408 The Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism. [Dec. 
dishonesty iii a man’s using a faculty- 
imparted to him by his Creator, the use 
of which, in the case in question, can 
only operate advantageously to the , 
community. 
The power of working the rod was 
inherent in my brother’s constitution— 
the knowledge of that power he acci¬ 
dentally derived from Rankin, without 
any sinister design on either side. I 
shall pass by the illiberal attempt to 
insinuate that the forks of the rod were 
designedly broken, because, as they are 
held, the thing is impossible to be done 
without immediate detection—and pass 
on to answer the only part of Mr.Farcy’s 
letter that possesses the least shadow 
of reasoning—which shadow vanishes 
the instant a definition of the terms 
made use of, is given. Mr. F. asks, 
44 What but an absurd and impossible 
cause can be said at one time to draw 
or attract, and at another, and under 
the very same circumstances, to press or 
repel ?” Surely Mr. F. does not mean 
gravely to argue, that to press and repel 
are synonymous terms. Bailey defines 
to press, 44 to squeeze close together 
to repel, 44 to beat or drive back.” If 
Mr. Farey ever urged successful love, 
and squeezed the hand of his fair one 
in the moment of soft dalliance, he 
doubtless felt what it was to press by 
attraction. A repelling squeeze is a 
new discovery in the art of love unsung 
by Ovid—and a repelling press is an 
unheard of invention in the science of 
mechanics. 
I am sorry, Mr. Editor, I cannot 
conclude without attributing some 
blame to you or your printer, for suf¬ 
fering several errors of the press to pass 
uncorrected, two of which Mr. Farey’s 
critical acumen lias fastened upon ; but 
the mystery he complains of will be 
dissipated by a reference to my brother’s 
manuscripts. In speaking of a well 
dug on my premises, the printed copy 
says, 44 if means had not been used to 
prevent the water running off through 
the wall, there is little doubt but it 
would have risen to, and run over the 
top of the well.” Now, Sir, the word 
not , is not in the manuscript, and by 
striking it out, the sense of the passage 
is quite clear and consistent; and in¬ 
stead of 44 proper lines for divining,” 
read 44 proper lines for draining,” which 
will make this paragraph also perfectly 
intelligible. 
The question as to the cause of the 
workingof the divining rod still remains 
unanswered, and is, I think, worthy the 
attention of men of%real science ; and T 
am not without hope that some of your 
valued correspondents will investigate 
the subject with more candour and pa¬ 
tience than has been evinced by Mr. 
Farey. John Partridge. 
Spring Cottage, near Stroud, 
Gloucestershire , slug. 14, 1821. 
P. S. Having noticed in your Number 
for August a table shewing the relative 
levels of canals, 1 should feel obliged if any 
of your correspondents could state, through 
the medium of your Magazine, what is the 
actual tonnage paid on each canal, and also 
the number of locks, and the exact length 
of each canal ? 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONTEM¬ 
PORARY CRITICISM. 
No. XVI. 
Edinburgh Review, No. 70. 
T HE first article of this Num¬ 
ber is apparently by the edi¬ 
tor, but not one of his best. Mr. Jef¬ 
frey’s prose has all the richness, flow, 
and elasticity of the finest poetry. His 
judgment on the unfortunate 44 Doge of 
Venice,” coincides with that already 
pronounced by a much higher tribunal; 
though it is not easy to see how a play, 
which the established reputation of 
Byron was unable to support, would 
have made the fortune of 44 any young 
aspirant after fame.” Even the 44 puf¬ 
fing manager” could make nothing of 
a drama containing five prosing dia¬ 
logues in place of five acts, and a plot 
turning on the irritable and ludicrous 
jealousy of an amorous swain of four¬ 
score—with a few incidents stolen from 
Pizarro, the incomparable tragedy of 
Otway, and Hume's history of five gun¬ 
powder treason. Nevertheless, Marino 
Faliero possesses beauties which render 
it worthy to be bound up with Cato and 
Irene, a fate which many might envy 
and no one disgrace. 
Article second, on the 44 State of Pri¬ 
sons ,” is judicious enough. Rump 
steaks ami veal cutlets are far too good 
for any inmates of a prison. But after 
all, there is not much hope of reclaiming 
old offenders. Punishments, framed 
with a design to deter the innocent, ra¬ 
ther than reform the guilty, seem likely 
to he of the greatest practical utility. 
With this view, jails and houses of cor¬ 
rection ought to he kept as much as 
possible under the public eye, and all 
reasonable opportunity afforded for ex¬ 
posing their miserable inhabitants in 
that state of misery and destitution to 
which 
