mprehensiveness of view for history, and vented his littleness,
pique, resentment, bigotry, and intolerance on his contemporaries--who
took the wrong side, and defended it by unfair means--who, the moment his
own interest or the prejudices of others interfered, seemed to forget all
that was due to the pride of intellect, to the sense of manhood--who,
praised, admired by men of all parties alike, repaid the public liberality
by striking a secret and envenomed blow at the reputation of every one who
was not the ready tool of power--who strewed the slime of rankling malice
and mercenary scorn over the bud and promise of genius, because it was not
fostered in the hotbed of corruption, or warped by the trammels of
servility--who supported the worst abuses of authority in the worst
spirit--who joined a gang of desperadoes to spread calumny, contempt,
infamy, wherever they were merited by honesty or talent on a different
side--who officiously undertook to decide public questions by private
insinuations, to prop the throne by nicknames, and the altar by lies--who
being (by common consent), the finest, the most humane and accomplished
writer of his age, associated himself with and encouraged the lowest
panders of a venal press; deluging, nauseating the public mind with the
offal and garbage of Billingsgate abuse and vulgar _slang_; showing no
remorse, no relenting or compassion towards the victims of this nefarious
and organized system of party-proscription, carried on under the mask of
literary criticism and fair discussion, insulting the misfortunes of some,
and trampling on the early grave of others--

"Who would not grieve if such a man there be?
Who would not weep if Atticus were he?"

But we believe there is no other age or country in the world (but ours),
in which such genius could have been so degraded!

XV

LORD BYRON

Lord Byron and Sir Walter Scott are among writers now living[139] the two,
who would carry away a majority of suffrages as the greatest geniuses of
the age. The former would, perhaps, obtain the preference with fine
gentlemen and ladies (squeamishness apart)--the latter with the critics
and the vulgar. We shall treat of them in the same connection, partly on
account of their distinguished pre-eminence, and partly because they
afford a complete contrast to each other. In their poetry, in their prose,
in their politics, and in their tempers, no two men can be more unlike.

If Sir Walter Sc