functions, in order to wander into disquisitions quite beyond their own depth and talent. But we cannot so far adopt the severity of the northern critics, as to make them responsible not only for their own mode of writing, but for the errors and absurdities of all who, emulous of their fame, may attempt to imitate them in it. We shall therefore content ourselves with observing, that this novel practice is peculiarly convenient for the numerous class of grown gentlemen who are desirous to have a superficial knowledge of the topics of the day, without being peculiarly anxious a bout its accuracy, or disposed to encounter much toil in the acquirement. To this body of readers, reviews, magazines, pamphlets, and all the light-armed forces of the press, have been always a principal resource; and, as it is quite the same to them whether the scantling of information which they require comes from the reviewer's mother-wit, or is only an abstract or report from the author before him, it is probable that the variety, liveliness, and perspicuity of the lucubrations on general subjects in the Edinburgh Review have tended not a little to extend its popularity, although they may not be strictly consistent with its title and pro. fessed purpose.

Hitherto we have spoken only of certain peculiarities in the conduct of this celebrated and popular journal, of its general and uncompromising tone of severity, and of the unceremonious neglect of the various works which it professes to review, but which have often as little connection with the article to which they give the title as the sign of the inn with what passes in the tap-room. Something remains to be said of the nature and taste of criticism which it exhi

bits; and it is with some regret the we must necessarily consider it st parately, as exercised upon topics of general literature, and as connected with party politics.

Upon the first of these points we confess our inability to deduce any precise canons of criticism from the sixteen volumes which are now before us. Nor do we consider this as matter either of surprise or censure. A series of unconnected decisions, each resting upon its own specialties, pronounced perhaps by different judges of the same court, can scarcely afford coherent materials for compiling! code of laws. But perhaps the arti cles of a review still more resemble the pleadings of an ingenious barris ter upon various points of law, or the theses of a learned sophist on differ ent points of controversy, in which the sole object, besides that of dis playing the versatile genius of the advocate, is the maintaining some is lated and unconnected proposition by arguments which, upon another occa sion, may be changed or exploded, without incurring the charge of inconsistency. Thus the same premises may be used on various occasions, 25 authorizing the most opposite con clusions. For example, the decided and extended popularity of one au thor may be represented as arising from his dealing more in the com mon-places of poetry than his cotemporaries, and another may be con soled by the assurance, that if his work be caviare to the multitude, it is the more valuable to the few who can estimate the just representation of the most ordinary feelings of our nature, which are precisely those up on which the common-places of pot try are founded; nay, if it be neces sary, both these propositions may be abandoned, to charge a third poc

ith want of popularity, as a conclu ve sentence against him, pronoun ed by the silent practical judgement f the public. Now, although each these dogmata may be supported y very plausible and ingenious reaning, it must certainly puzzle any thor, disposed to act under such gh authority, to discover whether, y using the most hackneyed lanuage and subjects of his art, he is ost likely to secure the applause of e multitude, or that only of the lect few; and if he should deterine on pursuing the road to poalarity, recommended in the reewer's latest opinion, he would be ill uncertain whether, when attain, it is to be considered as a mark Fmerit or reprobation. In the same anner, if an author be dubious what egree of labour or distinct descripon he ought to bestow on the detail f those minute particulars which orm the accompaniments of his pic are, he may find difficulty in reconling two articles in the Review for April 1808, in one of which the auhor of a tale of chivalry is censured of the pedantic specification of donons, keeps, tabards, scutcheons, tresdres, caps of maintenance, portculises, and wimples, while, in another, he poet of the village is distinctly pplauded for the minute and Chiese accuracy of detail which invenories the whole household goods of thievish smuggler, including illorted packs of cards, unpaired pisols, frocks, wigs, hats, and bludgeons. To us it appears, that both poets, in completing their pictures, were obliged to fill up the back-ground with the objects best suited to the nature of the scene and character of the actors, and that whatever advantage might be on either side in the mode of execution, the minute speci.

fication in question was to both a rule of art which they could not easily elude or disobey, any more than Te niers could have finished his Flemish carousals without introducing tubs, barrels, pots, ladles, and other vulgar utensils, or than Spagnolette could have brought out his group of banditti without the necessary accom paniments of chains, axes, torturing engines, and bloody armour.

It would be easy to point out similar instances of critical inconsist ence in the reviews which refer to different works of the same author, and to shew that the unfortunate wight has been sometimes censured for taking, in his second work, the tone which the critic had approved and recommended in the first. But we are satisfied to have adduced proofs of our proposition from leading arti cles upon popular works, composed, it is understood, by the same ingenious critic; and where therefore the conclusion which we have drawn is not liable to be evaded by ascribing the appa rent inconsistence which they display to their being written by different hands. So that, if the author be dis posed to pardon what Dryden calls the horse-play of the reviewer's raillery, he may be confounded by the capricious distribution of favour or censure, which seems to have been adopted from the involuntary exercise to which a cat subjects an unfortunate captive. This tone of uncer tainty, and variation of opinion, or rather of humour, seems necessarily to arise from the leading principle of the Review, which renders each article an independent essay. It is impossible for the critic, while considering every new work as an isolated subject for the display of his own genius, to maintain perfect consist ence with what he may have formerly

advanced upon similar occasions; nor would his doing so amuse or interest the generality of the readers, who are accustomed to consider each Re view as an ephemeral publication, the contents of which are banished from their recollection before the next number makes its appearance. These will, of course, expect a new disquisition, as lively and brilliant as the preceding, upon every fresh work which an author may send forth, and will care very little whether such disquisition be founded on the same, or upon new and inconsistent critical doctrine. We have, therefore, been often tempted to compare these distinguished articles in the Edinburgh Review to the prefaces and critical essays of Dryden, abound. ing in striking passages, animated language, and acute reasoning, but written to serve some instant or pres sing purpose; and so far from having any regard to an uniform or general system, that they are often in direct opposition to each other. They are, in short, like a series of decisions of certain courts of law, in which each question is studiously se parated from all others by a detail of circumstances, and decided as upon grounds proper to itself, until the lawyer, instead of being able to extract general principles of law from the train of practice, is utterly perplexed by the maze of contradictory judgements, and only consoled by the reflection, that in the hour of need he can never fail to discover a precedent in favour of his own cause, whatever sort of precedent that cause may chance to stand in need of. That the law would grievously suffer in the parallel case supposed cannot be doubted for a moment; and if literature does not sustain the same disadvantage in that before us, it is be

cause the decisions in the court criticism are not necessarily bindi upon the parties over whom they pronounced. But it is evident th in this desultory mode of deliveri his opinion, the critic abandons 1 chance of rendering real service letters, by establishing, or at le acting upon, something like per nent rules of taste; and that, ho ever amusing the revolutions of doctrine may be to the public, th can only serve to confound the fortunate author, for whose bene one would suppose, admonition a reproof were principally intend In short, we conceive this determi tion to be equally brilliant, and st king, and witty, and new, upon eve article of importance which comes! fore them, is, in the critical cou a sacrifice of the high duties of t judge's office to the love of amusi and of dazzling an extensive circle readers. Were we to attempt to ma any general deduction from a sty of criticism so shadowy and variabl we should say, that subjects of p thos, bearing immediate referen to domestic feelings and affection seem to come most home to the c tic's bosom. The wilder flights fancy find little there which is n sponsive; and had our northern Ari tarch sat in judgement at the Grecia recitations, we are certain he woul have given his vote for Euripide while we shrewdly suspect the fligh of Pindar would scarcely have at ned for their irregularity by their bea ty and sublimity. There is som thing in this distinction appropriat to the very art of criticism, which although, in a good and kind dispo sition, it cannot be supposed to hard en the heart, may have no small el fect in blunting the ardour of fancy Under the analytical process of suc

observer, traits of natural feeling like the perfume of the violet, ch is only increased by the dision of the botanist, while those uties which address themselves to imagination are, like the colours he same flower, defaced under his pel. This, however, is descendmore minutely in our observas on the character of the journal 1 is here necessary. There are general subjects, and we rd the fact with pleasure, upon ch the Edinburgh critics have exited no variation or shadow of ing, but have passed and uniform dhered to their well-advised and l-merited censure. We allude to class of poetry which, while it is ticularly addressed to the young gay of both sexes, is calculated xhibit a sentimental refinement of strains of Sedley and Rochester ld. We rejoice to say, that the thern blight has so far affected the s of the modern "men of wit and sure about town," that, when y shall sprout again, we may conntly expect a very different foli. Nor do we notice with less Isure their sturdy defence of moy in general, and their animated rtions against the negro trade in ticular,—a cause which they early pted, and contributed, we believe, a little, by well-timed and welltten articles, to conduct to its pre: fortunate and honourable conmation. This tenacity upon ats of morality may be well allowed ounterbalance a thousand yariais of the reviewers' opinions upon ters of taste.

Our approbation of the theologiarticles of the Edinburgh Review not be so unqualified. They are ply tinged with party spirit ; but of t we shall speak presently more at

length. But they also exhibit an unbecoming mixture of buffoonery and "fool born jest" with subjects of the deepest political and religious import. The tone with which the methodists in particular are treated, is that of a jealous clergyman who affects in his coterie to ridicule those of his flock whom his pulpit eloquence is unable to withhold from the tabernacle. But the matter is grown too ominously serious for this jocular mode of discussion. If it is intended to convert the methodists from their more enthusiastic tenéts, let the effort be made in such a manner as will neither irritate the feelings which prompt them, like other men, to repel contumely by contempt, or shock those of reverential awe, with which they, above all other sects, are trained to regard every thing connected with religion. There is much good and much evil in methodism, and it is difficult to conceive how it should have been made the subject of lúdicrous discussion by those very men who pretend to regard the question of catholic emancipation as a matter of such serious and vital importance, unless indeed they allege the novelty of the sect as sufficient excuse for treating its doctrine with familiarity, and think with Enobarbus,

'tis better playing with a lion's whelp Than with an old one dying→→→

Upon metaphysical subjects, the Edinburgh Review vindicates the ancient reputation of our metropolitan university, long celebrated for that species of cobweb reasoning, as Paisley is for our national gauze. The non est tanti, always an ungenerous argument, might be more decidedly applied to pure metaphysics than to any other pursuit, were it not that, like the abstract propositions of algebra, they af.

1