there was no provocation?) but with a cool, sneering, sarcastic countenance, infinitely more insulting than the language and tone of passion-They were directed, not against an individual, but a body of individuals which is seldom addressed without some epithet of respect -They were injurious to its reputation in the highest degree-Lastly, and above all, they were, I do not say exaggerated and distorted, but directly and fundamentally false." "Under such circumstances, is it to be expected that the injured party shall come forward with a humble remonstrance? that he shall condescend to exculpate himself, and prove his innocence to the satisfaction of his accuser, in order that he may, if it suit his good pleasure, let the world know that he had been misinformed? I confess the person who stoops to that method of clearing himself appears to me unworthy of enjoying the reputation which he would make such sacrifices to preserve." It is a bad symptom when a party is too patient under bold calumny before the world. Far from censuring some warmth of language in repelling an accusation, we should hardly believe a person had virtue enough to feel the infamy of the charge, or was in earnest about his character, who should preserve exactly the same courtesy and coolness in replying to his accuser, which we should require of him in discussing a point of abstract criticism, and setting up one opinion against another. It is something wholly different from the credit of an opinion that is at stake. The courtesy of amicable hostilities is at an end, when personal reputation is deeply wounded; and we must think of another criterion whereby to judge of the propriety of controversial language in such a case as this. Coarseness, illiberality, and vulgar insult, are in every case to be condemned. But these are offences for which our · censure must fall, not upon the champion of the learned body, but upon his assailants.-No. XXXI. p. 177, &c. 66 One of these gentlemen, whose mind is most unhappily tainted with the love of low imagery, and flagrant personality, describes his own style by informing us that "he says what he has to say after "his own manner-always confident that, whatever "he may be, he shall be found out and classed as he deserves." We admit the test to be a sure one, and shall pass over the merits of his manner, "whatever they may be," leaving those to be pleased with it, who think an epithet of contempt, or a barndoor simile, to be the best kind of wit, and who can make reasonable allowances for the violation of all the decencies, and some of the moralities, of life : quando tanta fæx est in urbe, ut nihil tam sit akúОnρov, quod non alicui venustum videatur. Grant him his privilege, and tolerate one of the worst of styles But when the same critic inveighs against personality and impertinence," nay, even whispers something about " writing modestly and like a 66 66 gentleman," we suspect that he has a very faint perception of the imprudence of printing invectives against himself, and of doing what is generally thought to be intolerable; Quis tulerit Gracchos de seditione querentes ? The writings of his two associates in the common cause are not tarnished by equal rankness of insult. But it does them no small discredit to appear in the company of one who seems to reckon upon free license and impunity in saying all that he pleases, "in his own manner." The Reviewer of Strabo has, besides, much of this kind to answer for in his own pages. But it is time to take leave of all the three productions, and of the Author who has given them their proper reproof : Horum naturam triplicem, tria corpora, Memmi, REMARKS ON EDGEWORTH'S ESSAYS ON PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION: ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED IN THE QUARTERLY REVIEW FOR OCTOBER 1811. |