467 Canons of Criticism. [Nov, 



Upon this foundation rests a canon of criticism of the last importance. In 

 all things, write down to the level of your age. 



He who gets the start of his age cannot please (i. e. sell) universally ; 

 ergo, he offends against the chief rule of criticism. Who will read the 

 author that thus appeals to a posterity he will never reach. ? Vel duo vel 

 nemo. He is ridiculed by the worldly, calumniated by the hypocrite, 

 censured by reviewers, and, worse than worst, remains a fixture on his 

 bookseller's shelves. We should laugh at any one dull enough to hope 

 for success by works on verbal criticism, palmistry, or the philosopher's 

 stone ; yet, surely, the man who writes to put down bigotry, to denounce 

 tyranny, promulgate free trade, or advocate cheap and rational justice, 

 would not be less remote from the existing order of ideas ! To sell many 

 copies of a book, there must be many purchasers ; and where shall we find 

 many, to whom such doctrines are not odious, damnable, and heretical ? 

 Oh ! ye makers of books, of all possible churches ! ye anti-catholic scribes! 

 ye dealers in Methodism, Toryism, party venom, and personal scandal ! 

 ye writers of flimsy novels, chroniclers of the nothingness of high life, and 

 fabricators of anecdotes ! ye Southeys, Philpots, and Crokers ! ye Hooks, 

 Dibdins, and anonymous lords and ladies ! bear witness, that philosophy 

 and philanthropy have nothing to do with authorship, and that wisdom 

 cries aloud in the street, and no man regards it. To write a good book, 

 take measure of the many. Dil worth was a more valuable writer than Sir 

 Isaac Newton ; Dr. Kitchiner was worth all the Benthams, Ricardos, 

 Davys, La Places, and Cuviers put together ; and Harriet Wilson ranks 

 far above Antoine Hamilton and Bayle, consolidated. 



The choice of subject has ever been deemed an important point of author- 

 ship ; and a critic would be justly deemed unpardonable who should leave 

 it untouched. I am the more disposed to enter somewhat deeply upon 

 the subject, because the older writers have so miserably failed in this part 

 of their treatises. Horace, for instance, recommends his pupils to consult 

 their forces to examine " quid valeant humeri?' A fig for Horace and 

 his shoulders, I say: and Heaven help the unfortunate Pisones who should 

 set off on such a wild-goose chase ! 



It is a canon of modern criticism, well known to the most paltry pub- 

 lisher of numbers, that every body can write any thing. Newton wrote on 

 the Apocalypse; Sir Malachi writes history; Anacreon, biography; and 

 the muse of Windermere de omne scribili. Lord Leatherhead is great alike 

 in finance, and corn, and currency ; and has composed more pamphlets 

 than Hume has spoken speeches. Sir Richard Phillips has undertaken the 

 planetary system ; John Bell wrote on the fine arts; and Dr. Kitchiner on 

 optics. Figoro has said that it is not necessary to possess a subject, in order 

 to write on it ; and this is true in the intellectual, as well as the physical 

 sense. When an author comes to his work full of the subject, and, to use 

 a vulgar piece of critical cant, prepared for his task, he necessarily brings 

 to it all the prejudices of his previous education. The less he knows, the 

 less likely he is to mix himself up with his theme. Watson never had 

 opened a chemical book when he was appointed professor; and, in six 

 months, he produced the most original lectures that ever were given. To 

 utter ignorance of his subject, an author must bring a proportionate indus- 

 try, and he cannot write a line without profound meditation. Exquisite 

 advantage ! Knowledge and labour go paripassu, and, when the work is 

 complete, the author is in full possession of his subject. If a diploma can 

 make a physician, ordination strike off a divine, and military success make 



