XXIII.
THE CENSORIOUS
“Judging with rigour every small offence.”
– Hayward.
He is a judge passing sentence upon persons and things without justice or charity. Benevolent works in Church or State are failures unless he has been a prominent party in their execution. Personal motives are weighed in the balance and found wanting. Thoughts, ere they are expressed, are even seen and censured. Actions are pronounced false and defective. Appearances are judged as realities, and realities as nonentities. Things straight are seen as crooked, and things beautiful as deformed. Where wiser men perceive order, strength, utility, he perceives confusion, weakness, and uselessness. An enterprise of which the community approve and co-operate in he stands aloof from, and satisfies his unhappy disposition with carping criticisms and ungenerous censures. A neighbour who does not reach his standard of moral excellence in character and action he pronounces lax in principles and delinquent in life. One who does not agree with him in his peculiar views of some disputed doctrine of Christian faith or principle of Church discipline he judges to be little better than a heretic or a heathen.
It seems the instinct of his nature to find fault. He hears no preacher, reads no book, looks upon no work of art, without some expression of disapproval. God, Providence, the Bible, Religion, do not escape his sharp and keen criticisms. His perception is so fine and his taste so exquisite that points of failure which a generous mind would overlook he discerns and speaks of with unfailing fidelity. He would at any time rather rub his nose against a thistle than smell at a flower.
“Mr. Smith is a very excellent man,” said a friend of mine one day in conversation to Mr. Pepper.
“Yes, he may be,” said Pepper in an indifferent way; “but perhaps you don’t know him as well as I do.”
“What a noble gift of Lord Hill to the town of Shenton, that park of one thousand acres!”
“True, it was; but what were his motives in its bestowment? Did he not expect to gain more than its value in certain ways that I need not mention?”
“How sad that the family of Hobson have come into such circumstances.”
“It is only a judgment upon them for the old man’s sins.”
“Have you heard that young Dumas has entered the ministry?”
“Yes, and what for? Only for the loaves and fishes.”
“What a kind Providence it was that provided so suitably for widow Bonsor and her family.”
“Providence, indeed! Was it not rather the benevolence of Mr. Lord and his friend Squance?”
“What an admirable picture that is in Mr. Robinson’s window in Bond Street. It is a splendid piece of workmanship. Don’t you think so?”
“A bad sky – very bad! Cold as winter. That trunk of a tree on the right is as stiff and formal as a sign-post. It spoils the whole picture.”
“Then you don’t like it?”
“There are a few good points in it; but it is full of faults.”
“The Rev. Mr. Benson, of Queen’s-road Church, is, in my judgment, an eloquent and powerful preacher. Don’t you think so, Mr. Pepper?”
“Well, as you ask me so pointedly, I am free to say that I think him a very good preacher on the whole. But, you know, he is far from perfect. I have again and again perceived his false logic, his weak metaphors, and his unsound expositions. Still, he is passable, and you may go a long way before you hear a better.”
Thus the censor meets you in every topic which you introduce in conversation.
“All seems infected that the infected spy,
And all seems yellow to the jaundiced eye.”
If you ask reasons for his censures, he cannot give you any, excepting one similar in kind to the following: —
“I do not like you, Doctor Fell,
The reason why I cannot tell;
But I do not like you, Doctor Fell.”
“Canting bigotry and carping criticism,” says Magoon, “are usually the product of obtuse sensibilities and a pusillanimous will. Plutarch tells us of an idle and effeminate Etrurian, who found fault with the manner in which Themistocles had conducted a recent campaign. ‘What,’ said the hero, in reply, ‘have you, too, something to say about war, who are like the fish that has a sword, but no heart?’ He is always the severest censor on the merits of others who has the least worth of his own.”
Again he says, “The Sandwich Islanders murdered Captain Cook, but adored his bones. It is after the same manner that the censorious treat deserving men. They first immolate them in the most savage mode of sacrifice, and then declare the relics of their victims to be sacred. Crabbed members of churches and other societies will quarrel a pastor or leading member away, and with snappish tone will complain of his absence, invidiously comparing him with his successor, and making the change they have caused the occasion of a still keener fight, simply to indulge the unslumbering malice of their unfeeling heart. The rancour with which they would silence one, the envy with which they hurry another into seclusion, and the inexorable bitterness under the corrosion of which a third is brought prematurely to the grave, proves how indiscriminate are their carping comments, and how identical towards all degrees of merit is their infernal hate.”
Pollok speaks of the censor in the following lines: —
“The critics – some, but few,
Were worthy men; and earned renown which had
Immortal roots; but most were weak and vile;
And as a cloudy swarm of summer flies,
With angry hum and slender lance, beset
The sides of some huge animal; so did
They buzz about the illustrious man, and fain
With his immortal honour, down the stream
Of fame would have descended; but alas!
The hand of time drove them away: they were
Indeed a simple race of men, who had
One only art, which taught them still to say,
Whate’er was done might have been better done;
And with this art, not ill to learn, they made
A shift to live; but sometimes, too, beneath
The dust they raised, was worth awhile obscured:
And then did envy prophesy and laugh.
O envy! hide thy bosom! hide it deep:
A thousand snakes, with black, envenomed mouths,
Nest there, and hiss, and feed through all thy heart!”
“The manner in which cynical censors of artistic and moral worth proceed is the same in every place and age. In Pope’s time ‘coxcombs’ attempted to ‘vanquish Berkely with a grin,’ and they would fain do the same to-day. ‘Is not this common,’ exclaimed a renowned musician, ‘the least little critic, in reviewing some work of art, will say, pity this and pity that – this should have been attired, that omitted? Yea, with his wiry fiddle-string will he creak out his accursed variations. But let him sit down and compose himself. He sees no improvements in variations then.’”
The fault of which the censorious talker is guilty has been defined as a “compound of many of the worst passions; latent pride, which discovers the mote in a brother’s eye, but hides the beam in our own; malignant envy, which, wounded at the noble talents and superior prosperity of others, transforms them into the objects and food of its malice, if possible obscuring the splendour it is too base to emulate; disguised hatred, which diffuses in its perpetual mutterings the irritable venom of the heart; servile duplicity, which fulsomely praises to the face, and blackens behind the back; shameless levity, which sacrifices the peace and reputation of the absent, merely to give barbarous stings to a jocular conversation: all together forming an aggregate the most desolating on earth, and nearest in character to the malice of hell.”
The censorious talker, with all his criticisms and censures, never does any good, as none heed him but those who do not know him. His criticisms have no influence with the wise and judicious. Though he may swim against the stream of general opinion, he can never turn the stream of general opinion to run with him. Though he may talk contrary to others, he cannot persuade or constrain others to talk as he does. He may dissent in judgment from them, but he cannot bring them over to coincide with him; and it is a good thing for society that it is so. As he talks without wisdom and charity, so he talks to no purpose, excepting to prejudice weak and unwary minds, and degrade himself in the sober judgment of the intelligent and thoughtful.
“Voltaire said that the ‘character of the Frenchman is made up of the tiger and the ape;’ but even such a composition may be turned to some useful account, while the inveterate fault-finder neutralizes, as far as possible, every attempt made by others to do good. To perform any task perfectly to his liking, would be as impossible as to ‘make a portrait of Proteus, or fix the figure of the fleeting air.’ To speak favourably of anybody or anything is a trait of generosity entirely foreign to his nature; from temperament and confirmed habit, he ‘must be cruel only to be kind.’ The only benefit he occasions is achieved contrary to his intent; in his efforts to impede rising merit, he fortifies the energies he would destroy. Said Haydon, ‘Look down upon genius, and he will rise to a giant – attempt to crush him, and he will soar to a god.’”
While the censorious man is most severe in judging others, he is invariably the most ready to repel any animadversions made upon himself; upon the principle well understood in medical circles, that the feeblest bodies are always the most sensitive. No man will so speedily and violently resent a supposed wrong as he who is most accustomed to inflict injuries upon his associates. Not unfrequently is a fool as dangerous to deal with as a knave, and for ever is he more incorrigible.
What an unhappy state of mind is that of the censorious talker! He is always looking with the eyes of jealousy, envy, or malice, to discern something for censure; and something he will discern; true or false, it is of no consequence to him. He proceeds in direct opposition to the Divine injunction, “Judge not, lest ye be judged.” “Judge not according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” He is like the Pharisees of old, with two bags, one before and the other behind him. In the one before he deposits the faults of other people, and in the one behind he now and then, it may be, deposits the faults of himself. He is devoid of the charity which covereth a multitude of sins, which is the bond of perfectness, which “suffereth long, and is kind, which envieth not, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, which doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; which beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.” This charity has not so much as cast her passing shadow upon the soul of the censor; and did the shadow or body of charity come within the range of his vision, he would not discern either the one or the other, because of the blindness of his heart.
One of the finest expressions in the world is in the seventeenth chapter of Proverbs, “He that covereth a transgression seeketh love; but he that repeateth a matter separateth very friends.” In what a delightful communion with God does that man live who habitually seeketh love! With the same mantle thrown over him from the cross, with the same act of amnesty, by which he hopes to be saved, injuries the most unprovoked, and transgressions the most aggravated are covered in eternal forgetfulness.
On the contrary, the censorious man often separates intimate friends by repeating a matter and digging up forgotten quarrels. The charity which is most divine is that which hides a multitude of faults. It is pure in itself, and labours to promote the peace and happiness of all. If one would be noble, he must be habitual in the cultivation of lofty principle and generous love.
What advantage comes of the uncharitable criticisms and judgments which are passed one upon the other? Is any one the better? Do they not rather result in mutual ill-humour and enmity? Who likes to have his motives called in question? Who can endure with meekness to have himself and his works put through the crucible of a mere mortal, as though that mortal were the Judge of eternal destinies? Let us remember that we are all frail, and as such should exercise towards each other that charity which we hope the Supreme One will exercise towards us.
“Oh what are we,
Frail creatures as we are, that we should sit
In judgment man on man? and what were we,
If the All Merciful should mete to us
With the same rigorous measure wherewithal
Sinner to sinner metes.”
XXIV.
THE DOGMATIST
“I am Sir Oracle:
And when I ope my lips let no dog bark.”
Shakespeare.
This talker is one who sits in company as a king whose words are law; or as a god whose communications are divine; or as a judge whose decisions are unalterable. There is, however, this drawback to his supremacy – it is only in his own imagination. He is to himself an infallible oracle – infallible in all points of theory and practice on which he converses. He has surrounded himself with such fortifications of strength, that to attack him with a view to gain a surrender on any questions of dispute is like trying to break a rock with a bird’s feather, or taking Gibraltar with a merchant ship’s gun. He is invulnerable in everything. His words, like Jupiter’s bolts, come down upon you in such fury that your escape is as likely as that of a gnat thrown into a caldron of flaming oil. Hercules crushing an infant in his grasp is a difficult task compared to the ease with which this giant talker grasps and crushes his opponent. In every mode of hostility he meets you as Goliath met David – with lips of scorn and words of contempt – to presume to stand before him in contradiction. Your logic is weak; or you beg the question; or you see only one side; or you want order of thought, breadth of view, clearness of perception; or you have not studied philosophy, or psychology, or history, sufficiently to judge of the question; or you are wrong altogether: you must be so.
Thus his denunciations come down without mercy upon your poor soul; and alas for you if you have not enough of mental stamina, independence, and fortitude to stand up against them. If you are a lamb, you are torn to pieces as in the jaws of a lion; if you are trembling and diffident, you are overwhelmed as a dove in the claws of an eagle. He scathes with his lightning and awes with his thunder. He sweeps everything before him, and stands in the field as sole possessor. He is “Sir Ruler” of all opinion. He is “Lord Guide” of all thought; and to have a thought or an opinion of your own, contrary to his, is a presumption frowned upon with sternest ire.
Another trait in this talker is, he has nothing good to say of any one, or of anything that is of any one. He deals with others in the third person as he deals with you in the second person. “What do you think of so and so?” you ask: it may be of the highest personage in State or Church, in literature or politics.
“O, he is narrow, or he is selfish; or he is mean; or he is vain; or he is jealous; or he is little; or he is limited in his reading; or he is something else, which unfits him to be where he is or what he is.”
No one pleases him; nothing pleases him. Everybody is wrong; everything is wrong. If there is a dark spot in the bright sky, he is sure to see it; if a thorn on the rose, he is bound to run his hand in it; if a hole in the garment, his finger will instinctively find its way there, and make it larger.
I have met this talker in company more than once or twice; and I must say that my conversation with him has been anything but pleasant or satisfactory. I have thought every time that he has increased in his idiosyncracy, that he has become more and more dogged, self-willed, and obstinate. I have wished that he might see himself as others see him. But to this he has been as blind as an owl in mid-day. Where is the salve that would give him this power of vision? He see himself as others see him! Can the blind be made to see, or the deaf to hear? Then may this miracle be wrought. He sees no one in his mirror but himself, and himself in full perfection. Should he, perchance, at any time see another, it is in a manner that only enlarges the perception of his own personal excellences, and strengthens his consciousness of self-importance and self-satisfaction.
“Do you think, Mr. Jones, that Dr. Sharpe’s views of the natural immortality of the soul and the future condition of the wicked are tenable by reason and Scripture?” asked Mr. Manly.
“There is neither reason nor Scripture in them,” replied Mr. Jones, with dogmatic emphasis. “He is hemmed in by your ‘orthodoxy.’ He is narrow in his conceptions. He lacks breadth of thought. His logic is feeble. He is deficient in true exegesis of Scripture. He has not looked into nature to catch its unfettered inspirations. His arguments are as weak as an infant’s.”
“But are you not forgetting the scholarship of the Doctor, underrating his powers, and losing sight of the general favour with which his work is received?” asked Mr. Manly.
“Forgetting his scholarship!” replied Jones, with a dogmatic sneer; “how can I forget what he never had, and underrate powers which he never possessed? And as for the favour with which his book has been received, that is nothing to me. I think for myself: I speak for myself. I care nothing for the opinion of others. I say, and when I say I mean what I say, that there is no force in the Doctor’s arguments.”
“Yes, but, Mr. Jones, all that is mere dogmatism on your part, and no argument,” said Mr. Manly, calmly and firmly.
“You accuse me of dogmatism, do you?” roared Mr. Jones, “dogmatism indeed! Who are you, to be so bold? No argument, either! If I do not argue, who does? It is impudence on your part to say such a thing in my presence.”
Mr. Manly thought it wise to say no more about Dr. Sharpe’s book. After a brief pause Mr. Jones told a most marvellous account of two men in South Africa, to which Mr. Manly observed, —
“That is a strange story, and hard to believe, Mr. Jones.”
“It is so, whether you believe it or no: I know it is true, and it is so,” replied Mr. Jones, positively.
“But your ipse dixit does not make it true.”
“My ipse dixit, indeed! Have not I read it? Do not I know it? Be it true or false, I believe it; and I wonder at your impudence to call in question anything that I say,” said Jones, somewhat furiously.
“Do not excite yourself, Mr. Jones.”
“Excite myself! isn’t there enough to excite me? I said so, and that ought to have been enough without your contradiction.”
Mr. Manly said no more on that point, but after a while observed, —
“The principle you advanced, Mr. Jones, a short time since, on geology seems to be altogether gratuitous, and can only be received for what it is worth.”
“Gratuitous, indeed! Gratuitous! You affirm it to be gratuitous, do you? I should like to know what right you have to say it is gratuitous? Haven’t I said it is so? and do you mean to insult me by saying it is only gratuitous?” roared out Jones.
“I do not mean to insult at all; but I was not prepared to receive it, as it is antagonistic to the views of the most eminent geologists of the present day,” replied Mr. Manly, rather coolly.
“What is that to me? My views are my own. I have found them myself. I hold them sacred. I care not who they contradict. I believe they are right. I affirm them so to you, and you should not dispute them.”
It is thus the dogmatist stands upon his self-confidence and presumption, his fancied superiority of knowledge and learning. He virtually ignores everybody else’s right to think and to know. He flings denunciation at the man who dares contradict him. He is his own standard of wisdom, and erects himself as the standard for other people. “To the law and the testimony,” as they are embodied in him; and if there is not conformity to these, it is because there is no light in you.
Sometimes the dogmatist seems to rule supreme in the company of which he forms a part. But his rule is not acquired by the force of logic or the convincing power of truth. It is assumed or usurped. It may be that some are too modest to contradict him, or others may not have sufficient intelligence, or others may not think it worth their while, or others may have wisdom to perceive his folly, and answer him accordingly. Hence he may imagine himself triumphant when no one disputes the field with him. He may think he reigns supreme in the circle, when, in fact, he reigns only over his own opinions, or rather is a slave to their despotic power.
The dogmatist is far from having influence with the wise and intelligent. Among the timid and ignorant he may rule in undisputed power; but to men of reason and thought he is repulsive. He is kept at arm’s length as a piece of humanity whose “room is better than his person.” In these days of free thought and free speech, who will submit to be hectored out of his right to think, and to speak as he thinks, by one who has nothing but his own dictatorial self-conceit to show as his authority, perhaps backed with a pretentious influence coming from a subordinate official position that he holds in Church or State?
Even when the dogmatist possesses that amount of intelligence and position which legitimately place him above most of the company into which he may go, he is seldom or ever welcomed as an acceptable conversationalist. But when he is a man below mediocre – a pedant – he is insupportable.
Were it required to state what are the causes of the fault of this talker, they might be summed up in two words —ignorance and pride. The man who assumes to himself authority over other people’s thought and speech must indeed possess a large measure of these qualities. He must estimate his powers at the highest value, and set down those of others at the lowest. He is wise in his own conceit, and in others foolish. He occupies a position which has been usurped by the stretch of his self-importance, and from which he should be summarily deposed by the unanimous vote of pure wisdom and sound intelligence.
Cowper, in speaking of this talker, thus describes him: —
“Where men of judgment creep and feel their way,
The positive pronounce without dismay;
Their want of light and intellect supplied
By sparks absurdity strikes out of pride.
Without the means of knowing right from wrong,
They always are decisive, clear, and strong;
Where others toil with philosophic force,
Their nimble nonsense takes a shorter course;
Flings at your head conviction in the lump,
And gains remote conclusions at a jump;
Their own defect invisible to them,
Seen in another, they at once condemn;
And, though self-idolised in every case,
Hate their own likeness in a brother’s face.
The cause is plain, and not to be denied,
The proud are always most provoked by pride;
Few competitions but engender spite,
And those the most where neither has a right.”