Walter Scott. "A spirit of indolence is usually accompanied with a disposition to mercy; or, rather, those whom it has thoroughly possessed cannot give themselves the trouble of rousing to deeds of severity. Accordingly the calm, even, and indifferent style of criticism, occasioned by the causes already stated, was distinguished by a lenient aspect towards its object. The reviewer, in the habit of treating with complacency those works which belonged to his own publisher, was apt to use the same general style of civility towards others, although they had not the same powerful title to protection. A certain deference was visibly paid to an author of celebrity, whether founded on his literary qualities, or on the adventitious distinctions of rank and title; and generally there was a marked and guarded retenue both in the strictures hazarded, and in the mode of expressing them. If raillery was ever attempted, there was no horseplay in it; and the only fault which could be objected to by the reader was, that the critic was 'content to dwell in decencies for ever.'

"This rule was not, indeed, without exceptions. The mind of a liberal and public-spirited critic sometimes reversed the sentence of his employer; and, unlike the prophet of Midian, anathematised the works on which he was summoned to bestow benedictions. Neither was it proper that the critical rod should be hung up in mere show, lest, in time, as it is learnedly argued by the Duke of Vienna, it should become more mocked than feared. The terrors of the office were, therefore, in some measure maintained by the severity exercised upon the trumpery novels and still-born poetry which filled the monthly catalogue, whose unknown, and perhaps starving authors, fared like the parish boys at a charity school, who are flogged not only for their own errors, but to vindicate the authority of the master, who cares not to use the same freedom with the children of the squire. Sometimes, also, fate demanded a nobler head.' The work of a rival bookseller was to be crushed even in birth; a powerful literary patron, or, perhaps, the reviewer himself, had some private pique to indulge; and added a handful of slugs to the powder and paper which formed the usual contents of his blunderbuss. Sometimes political discussions were introduced, before which deference and moderation are uniformly found to disappear. Or, in fine, the sage bibliopolist himself occasionally opined that a little severity might favour the sale of his review; and was therefore pleased to cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.' But the operation of each and all of these causes was insufficient to counteract the tendency of this species of criticism to stagnate in a course of dull, and flat, and lukewarm courtesy. Something of the habitual civility, and professional deference of the tradesman, seemed to qualify the labours of those who wrote under his direction; and the critics themselves, accessible not, we believe, to pecuniary interposition, but to applications for favours in divers modes, which they found it difficult to resist, and mixing, too, in the intercourse of private life with many of those who afforded the subjects of their criticism, were seldom disposed to exercise their office in its full, or even its necessary rigour. These were days of halcyon quietness for authors; especially for that numerous class, who, contented to venture their whole literary credit on one dull work, written upon as dull a subject, look forward, less to rapid sale, and popular applause, than to a favourable criticism from the reviewers, and a word or two of snug, quiet, honied assent from a few private friends. The public, indeed, began to murmur that

'Lost was the critic's sense, nor could be found,
While one dull formal unison went round.'

But the venerable and well-wigged authors of sermons and essays, and mawkish poems, and stupid parish histories, bore each triumphantly his ponderous load into the mart of literature, expanded it upon the stall of his bookseller, sat brooding over it till evening closed, and then retired with the consolation, that, if his wares had not met a purchaser, they had at least been declared saleable, and received the stamp of currency from the official inspectors of literary merchandize. From these soothing dreams, authors, booksellers, and critics were soon to be roused by a rattling peal of thunder; and it now remains to be shown how a conspiracy of beardless boys innovated upon the memorable laws of the old republic of literature, scourged the booksellers out of her senate-house, overset the tottering thrones of the idols whom they had set up, awakened the hundred-necked snake of criticism, and curdled the whole ocean of milk and water, in which, like the serpentine supporter of Vistnou, he had wreathed and wallowed in unwieldy sloth for a quarter of a century. Then, too, amid this dire combustion, like true revolutionists, they erected themselves into a committee of public safety, whose decrees were written in blood, and executed without mercy."

The sketch now given of the rise and progress of Reviews, from their introduction into France by Denis de Sallo, to the period when, in 1802, the Edinburgh Review came forth to astonish the literary world, is not presented to the reader in the vain presumption that it is free from error in the details, and sufficiently full to do justice to a subject which would require ample materials and great labour for its complete investigation: perhaps, however, enough has been done to point out the most prominent defects of the critical journals published in Great Britain previously to the French Revolution.

Whatever defects may be discovered in this extraordinary work, no one can question, that it effected a complete revolution in critical discussion, gave a tone to the journals of a similar kind to which it gave birth, and accelerated the triumph of liberal principles in every department of political science. But before entering into an examination of its literary and political merits, it may be useful to offer a few remarks on the particulars in which it differed from the Reviews noticed in the preceding sketch, and on the peculiar circumstances growing out of the altered state of society which contributed to its influence and success.

From what has been said with regard to the character of the critical journals in England, at the close of the eighteenth century, it is obvious that no attempt to rescue that branch of periodical literature from the degradation into which it had fallen could have succeeded, had not men of more than ordinary ability engaged in the undertaking, and resolved to pursue a more independent course than their predecessors. To give effect to their labours, it was necessary that their work should be modelled on a plan different from other publications; that it should display greater talent; and that its principles should be congenial with the liberal spirit which began to prevail in society. The first object of the Edinburgh Reviewers, therefore, was to supply their readers with specimens of impartial criticism, the result of a searching examination and comparison of the best productions that appeared. To accomplish this object, in which their predecessors had, in most in

stances, failed, it was indispensable that the Review should be unshackled by any connection with publishers. The subserviency of critics to their employers had brought the profession into disrepute. The interests of literature and the efforts of genius were too often sacrificed to the selfishness of booksellers. It was not uncommon to puff an author for a bribe, or to abuse him for the gratification of revenge. If any sinister design could be promoted by ministering to the vanity of a patron, or blasting the prospects of a rival in business, obsequious reviewers were to be had willing to sell their principles to the highest bidder, provided the wages of literary prostitution were sufficiently liberal to tempt their cupidity. The evils occasioned by this corruption of an exalted office, induced the conductors of the Edinburgh Review to keep themselves aloof from such mercenary trammels. They had been accused of yielding to political biasses in their opinions of particular works; but it could never be urged against them, with any shadow of truth, that the gentlemen of Paternoster Row exercised an improper sway over their decisions. This circumstance gave a character of independence to their writings which greatly contributed to their éclat, and influence over the public mind. The opinions of the Edinburgh Reviewers, upon every topic, were received with deference. They were at first, indeed, regarded, as oracles; their authority was universally acknowledged; and few of those who suffered from their excesses had the courage to make any resistance. The editor assumed a fearless and lofty tone, which commanded respect, though it sometimes mortified by its severity. The restricting of criticisms to works of unequivocal merit, or to subjects which possessed a strong claim on the public attention, tended to raise the character of the Edinburgh Review. In the original address, the editor announced, that "it would form no part of their object, to take notice of every production that issues from the press; and that they wished their journal to be distinguished, rather for the selection, than for the number of its articles." They were influenced in this determination by the fact, that a very large proportion of the books published never attracted any share of public attention; and, consequently, it was not to be expected, that a critical notice of them would have any other effect than that of "gratifying the partiality of friends, or the malignity of enemies." From the adoption of this plan, it was impossible that the Review could exhibit a complete view of modern literature; but it enabled the editor to regulate his choice of works and subjects by the interest they

excited.

That many advantages were produced by this arrangement cannot be doubted. The old Reviews were generally brought out monthly, and some of them more frequently. It has been shown that, with the exception of occasional articles by the editor, or some contributor distinguished by superior attainments from the rest of his associates, their critical articles were insignificant and uninteresting. The object was to huddle together, in a confused heap, a series of unconnected notices of all the books that had appeared since last publication. From such a system nothing useful or instructive could be expected. No time was given for deliberation; and, as a necessary consequence, the judgments ot the critic were often rash and unjust; and, from the want of time or capacity, he sentenced an author to condemnation, or held him up to applause, without any statement of the grounds upon which the award had been given.

The best way to avoid these defects was to publish the Review quarterly.

This afforded abundant leisure for reflection and preparation, and enabled the contributors to display a judicious selection of articles, carefully written, evincing studious research, and comprising a discussion of those topics in which the public took most interest. The extensive circulation of the weekly journals shows that they are recommended by peculiar advantages, which make them be perused with avidity by a numerous class of readers. It may be fairly questioned, however, whether, as organs of criticism, they are not comparatively inefficient, or rather decidedly unfavourable to a satisfactory estimation of an author's claims. The only advantage they seem to possess, is in awakening the curiosity of the public as to new works, by giving an early notice of their contents, with illustrative passages. In this there is often, however, the grossest deception. The real character of a literary production can never be ascertained by a few quotations; and it is of every day occurrence, that books, extravagantly lauded in our daily and weekly chronicles, and of which favourable specimens are ostentatiously paraded in their columns, are utterly destitute of any solid

merit.

The system of criticism adopted in these ephemeral publications is injurious both to the reader and the reviewer. The former is released from the exertion of thought and the labour of investigation. He relies upon the crude opinions of the critic, or perhaps forms an erroneous judgment of the book from an imperfect analysis of its contents. The latter, from the nature of his office, is compelled, in most instances, to write without reflection, and to review without reading. From the influence of habit, he may sometimes catch the spirit of a work from hasty glance over its pages; but, in general, he fails in fairly appreciating its character. He dogmatizes when he is without materials to reason; captivates with the glitter of words when he wants the substances of argument; and strives to please when he cannot inform. There is nothing of the philosophy and spirit of true criticism in these puerile attempts to assort shreds and patches. They are alike deficient in aim and method. The critical speculations of such writers afford no means by which to appreciate genius; they derive no support from fundamental principles; and evince no range of enquiry, or comprehensiveness of thought. These are the unavoidable results of endeavouring to write something clever and smart on every work that appears, instead of selecting a few only, and deliberately examining their merits.

The Monthly Review" blended critical strictures on the subjects of books, with a copious abstract of their contents. But the writers crowded into each number too many notices, many of them trivial and of no value.. The Edinburgh critics have been censured for running into the opposite extreme, and substituting profound or learned disquisitions in the place of discriminating reviews. They frequently, indeed, have selected the title of a work as a pretext for giving a disquisition on the topic to which it refers; the work being dismissed without a single remark of praise or censure. The value of their labours must not, therefore, be estimated by the information they afford as to the works they profess to review. On the contrary, their principal merit consists in the additions they have made to the stock of general knowledge; in the materials for thinking they have. diffused among the people the importance and originality of their speculations; and the stimulus they have given to the mental faculties of their readers.

This plan of substituting essays for critiques is attended with some

VOL. I.

2

disadvantages; but it cannot be questioned, that, in a general point of view, it has been productive of much good. It enables the critic fully to display his talent and the extent of his powers. The reader obtains access to mines of useful knowledge, which it might require a great deal of labour to reach in any other way. He is tempted to think upon subjects of vital importance, and stimulated to search for further knowledge by which he may be qualified to discuss them in their minutest details, and in various points of view. Besides, it is necessary to excite curiosity, before a vivid and lasting impression can be made upon the national mind. For this reason, says an acute writer, "there cannot be too much dialectics and debateable matter, too much pomp and paradox, in a Reviewer. To elevate and surprise is the great rule for producing a dramatic and electrical effect. The more you startle the reader, the more he will be able to startle others with a succession of smart intellectual shocks. The most admired of our modern Reviews is saturated with this sort of electrical matter, which is regularly played off so as to produce a good deal of astonishment, and a strong sensation in the public mind. The intrinsic merits of an author are a question of very subordinate consideration to the keeping up of the character of the work, and supplying the town with a sufficient number of grave or brilliant topics for the consumption of the next three months."

There is a large portion of truth in these observations; and there is no doubt, that the Edinburgh Review is mainly indebted for its fame to its original dissertations on questions of grave import to the community.

The generalizing style of criticism, which the Edinburgh Review had the merit of bringing to perfection and rendering popular, was adopted to a greater extent in the political, than in any other description of articles; nor is there any department of the work in which more information and talent is displayed. It has, indeed, been objected to its disquisitions on politics, that the writers felt bound to advocate, sometimes in a narrow and sectarian spirit, the principles which characterize the party to which they are attached. The prevalence of this spirit, it is said, will account for the distortion of facts, the inflammatory appeals to popular prejudices, and the fierce attacks upon the motives of public men, which have sullied the pages of the Review. It has biassed, it is said, the critic's opinions upon subjects wholly distinct from politics, in which an author's attachment to a different party has drawn down an attack upon his literary productions; and he has been subjected to the Reviewer's wrath, because he happened to differ from him on some question, as to which the feelings of the multitude were powerfully excited. "On the modern system of reviewing," says a writer already quoted, "these prejudices are like the plague in Leviticus, which not only infected warp and woof, linen and woollen, but left its foul stains upon the walls, the mortar, and the stones, upon subjects whose natures seemed incapable either of admitting or retaining the tokens of pestilential infection.

But these objections, like others that have been brought against the literary and scientific essays of the Edinburgh Review, have been urged in a spirit of exaggeration. Admitting their validity, it may be easily shown, that the political contributions to the work have operated powerfully to strengthen the attachment of the public to liberal principles and free

"Hazlitt's "Table Talk," vol. ii. p. 119.