John Playfair

‘…Play fair, though ill, and the day bad, followed poor

Seymour to his grave at Holyrood. But those who saw

him there shook their heads; and in about three monthshe joined his friend. This was an irreparable loss bothto the science and to the society of Edinburgh. Taking the whole man — his science, his heart, his manner, and his taste, I do not see how Playfair could have been improved. Profound, yet cheerful; Social, yet alwaysrespectable; strong in his feelings, but uniformly gentle;a universal favorite, yet never moved from his simplicity; in humble circumstances, but contented and charitable — he realized our ideas of an amiable philosopher.

And is he not the best philosophical writer in the 

English language? I have been told that when 

racked on his death-bed with pain, a relation wished 

to amuse him by reading one of Scott's Novels, of 

which he was very fond, but that he said he would 

rather try the Principia. Nothing can he more just 

than the application made to him, by Stewart, of Mar- 

montel's description of D'Alembert. His friends sub- 

scribed for a bust of him, and a monument. The bust 

has been most happily executed by Chantrey. The 

monument, designed by his nephew, has been placed in 

the Calton Hill, in connection with the Observatory, 

which owes its existence and its early reputation to 

Playfair. 

Lord Henry Cockburn’s entries in “Memorials of his Times” are always

of the most enjoyable kind.  Cockburn credits Playfair’s merit as a philosopher.

Most remember him as a scientist and as a mathematician with an axiom named for

him.  He was also a friend of Walter Scott, and as Cockburn notes,a fan of Scott’s novels.

John Playfair died on July 20, 1819.

Author Please

‘…Have you seen Playfairs introductory essay in the Encyclopedia?  I am sure you will like it. It is distinguished for its elegance & perspicuity. I perused it some weeks ago, and thought it greatly preferable to Stewarts. Indeed I have often told you, that I am somewhat displeased with myself because I cannot admire this great philosopher, half as much as many critics do. He is so very stately—so transcendental—and withal so unintelligible, that I cannot look upon him with the needful veneration. I was reading the second volume of his ‘Philosophy of the human mind,’ lately. It is principally devoted to the consideration of Reason. The greater part of the book is taken up with statements of the opinions of others; and it often required all my penetration to discover what the Author's own views of the matter were. He talks much about Analysis & Mathematics, and disports him very pleasantly upon geometrical reasoning; but leaves what is to me the principal difficulty, untouched. Tell me if you have read it. You have no doubt seen the ‘Tales of my Landlord.’ Certainly Waverl[e]y and Mannering and the Black Dwarf were never written by the same person…’

In a letter Thomas Carlyle wrote to Robert Mitchell on February 12, 1817, he references two individuals who were known to Walter Scott, with at least Dugald Stewart being particularly important to Scott, yet at this point, the authorship of “Waverley” and “Tales of my Landlord” seemed unreconciled to him.

STOPT!

'...I believe it  was just about this time that Scott had abandoned his place in Mr Jeffrey's corps. The journal had been started among the clever young society with which Edinburgh abounded when they were both entering life as barristers; and Jeffrey's principal coadjutors for some time were Sydney Smith, Brougham, Horner, Scott himself—and on scientific subjects, Playfair...'

Professor John Playfair was well known in Edinburgh society during Scott's time.  As a mathematician, he even has an axiom named after him; Playfair's Axiom.  John Playfair was born on March 10, 1748.

The text above is from Lockhart's "Memoirs of Sir Walter Scott".  The journal referenced is the Edinburgh Review, which was published by Archibald Constable.  Scott initially supported the Review, but became so fed up with the politics that he canceled, later supporting publisher John Murray in developing the Quarterly Review. 

Walter Scott's relationship with Edinburgh Review is described in Samuel Smiles' "A Publisher and his Friends": '...Walter Scott still continued to write for the Edinburgh, notwithstanding the differences of opinion which existed between himself and the editor as to political questions. He was rather proud of the Review, inasmuch as it was an outgrowth of Scottish literature...'  And on the rift: 'A severe and unjust review of "Marmion," by Jeffrey, appeared in 1808, accusing Scott of a mercenary spirit in writing for money (though Jeffrey himself was writing for money in the same article), and further irritating Scott by asserting that he "had neglected Scottish feelings and Scottish characters." "Constable," writes Scott to his brother Thomas, in November 1808, "or rather that Bear, his partner [Mr. Hunter], has behaved by me of late not very civilly, and I owe Jeffrey a flap with a foxtail on account of his review of 'Marmion,' and thus doth the whirligig of time bring about my revenges." 

Smiles quotes Lockart on the subject '..."When he read the article on 'Marmion,' and another on foreign politics, in the same number of the Edinburgh Review, Murray said to himself, 'Walter Scott has feelings, both as a gentleman and a Tory, which these people must now have wounded; the alliance between him and the whole clique of the Edinburgh Review is now shaken'"...'

The final straw came happened to occur when Murray himself was visiting Scott at Ashestiel '..During Murray's visit to Ashestiel No. 26 of the Edinburgh Review arrived. It contained an article entitled "Don Cevallos on the Occupation of Spain." It was long supposed that the article was written by Brougham, but it has since been ascertained that Jeffrey himself was the author of it. This article gave great offence to the friends of rational liberty and limited monarchy in this country. Scott forthwith wrote to Constable: "The Edinburgh Review had become such as to render it impossible for me to become a contributor to it; now it is such as I can no longer continue to receive or read it."


"The list of the then subscribers," said Mr. Cadell to Mr. Lockhart, "exhibits, in an indignant dash of Constable's pen opposite Mr. Scott's name, the word 'STOPT!'"...'