Mr. Gifford
by William Hazlitt
MR.
GIFFORD was originally bred to some handicraft. He afterwards contrived to
learn Latin, and was for some time an usher in a school, till he became a tutor
in a nobleman's family. The low-bred, self-taught man, the pedant, and the
dependent on the great, contribute to form the Editor of the Quarterly
Review. He is admirably qualified for this situation, which he has held for
some years, by a happy combination of defects, natural and acquired; and in the
event of his death it will be difficult to provide him a suitable successor.
Mr.
Gifford has no pretensions to be thought a man of genius, of taste, or even of
general knowledge. He merely understands the mechanical and instrumental part
of learning. He is a critic of the last age, when the different editions of an
author or the dates of his several performances were all that occupied the
inquiries of a profound scholar, and the spirit of the writer or the beauties
of his style were left to shift for themselves, or exercise the fancy of the
light and superficial reader. In studying an old author, he has no notion of
anything beyond adjusting a point, proposing a different reading, or
correcting, by the collation of various copies, an error of the press.
In
appreciating a modern one, if it is an enemy, the first thing he thinks of is
to charge him with bad grammar: he scans his sentences instead of weighing his
sense; or if it is a friend, the highest compliment he conceives it possible to
pay him is, that his thoughts and expressions are moulded on some hackneyed
model. His standard of ideal perfection is what he himself now is, a person of
mediocre literary attainments: his utmost contempt is shown by reducing anyone
to what he himself once was, a person without the ordinary advantages of
education and learning. It is accordingly assumed with much complacency in his
critical pages, that Tory writers are classical and courtly as a matter of
course, as it is a standing jest and evident truism that Whigs and Reformers
must be persons of low birth and breeding, imputations from one of which he
himself has narrowly escaped, and both of which he holds in suitable
abhorrence. He stands over a contemporary performance with all the self-conceit
and self-importance of a country schoolmaster, tries it by technical rules, affects
not to understand the meaning; examines the hand-writing, the spelling, shrugs
up his shoulders and chuckles over a slip of the pen, and keeps a sharp
look-out for a false concord and-a flogging.
There
is nothing liberal, nothing humane in his style of judging: it is altogether
petty, captious, and literal. The Editor's political subserviency
adds the last finishing to his ridiculous pedantry and vanity. He has all his
life been a follower in the train of wealth and power, strives to back his
pretensions on Parnassus by a place at court, and to gild his reputation as a
man of letters by the smile of greatness. He thinks his works are stamped with
additional value by having his name in the Red-Book. He looks up to the
distinctions of rank and station as he does to those of learning, with the
gross and over-weening adulation of his early origin. All his notions are low,
upstart, servile. He thinks it the highest honour to a poet to be patronised by
a peer or by some dowager of quality. He is prouder of a court-livery than of a
laurel-wreath; and is only sure of having established his claims to
respectability by having sacrificed those of independence. He is a retainer to
the Muses, a door-keeper to learning, a lacquey in
the State. He believes that modern literature should wear the fetters of
classical antiquity; that truth is to be weighed in the scales of opinion and
prejudice; that power is equivalent to right; that genius is dependent on
rules; that taste and refinement of language consist in word-catching.
Many
persons suppose that Mr. Gifford knows better than he pretends, and that he is
shrewd, artful and designing. But perhaps it may be nearer the mark to suppose
that his dulness is guarantee for his sincerity, or
that, before he is the tool of the profligacy of others, he is the dupe of his
own jaundiced feelings and narrow, hoodwinked perceptions.
'Destroy his fib or
sophistry: in vain--
The creature's at his dirty work again!'
But
this is less from choice or perversity, than because he cannot help it, and can
do nothing else. He damns a beautiful expression less out of spite than because
he really does not understand it; any novelty of thought or sentiment gives him
a shock from which he cannot recover for some time; and he naturally takes his
revenge for the alarm and uneasiness occasioned him without referring to venal
or party motives. He garbles an author's meaning, not so much wilfully, as
because it is a pain to him to enlarge his microscopic view to take in the
context, when a particular sentence or passage has struck him as quaint and out
of the way. He fly-blows an author's style, and picks out detached words and
phrases for cynical reprobation, simply because he feels himself at home, or
takes a pride and pleasure in this sort of petty warfare. He is tetchy and
impatient of contradiction, sore with wounded pride, angry at obvious faults,
more angry at unforeseen beauties. He has the chalk-stones in his
understanding, and from being used to long confinement, cannot bear the
slightest jostling or irregularity of motion. He may call out with the fellow
in the Tempest 'I am not Stephano, but a cramp!'
He
would go back to the standard of opinions, style, faded ornaments and insipid
formalities that came into fashion about forty years ago. Flashes of thought,
flights of fancy, idiomatic expressions, he sets down among the signs of the
times, the extraordinary occurrences of the age we live in. They are marks of a
restless and revolutionary spirit: they disturb his composure of mind, and
threaten (by implication) the safety of the State. His slow, snail-paced,
bed-rid habits of reasoning cannot keep up with the whirling, eccentric motion,
the rapid, perhaps extravagant combinations of modern literature. He has long
been stationary himself, and is determined that others shall remain so. The
hazarding a paradox is like letting off a pistol close to his ear: he is
alarmed and offended. The using an elliptical mode of expression (such as he
did not use to find in Guides to the English Tongue) jars him like coming
suddenly to a step in a flight of stairs that you were not aware of. He pishes and pshaws at all this,
exercises a sort of interjectional criticism on what excites his spleen, his
envy or his wonder, and hurls his meagre anathemas ex cathedrâ
at all those writers who are indifferent alike to his precepts and his example!
Mr.
Gifford, in short, is possessed of that sort of learning which is likely to
result from an over-anxious desire to supply the want of the first rudiments of
education: that sort of wit which is the offspring of ill-humour or bodily
pain: that sort of sense which arises from a spirit of contradiction and a
disposition to cavil at and dispute the opinions of others: and that sort of
reputation which is the consequence of bowing to established authority and
ministerial influence. He dedicates to some great man, and receives his
compliments in return. He appeals to some great name, and the Undergraduates of
the two Universities look up to him as an oracle of wisdom. He throws the weight
of his verbal criticism and puny discoveries in black-letter reading into the
gap, that is supposed to be making in the Constitution by Whig's and Radicals,
whom he qualifies without mercy as dunces and miscreants, and so entitles
himself to the protection of the Church and State. The character of his mind is
an utter want of independence and magnanimity in all that he attempts. He
cannot go alone; he must have crutches, a go-cart and trammels, or he is timid,
fretful and helpless as a child. He cannot conceive of anything different from
what he finds it, and hates those who pretend to a greater reach of intellect
or boldness of spirit than himself. He inclines, by a natural and deliberate
bias, to the traditional in laws and government, to the orthodox in religion,
to the safe in opinion, to the trite in imagination, to the technical in style,
to whatever implies a surrender of individual judgment into the hands of
authority and a subjection of individual feeling to mechanic rules.
If
he finds anyone flying in the face of these, or straggling from the beaten
path, he thinks he has them at a notable disadvantage, and falls foul of them
without loss of time, partly to soothe his own sense of mortified
self-consequence, and as an edifying spectacle to his legitimate friends. He
takes none but unfair advantages. He twits his adversaries (that is, those who
are not in the leading-strings of his school or party) with some personal or
accidental defect. If a writer has been punished for a political libel, he is sure
to hear of it in a literary criticism. If a lady goes on crutches and is out of
favour at court, she is reminded of it in Mr. Gifford's manly satire. He sneers
at people of low birth or who have not had a college education, partly to hide
his own want of certain advantages, partly as well-timed flattery to those who
possess them. He has a right to laugh at poor, unfriended, untitled genius from
wearing the livery of rank and letters, as footmen behind a coronet-coach laugh
at the rabble. He keeps good company, and forgets himself. He stands at the
door of Mr. Murray's shop, and will not let any body
pass but the well-dressed mob or some followers of the court. To edge into the Quarterly
Temple of Fame the candidate must have a diploma from the Universities, a
passport from the Treasury. Otherwise, it is a breach of etiquette to let him
pass, an insult to the better sort who aspire to the love of letters, and may
chance to drop in to the Feast of the Poets. Or, if he cannot manage it
thus, or get rid of the claim on the bare ground of poverty or want of
school-learning, he trumps up an excuse for the occasion, such as that 'a man
was confined in Newgate a short time before.' It is not a lie on the part of
the critic; it is only an amiable subserviency to the
will of his betters, like that of a menial who is ordered to deny his master: a
sense of propriety, a knowledge of the world, a poetical and moral license.
Such fellows (such is his cue from his employers) should at any rate be kept
out of privileged places: persons who have been convicted of prose-libels ought
not to be suffered to write poetry. If the fact was not exactly as it was
stated, it was something of the kind, or it ought to have been so; the
assertion was a pious fraud; the public, the court, the prince himself might
read the work, but for this mark of opprobrium set upon it. It was not to be
endured that an insolent plebeian should aspire to elegance, taste, fancy; it
was throwing down the barriers which ought to separate the higher and the lower
classes, the loyal and the disloyal. The paraphrase of the story of Dante was
therefore to perform quarantine; it was to seem not yet recovered from the gaol
infection; there was to be a taint upon it, as there was none in it; and all
this was performed by a single slip of Mr. Gifford's pen! We would willingly
believe (if we could) that in this case there was as much weakness and
prejudice as there was malice and cunning.
Again,
we do not think it possible that under any circumstances the writer of the Verses
to Anna could enter into the spirit or delicacy of Mr.
Keats' poetry. The fate of the latter somewhat resembled that of
'- a bud bit by an
envious worm,
Ere it could spread its sweet leaves to the air,
Or dedicate its beauty to the sun.'
Mr.
Keats' ostensible crime was that he had been praised in the Examiner
newspaper; a greater and more unpardonable offence probably was that he was a
true poet, with all the errors and beauties of youthful genius to answer for.
Mr. Gifford was as insensible to the one as he was inexorable to the other. Let
the reader judge from the two subjoined specimens how far the one writer could
ever, without a presumption equalled only by a want of self-knowledge, set
himself in judgment on the other.
'Out went the taper as
she hurried in;
Its little smoke in pallid moonshine died:
She closed the door, she panted, all akin
To spirits of the air and visions wide:
No utter'd syllable, or woe betide!
But to her heart, her heart was voluble,
Paining with eloquence her balmy side;
As though a tongueless nightingale should swell
Her heart in vain, and die, heart-stifled, in her dell.
'A casement high and triple-arch'd there was,
All garlanded with carven imag'ries
Of fruits and flowers, and bunches of knot-grass,
And diamonded with panes of quaint device,
Innumerable of stains and splendid dyes,
As are the tiger-moth's deep-damask'd wings;
And in the midst, 'mong thousand heraldries,
And twilight saints and dim emblazonings,
A shielded scutcheon blush'd
with blood of queens and kings.
'Full on this casement shone the wintry moon,
And threw warm gules on Madeline's fair breast,
As down she knelt for Heaven's grace and boon;
Rose-bloom fell on her hands, together prest,
And on her silver cross soft amethyst,
And on her hair a glory, like a saint.
She seem'd a splendid angel, newly drest,
Save wings, for Heaven: -- Porphyro grew faint:
She knelt, so pure a thing, so free from mortal taint.
'Anon his heart revives: her vespers done,
Of all its wreathed pearls her hair she frees;
Unclasps her warmed jewels one by one;
Loosens her fragrant bodice; by degrees
Her rich attire creeps rustling to her knees:
Half-hidden, like a mermaid in sea-weed,
Pensive awhile she dreams awake, and sees,
In fancy, fair St. Agnes in her bed,
But dares not look behind, or all the charm is fled.
'Soon trembling in her soft and chilly nest,
In sort of wakeful swoon, perplex'd she lay,
Until the poppied warmth of sleep oppress'd
Her soothed limbs, and soul fatigued away:
Flown, like a thought, until the morrow-day:
Blissfully haven'd both from joy and pain;
Clasp'd like a missal where swart Paynims
pray;
Blinded alike from sunshine and from rain,
As though a rose should shut, and be a bud again.'
With
the rich beauties and the dim obscurities of lines like these let us contrast
the Verses addressed To a Tuft of early Violets by the fastidious author
[Gifford] of the Baviad and Mæviad:
'Sweet flowers! that
from your humble beds
—Thus prematurely dare to rise,
And trust your unprotected heads
To cold Aquarius' watery skies.
'Retire, retire! These
tepid airs
—Are not the genial brood of May;
That sun with light malignant glares,
—And flatters only to betray.
'Stern Winter's reign
is not yet past --
—Lo! while your buds prepare to blow,
On icy pinions comes the blast,
— And
nips your root, and lays you low.
'Alas, for such
ungentle doom!
—But I will shield you; and supply
A kindlier soil on which to bloom,
—A nobler bed on which to die.
'Come then-ere yet the
morning ray
—Has drunk the dew that gems your crest,
And drawn your balmiest sweets away;
—O come and grace my Anna's breast.
'Ye droop, fond
flowers! But did ye know
—What worth, what goodness there reside,
Your cups with liveliest tints would glow;
—And spread their leaves with conscious pride.
'For there has liberal
Nature joined
—Her riches to the stores of Art,
And added to the vigorous mind
—The soft, the sympathising heart.
'Come then-ere yet the
morning ray
—Has drunk the dew that gems your crest,
And drawn your balmiest sweets away;
—O come and grace my Anna's breast.
'O! I should think -—that
fragrant bed
—Might I but hope with you to share --
Years of anxiety repaid
—By one short hour of transport there.
'More blest than me,
thus shall ye live
—Your little day; and when ye die,
Sweet flowers; the grateful Muse shall give
—A verse, the sorrowing maid a sigh.
'While I, alas! no
distant date,
—Mix with the dust from whence I came,
Without a friend to weep my fate,
—Without a stone to tell my name.'
We subjoin one more specimen of these 'wild strains
said to be 'Written two years after the preceding.' ECCE ITERUM
CRISPINUS!
'I wish I was where
Anna lies;
—For I am sick of lingering here,
And every hour Affection cries,
—Go, and partake her humble bier.
'I wish I could! for
when she died
—I lost my all; and life has prov'd
Since that sad hour a dreary void,
—A waste unlovely and unlov'd.
'But who, when I am turn'd to clay,
—Shall duly to her grave repair,
And pluck the ragged moss away,
—And weeds that have "no business
there"?
'And who, with pious
hand, shall bring
—The flowers she cherish'd,
snow-drops cold,
And violets that unheeded spring,
—To scatter o'er her hallow'd
mould?
'And who, while Memory
loves to dwell
—Upon her name for ever dear,
Shall feel his heart with passions swell,
—And pour the bitter, bitter tear?
'I DID IT; and would fate allow,
—Should visit still, should still deplore
--
But health and strength have left me now,
—But I, alas! can weep no more.
'Take then, sweet maid!
this simple strain,
—The last I offer at thy shrine;
Thy grave must then undeck'd remain,
—And all thy memory fade with mine.
'And can thy soft
persuasive look,
—That voice that might with music vie,
Thy air that every gazer took,
—Thy matchless eloquence of eye --
'Thy spirits,
frolicsome as good,
—Thy courage, by no ills dismay'd,
Thy patience by no wrongs subdued,
—Thy gay good-humour-can they
"fade"?
'Perhaps -—but sorrow
dims my eye:
—Cold turf, which I no more must view,
Dear name, which I no more must sigh,
—A long, a last, a sad adieu!'
It
may be said in extenuation of the low, mechanic vein of these impoverished
lines, that they were written at an early age. They were the inspired
production of a youthful lover! Mr. Gifford was thirty when he wrote them: Mr.
Keats died when he was scarce twenty! Farther it may be said, that Mr. Gifford
hazarded his first poetical attempts under all the disadvantages of a neglected
education: but the same circumstance, together with a few unpruned redundancies
of fancy and quaintnesses of expression, was made the
plea on which Mr. Keats was hooted out of the world, and his fine talents and
wounded sensibilities consigned to an early grave. In short, the treatment of
this heedless candidate for poetical fame might serve as a warning, and was
intended to serve as a warning, to all unfledged tyros, how they venture upon
any such doubtful experiments, except under the auspices of some lord of the
bedchamber or Government Aristarchus, and how they imprudently associate
themselves with men of mere popular talent or independence of feeling!
It
is the same in prose works. The Editor scorns to enter the lists of argument
with any proscribed writer of the opposite party. He does not refute, but
denounces him. He makes no concessions to an adversary, lest they should in
some way be turned against him. He only feels himself safe in the fancied
insignificance of others. He only feels himself superior to those whom he
stigmatizes as the lowest of mankind. All persons are without common-sense and
honesty who do not believe implicitly (with him) in the immaculateness of
Ministers and the divine origin of Kings.
Thus
he informed the word that the author [Hazlitt] of TABLE-TALK was a person who could not write a
sentence of common English, and who could hardly spell his own name, because he
was not a friend to the restoration of the Bourbons, and had the assurance to
write Characters of Shakespeare's Plays in a style of criticism somewhat
different from Mr. Gifford's. He charged this writer with imposing on the
public by a flowery style; and when the latter ventured to refer to a work of
his, called An Essay on the Principles of Human Action, which has not a
single ornament in it, as a specimen of his original studies and the proper
bias of his mind, the learned critic, with a shrug of great self-satisfaction,
said, 'It was amusing to see this person, sitting like one of Brouwer's Dutch boors over his gin and tobacco-pipes, and
fancying himself a Leibnitz!' The question was, whether the subject of Mr.
Gifford's censure had ever written such a work or not; for if he had, he had
amused himself with something besides gin and tobacco-pipes. But our Editor, by
virtue of the situation he holds, is superior to facts or arguments: he is
accountable neither to the public nor to authors for what he says of them, but
owes it to his employers to prejudice the work and vilify the writer, if the
latter is not avowedly ready to range himself on the stronger side.
The
Quarterly Review, besides the political tirades and denunciations of
suspected writers, intended for the guidance of the heads of families, is
filled up with accounts of books of Voyages and Travels for the amusement of
the younger branches. The poetical department is almost a sinecure, consisting
of mere summary decisions and a list of quotations. Mr. Croker is understood to
contribute the St. Helena articles and the liberality, Mr. Canning the
practical good sense, Mr. D'Israeli the good-nature,
Mr. Jacob the modesty, Mr. Southey the consistency, and the Editor himself the
chivalrous spirit and the attacks on Lady Morgan. It is a double crime, and
excites a double portion of spleen in the Editor, when female writers are not
advocates of passive obedience and non-resistance. This journal, then, is a
depository for every species of political sophistry and personal calumny. There
is no abuse or corruption that do not there find a jesuitical
palliation or a bare-faced vindication. There we meet the slime of hypocrisy,
the varnish of courts, the cant of pedantry, the cobwebs of the law, the iron
hand of power. Its object is as mischievous as the means by which it is pursued
are odious. The intention is to poison the sources of public opinion and of
individual fame, to pervert literature from being the natural ally of freedom
and humanity into an engine of priestcraft and
despotism, and to undermine the spirit of the English constitution and the
independence of the English character. The Editor and his friends
systematically explode every principle of liberty, laugh patriotism and public
spirit to scorn, resent every pretence to integrity as a piece of singularity
or insolence, and strike at the root of all free inquiry or discussion by
running down every writer as a vile scribbler and a bad member of society, who
is not a hireling and a slave. No means are stuck at in accomplishing this
liable end. Strong in patronage, they trample on truth, justice and decency.
They claim the privilege of court favourites. They keep as little faith with
the public as with their opponents.
No
statement in the Quarterly Review is to be trusted: there is no fact
that is not misrepresented in it, no quotation that is not garbled, no
character that is not slandered, if it can answer the purposes of a party to do
so. The weight of power, of wealth, of rank is thrown into the scale, gives its
impulse to the machine; and the whole is under the guidance of Mr. Gifford's
instinctive genius -- of the inborn hatred of servility for independence, of dulness for talent, of cunning and impudence for truth and
honesty. It costs him no effort to execute his disreputable task; in being the
tool of a crooked policy, he but labours in his natural vocation. He patches up
a rotten system, as he would supply the chasms in a worm-eaten manuscript, from
a grovelling incapacity to do anything better: thinks that if a single iota in
the claims of prerogative and power were lost, the whole fabric of society
would fall upon his head and crush him: and calculates that his best chance for
literary reputation is by black-balling one half of the competitors as Jacobins
and levellers, and securing the suffrages of the other half in his favour as a
loyal subject and trusty partisan!
Mr.
Gifford, as a satirist, is violent and abrupt. He takes obvious or physical
defects, and dwells upon them with much labour and harshness of invective, but
with very little wit or spirit. He expresses a great deal of anger and
contempt; but you cannot tell very well why, except that he seems to be sore
and out of humour. His satire is mere peevishness and spleen, or something
worse -- personal antipathy and rancour. We are in quite as much pain for the
writer as for the object of his resentment. His address to Peter Pindar is
laughable from its outrageousness. He denounces him as a wretch hateful to God
and man for some of the most harmless and amusing trifles that ever were written,
and the very good humour and pleasantry of which, we suspect, constituted their
offence in the eyes of this Drawcansir.
His attacks on Mrs. Robinson were
unmanly, and even those on Mr. Merry and the Della-Cruscan
School were very much more ferocious than the occasion warranted. A little
affectation and quaintness of style did not merit such severity of castigation.
As a translator, Mr. Gifford's version of the Roman satirist is the baldest
and, in parts, the most offensive of all others. We do not know why he
attempted it, unless he had got it in his head that he should thus follow in
the steps of Dryden,
as he had already done in those of Pope
in the Baviad and Mæviad.
As an editor of old authors, Mr. Gifford is entitled to considerable praise for
the pains he has taken in revising the text, and for some improvements he has
introduced into it. He had better have spared the notes in which, though he has
detected the blunders of previous commentators, he has exposed his own
ill-temper and narrowness of feeling more. As a critic, he has thrown no light
on the character and spirit of his authors. He has shown no striking power of
analysis nor of original illustration, though he has chosen to exercise his pen
on writers most congenial to his own turn of mind, from their dry and caustic
vein -- Massinger and Ben Jonson. What he will make of Marlowe, it is difficult
to guess. He has none of 'the fiery quality' of the poet.
Mr.
Gifford does not take for his motto on these occasions Spiritus
precipitandus est! His
most successful efforts in this way are barely respectable. In general, his
observations are petty, ill-concocted, and discover as little tact, as they do
a habit of connected reasoning. Thus, for instance, in attempting to add the
name of Massinger to the list of Catholic poets, our minute critic insists on
the profusion of crucifixes, glories, angelic visions, garlands of roses, and
clouds of incense scattered through the Virgin-Martyr, as evidence of the
theological sentiments meant to be inculcated by the play, when the least
reflection might have taught him that they proved nothing but the author's
poetical conception of the character and costume of his subject. A writer
might, with the same sinister, short-sighted shrewdness, be accused of
Heathenism for talking of Flora and Ceres in a poem on the Seasons! What are
produced as the exclusive badges and occult proofs of Catholic bigotry, are
nothing but the adventitious ornaments and external symbols, the gross and
sensible language -- in a word, the poetry of Christianity in general. What
indeed shows the frivolousness of the whole inference is that Decker, who is
asserted by our critic to have contributed some of the most passionate and
fantastic of these devotional scenes, is not even suspected of a leaning to
Popery. In like manner, he excuses Massinger for the grossness of one of his
plots (that of the Unnatural Combat) by saying that it was supposed to take
place before the Christian era; by this shallow common-place persuading
himself, or fancying he could persuade others, that the crime in question
(which yet on the very face of the story is made the ground of a tragic
catastrophe) was first made statutory by the Christian religion.
The
foregoing is a harsh criticism, and may be thought illiberal. But as Mr.
Gifford assumes a right to say what he pleases of others, they may be allowed
to speak the truth of him!