speed and destructiveness of time . Death , vicissitude , tho
march ana tramp or gent-i & uo . « i o ^ usd ufo ' o » i » gc , i / iiu i-uiuug uc liuman bodies in the earth—these and all the other forms of the same thought were familiar to Shakspeare to a degree beyond what is to be seen in the case of any other poet . It seems to have been a habit of his mind , when left to its own tendency , ever to indulge by preference in that oldest of human meditations , which is not yet trito — ' Man that is born of a woman is of few days , and full of trouble ; he comcth forth as a flower , and is cut down : he fleeth as a shadow , and continueth not . '
Shakspeare ' s supremacy the writer thinks was in the faculty of expression : — " In other words , Shakspeare was specifically und transcendently a . literary man . To say that he was the greatest man that ever lived is to provoke a useless controversy and comparisons that lead to nothing between Shakspenre and Ca : sar , Shakspearo and Charlemagne , Shakspeare and Cromwell ; to say that he was tho greatest intellect that ever lived , is to bring the shades of Aristotle and Plato , and Bacon and Newton , and all your other systematic thinkers grumbling about us , with demands for a definition of intellect , which we are by no means in a position to give ; nay , finally , to say that , be is the greatest , poet that the world lias produced ( a thing which we would certainly say , were we provoked to it ) would no
unnecessarily to hurt the feelings of Homer and Sophocles , and Dante and Milton . What we will say , then , and what wo will challenge the world to gainsay , is tlmt he was the greatest expresser that ever lived . This is glory enough , and it Olives the other question open . Other men may have led , on tho whole ! , greater urn more impressive lives than he ; other men , acting on their fellows through t u < same medium of speech that he used , may have ; expended a greater power o thought , and achieved a greater intellectual effect , in one consistent direction ; . 11 _ .... i , » .. / i lw .... ^ l > i 1 i I .. ! .. -. r ^ > .. r .. iwk ! 4 livtiiwili A liinvr lioir / t i «/\ ilf . Vl \/ l'M I ( ) lI" ) Nll »' ther too ( though this is questionable ) have contrived to issue . ¦
o men , very , may matter which they did address to the world , in more compact and perfect urtis ^ shapes . . Hut , no man that ever lived said mieh splendid extempore things on •> subjects universally ; no man that ever lived hud the faculty of pouring out on ^ occasions such a Hood of the richest and deepest language . He may hi <\ ' < - " ^ rivals in the art of imagining situations ; he had no rival in the power ol m'ik > h a gush of the appropriate intellectual effusion over tho image and body o ^ i situation once conceived . From tho jewelled ring on an alderman ' s finger o ^ most mountainous thought , or deed of " man or demon , nothing suggested if . se j ^ bis speech could not envelope and enfold with ease . Thai , excessive fluency vv " ^ astonished Hen . Jonson when he listened to SHukspeare in person , astoiuslu'S .
world yel ,. Abundance , earn * , redundance , a plenitude of word , sound , or '"'" b ^ which , " wore the intellect , at , work only a little less magnilicont , would """"^ .. j , end in sheer braggardism and bonibaHt , are tho characteristics of M » u ^ P '( ^ style . Nothing is suppressed , nothing omitted , nothing cancelled . " » ^ .. tile poet , flows , words , thoughts , and fancies crowding on him an fast n » _ ^ ^ write , all related to tho matter on hand , und all poured forth together , to ^ ^ fall on the waves of an established ciidence . Such lightnoHS and omkc ih < ^ ^ ner , and such prodigious wealth and depth in ( lie mal . tor , are conilnnc ^ ^ other writer . How tho matter wan first accumulated , whut proportion <> ^ ^^ tin ; acquired capital of former effort , and what , proportion of if , well * ai ' 1 ^ . poet ' n mind during and in virtue- of tho very act of speech , it ia nuposniD
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Nov. 6, 1852, page 18, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_06111852/page/18/
-