not be helped. I know not. But I should like to remain visible in this shape." To remain visible in the shape of a book—and a book with Mr. Crawford was a book indeed-would have satisfied any ambition for fame that he may have entertained.

From within these covers, therefore, there speaks to those who survive him as kindly a man as ever pursued his appointed course on eartha learned man who was not pedantic, a wise man who had neither time nor taste for controversy and a critic who was considerate, tolerant and suggestive. Throughout his long journalistic career the effect of his work and his personal example upon readers and associates could not fail to be wholesome in that it made for the things which do not pass away, such as truth, civility, reason and art. Most of his one-time associates, appreciating the justness of his disposition and the singular moderation which he ever displayed in passing judgment upon others, may well say with Tennyson:

"I would the great world grew like thee

Who grewest not alone in power
And knowledge, but by year and hour

In reverence and in charity."

HORATIO W. SEYMOUR.

CHATS ON WRITERS AND BOOKS.

DEAN SWIFT.

(1667-1745.)

THE reign of Queen Anne has been aptly termed the Augustan age of English literature, and the great writers of that period are usually called "The Queen Anne's Men." They were Swift, Addison, Steele, Pope, Gay, Arbuthnot, and some half dozen others. Of them all Dean Swift is by far the most conspicuous as well as the grandest figure. This has not always been the opinion, and it is only within the last quarter of a century that a true estimate of Swift has been arrived at. For a hundred years the popular conception has been that he was a bitter misanthrope, a modern Timon, who hated his own kind. That he had the tongue of an asp and the

disposition of a hyena, and that he reveled in impurity. That he was an apostate, a skeptic and a bully, who rendered hopeless and desolate the lives of the two women that passionately loved him, and paid the penalty of his heartlessness with an old age of misery and madness. These are the views one gets in reading Dr. Johnson, Macaulay and Thackeray, but it is certain that nothing can be more erroneous. Thanks to the labors of recent biographers, particularly John Forster and Henry Craik, these false ideas concerning the life and character of the great dean have been dispelled. He was, indeed, a misanthrope and despised the humanity he knew so well, but despite this knowledge, his life was a long career of active benevolence. When he was a struggling parish priest with an income of less than one hundred pounds he gave a tenth of it in charity, and his generosity increased in proportion with his income. When he achieved political power he remembered his friends, and it was through his influence that Congreve, Gay, Phillips and Rowe were given remunerative offices. Pope has repeated many times how much Swift did for him ; there was scarce one of that famous circle who did not owe something to his kindness and friendship. He never turned a deaf ear to sor

row or poverty, and when at last he took up his residence in Dublin he deprived himself of many comforts that he might relieve the necessities of

the poor. Such a man might be utterly wretched and unhappy, but he could not have a bad and corrupt heart. The study of his life and writings are well worth all the time that may be devoted to them.

Jonathan Swift stands in the front rank of the world's satirists, unsurpassed even by Aristophanes or Rabelais. He was the master of a style which, for its purpose, is perfection. He was the foremost, if not the first, of modern English journalists, and his political articles are models of concise and idiomatic English, solid, unadorned, judicial in tone and restrained. Powerful as he is, he always seems to have a reserved force. He made literature the handmaid of party, and under his guidance the newspaper became a power in politics. He does not attempt to stir the passions, and in all his controversial writings he never grows excited, but addresses the reason only. He knows the world of men and women and sees little good in them, and he dissects humanity like a surgeon, robbing it of its luster and beauty. All that he wrote has been collected and published, his letters, his

journals, his essays, his poems, and his more extended works. They form many volumes, and a large part is only interesting to the political and historical student. There is, however, a considerable portion that will never be forgotten.

He was born in poverty and received his education at Dublin University by the charity of an uncle. In some studies, scholastic logic for instance, he was but an idle student, and finally received his degree by special favor. He entered the Church and at twenty-one became secretary to Sir William Temple and took up his residence at Moor Park. There he wrote two of his famous books and formed that pure attachment or friendship for Esther Johnson, the "Stella" of his journal and correspondence, which forms so inexplicable an episode in his career."

Sir William Temple was a graceful essayist who wrote pleasingly on “Gardens," "Poetry," "Heroic Virtue," "The Beautiful," "The Philosophy of History" and kindred topics. About this time the celebrated controversy as to the superiority of the ancients over the moderns sprung up and raged all over Europe. Readers of Macaulay will recall the graphic description of it in the essay on Sir William Temple. Upon this question Temple wrote one of his most grace