Tatler/Spectator Selections

Quite frankly, I am unsure what to make of this reading.

These selections are similar to Montaigne's Essays because of their ridiculous amount of interest in mundane topics (On Polite Conversations, Criticism, Good Taste, Rakes, etc.). However, I suppose that Steele and Addison use these mundane topics as proxies for understanding human nature; as the introduction describes them, "The papers probe human nature not to reveal its bedrock depravity but to expose a common core of reason, sense, and sentiment" (pg. 44).

Occasionally,  their attempt at being honest (like Montaigne) made me question their motives. For instance, in Addison's discourse on Criticism, he posits, "A true Critick ought to dwell rather upon Excellencies than Imperfections" (381). A few paragraphs later he states that in his next paper on Milton's Paradise Lost, "I shall just point at the Imperfections, without endeavouring to enflame them with Ridicule" (382). This seems blatantly contradictory because he implies that he will make a petty critique, as opposed to a 'True' critique, by pointing out the "Imperfections" of Milton's writing.

At the same time, however, such inconsistencies are reminiscent of Montaigne's frankness. That is, Addison chooses to write a raw, unedited version of his thoughts and opinions. Thus staying true to the periodical's ambition of describing things as is, of treading the fine line between objective news-reporting  and  'libelous scandalmongering" (41).

Having said that, I am quite convinced that the Tatler and Spectator could be accurately described as: painfully insipid 18th-century transcripts of The Colbert Report and The Daily Show.

Wouldn't you agree?