DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.50017#0030
xxiv INTRODUCTION
deformed by Gallicisms and Hispanicisms, but at
bottom pure English.
Lamb in his Essay on “ The Genteel Style of
Writing,” couples Lord Shaftesbury and Sir William
Temple, as representing respectively the lordly and
gentlemanly styles in writing, and contrasts the
“inflated finical rhapsodies” of Shaftesbury, (who
seems to have somewhat resembled Matthew Arnold
in the superior irony of his “ Characteristicks ” and
criticism, but could not attain his supreme height in
poetry,) with “the plain natural chit-chat” of Temple.
When we recall Coleridge’s use of the same phrase in
regard to “ the divine chit-chat ” of Cowper’s letters,
we see how relative to its age and the individual who
utters it, and how little final and absolute, all criticism
and verbal eulogy inevitably become. But all critics
unite in finding Temple entertaining, and at his best,
as in some of the passages quoted by Lamb, he rises
to a considerable height of philosophic and emotional
reflection. To-day it hardly seems as if “ chit-
chat” best expresses the somewhat high-backed
and dignified conversation and well-bred familiarity
of Temple’s dressing-gown discourses. But I be-
lieve that when the History of Conversation is at
last written, Temple’s apophthegms and reflections
deformed by Gallicisms and Hispanicisms, but at
bottom pure English.
Lamb in his Essay on “ The Genteel Style of
Writing,” couples Lord Shaftesbury and Sir William
Temple, as representing respectively the lordly and
gentlemanly styles in writing, and contrasts the
“inflated finical rhapsodies” of Shaftesbury, (who
seems to have somewhat resembled Matthew Arnold
in the superior irony of his “ Characteristicks ” and
criticism, but could not attain his supreme height in
poetry,) with “the plain natural chit-chat” of Temple.
When we recall Coleridge’s use of the same phrase in
regard to “ the divine chit-chat ” of Cowper’s letters,
we see how relative to its age and the individual who
utters it, and how little final and absolute, all criticism
and verbal eulogy inevitably become. But all critics
unite in finding Temple entertaining, and at his best,
as in some of the passages quoted by Lamb, he rises
to a considerable height of philosophic and emotional
reflection. To-day it hardly seems as if “ chit-
chat” best expresses the somewhat high-backed
and dignified conversation and well-bred familiarity
of Temple’s dressing-gown discourses. But I be-
lieve that when the History of Conversation is at
last written, Temple’s apophthegms and reflections