صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Protestant, armed with a copy of King James's Bible, as a voucher for her good faith.

There have been thoughtless, fantastic people at all times, and whenever there is a preponderance of them, they must be allowed, like other majorities, to have things pretty much as they want them, though it is ten to one that it will not be the right way. Honest Dick Steel was not long acting as editor, when he learned that, for a certain class of mortals, even the semblance of novelty is the chief attraction. "It is incredible to think," he says, "how empty I have in this time observed some part of the species to be, what mere blanks they are when they first come abroad in the morning; how utterly they are at a stand, until they are set a-going by some paragraph in a newspaper. Such persons are very acceptable to a young author, for they desire no more in anything but to be new to be agreeable."*

Neither Addison nor Steele took much pains to satisfy this class, for they frequently issued two Spectators togethert -the second being late as well as the first; whereas not one number of that famous work was ever issued before the date marked upon the face of it. The "Tattler," commenced in Ireland, by Steele, and numbering among its contributors Swift, Addison and Parnell, purported to appear on three particular days of the week, but it appeared nearly, if not quite as often, on the intervening days. If it ever appeared

The Spectator, No. 4.

+ Probably some of our readers are aware that our humble selves have been accused of issuing two numbers of the "National Quarterly Review" together. An evening journal of this city that claims to be high authority in literature fancied it made itsef very witty in announcing this discovery in its notice of our last September number. Most persons of ordinary intelligence, not to mention critics, are aware that two or more numbers of a periodical constitute a volume, and that a title page, indicating that fact, is given in every second or third number, as the case may be. Every two numbers of our journal make a volume of over 400 pages; accordingly the title page to volume XVII. embracing, as stated, the numbers for June and September, is given in the latter. This is quite sufficient for our sagacious afternoon critic, who, without waiting for a moment to think, proclaims that we issued no number in June, but included the June and September numbers in one issue! Having thus made a statement which thousands could prove to be utterly false, he imagines he has hit on a capital stroke of humor, and one that would overwhelm us, when he suggests that in future "The National Quarterly Review," should be called "The Half-Yearly Review.” It is perfectly consistent that the Aristarchus who criticises after this fashion, should be in ecstasies with the magazines published some weeks in advance of their time. Accordingly we have not complained, though well aware that his employers-who are men of intelligence, not prone to misrepresentation-would not hesitate to make the amende honorable,

139

in advance we have no record of the fact. And thus we could mention all the most celebrated journals of the old world, and ask the most learned and curious of our readers to point out a single one that thought it derived any virtue from pretending to come into the world in advance of its time.

It was rather the opinion then that untimely births are not good; that those born before the full period of gestation is completed, are apt to be puny, feeble and short-lived. It is true that formerly too, a certain class of papers issued in December purported to be January or February papers, such as drafts for money on banks which did not contain any money at the time those drafts were drawn, and might possibly be in the same predicament weeks or months later. But even drafts and checks were deemed more valuable when they bore the date of the day and month on which they were issued, than when they bore a fictitious date; and if we are not mistaken this notion is not entirely exploded at the present day. For our own part if we got a check to-day for money due to us we should much rather find it dated, December 12, 1868, than January 1, 1869; and if the drawer told us that the latter date enhanced its value by adding to its "freshness" we confess we should either have some doubts of his honesty, or think he must be more or less affected by the moon.

So far as the thing itself is concerned, is it not nearly as easy to set down a future date as the present date? Thus, supposing we issued this journal to-day, or a week hence, would it not be as cheap for us to print January on the face of it, as December? And if we may use to-day the date, January, 1869, why not the date 1890? Do we know any

more about the one than we do about the other? At any rate do we make January work of December work by labeling it "January?" If so a house or a monument erected in 1868, may be dated 1869, or 1890; a hen old enough to endanger one's teeth in the eating may be labelled "spring chicken," &c. But what would be said of the hotel keeper who pretended to send chickens to the table fully cooked before they are hatched? Supposing an epicure enters who

is in a hurry, and addresses "mine host," in the middle of December, "I want something good and nice," and he is told in reply, "We can give you the very best-will you have some January chicken?" If the epicure had any knowledge of physiology, or of the phenomena produced by incubation, is it not likely that he would prefer waiting for the January chicken until January came? The hotel keeper might, indeed, say that the article is "fresh" now, and would be "stale" in January when the full period of incubation was completed; but would this be satisfactory?

The ladies are said to be very silly, because they represent themselves as having come into the world more recently than they really did; but it is natural for them to cling even to the semblance of youth, as long as possible; since a large proportion of them, if not the majority, have to depend chiefly for the influence they exercise among men, on those charms which are effaced by time. Associating increasing years with the gradual loss of their attractions, after they have attained a certain age, it is not at all to be wondered at that they wish to be considered younger than they are. "I should wish to be a beautiful young lady," says la Bruyère, "from my thirteenth to my twenty-second year, and after that age to become a man." This explains the

whole affair, and fully justifies the ladies for wishing to be considered younger than they are. But although the ladies. have thus good reason to attach much importance to youth and "freshness," who has ever heard of an honest lady that wished to be delivered of her child a month, a week, or even a day before its time? That some women have such wishes is very true; but are they the right kind?—are they such as we wish our wives and daughters to associate with?

But this comparison may be presented in another form. Every corporeal being that has life, as well as woman, must grow old and die; whereas ideas are supposed to be immortal. Surely they must be puny, not to say worthless, ideas that would die, or even grow stale, in a week or two.

* J'ai vu souhaiter d'être fille, et une belle fille, depuis treize ans jusqu'à vingt-deux, et après cet âge de devenir un homme.-Les Caract.res de La Bruyere, chap. iii.

Transitory as woman's charms are, they last longer than this, even under the most unfavorable circumstances. But in the name of common sense, why is a love story, a murder story, or any other story, anything the better for being dated "January," than it would be if dated "December?" What benefit does an historical sketch of the times of Charles I. or Louis XIV. derive from being dated January, more than if it were dated December? Could we not wait another week or two for the information it contains, as patiently as we did the rest of our lives?

But the most absurd and ridiculous attempt of all, is to comment in December on the current events of January. If this is impossible; if after all, no events can be discussed as current in December, but such as are so, does not the fact of labelling those events "January," rather tend to make them "stale" than "fresh?" This has been illustrated but too ludicrously during the late presidential election, when magazines and weekly papers, purporting to have been published after the result was known to the inhabitants of the most obscure hamlet in the United States could only speak of it as if it were still in the womb of the future.

Supposing the most important occurrences take place to-day, in what magazines could they be even alluded to? Surely not in a December one, since that was published more than a month ago-about the middle of November. It would be equally impossible to notice them in a January magazine which was published at least a week ago; so that if a revolution took place this afternoon, at Washington, or Albany, or if an earthquake occurred that destroyed half New York, Boston, or Philadelphia, we might not expect to find one word about it in any earlier magazine than the February number! The most important annual reports, issued in the middle of December, must wait for the same number; if they were issued on the first day of December, the earliest number in which they could be noticed would be that for January; whereas the reports issued in the middle of January, or earlier, have to wait for the criticism of our monthlies until the March numbers are "ready."

The truth is, that no work worth printing, as an intellec

tual production, has ever lost any of its value, or “freshness," for being laid aside a few weeks. It is the most valuable that have been so laid aside in all ages. The Homeric poems were but little known until Pisistratus caused them to be collected and transcribed; they were so old at this time-five hundred years before Christ-that no one could tell when they were written. Yet they were not stale in any sense, nor are they to-day, more than two thousand years later! Does the date alter the value of the works of Dante, Shakspeare, or Milton? if it does, is it not by making the older editions the most valuable? Paradise Lost had been rejected by several publishers before the author could get any one to give him even £5 for it. More recently Oliver Goldsmith was unable to procure the most ordinary necessaries of life, while his admirable Vicar of Wakefield lay beside him, as if it were waste paper; and it might have lain there for years longer, had Dr. Johnson not gone in person to procure a publisher for it. Gray's Elegy, De Foe's Robinson Crusoe, Corneille's Polyeucte, and many other celebrated works we could mention, were little thought of when "fresh" or "new." If the productions of the intellect that possess any value, do not, like good wine, improve by time, at least they no more suffer from time than gold does. It is only productions that have but a fictitious value, that degenerate in this way.

We hold, however, that our confrères have a perfect right to issue their journals as far in advance as they choose. If it be their good will and pleasure to label the numbers they issue in January, "March," or even "August," we shall have no complaint to make; nor shall we have any fault to find with those kind and obliging critics, who about the same day every month inform their readers so approvingly, that Smith's magazine, for next month, is "now ready." Even when they do so, after having previously given long extracts from the "advanced sheets," with an intimation that all the gems may be had in extenso, in a few days, we shall not grumble in the least.

All we ask is, that we be allowed equal liberty ourselves. We are not prophets; nor do we care to be "fast"-except

« السابقةمتابعة »