LAWYERS AS BIOGRAPHERS. By Theodore W. Dwight. IT is a fact that has not often been recog nized that lawyers are among the best biographers. There are good reasons for their success in this character. The qualities developed in professional practice manifestly lead in this direction. Their eagerness and energy in collecting evidence, their trained skill in sifting and weighing it, their habit in making statements to courts that are not exaggerated but will be sustained by the proof, their reticence as to themselves, their practice as to sinking their own personality in the interests of their clients, are in full demand in the character of biographer. These qualities are sometimes dimmed, if not effaced, in the matter of partisan biog raphy; but where the biographer is of a judicial temper, or has no personal ends to subserve, they lead to signal success. Add to these the power to strip off from the subject all that is immaterial, and to bring for ward only the salient points of life and character, and to present these clearly and effectively, and his work will be likely to be of the kind that the world does not willingly let die. Illustrative instances crowd upon the memory. Two or three in English biog raphy may be named : Boswell's " Life of Johnson," Roger North's lives of his dis tinguished brothers, and Lord Campllbe's "Lives of the Lord Chancellors and ChiefJustices." In regard to Boswell, there may be some hesitation. He was certainly reared in a legal atmosphere. His father, Lord Auchinleck, was a stern but noted Scotch judge, who looked upon his much more noted son with great disfavor on account of his trivialities and frailties. The latter, however, was a barrister, " rode the circuits " when he could sit upon his horse, and learned by observa tion how causes should be tried if he did not
try them himself. He thoroughly under stood the capital art, in Samuel Johnson's case, of drawing out his client, and showing him at his best even at his own expense. What discredit he might personally obtain was as nothing in comparison with the op portunity given by him to Johnson to dis play his powers, and the excellences as well as the weaknesses of his character. He had Johnson, as it were, before a jury composed of the whole English people, and he allowed him to speak for himself, at most directing his thoughts or jogging his memory, or, where he was an unwilling witness, leading him forward by an appropriate cross-exami nation. His work, being founded on sound and philosophical principles, will last as long as the English language endures. It is not possible to give such unqualified praise to Lord Campbell. He labored under the great disadvantage of being compelled to obtain almost all of his materials, not from the living subject, but from other writers. His information comes to him at second hand. It is necessarily colored by the passions and prejudices of those from whom he derived it. It is accordingly not so lifelike as the work of Boswell. One principal reason for the difference is that he could not crossexamine or seek for explanation. He could not discuss questions with the subject of his Memoirs. For this reason it was impossible for him to reach the vivacity, freshness, and infinite charm of Johnson's replies to Bos well's questions. Lord Campbell has accom plished much under adverse circumstances, his legal training having been of great ser vice to him, both in collecting materials, arranging them skilfully, and omitting that which should be passed over or suppressed. Again, Campbell does not conceal himself so skilfully as Boswell. He is often seen, like a prompter, at the shifting of the curtains.
