whatever his literary deficiencies, it is his name that must rank the higher, if regard be had merely to the development of the English essay. In Steele there was a strange blending of acute enterprise and boyish thoughtlessness, and it is the fate of all authors who have a special place in their readers' affections that the latter side of their character should be unduly emphasized. A claim to pity, even if it be a loving pity, is a dangerous attribute for an author to possess, and it has militated against Steele's purely literary reputation that he is thought of as being, like his friend Gay, "in wit a man, simplicity a child". So enamoured of Addison's "elegance" were his earlier editors that they rather grudged Steele any share of his fame, and it is unfortunate that some of the absurdities of Hurd should have been endorsed by the eloquence of Macaulay. Nor are some of Steele's sincerest admirers free from blame. Perhaps there is no more stimulating introduction to the literature of last century than Thackeray's lectures-or Esmond; but it is well in approaching Steele's writings to recognize that Thackeray's lovable Dick Steele is not altogether the same man as the founder of the English Essay. De Quincey pointed out several necessary qualifications in the exaggerated opinions current as to Addison's extensive learning. It may be admitted that he was better versed in classics than his friend, but it has to be set against this that Steele possessed many qualities even more essential to an essayist than extensive learning. His was an exceptionally strong emotional temperament; he could sympathize with every side of character, and

temporarily identify himself with the feelings of another, and it was this that gave him so wide a knowledge of men and enabled him to sketch the outline of the Spectator Club. Steele rather than Addison was the true Spectator; he mixed freely in every kind of society, and it frequently happened that the general impressions he drew were afterwards improved and amplified by Addison. It is precisely what one would expect from the characters of the two men, that Steele should have taken the chief part in inventing the dramatis personae of the essays, and that Addison should appear to most advantage in handling mental abstractions of his own creation, and in critical and allegorical writing.

The Tatler ran from 12th April, 1709, to 2nd January, 1711, and consisted in all of 271 numbers, of which Steele contributed four to his coadjutor's one. At first somewhat of a medley, it was not till it had run about a third of its course that it attained to anything like the unity of its successors, and for this change, as has been said, probably Addison was responsible. That it was thrown off in a hurry is a boast sometimes made by the author of a laboured composition, but of most of his work Steele could have said so with the utmost sincerity. Indeed, if capacity for taking pains be an indispensable part of the connotation of genius, Steele possessed but a slender stock. His talent lay not in elaboration, but in striking out disconnected happy thoughts, and for this purpose the earlier and looser form of the Tatler was best adapted. Of his sustained pieces of humour there is none better

than the description of the Trumpet Club, whose president Sir Jeoffery Notch, with his story of the game-cock, Gantlett, is of the same family as Squire Hardcastle, Sir Roger, and Sir Peter Teazle. Of four papers which might justly be described as the best of his pathetic writing, three are in the Tatler. The scene of domestic felicity, with its sequel, is no less remarkable for its delicate word-painting than for the careful delineation which makes it rank as an anticipation of Pamela, while the description of his father's death is not only a masterpiece but is undoubtedly Steele's most characteristic effusion. Overcharged emotion can go no farther; the collapse is inevitable, and with unconscious imitation Steele has relieved the scene by the Shakespearian device of a knocking at the door. His pathos is singularly pure, and free from that maudlin self-consciousness which offends in Sterne, and is often repellent in the Man of Feeling. At such times, too, his writing reaches its highest water-mark; sincerity of feeling breaks through the affectations of fine writing and demands an equal simplicity of expression. Addison's contributions to the Tatler are completely overshadowed by his subsequent work, and it is on it that his reputation must be based. The paper in his most typical vein is the bantering sketch of Ned Softly, an admirably sustained bit of farcical writing. Steele would have probably compressed the subject into a paragraph, at any rate he had not the knack of drawing the humour out to such extreme tenuity. That he could do so without having recourse to commonplace interludes is one of Addison's most distinctive characteristics as a

humorist. Steele has described four of Addison's Tatlers as being the "greatest embellishments" of the whole work, but this is only the three-piled hyperbole of a biassed critic. It is remarkable that it is in the same place that he refers to himself as a distressed prince undone by his auxiliary. This statement has often been unfairly quoted against him, and has been used with reference to his works as a whole. Steele meant it to apply only to the Tatler, and when it is remembered that he did four times the work of his brilliant auxiliary, one may be pardoned for refusing to accept literally his generous condemnation of himself. It is impossible to believe that the Tatler came to an end because the editor was gravelled for lack of matter. Swift ill-naturedly expressed no surprise, charged Steele with laziness, and declared that the last Tatlers had been "cruel dull and dry". There is little doubt that the real cause of the termination was that suggested by Gay, that Mr. Bickerstaff “had a mind to vary his shape, and appear again in some new light". Steele had decided that it was impossible to graft a new project on the old design, and that the time had come for gratifying the public with a new series of characters. Its success justified the resolution, but the Tatler has merits apart from its historical interest. As a faithful picture of the time it excels the Spectator, and if it contains less literature, it contains more agreeable reading. It had completely realized its object; from the first it was hailed with unqualified approval by a public surfeited with third-rate plays and sombre divinity; it overthrew by ridicule

not a few of the follies of fashion, and it fought chivalrously and successfully for the dignity of

woman.

When the Spectator appeared after an interval of two months its success was assured. Its audience was ready to believe that the new paper would excel the old, and no writer had as yet appeared who could seriously rival the felicitous combination of Addison and Steele. Their contributions were of nearly equal extent; out of five hundred and ten papers Addison wrote thirty-eight more than Steele, while forty-five were done by occasional correspondents. The lead was taken by Addison with his description of the Spectator, and Steele followed with his six portraits of the members of the Spectator Club. Of these most interest attaches to Sir Roger de Coverley, for both authors bestowed special attention on the delineation of his character. They were not invariably successful in regarding the character from the same point of view, but after making due allowance for slight discrepancies, it must be admitted that they achieved a hitherto unequalled triumph in character-drawing. In the original sketch Steele described the knight as having formerly been a "fine gentleman ", a man about town, and none of his subsequent papers are incongruous with this outline. Addison, on the contrary, laid hold on the eccentric side of the character, and his Sir Roger is only an unusually simple country squire, who visits the play-house, the Abbey, and Vauxhall with the bewilderment of a rustic. But while Steele had an important share in the series of papers, there is no doubt about the literary