« AnteriorContinuar »
will roar and “writhein unpitied pain”-in pain deservedly unpitied. Cobbett likes to see the lashing work, yes ; the Ultra-Reformer Cobbett, and the Ultra-Royalist John Bull may well fraternize and hug. The line, at the opposite extremities of which they appear to have been placed, is turned into a circle, and they meet. But we have done with the John Bull for the present-in time we shall demolish it. It must plead, or be declared guilty.
As this is intended to be a miscellaneous and desultory paper, we had intended to insert in it some remarks upon the trial of Leslie v. Blackwood. But no space is left us. We must wait for another opportunity before we wrestle a fall with a publication, of which, in point of humour, information, and talent, we are very far from having a despicable opinion.
But we must say just two or three words to that Coryphæus of periodical productions, the Quarterly Review As the ground-work of our observations, we shall select the case of Messrs. Waddington and Hanbury ; not because the criticism of the “ Journal of a Visit to some parts of Æthiopia,” is so gross and palpable an outrage upon decency and candour, as many articles which have appeared even in the Quarterly Review ; but, first, because it is recent, and, secondly, because we have authority from the travellers themselves to make a few remarks upon the subject.
Briefly then, Mr. Waddington, after visiting some parts of Æthiopia in company with his friend Mr. Hanbury, published on his return a work, which stands in no need of our recommendation. A cri
A criticism of this work appeared in the last number of the Quarterly Review ; and, in answer to that criticism, Mr. Waddington inserted the following letter in three of the daily papers. It is addressed of course to the editor of the journal to which the letter was sent :
SIR-A book entitled “ Journal of a Visit to some parts of Æthiopia,'. having been noticed in the last number of the Quarterly Review, I may be pardoned, as its author, for inviting the attention of your readers to a few misunderstandings which have been allowed to creep into a critique, intended of course to be liberal, temperate, and just.
1. In ascending the Nile, I have frequently identified the line of the river
with the direction of our road on its banks, and have thus avoided much circumlocution, and followed the example of Burckhardt, (pp. 39, 48, &c.), and I believe other travellers. Still, however, to prevent the possibility of a misunderstanding, I have explained my meaning very distinctly in page 24. That manner of expressing myself, thus explained, the Reviewer calls “ a blunder,” and obliges his readers to infer that two human beings exist and are at large, who have been able to sail up the Nile from its mouth at Rosetta, to its cataracts at Wady Halfa, without discovering which way the river runs.
2. We were not allowed to proceed with the Turkish army; and I employed the greater part of page 155 in giving reasons for my opinion, that we owed our dismissal to the disposition and policy of the Pasha himself, and not to the intrigues of the Protomedico. On this passage the Reviewer, (p. 230) observes, “Mr. W. ascribes their hasty dismissal to the intrigues of the Greek Protomedico!'and hence, perhaps, his inveteracy against this man.” Here is a most uncharitable supposition founded on an inexcusable oversight, or a palpable misrepresentation.
3. Great stress is laid by the Reviewer, (p. 231), on the refusal of a rich saddle, which Abdin Casheff wished us to accept in return for one of no value. Now, the words in the book (p. 188) are these: “On our arrival at Cairo in March, we found that the magnificent Turk had placed in the hands of our banker a very splendid new saddle," &c. Thus then the present was refused three months after our dismissal from the camp, and only a day or two before we left Egypt entirely. How does it follow that
unqualified to make our way in a Turkish province, because we refused a present at the moment we were quitting it for ever ?"
4. The Reviewer, (p. 230-1), labours hard to prove, that we ought to ascribe our dismissal to our own misconduct, and instances, that Messrs. Cailliaud and Frediani, though also Europeans and Christians, were allowed to proceed. He had not read then, it seems, that letter from Cailliaud himself, which was published by Jomard, and dated, I think, from Berber, in which he attributes the indulgence which had been granted him, entirely to his reputation as a mineralogist, (it being obviously the intention of the Pasha to make use of him in the discovery of certain gold mines which he believed to exist above Sennaar); nor had he understood that page (189) of the book he was reviewing, in which it is expressly mentioned, that Frediani was attached to the army by Mahomed Ali himself. Where then is the great wonder that he should be allowed to accompany an army, of which he formed originally a part ?
5. We are accused of indiscretion in advancing from Wady Halfa without a passport, (pp. 220, 230,). Now it appears from the very preface, that when we were presented to Mahomed Ali at Alexandria, we mentioned to him our wish to proceed to Dongola, that is, as was actually the case, we asked him for a firman to Dongola. The Pasha did not refuse it at the time, but that which he subsequently sent us extended only as far as Wady Halfa. It remained for us then to decide, whether we should expose ourselves to some additional dangers by advancing without such protection,
or whether we should turn quietly home again, satisfied with so plausible an excuse for indolence and cowardice. The Reviewer obliges us to believe, that he should himself have adopted the latter counsel ; but, if the book really contained (as that gentleman assures us,) “much new and valuable matter," I do certainly think it a little hard, that the very risks to which we have of necessity exposed ourselves to collect that valuable matter,” should be brought against us as accusations.
“ We deceived too" (he tells us in p. 230,) “the Aga of the cataracts," that is, we showed him our letters to Abdin Casheff ; he asked us for our firman; we showed him that too, and as he could not read it, he allowed us to proceed. Now, in the name of candour and criticism, how was that deception ? If indeed, trusting to the credulity of the reader, we had assured him that the book or firman contained certain assertions which we knew it not to contain, that most assuredly would have been deception, but of that we are as innocent as the Reviewer himself.
6. In page 190, speaking of a bird shot by me at Thebes, I use these words: “ The bird, though called by the Arabs the eagle of the desert is probably of the vulture species,” on which the Reviewer (p. 238,) after some severe sarcasms upon the bird, gravely informs his readers, that the
creature is in fact a vulture, and that I have dignified it with the name of eagle." The rest of the paragraph is unintelligible ; for I cannot believe that the Reviewer dares to question my veracity.
7. In page 145, I have shortly given some reasons for supposing that the English are more respected by the Turks than other Christians—the first of which, by the way, is not (as the Reviewer asserts) the Pasha's “marked civility to ourselves.” I shall not dispute with him on a point, on which he has probably found means in his study of informing himself much more accurately than myself—one of the reasons, however, must, I think, be allowed to be at least natural. “ The Turks have a very general opinion, that we are not above half Christians, and therefore approach by so much nearer to the creed of the faithful than any other Europeans.” Here the Reviewer asks, “is this meant as a compliment ?" Of this insinuation I have more reason to complain than of any remarks in the whole article ; and I must say, that it is so obviously unfounded, that I am at a loss to understand how the Reviewer, at the moment when he was penning it, could avoid feeling its falsehood. .8. The Reviewer is eloquent on the subject of our having
“ robbed henroosts,” stolen camels, &c., but entirely forgets to mention that nothing was ever taken, which was not liberally paid for, and that force was never attempted till persuasion had failed—that without these “plunders and robberies," we must either have been starved to death, or have returned, after exploring a few miles of sand and rocks, disheartened by the first difficulty, without success and without honour. 9. In page 222, the Reviewer says, “ of the inhabitants Mr. W.
says but little," and in page 223, “from travellers situated as ours were-we must not look for much information on the state of the country and its inhabitants, even old Dongola, which they were not allowed to visit,” &c.;
and again, in p. 231, "we have no intention of accompanying our travellers down the river;" had the Reviewer, however, taken that trouble, he would have found, that we did visit Old Dongola, and that nearly the whole of our return was devoted to the collecting of that very kind of information of which he regrets the absence.
Other charges are made, or insinuated, which admit, perhaps, of as obvious answers ; but I have no wish to dispute any of the Reviewer's decisions, except those which are founded on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the book reviewed.
My style, indeed, is accused of “ obscurity and infantine simplicity," and though no proofs are adduced of the truth of either charge, yet can I readily believe, from the numerous misconceptions which pervade his critique, that the Reviewer is perfectly sincere in the former. I trust, however, that those who shall have done me the justice of reading the above explanation of his more important accusations, will not feel bound implicitly to believe his unsupported assertion, even on a matter so trifling as that of style.
AUTHOR OF TRAVELS IN ETHIOPIA.
Upon the chief points at issue between Mr. Waddington and the Reviewer, we shall leave this letter to speak for itself. We think, that it is conclusive. The Reviewer is fairly beaten out of the field; he is vanquished on his own ground. Yet it should be observed, that the letter was written expressly for insertion in a newspaper; and is, therefore, confined to those parts of the attack, which would admit of a brief answer and a direct refutation. The only fault, and it is an unusual one among controversialists, which we have to find with it, is its extreme mildness. Or, if it were good taste in Mr. Waddington to write with temper and forbearance upon a subject in which he was personally concerned, we can have no scruples in declaring our opinion, that, whatever it was intended to be, the criticism in question was neither “liberal," nor“ temperate," nor“ just. .”
With regard to the alleged imprudence of Mr. Waddington and his companion, and the careless style in which the book is said to be composed ; it may be sufficient to retort, that the critic would have shewn more prudence, if he had read the book, before he began to write about it ; and that the author may have this consolation—which we confess is but a poor one-that his style is, at least, as good as that of his Reviewer.
But there are graver matters behind than the charge of
indiscretion of conduct, or carelessness of style. In one place there is an insinuation on the subject of religion, which we would only stigmatize as folly, because we can conceive no adequate motive for malignity. But the anonymous writer chooses to accuse two English gentlemen of robbery, plunder, enormities, and outrages, which could shock the morality of a Turkish soldier. Why should we disguise it? We know well, that this is the accusation, the chief, if not the only accusation, which has wounded the feelings of Mr. Waddington and Mr. Hanbury. As gentlemen, as men of honour, as men of honesty, they could hardly like to be called felons by implication. They would have laughed, as we have laughed, over the other imputations ; and wondered, as we have wondered, whether, when he made them, the Reviewer was awake. But this insinuation was the more galling on account of the slight mixture of truth which was blended with its injustice. Now, the fact is, for we see no reason why it should be concealed, that the travellers did, on one or two occasions, seize some fowls by violence at the same time, it must be added, paying for them most liberally; and, another fact is, that if they had not seized them, they might and would have been starved. There is no man, we venture to say, who would not have recourse to the same means in the same emergency, for the very simple reason, that he must have had recourse to them: to designate such a transaction by the names of robbery, felony, and plunder, is not the excess of strict or squeamish morality; but a sheer, wilful, and palpable misrepresentation. Travellers must proceed; travellers must eat; and when they are thrown upon rude, savage, inhospitable countries, they must depart from the ordinary maxims, which are wisely observed among refined and civilized communities ; not from choice, indeed, but from absolute compulsion. The rules, even of morality, have their exceptions. We have heard travellers lament a hundred times, that they had been obliged in some places to help themselves, paying, of course, for what they took, when the churlish inhabitants refused to furnish them either with provisions or beasts of burden!
But we would appeal to any known and respectable