"The sin of Hare's Book,"says one of my Correspondents in those years,"is easily defined,and not very condemnable,but it is nevertheless ruinous to his task as Biographer.He takes up Sterling as a clergyman merely.Sterling,I find,was a curate for exactly eight months;during eight months and no more had he any special relation to the Church.But he was a man,and had relation to the Universe,for eight-and-thirty years:and it is in this latter character,to which all the others were but features and transitory hues,that we wish to know him.His battle with hereditary Church formulas was severe;but it was by no means his one battle with things inherited,nor indeed his chief battle;neither,according to my observation of what it was,is it successfully delineated or summed up in this Book.The truth is,nobody that had known Sterling would recognize a feature of him here;you would never dream that this Book treated of _him_at all.A pale sickly shadow in torn surplice is presented to us here;weltering bewildered amid heaps of what you call 'Hebrew Old-clothes;'wrestling,with impotent impetuosity,to free itself from the baleful imbroglio,as if that had been its one function in life:who in this miserable figure would recognize the brilliant,beautiful and cheerful John Sterling,with his ever-flowing wealth of ideas,fancies,imaginations;with his frank affections,inexhaustible hopes,audacities,activities,and general radiant vivacity of heart and intelligence,which made the presence of him an illumination and inspiration wherever he went?It is too bad.Let a man be honestly forgotten when his life ends;but let him not be misremembered in this way.To be hung up as an ecclesiastical scarecrow,as a target for heterodox and orthodox to practice archery upon,is no fate that can be due to the memory of Sterling.It was not as a ghastly phantasm,choked in Thirty-nine-article controversies,or miserable Semitic,Anti-Semitic street-riots,--in scepticisms,agonized self-seekings,that this man appeared in life;nor as such,if the world still wishes to look at him should you suffer the world's memory of him now to be.Once for all,it is unjust;emphatically untrue as an image of John Sterling:perhaps to few men that lived along with him could such an interpretation of their existence be more inapplicable."Whatever truth there might be in these rather passionate representations,and to myself there wanted not a painful feeling of their truth,it by no means appeared what help or remedy any friend of Sterling's,and especially one so related to the matter as myself,could attempt in the interim.Perhaps endure in patience till the dust laid itself again,as all dust does if you leave it well alone?
Much obscuration would thus of its own accord fall away;and,in Mr.
Hare's narrative itself,apart from his commentary,many features of Sterling's true character would become decipherable to such as sought them.Censure,blame of this Work of Mr.Hare's was naturally far from my thoughts.A work which distinguishes itself by human piety and candid intelligence;which,in all details,is careful,lucid,exact;and which offers,as we say,to the observant reader that will interpret facts,many traits of Sterling besides his heterodoxy.
Censure of it,from me especially,is not the thing due;from me a far other thing is due!--On the whole,my private thought was:First,How happy it comparatively is,for a man of any earnestness of life,to have no Biography written of him;but to return silently,with his small,sorely foiled bit of work,to the Supreme Silences,who alone can judge of it or him;and not to trouble the reviewers,and greater or lesser public,with attempting to judge it!The idea of "fame,"as they call it,posthumous or other,does not inspire one with much ecstasy in these points of view.--Secondly,That Sterling's performance and real or seeming importance in this world was actually not of a kind to demand an express Biography,even according to the world's usages.His character was not supremely original;neither was his fate in the world wonderful.What he did was inconsiderable enough;and as to what it lay in him to have done,this was but a problem,now beyond possibility of settlement.Why had a Biography been inflicted on this man;why had not No-biography,and the privilege of all the weary,been his lot?--Thirdly,That such lot,however,could now no longer be my good Sterling's;a tumult having risen around his name,enough to impress some pretended likeness of him (about as like as the Guy-Fauxes are,on Gunpowder-Day)upon the minds of many men:so that he could not be forgotten,and could only be misremembered,as matters now stood.
