View source for Page:Table-Talk (1821).djvu/128

<noinclude><pagequality level="3" user="Xover" />{{rvh|116|CHARACTER OF COBBETT.}}</noinclude>but himself. In one sense, [[Author:Laurence Sterne|Sterne]] was not a wit, nor [[Author:William Shakespeare (1564-1616)|Shakespear]] a poet. It is easy to describe second-rate talents, because they fall into a class and enlist under a standard: but first-rate powers defy calculation or comparison, and can be defined only by themselves. They are ''{{lang|la|sui generis}}'', and make the class to which they belong. I have tried half a dozen times to describe [[Author:Edmund Burke|Burke]]'s style without ever succeeding;—its severe extravagance; its literal boldness; its matter-of-fact hyperboles; its running away with a subject, and from it at the same time—but there is no making it out, for there is no example of the same thing anywhere else. We have no common measure to refer to; and his qualities contradict even themselves.

Cobbett is not so difficult. He has been compared to [[Author:Thomas Paine|Paine]]; and so far it is true there are no two writers who come more into juxta-position from the nature of their subjects, from the internal resources on which they draw, and from the popular effect of their writings and their adaptation (though that is a bad word in the present case) to the capacity of every reader. But still if we turn to a volume of Paine's (his [[Common Sense (Thomas Paine)|Common Sense]] or [[Rights of Man]]) we are struck (not to say somewhat refreshed) by the difference. Paine is a much more sententious writer<noinclude></noinclude>