« AnteriorContinuar »
Mr. Roscoe intended to publish his Wrongs of Africa in three parts. The first appeared in 1787, and the second the year following ; but the public was never gratified with the third. The subject, it is true, ceased to possess interest after the Slave Trade was abolished, and to this alone we can attribute the circumstance of its not having appeared. Mr. Roscoe, both in and out of Parliament, never ceased his exertions, till this great event was happily accomplished , and one of his most argumentative and spirited works, is, a refutation of a pamphlet in defence of the Slave Trade, entitled, “ Scriptural Researches into the Licitness of the Slave Trade.” Mr. Roscoe entitled his answer, “A Scriptural Refutation of a Pamphlet lately published by the Rev. Raymond Harris.” He was the first who succeeded in bringing the literature of the middle age into repute in this country. His Life of Lorenzo de Medici, and of Leo X., rendered an acquaintance with the characters, discoveries, and historical occurrences of those times, an indispensable qualification in any person, who would mingle with the literary and fashionable circles. We have learnt, with unfeigned satisfaction, that he is at present engaged in editing Pope's works. He has lately favoured the public with an able defence of his Life of Lorenzo de Medici, which has been attacked by some foreign writers of high literary repute. As the work, however, is well known to our readers, and was reviewed in our last two numbers, we mention it only as a circumstance which should not be omitted in a Memoir of his life. To his edition of Pope's works, we look forward with great interest; for the controversies which have lately engaged the public attention, relative to Pope's poetical character, will, we doubt not, be investigated in that distinct and perspicuous manner, which is characteristic of all Mr. Roscoe's writings. He who travels with him, is certain of not being led through the regions of “Cimmerian darkness.” He never aims, like many of our modern writers, to astonish his readers, by pretending to teach them what he does not understand himself. What he perceives clearly, he expresses simply and luminously. The same chaste simplicity and perspicuity of manner, were the distinguishing characteristics of the great poet, in the elucidation of whose works he is now engaged.
SIR THOMAS NESBIT'S DEFINITION OF A GOOD FELLOW.
.“ Vir bonus est quis !”-HOR.
Being desired by his Majesty to draw up, for the instruction of all whom it may concern, “ a definition of a Good Fellow,” I thought it proper to apply to the members of the club, individually, for such hints as they could furnish me with, for the prosecution of the design, I received the following :
MR. GOLIGHTLY. A good fellow is one who rides blood horses, drives four-in-hand, speaks when he's spoken to, sings when
he's asked, always turns his back on a dun—and never on a friend.
MR. LE BLANC. A good fellow is one who studies deep, reads Trigonometry, and burns love-songs; has a most cordial aversion for dancing and D’Egville, and would rather encounter a cannon than a fancy ball.
HON. G. MONTGOMERY. A good fellow is one who abhors moralists and mathematics, and adores the classics and Caroline Mowbray.
sir. T. WENTWORTH. A good fellow is one who attends the fox dinner and drinks the Queen's health,—who would go to the Indies to purchase independence, and would rather encounter a buffalo than a boroughmonger.
MR. M. STERLING. A good fellow is a good neighbour, a good citizen, a good relation ;-in short, a good man..
MR. OʻCONNOR. A good fellow is one who talks loud and swears louder, cares little about learning and less about his neckcloth,-loves whiskey, patronizes bargemen, and wears nails in his shoes.
MR. BURTON. · A good fellow is one who knows “ what's what," keeps accounts, and studies Cocker.
· MR. ROWLEY. . . A good fellow likes turtle and cold punch, drinks Port when he can't get Champagne, and dines on mutton with Sir Robert, when he can't get venison at my Lord's.
MR. LOZELL. '. A good fellow is something compounded of the preceding.
MR. OAKLEY. A good fellow is something perfectly different from the preceding,--and Mr. Lozell is an ass.
And now, after so many and so excellent descriptions, what can Sir Thomas add.
Why to be sure I am placed in rather a difficult situation ; however, with due deference to the above highly-respected gentlemen, I must conjure up the beau ideal of “ a good fellow.” First of all, as a foundation for a multitude of virtues, he must be abundantly good-natured. Now, by good-nature, I do not understand that easy, timid, unmeaning sort of complaisance which says “yes”* to every body, merely from the fear of saying “no ;” nor that soft simplicity, which, without any will or controul of its own, suffers itself to be turned about like the weathercock on the steeple, hardly inquiring whether it moves
• No reflection on our worthy friend, Mr. Lozell, on the word of a true Nesbit.
to right or wrong purposes ; and which, by taking every thing in good part, however ill-meant, acquires the enviable distinction of standing as a public butt, at which any fool thinks himself entitled to take a random shot, and invariably confers upon its possessor the honourable appellation of cawker. My hero should have just enough of this temper, to enable him to give a joke and take one, with equal pleasure. He must be seldom passionate, and even sulky; not inclined to quarrels, but still less to stand calmly by, if his schoolfellows or himself were unprovokedly attacked. He should never give up his accomplices, although threatened with tenfold punishment, and should run the risk of a flogging himself, and save another from the certainty of one. I would have him with just sufficient reading to have something to say for himself, and just sufficient wit to make what he says agreeable. I will admit, however, that there is not much objection to his being a pretty good scholar, provided he is ready to communicate his knowledge where there is occasion,--to construe the lesson for the general good,--and to do a few verses now and then, upon a push, for some unfortunate blockhead on a régular week,—provided, too, that he is never caught out in a quotation. He ought to like all sorts of games, though it is not at all necessary that he should excel in any one, provided that he enters into the spirit of them, and takes particular care not to give his adversary a wilful kick at foot-ball, and not to direct his cricket-ball against the legs instead of the wicket of the player. With all these perfections, it is his absolute duty to hate pride as he does lying to hate lying