FRASER'S MAGAZINE. JULY 1879. IT OUR PAST AND OUR FUTURE. 6 is fifty years save seven months since Fraser's Magazine began its career. Its first number was published in February 1830. George IV. was still upon the throne, although his life was fast ebbing away. The Duke of Wellington was Prime Minister, and had recently accomplished the chief act of his ministry-the carrying of the Catholic Emancipation Act. Fraser, in its opening Confession of Faith,' took care to let its readers know that it did not approve of this Act, but had the wisdom at the same time to acknowledge its finality. There are many things in this Confession of Faith' of little importance now; but it is written throughout with something of the dash and brightness which seldom failed the early 'Fraserians.' If any one wishes to see what a bright set these early writers in Fraser were, he has only to consult the well-known cartoon by Maclise prefixed to the opening number of 1835, and afterwards reproduced as the frontispiece to the Reliques of Father Prout.'' Dr. Maginn is in the chair addressing the staff of contributors, and on his right are seen Barry Cornwall, Southey, Thackeray, Macnish, Ainsworth, Coleridge, Hogg, Galt, Dunlop, and Jerdan; on his left, Edward Irving, Mahony (Father Prout), Gleig, Carlyle, Allan Cunningham, Count d'Orsay, Moir (Delta), Sir David Brewster, Lockhart, and Theodore Hook. We cannot imagine a more brilliant staff, or a more catholic and genial one-from Edward Irving, 'the enthusiastic, the learned, the honest, the honourable, the upright, and the good,'2 to Francis Mahony, the quaint, learned, and witty 'Father Prout,' whose prose and verse alike sparkled with an unceasing flow of exuberant mirthfulness. In the Preface to our It was further reproduced six years ago as the frontispiece to a handsome volume entitled A Gallery of Illustrious Literary Characters,' being in the main a reprint of Fraser's Gallery from 1830 to 1838. This volume was edited by William Bates, B.A., Professor of Classics in Queen's College, Birmingham, and is an interesting repertory of literary information. 2 Fraser, January 1835. 1 6 Second Decade,' which opens the January number of 1840, the Editor takes credit for the catholicity of the Magazine, as marked by the fact that both these writers, the Calvinist Edward Irving and the Jesuit Francis Mahony,' were amongst its firmest friends and most valued contributors.' Literature knows no sectarianism; and the intellectual sympathy which bridged all the difference between Calvinism and Jesuitism in the year 1840 will not be found, we trust, less lively and comprehensive in 1879, and the vigorous years to which we still look forward. This same Preface contains a very interesting account of the 'literary career' of Fraser for the time which it had then been in existence. Special mention is made of the distinct works' which had even so early been woven' out of its pages by Colonel Mitchell, 'heart-stirring biographer of Wallenstein;' Thomas Carlyle, most original, graphic, and exciting of historians of the French Revolution;' 'M. J. Chapman, the learned and the poetic'; and John Abraham Heraud, the metaphysical and profound.' Yellow Plush (Thackeray), with pen and pencil contributed to the harmless mirth of nations; Morgan Rattler (Banks) 3 wittily rallied; O'Donoghue (Maginn?) related many a tale of Irish fun; the gallant and gallant Bombardinio (Colonel Mitchell) has narrated his experiences in love and war; the Dominie (poor Picken!), the only one of our contributors whom we have lost by death (except those enumerated in our Gallery of Portraits), chattered over his Scotch anecdotes in the choicest patois of the Land of Cakes. Besides these masqueraders, we have been honoured by the avowed contributions of Southey, Lockhart, Brewster, Gillies, Galt, Hogg, Gleig, Croker, Moir, Cunningham, Macnish, Lady Bulwer, Lady Mary Shepherd-with the unavowed assistance of several other persons of allowed wit, talent, and learning-with the counsel of Coleridge and the countenance of Scott. Into our pages have found their way some rare specimens of the poetry of the old man eloquent,' as well as of Byron and Shelley, which otherwise would, in all probability, not have seen the light. In defect of modern or home materials we have often had recourse to the immortal literature of ancient days or foreign lands. We challenge the English language to produce a version of 'Eschylus' equal to that of Medwin. Mahony's translations in general are unsurpassed; but we may point particular attention to his 'Tom Moore's Rogueries,' his 'Ver-Vert,' or his 'Vida's Silkworm.' Aristophanes, or the Greek pastoral poets, suffer not under the hand of Willmott. Maginn has made some original experiments upon Homer and Lucian. Churchill's translation of the Camp of Wallenstein' stands unrivalled. On the whole we can back our learning against the field; and do not these very words of sporting remind us that we have most absurdly postponed until now the mention that some of the most famous articles of the most famous writer that ever made the affairs of the field his theme, even Nimrod himself, known in the flesh by the name of Charles Apperley, have cast an air of sport, freshness, manliness, and vigour over our columns ?4 Percival Weldon Banks, a London barrister, Irish by birth, one of the cleverest of the brilliant but fast circle that surrounded Maginn. We quote these sentences at length, not merely for their pleasant literary flavour and reminiscent self-elation, some of which, it must be confessed, is now a little faded, but also for the clear picture which they present of what a magazine should be, as conceived and carried out by the founders of Fraser. 'From grave to gay, from lively to severe,' from learning to sport, from prose to poetry, from metaphysic to fun, from science to mirth, the brilliant staff ranged. In their most sober moods they tried not to be dull; in their most jocular moods,' the Editor specially boasts, they never ceased to inculcate a feeling of honour and respect for religion, and those institutions which, humanly speaking, tend most materially to secure it upon earth.' This was their ideal at least, if their vivacity sometimes verged upon offensive personality, and their exposure of formalism and hypocrisy sometimes went near to licence. In the main they were on the side of good taste, refinement, and moderation; and their literary appreciation was always varied and free ranging, as with such a staff it could not fail to be. It is probably more difficult now than in those early days to preserve the play of bright-humoured freedom and variety which should mark the pages of a monthly magazine; but at any rate we shall endeavour to remember that we could not in some respects have a better example of what such a magazine should be than the pictured and stirring pages of Fraser in those early years. The first phase of its career may be said to extend to nearly 1849. Certainly there is then an observed change in its spirit, although not in its vigour. Its eye for all that is fine in literature and strong and healthy in criticism is still bright, but it no longer runs over with the same riotous mirthfulness. Its conductors are conscious of the change, and speak of it in 'A Happy New Year' which they wish for all its readers in January 1849. We are not ignorant,' they say, of the charge which has sometimes been brought against us of having dealt more than was quite becoming in personalities. Perhaps there may be some truth in the libel; but let not such as lay it forget that the life of a magazine, like that of a nation and of an individual man, has its phases. If there be any good stuff in it at all, it begins its career impetuously. Strong in its impulses, earnest in its views, it lashes out to the right and the left, whenever there may seem to be wrong which requires correction, and cant that demands exposure. And, like the inspired youth, it generally sacrifices every other consideration to the accomplishment of the object more immediately sought. But time brings experience, and experience teaches wisdom -of which one of the most obvious precepts is this, that even a good deed may be missed or marred through indiscretion in the choice or use of the means of seeking it. It will accordingly be found that within the last year and a half the Fraserians, as they have ceased to attend imaginary symposia, and to drink gallons of imaginary punch, so they have learned to temper their wit that it might tell on men's principles of action without unnecessarily wounding their self-love or ruffling their tempers. Blockheads, who thrust themselves into situations for which neither nature nor education has fitted them, need not, it is true, expect to be spared. But |