210 
We will say nothing about’ the exag- 
gerations of this statement: what is 
oratory, even in the pulpit, without its 
exaggerations—its hyperboles—its poe- 
tical prose ?—nothing of its perver- 
sions: for what becomes of the contro- 
versialist, theological, or political, if he 
be not permitted to twist and distort a 
little—to heighten and to discolour !— 
to dress up the phantoms ef his own 
invention, and having run his lance 
against the airy nothing, embodied only 
that it might be vanquished, to boast 
his’ triumph over the real antagonist, 
whom, in fact, he had neyer encoun- 
tered? Neither will we detail the 
‘anecdote, of a certain Lord Justice 
Clerk, who, on a similar provocation,.is 
reported to have exclaimed, “ An’ he 
had said a’ this against God Almighty, 
it had na’ sa much a signified, because 
he could tak his ain part; but to speak 
thus against our most gracious soye- 
reign !—ah ! what impiety !” 
Whether such rhetoric be more ac- 
cordant to the legitimate purposes of 
the pulpit or the bench, we presume 
not to determine; but, without further 
comment, take our leave of Dr. Styles, 
we hope and trust for ever: for, unless 
he should wander again from the strait 
and benignant paths of the Gospel, into 
the crooked and less sanctified bye-ways 
of critical and personal  vituperation, 
neither his inspirations nor his_ elo- 
quence will come within the sphere of 
our philosophical analysis of Contem- 
porary Criticism. 
A more welcome object of such 
analysis now lies before us; from which, 
indeed, we have suffered ourselves to 
be detained much longer than we in- 
tended. 
The Letters of Sir Egerton Brydges 
on the Character and Poetical Genius of 
Lord Byron, come, in reality, more’ cor- 
rectly under our consideration in this 
article, than almost any of the publica- 
tions upon which we have been in the 
habit of animadverting. With respect to 
the latter, our object, generally speak- 
ing, has been to shew that, in their pre- 
tended criticisms, there is no philosophy 
at all,—nor criticism either; unless fac- 
tion be philosophy, and personality and 
misrepresentation critical acumen. In 
the Jetters before us, we think, we descry 
the philosophy after which we inquire ; 
genuine in its spirit, correct and bene- 
ficial in its purpose, acute in its discri- 
minations, and’ temperate in its judg- 
ments; separating, indeed, the cockle 
from the grain, yet more soliciteus for 
Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism.—No. XLII. 
[April 1, 
the discovery of beauties than defects, 
and evidently more anxious to improve 
the general taste than to depreciate in- 
dividual talent. Their high mightinesses, 
the periodical Reviewers, must slumber. 
therefore, a little longer in our neglect, 
while we proceed with our elucidation 
of criticism as it ought to be. 
And, first, as to politics, as far as 
they are concerned: Jet us see whether 
the critico-political philosophy of the 
layman be not alittle more christianlike 
than that of the divine. It is inp. 353 
of this interesting volume that the topic 
is thus introduced : 
“* T have said nothing about Lord By- 
ron’s politics ; my concern with him has been 
asa poet: in politics I have always enter- 
tained opinions very different from his ; but 
never in my life did I allow myself, or even 
feel the inclination, to intermix political 
prejudices with literary taste or judgment. 
I ,have seen too much of the bane and 
poison of this, intermixture, in the last thirty 
years, not to have been cured of it, had I 
even been originally so disposed. It is the 
canker-worm, or rather the direct and rapid 
destroyer, of our modern literature.”’ F 
What say ye to this, ve censors of 
the Quarterly, of the Edinburgh, and, 
even, of the Westminster ?—ought not 
this to be, also, a part of your philoso- 
phy? Sir Eserton proceeds to observe, 
that Lord Byron is accused of having 
been as licentious on this subject as 
upon those of morals and religion; and 
he does not deny, that “ there are 
occasions in which the coarseness and 
bitterness of his personal satire cannot 
be justified,” and on which the noble 
poet “even indulgés in unaccountable 
vulgarisms.” 
“ But here again,” continues he, “ the 
censure of Lord Byron has been much too 
indiscriminate, and carried much too far. 
If he thought, as many wise and good 
people have thought, that rational. liberty 
Was in, danger, and that revolution had. 
become necessary, to correct and cleanse 
the ruinous and deep-laid corruptions of 
power, he’ might be entitled to use very, 
strong indignation, ridicule and wit, in 
fayour of the principles he espoused,— 
though still under the restraint of taste and 
decency.” —‘“ To me, not all the eruelties 
of arbitrary power which history records 
can equal in horror the ferocities, the blood- 
shed and ruin of revolutionary anarchy ;— 
but. different minds may honestly make 
different calculations, and see things in dif- 
ferent lights. ‘When once the attention is 
awakened to the evil conduct, the follies, 
the mistakes, the intrigues, the treacheries, 
the corruptions of governments, it may 
find food for its denunciations, which will 
not 
