we should have had occasion to mingle so much censure where there is ample room for praise and admiration. The length at which we have treated the nature and conduct of a work which has so strongly influenced the modern taste in criticism, will enable us to dispatch rapidly what we have to offer upon periodical publications of the same nature.

But lo! to fierce encounter in mid air
New wizards rise.

The determined party-spirit exhibited in the Edinburgh Journal has already excited a formidable antagonist in the Quarterly Review, conducted upon nearly the same plan, and avowedly supporting opposite opinions in politics. The rapid and extensive circulation of this journal, when opposed to a redoubted opponent already in possession of the field, with no less than ten or twelve thousand subscribers, seems to justify the censure we have ventured to attach to the narrow, partial, and exclusive principles upon which the Edinburgh Review has been conducted. For, although the Quarterly Review has exhibited many articles of great beauty and talent, it will hardly be said that it could, in its very nonage, have made a stand against the Edinburgh work, had the latter added to its extensive reputation for eloquence, acuteness, wit, and talent, the yet higher praise of moderation and impartiality. The opening, how ever, has been afforded, and the enemy has availed himself of it. The general sense and feeling of a great proportion of the country has at once enabled a rival publication, under the numerous disadvantages with which such must always struggle during its infancy, to place itself in opposition to these giants of criticism with a sup.

port originally respectable and constantly increasing. As politicians, we see this with pleasure, since, without being sworn to either party, our feelings incline most strongly to the cause espoused by the Quarterly cri tics, even if we were not seduced by the superior eloquence which, upon party subjects, they have almost uniformly displayed. As moderate men, we rejoice in an opportunity of hearing both sides of a political question ably stated and supported, by persons whose powers and opportunities of information are so far beyond those by whom such points are usually disputed in periodical publications. But as friends to the general cause of literature, we cannot but deprecate the tendency on both sides to involve its interest in the tumultuous and partial discussions to which politics uniformly give occasion. It gives us no pleasure to see either party prepare his whitewash to be used whenever the other shall have applied his blacking-ball. These obvious partialities, by which the author's political creed is made the gage of his literary proficiency, we censure alike in both cases; or, if we impute more blame to the Edinburgh Journal, it is because it led the way to the introduction of so unjust and mischievous a criterion of judgement.

As to other particulars, the plan and conduct of the Quarterly Review has been closely formed upon that of the Edinburgh; so that, in taking a view of the principles of modern periodical criticism, what has been said of the one will be found to apply pretty nearly to the other. They are both conducted by persons of high literary distinction, and superior to all bookselling influence; and the very party-spirit, of which we complain so heavily, is undoubtedly

the means in both cases of procuring voluntary contributions from persons high in situation as in talent, who, in these bustling times, could scarcely have been enlisted out of mere regard to literature. The Quarterly Review has on some occasions appeared to lose sight of politics while treating of abstract points of literature; but on others it has been as violent and acrimonious as the critics of the North. We will leave them, therefore, to arrange their pretensions to public favour, being pretty certain that it will be finally determined by the shew of hands in favour of their respective politics.

The establishment of these two works, as the Gog and Magog of criticism, had greatly thrown into the shade the ancient and established reviews of Great Britain. Even the Monthly and Critical Journals, long at the head of this class, are considerably shorn of their beams. They partook of the evils which we have already seen attached to the old regime, and although different attempts have been made to new-model them upon the fashionable plan of discipline, they have not been as yet able to regain much weight with the public. The most obvious feature in their rivals' criticism is its stern, caustic, and uncompromising tone. It seemed also It seemed also more easy to imitate the northern Aristarchs in this point than in the extent of their information, or the lively and forcible arrangement of their argument. But severity and rudeness have now lost their novelty, and the public, who were at first disposed to believe that such language could never have been employed without some cause existing to merit it, now regard violence of expression as the vor signata of criticism, used in every case as a matter

of course, and having no more actual meaning in her court than the legal fiction in a writ of latitat. On another principle an attempt was made, and very creditably supported, to extend the period of the publication adopted by the Edinburgh reviewers from a quarterly to an annual period. But the advantages which attended the departure from the monthly plan were not found equally to accompany a further prolongation of the term, and, after some time allowed for the experiment, the Annual Review returned to the old system, and, if we mistake not, is now published monthly. It was a moderate and sensible work, under the conduct of a most respectable publisher; but, from the taste which the public had acquired for what is pungent and picquant in this species of writing, it fell short of the success which it merited. Various other attempts to establish new reviews, upon the principles so successfully adopted in Edinburgh, have also failed. But one of these was on a plan so new as to demand separate notice.

We allude to the London Review, a work instituted by the late Richard Cumberland, with the professed purpose that each piece of criticism should bear in front the name of the party by whom it was composed. There was something generous and spirited in the conception of this plan. "The man," said the venerable author," who, in this genuine spirit of criticism, impartially distributes praise or blame to the works he reviews, has no more need to hide his name than the tradesman has who records himself over his shop-door,-for whom has he to fear, or of what to be ashamed? Learning has no truer friend, genius no better counsellor, no safer guide. Every one must confess

that there is a dangerous temptation, an unmanly security, an unfair advantage in concealment. Why then should any man, who seeks not to injure but to benefit his contemporaries, resort to it? There can be no reason why he should do that with the best intentions which evil men are fain to do for the worst of purposes. A piece of crape may be a convenient mask for a highway, but a man that goes upon an honest errand does not want it, and will disdain to wear it." This was the language of a veteran and accomplished author, whom literature has now to regret; and we feel ourselves called upon to pay it some attention, as immediately connected with our present subject. Upon accurate consideration, how ever, we are of opinion the reasoning of Mr Cumberland will be found rather specious than solid. In the first place, it must be observed that there is no real concealment in the system of reviews now generally adopted. For, although the author of each individual critique may not be known, there is uniformly an editor who is answerable both to the public and to the individual, not perhaps for the soundness of every opinion which may be advanced in his journal, but for its general adherence to the language used among decent persons, and the fairness and candour which become men of literature. The author, there fore, who complains of a deficiency in either point, cannot want a party who must either be responsible for the article, or give up the writer's name, that he may answer for himself. But, besides the security afforded by reference to an avowed and responsible editor, the writers of the leading articles in the reviews of any eminence, are in general pretty well known both to the public and to the

individual authors who are the subjects of their criticism. The different manner and style of the principal contributors to the Edinburgh Review, for example, are easily detected, and, like the champions of old, who, though sheathed in armour, were known by their bearings and cogniz ances, they are distinguished farther in the battle than the groom and yeoman who entered into it barefaced;

so that the usual cant of "shots from ambuscade" and "arrows discharged in the dark," however it may be suffered to continue as legitimate permissible syllables of dolor in the mouth of a wounded sufferer, has no foundation in the actual state of things. To what purpose, then, it may be asked, should a mystery be affected which is so easily seen through, or why should not those who are the known authors of critical articles adopt Mr Cumberland's plan, and openly prefix to them their names? Our answer is founded upon the forms of civilized society, which are always calculated to avoid personality where free discussion is required. It would be scarcely possible to secure a free, or at least a peaceable, debate in the British House of Commons, without adherence to the style of what is called parliamentary language, since many things must be distinctly said by one statesman of his antagonist, which could not with propriety, or even safety, be hazarded between man and man in the common intercourse of life. In like manner there is in criticism an impersonal language, which, though every one knows it is used by a particular individual, has more weight with the public, and gives less just offence to the author censured, than if the criticism had been declaredly written in the first person singular. It is in some degree a deception, but

it is one to which we willingly give way, as it tends to save the decorum of society, and to give the critic an opportunity of discharging his duty frankly, without any appearance of personality upon his part, and without giving the party reviewed a strong temptation to push criticism into controversy. It remains also to be noticed how often the reviewer may gain a hearing from the public by use of the emphatic pronoun we, which might have been denied to the criticisms of an obscure individual upon the work of an established literary character. The difficulty, finally, of enlisting individuals to fight with their visors up, may have hastened the conclusion of Mr Cumberland's unsuccessful attempt to establish a review upon his new plan. Every one has heard of the celebrated harlequin, who could not go through his part with spirit unless when he wore the usual mask, although conscious that his identity was equally recognized whether he used it or not; and we cannot help thinking that those critics whose opinions are best worth hearing will be most ready to deliver them under the modest disguise of an anonymous publication, although they know that in many cases it is a secret which all the world knows, and in others, one which any party interested may discover if he pleases. For all these reasons we are led to conclude that the present system, while no real objection lies against it, is best fitted to preserve harmony in the literary world, and to encourage a free and unrestrained spirit of discussion, without risk of its degenerating into personal controversy, or being trammelled and chilled by over formal and timid civility; one or other of which extremes might, we think, be the consequence of the system practised in the London Review.

With the notice of this anomaly in the reviewing system, we must conclude our account of the present state of Periodical Criticism in Britain. We have it not in our power, nor would the labour be repaid by any useful result, to report upon the various works now current in this department, far less to arrange their prece dence. What we have chiefly attempted in this sketch is to give some idea of the spirit and principles of that which is decidedly the foremost in the field. Its surprising and unprecedented success has rendered the Edinburgh Review the mirror in which the others dress themselves, and from which they endeavour to select and imitate the qualities which recommend that journal to popular favour. The tone of criticism, therefore, at the commencement of the nineteenth century may be characterized as harsh, severe, and affectedly contemptuous, dwelling rather in general and excursive discussion, than in that which applies itself to the immediate subject; but requiring, from those very circumstances, an. elevation of talent and extent of information unknown, or at least unnecessary, to the humble labourer of the preceding period. If the art has been emancipated from the commercial trammels of the bookseller, it has, unfortunately become more deeply involved in the toils of the political statesman. This last yoke, however, if equally rigorous, is less sordid than the former, and the professors of the art of criticism have risen in rank and reputation accordingly; nor can it be denied that these periodical publications have at present an interest and importance altogether unknown in any former part of our lite. rary history.

SIR,-The character of your present correspondent is perhaps very little to the purpose of his communication; but who can resist the temptation of a favourable opportunity for speaking of himself, and his own affairs? I am, then, a bachelor of fifty, or, by'r lady, some fifty-five years standing, and I can no longer disguise from myself, that the scenes, in which I formerly played a part of some gratifying degree of consequence, are either much altered, or I am become somehow less fitted for my character. Twenty years ago I was a beau garçon of some renown, escorted Lady Rumpus and Miss Tibby Dasher to oyster parties, danced with the lovely Lucy J, and enjoyed the envied distinction of hand

ing into St Cecilia's Hall the beauti. ful and too-early-lost Miss B But, as the learned Partridge pathe. tically observes, non sum qualis eram; and now, far from being permitted to escort the young and the gay through that intricate labyrinth, entitled the Entrance to the New Theatre Royal, I

observe it is not without obvious reluctance that I am selected as a proper beau to the General Assem bly.

Nor indeed can I disguise to myself, that I owe even this humble distinction to the gravity of my phy. siognomy and habit, which the dis cerning fair consider as peculiarly calculated to overawe the beadles, by conveying the impression of a Ruling Elder. My apartments in Argyle's square, those very lodgings where my