24 



TUB POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY.— SUPPLEMENT. 



C 



to predict their flight, or divine their limits, to 

 put the reasonable objections in the midst of all 

 due respect — this is the quality of the critic who 

 is born to be a critic." We have been speaking 

 of Mr. Carlyle. This is what Jeffrey thought of 

 him in 1832 : 



"I fear Carlyle will not do, that is, if you do 

 not take the liberties and the pains with him that 

 I did, by striking out freely and writing in occa- 

 sionally. The misfortune is, that he is very obsti- 

 nate, and unluckily, in a place like this, he finds 

 people enough to abet and applaud him, to inter- 

 cept the operation of the otherwise infallible rem- 

 edy of general avoidance and neglect. It is a great 

 pity, for he is a man of genius and industry, and 

 with the capacity of being an elegant and impres- 

 sive writer." 



The notion of Jeffrey occasionally writing 

 elegantly and impressively into Cailyle's proof- 

 sheets is rather striking. Some of Jeffrey's other 

 criticisms sound very curiously in our ear in 

 these days. It is startling to find Mill's "Logic" 

 described (1843) as "a great, unreadable book, 

 and its elaborate demonstration of axioms a 

 truism." A couple of years later Jeffrey admits, 

 in speaking of Mr. Mill's paper on " The Claims 

 of Labor," "Though I have long thought very 

 highly of his powers as a reasoner, I scarcely 

 gave him credit for such large and sound views 

 of realities and practical results as are displayed 

 in this article." Sir James Stephen — the distin- 

 guished sire of two distinguished contributors, 

 who may remind more than one editor of our 

 generation of the Horatian saying that — 



"Fortes creantur fortibus et bonis, 

 .... neque imbellcm feroces 

 Progenerant aquiloe columbam." 



— this excellent writer took a more just measure 

 of the book which Jeffrey thought unreadable : 



" My more immediate object in writing is to re- 

 mind you of John Mill's book (' System of Logic '), 

 of which I have lately been reading a considerable 

 part, and I have done so with the conviction that 

 it is one of the most remarkable productions of 

 this nineteenth century. Exceedingly debatable 

 indeed, but most worthy of debate, are many of his 

 favorite tenets, especially those of the last two or 

 three chapters. No man is fit to encounter him 

 who is not thoroughly conversant with the moral 

 sciences which he handles ; and, remembering what 

 you told me of your own studies under Dugald 

 Stewart, I cannot but recommend the affair to your 

 wn personal attention. You will find very few 

 en fit, to be trusted with it. You ought to be 

 aware that, although with great circumspection, 

 not to say timidity, Mill is an opponent of religion 

 in the abstract, not of any particular form of it. 



That is, he evidently maintains that superhuman 

 influences on the mind of man are but a dream, 

 whence the inevitable conclusion that all acts of 

 devotion and prayer are but a superstition. That 

 such is his real meaning, however darkly con- 

 veyed, is indisputable. You are well aware that 

 it is in direct conflict with my own deepest and 

 most cherished convictions. Yet to condemn him 

 for holding, and for calmly publishing such views, 

 is but to add to the difficulties of fair and full dis- 

 cussion, and to render truth (or supposed truth) 

 less certain and valuable than if it had invited, 

 and encountered, and triumphed over, every as- 

 sault of every honest antagonist. I therefore, wish 

 Mill to be treated respectfully and handsomely." 



Few of Mr. Napier's correspondents seem to 

 have been more considerate. At one period (1844) 

 a long time had passed without any contribution 

 from Sir James Stephen's pen appearing in the 

 Review. Mr. Senior wrote a hint on the subject 

 to the editor, and Napier seems to have commu- 

 nicated with Sir James Stephen, who replied in 

 a model strain: 



" Have you any offer of a paper or papers from 

 my friend John Austin ? If you have, and if you 

 are not aware what manner of man he is, it may 

 not be amiss that you should be apprised that in 

 these parts he enjoys, and deservedly, a very high 

 and yet a peculiar reputation. I have a great at- 

 tachment to him. He is, in the best sense of the 

 word, a philosopher, an earnest and humble lover 

 of wisdom. I know not anywhere a larger-minded 

 man, and yet, eloquent as he is in speech, there is, 

 in his written style, an involution and a lack of 

 vivacity which renders his writings a sealed book 

 to almost every one. Whether he will be able to 

 assume an easier and a lighter manner, I do not 

 know. If not, I rather fear for him when he stands 

 at your bar. All I ask is, that you would convey 

 your judgment in measured and (as far as you can 

 honestly) in courteous terms ; for he is, for so con- 

 siderable a man, strangely sensitive. You must 

 have an odd story to tell of your intercourse with 

 the knights of the Order of the Quill." 



And the letter closed with what an editor values 

 more even than decently Christian treatment, 

 namely, the suggestion of a fine subject. This 

 became the admirable essay on the Clapham Sect. 

 Mr. Trevelyan has published the letter to Mr. 

 Napier in which Macaulay speaks pretty plainly 

 what he thought about Brougham and the extent 

 of his services to the Review. Brougham in turn 

 hated Macaulay, whom he calls the third or great- 

 est bore in society that he has ever known. He 

 is furious — and here Brougham was certainly not 

 wrong — over the " most profligate political moral- 

 ity " of Macaulay's essay on Clive. 



