20 



THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



for a year, and then practise for another year. 

 In 1838 he thought nothing of undertaking, 

 amid all the demands of active life, such a 

 bagatelle as a history of the French Revolution. 

 " I have some little knack of narrative," he says> 

 " the most difficult by far of all styles, and never 

 yet attained in perfection but by Hume and Livy ; 

 and I bring as much oratory and science to the 

 task as most of my predecessors." But what sort 

 of science ? And what has oratory to do with 

 it ? And how could he deceive himself into think- 

 ing that he could retire to write a history ? No- 

 body that ever lived would have more speedily 

 found out the truth of Voltaire's saying, " Le re- 

 pos est une bonne chose, metis Vennui est son fr ere." 

 The truth is, that one learns, after a certain ob- 

 servation of the world, to divide one's amazement 

 pretty equally between the literary voluptuary or 

 over-fastidious collegian, on the one hand, who is 

 so impressed by the size of his subject that he 

 never does more than collect material and make 

 notes, and the presumptuous politician, on the 

 other hand, who thinks that he can write a his- 

 tory or settle the issues of philosophy and theolo- 

 gy in odd half-hours. The one is so enfeebled in 

 will and literary energy after his viginti annorum 

 lucubrationes ; the other is so accustomed to be 

 content with the hurry, the unfinishedness, the 

 rough-and-ready methods of practical affairs ; and 

 they both in different ways measure the worth 

 and seriousness of literature so wrongly in rela- 

 tion to the rest of human interests. 



The relations between Lord Brougham and 

 Mr. Napier naturally suggest a good many reflec- 

 tions on the vexed question of the comparative 

 advantages of the old and the new theory of a 

 periodical. The new theory is that a periodical 

 should not be an organ, but an open pulpit, and 

 that each writer should sign his name. Without 

 disrespect to ably-conducted and eminent con- 

 temporaries of long standing, it may be said that 

 the tide of opinion and favor is setting in this di- 

 rection. Yet, on Jhe whole, experience perhaps 

 leads to a doubt whether the gains of the system 

 of signature are so very considerable as some of 

 us once expected. An editor on the new system 

 is, no doubt, relieved of a certain measure of re- 

 sponsibility. Lord Cockburn's panegyric on the 

 first great editor may show what was expected 

 from a man in such a position as Jeffrey's : " He 

 had to discover, and to train, authors ; to discern 

 what truth and the public mind required ; to sug- 

 gest subjects ; to reject, and, more offensive still, 

 to improve, contributions ; to keep down absurdi- 

 ties ; to infuse spirit ; to excite the timid ; to re- 



press violence ; to soothe jealousies ; to quell mu- 

 tinies ; to watch times ; and all this in the morn- 

 ing of the reviewing day, before experience had 

 taught editors conciliatory firmness, and contrib- 

 utors reasonable submission. He directed and 

 controlled the elements he presided over with a 

 master's judgment. There was not one of his as- 

 sociates who could have even held these elements 



together for a single year. 



Inferior to these 



excellences, but still important, was his dexterity 

 in revising the writings of others. Without al- 

 tering the general tone or character of the compo- 

 sition, he had great skill in leaving out defective 

 ideas or words, and in so aiding the original by 

 lively or graceful touches, that reasonable authors 

 were surprised and charmed on seeing how much 

 better they looked than they thought they would " 

 (Cockburn's " Life of Jeffrey," i., 301). 



From such toils and dangers as these the ed- 

 itor of a review with signed articles is, in the 

 main, happily free. He has usually suggestions 

 to make, for his experience has probably given 

 him points of view as to the effectiveness of this 

 or that feature of an article for its own purpose, 

 which would not occur to a writer. The writer is 

 absorbed in his subject, and has been less accus- 

 tomed to think of the public. But this exercise 

 of a claim to a general acquiescence in the judg- 

 ment and experience of a man who has the best 

 reasons for trying to judge rightly is a very dif- 

 ferent thing from the duty of drilling contribu- 

 tors and dressing contributions as Jeffrey dressed 

 and drilled. As Southey said, when groaning un- 

 der the mutilations inflicted by Gifford on his 

 contributions to the Quarterly, " there must be a 

 power expurgatory in the hands of the editor ; 

 and the misfortune is that editors frequently think 

 it incumbent on them to use that power merely 

 because they have it " (Southey's " Life," iv., 

 18). This is probably true on the anonymous 

 system, where the editor is answerable for every 

 word, and for the literary form no less than for the 

 substantial soundness or interest of an article. In 

 a man of weakish literary vanity — Jeffrey was evi- 

 dently full of it — there may well be a constant itch 

 to set his betters right in trifles, as Gifford thought 

 he could mend Southey's adjectives. To a vain 

 editor, or a too masterful editor, the temptation 

 under the anonymous system is no doubt strong. 

 M. Buloz, it is true, the renowned editor of the Re- 

 vue cles Deux Mondes, is said to have insisted on, 

 and to have freely practised, the fullest editorial 

 prerogative over articles that were openly signed 

 by the most eminent names in France. But M. 

 Buloz had no competitor, and those who did not 



