to Mr. Arthur Aikin. 249 



inent the most deficient," p. 876 ; " the inventor of an un- 

 heard-of moon," p. 880; " vain," p. 882; u insufficient," 

 p. 882; " ignorant of botany ;" passim; my whole labours 

 " a national dishonour," p. 880; and other such passages of 

 personal abuse, disgracing, I presume, the character of a re- 

 view % More than twice did I turn to the title, to see 

 whether your name was really affixed as the editor ; and 

 when I contemplated the weakness, or rather ignorance, of 

 the sneers, I cannot call any part of this review, argument, 

 but the whole as designed and ignorant abuse^ I was asto- 

 nished ! — So public, so open, so violent an attack, either de- 

 mands your assent or dissent; and I am persuaded you possess 

 too much justice in your character not freely and chearfully to 

 retract all such charges of " ignorance" against me, as I shall 

 be able satisfactorily to prove to you to be completely ground- 

 less. The duties of an editor certainly make you in this 

 affair a party concerned, and my only anxiety has been, I 

 assure you, to see myself so attacked in a work wherein your 

 respectable name was prefixed to it as the editor ; and it would, 

 I am persuaded, redound more to your honour, to acknow- 

 ledge u hits," when these are fairly obtained, and for you 

 afterwards to come handsomely forward and " repair" the 

 injury occasioned, than to continue to lessen the fortune, 

 and wound the feelings, of one who hopes and trusts he de- 

 serves from the family of the Aikins f a far different treat- 

 ment. 



* Nothing can be better drawn up than the imperfections of a, review, 

 p. 648, of the Retrospect of Domestic Literature, in ttie supplementary 

 number of the Monthly Magazine for J-'ly, so easily do we see the moat 

 in our neighbour's eye. " The Anti-Ja ohm Review gives offence to the 

 moderate, the wdl-meanmg, and the well-mannered of both parties. 

 They make no distinction between the cal:r> investigations of a philo- 

 sopher and the factious philippics of a demagogue. The Edinburgh 

 Reviewers are also unsparing in severity and bitterness of expression. 

 They seem to take delight in saying severe and ill-natured things, and 

 the feelings of an author are wounded by them with the most frigid and 

 .callous mdiftereuce. The palpable partiality uniformly shown by the 

 Edinburgh reviewers towards Scotch authors, is an evidence that they are 

 not above the influence of personal feelings! !" 



f Dr. Aikin, the celebrated biographer, is the editor of the Monthly 

 Magazine. In the supplementary number, published July i8, p. 649, 

 the writer of the Retrospect of Domestic Literature, with, I suppose, 

 the approbation of Dr. Aikin, says: " This work (The Temple of 

 Flora, with the New Illustration) was not intended for the common class 

 of readers. It is dressed our for the levee and the drawing-room of 

 princes and nobility. The plates are finished with exquisite delicacy, and 

 will immortalize the vanity and insufficiency oi Dr. Thornton." Compare 

 what was previously said in the same magazine for May, p. 349. Speaking 

 of this work, it was there declared, " that it encouraged the fine arts ; 



S 3 that 



