522 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONTEM- 
PORARY CRITICISM.—wno. xiv. 
On the Avvantaces and Disapvan- 
TAGES of PerropicaL WRITING. 
[The following Essay has laid by us fora 
considerable time, in consequence of its 
length; because, if inserted with our other 
customary critical disquisitions, it would 
necessitate us to give up a larger portion of 
our space to subjects of a like character 
than is consistent with the diversity which 
the nature of our plan requires. It has oc- 
curred to us, however, that though Reviews 
and Reviewers, properly so called, arenot the 
exclusive, or even the main objects ofanimad- 
version in this Essay: it is, nevertheless, of a 
character so intimately connected with the 
general subject of the spirit and objects of 
contemporary criticism, that it may not im- 
properly have a place assigned to it as an 
article of correspondence under this par- 
ticular head ; and we suspend accordingly, 
once more, our animadversions on the quar- 
terly critics, assuring them at the same 
time, that we have not forgotten them. 
One of them (the Westminster) will pro- 
bably receive a visit from us in our Sup- 
plementary Number, and our colloquy with 
the other two will be renewed in the 
very next of our regular Monthly visita- 
tions. ] 
OTWITHSTANDING the great 
improvement of the public taste 
with respect to periodical publications, 
which one of your most hostile rivals, 
or antagonists, I might say, in all that 
relates to political views and senti- 
ments (Blackwood’s Edinburgh Maga- 
zine) has, nevertheless, had the libe- 
rality to ascribe to your primitive ex- 
ample; and, notwithstanding the gene- 
ral diffusion of something like a lite- 
rary style, even in the most ordinary 
compositions, and the familiar corre- 
spondence between man and man, of 
which the multitude, aod extensive cir- 
culation of periodical miscellanies, may 
be considered as one of the most opel 
rative causes, 1 am sometimes disposed. 
to doubt whether there isnot more of 
the: shew than of the reality of im- 
provement, in the intellectual taste and 
refinement upon which we are priding 
ourselves, and for which you gentlemen 
editors are taking to yourselves so 
much credit. -It may be somewhat un- 
polite, perhaps, to address such a re- 
Advantages and Disadvantages of Periodicat Writing. 
[July J, 
mark through such a channel; but I 
am not sure, after.all, whether the sen- 
tence which one of the high and giaht 
literati of the generation which has 
just passed away used so authorita- 
tively to pronounce—namely, that “the 
great corrupters of the style and lan- 
guage of the age were the writers for 
newspapers and magazines,” however, 
in the present day, it might be modi- 
fied, would be entirely reversed; and 
whether even the professed critics, in 
our multiplied and still multiplying Re- 
views, would escape, themselves, from 
some portion of the censure. By the 
influence of their example, writing with 
an air of authorship has, indeed, become 
universal ; and by the influence of their 
censures (for every scribbler now, down 
to the paragraphist of a newspaper, is an 
Aristotle or an Aristarchus), some at- 
tention to the manner of writing, what- 
ever may be the case as to the matter, has 
become so indispensable, that, perhaps, 
there is but one, even of our diurnal 
instructors or intelligencers, who does 
not think it necessary to avoid,-at least, 
the appearance of a slovenly vulgarity 
in the style of his lucubrations. But 
have we really become as correct as 
we are fastidious? or are we in the 
right road for becoming so? Is it a 
chastened elegance, or a meretricious 
coquetry of which we are enamoured ? 
Or are the popular guides, and instiga- 
tors themselves, of our literary passion, 
really so circumstanced, as always to 
have the time and means (for I trust 
they have some of them the inclination) 
to discriminate between the emanating 
loveliness of the one, and the dazzling 
exterior of the other, in the examples 
they present to our admiration? They 
have taught us, it is true, as they have 
taught themselves, to be more attentive 
to the structure of periods, and the col- 
location of words; we have more of 
swell and roundness in the former, and 
more of euphony in the latter, than — 
heretofore. We have neither the slip- 
shod shuffle, nor the stilted formality 
which distinguished the lieeeary gait of 
some of our predecessors. e have 
discarded alike the flat. and prosing 
familiarity of Richardson, and the pe- 
dantic turgidity of Johnson; but have 
we retained their merits, while we have 
got rid of their faults? If we are more 
animated than the one, and more flu- 
ently diversified than the other, and 
more euphonous and musical than both : 
are we as correct as either? Are we 
as 
