CHARACTERS AND CRITICISMS.

I.

NEW-OLD ESSAYS OF ADDISON AND STEELE.

Ir is not an infrequent occurrence in the case of voluminous writers, that a proportional moiety of their productions become after a short period succeeding to their decease, little known and in the progress of a century, or even a still briefer space of time, almost obsolete. After the enthusiasm of party feeling, or the excitement of novelty has gradually cooled down into a sober appreciation of real merit, from a previous extravagant estimate of it-we begin to learn the true secret of excellence, to discriminate the peculiar and characteristic traits of the author and award him the palm which shall continue fresh and green in the eyes of posterity. Of many copious authors, how little is now generally read-a few versified translations, an ode, some satires, and a prose essay or two, with one play of Dryden; only two or three, out of the score of volumes that complete the edition of Swift. Of Voltaire's three score, a few satirical tales and historical compends: some two or three dialogues of Plato: the Essays and Advancement of Bacon: the Essay of Locke: a play, here and there, of the Old Dramatists: an occasional sonnet of a writer of a volume of sonnets. These are illustrations at hand: a very long list might be made of

the very fertile authors who have been popularly known as the writers of but one work of pre-eminent ability. Bunyan, Defoe and Butler are striking instances. For the gratification of personal amusement, or the curious eye of the diligent antiquary, we might add a copious appendix of this sort, but such might not be so generally acceptable, as these occasional reflections illustrated by fewer examples.

The writers of the present century, this age of authors and books, will in all probability experience a very great diminution in the extent and character of their fame with the coming age. Countless volumes of fiction will soon be laid on the shelf for ever; whilst a class of writers, read by few and whose names have not yet gone abroad into general esteem, will, we venture to predict, become classical, not only or so much from the capacity of their genius, as from its direction to the permanently classical forms of writing. Except Scott (a vast deal of whose writing, it has been confessed by more than one even cautious critic, cannot last) what novelist will gain in fame, as the Critic and Essayist Hazlitt? We have had, for more than a century, no humorist like Lamb; and Hunt treads closely upon the heels of Steele. Many authors too will become famous in spite of their elaborate attempts at avoiding fame: the squib, the pamphlet, the newspaper editorial, will throw in the shade heavy Epics and dull histories; a picturesque sketch of manners, a fresh and spirited portrait of character, true and genial criticism, speculations on life and the principles and motives of human actions; these form the favorite reading of the best class of readers in all ages-and although the readers of Addison and Steele may, at the pre sent day, comprise a small body, still they have admirers, and there are also readers and lovers of them who have succeeded them in the same form of composition. What style

or range of speculation does it not embrace? It is too didactic for the mass of readers, who, like children of ignorant people, must be entertained at the same time they are taught: but for the scholar and philosopher it is invaluable.

Myself a reader and writer of Essays, I must confess to a special fondness for the very name; and I have contracted a feeling of affectionate interest for the essayist and critic.

As

I run my eye over the shelves of my small collection, I find few books it rests upon with such pleasure as upon the essayists, moral painters and historians of manners and fashions. There are Bacon and Temple, and Cowley, with the admirable writers whose names are placed at the head of this paper. There too are Goldsmith and Shenstone and Mackenzie. Nor may I omit that trio of masterly essayists, Lamb and Hazlitt and Leigh Hunt. Of the French, I especially cherish Rochefoucald and Labruyère-writers with more thinking in their maxims and sentences, than you find in whole pages of weaker writers. Among quite recent instances, Carlyle and Macaulay in England; Guizot and Cousin (though more scholastic than strictly belongs to general essayists) in France: and at home, Channing, Emerson and Dewey. Indeed, the bes twriting of the present day is to be found in periodical literature; though we have lost much in pure classicality and in certain traits of the essay, that have become merged in other forms of writing. Thus, owing to the necessity of rapid and copious productions, inaccuracies are not so rare as they should be; and evident marks of haste are to be found. The humorous painting of the Addisonian school has become the property of two or three capital novelists. We have nowa-days no pictures of manners, merely in essays; and since Hazlitt, no prose satirist of decided ability has arisen. The Lecturers and Reviewers occupy a large portion of the

pro

vince formerly allotted to the Essay. Moral speculation and criticism; analysis of character, historical painting, satirical description, the peculiar characteristics of the Essay, have, for the most part, passed into other forms. Yet a taste for this kind of writing is retained by a circle, which is rapidly widening, and in consequence the demand has evidently increased for more of literature, of the pleasantest kind-for something brief, pointed and pithy-with somewhat of a practical bearing, and yet which is to be considered as valuable in a purely literary estimate of the matter.

A kind of Literature is needed for the busy man and the gentleman, as well as for the recluse scholar; a tone of fresh vigor, real knowledge of life, wide and original experience is requisite. The authors of this must be men, scholars, and gentlemen. It is not by any means the most ambitious department of authorship, but, perhaps, next to fine poetry, it is the most stable; the staple is life and books: feeling and passion; without inclining to system or method, it is grave and philosophical: without descending to farce or burlesque, it admits of pleasantry and good-natured ridicule. It is not exact or mechanical science, but the science of human nature and the art of criticism (not of books and of authors only, but) of principles, and theories, and fashions, and contemporary manners.

It is strictly historical, though it contains. little narrative, for it points out the sources of historical truth. It is experimental philosophy, though without any settled rules of art. In brief, it is the kind of writing most particularly addressed to all, who, while they read, think and feel; and not to those who read to accumulate and display knowledge.

Addison and Steele have been more fortunate than most writers of essays, not only as they are among the best but

as they were among the earliest. Priority is, in fact, as important a thing in Literature, as precedence is thought to be in life. The first writers are generally the best; at all events they are the freshest and most original. In point of delicate humor, Addison is unsurpassed, though his serious writing, which is sometimes almost tame, has been equalled. Steele is more unique such naturalness, so easy and uniform a style, a vein of sentiment so fresh and manly, such charming pleasantry, such elegance of compliment and heartiness at the same time, we find in no one other essayist. Not a few periodical writers might be mentioned, more brilliant, more ingenious, with greater learning and capacity, more profound, more exact, yet none who are so delightful as Steele is invariably. Happy on any topic, he is perfectly delicious where he is most at home, and writes from his heart. The greater fame of Addison has arisen in part from higher pretensions and as much from the serious nature of his moral essays. Addison, too, aimed more at being the censor; Steele was content with the reputation of sociality, and to be loved rather than be admired. Addison was perhaps a more cultivated man, but Steele had wit and spirit, that needed slight aids from scholarship-yet he would, at the present day, be called a scholar. Steele had less art and policy than his associate, was more open and credulous, a generous . dupe, though deceived by no lack of sense, but of stratagem. Addison was author all over; Steele was more of the man than of the writer. Both were admirable in their respective manners. Addison's elegance and humor gave an additional beauty to the subjects fullest of it, naturally; while Steele's fine sense and airy style played with easy grace upon the

most barren theme.

Besides the Spectator, Tattler and Guardian, Addison was