1799:) 
vice to the interefts of fcience, and to the 
ufeful arts of life, by examining into, and 
making generally known, the difcoveries 
and improvements of ingenious men. The 
art of literary compofition has, moreover, 
been vaftly improved; the principles of 
Janguage have been better afcertained ; and 
the qualities of a juft and elegant ftyle 
have been exactly determined hereby. 
Thefe, together with numerous other 
advantages, might be enumerated, and 
dilated upon, in reviewing the pretenfions 
ef periodical criticifm. 
Yet, notwithftanding all thefe impor- 
tant benefits accruing tyom literary jour- 
nals, juitice. compels the examiner to 
notice fome flagrant abufes which have 
difgraced the monthly reports of lite- 
rature. . 
- The grand charge which may be brought 
againtt all our literary journals, without 
a fingle exception, is their being tinétured 
with a party fpirit. The religious or 
political opinions of a literary reviewer 
ought not, by any means, to have an im- 
fluence upon his mind while he is engaged 
3n examining the merits of a book which 
comes under his critical eye. Ut they 
ihould, the man is the moit unfit perfon 
in the world to bear the office which he 
has affumed, becaufe he wants that ccol- 
nefs and indifference of mind which feems 
to be a grand requifite in the judicial or 
eenforial character. Some reviewers, in- 
ftead of being impartial reporters, and 
contenting themfelves with faumming up 
the merits of a work, become contro- 
verfialifts, and enter the lifts againit the 
author with all the ardour ‘and petulance 
of profeffed difputants. ‘This. is un- 
doubtedly aéting very unjultly, both to- 
wards the writer and the public. The 
one has the misfortune of having his ar- 
guments mifreprefented, and his whole 
treatife condemned in an extenfive pub- 
lication, the decrees of which are received 
almoft as infallible by. thoufands of 
readers. Another difadvantage under 
which he labours in this inftance is the 
being oppoled to a combatant who is 
fheltered under an impervious veil, while 
he is held up to ridicule. It he replies in 
a feparate traét to the decifions of the re- 
viewer, his vindication will probably 
have but a very confined fale, at leaft 
compared with that of the work with 
which he has to contend. 
The publie alfo are very unfairly dealt 
with by this mode of conduct; for the 
right of judgment is hereby taken out of 
their hands. I regard the court of cri- 
ticifm in a fimilar light to a court of ju- 
On periodical Critici/m. 
YoY 
dicature, where the bench has no autho- 
rity whatever to diétate a verdict, but 
only to fum up the evidence with clear- 
nefs, and to Jay down the law with im- 
partiality and precifion, leaving the judg- 
ment with the reader. 
I believe the firft regular review ever 
publifhed in this country was the Literary 
Magazine, which commenced in 1735 5 
and it was conduéted exactly upon ‘this 
broad and liberal plan.. The works 
which it noticed were accurately analyfed, 
and occafional extracts were made from 
them; but the reviewers feldom pafled 
either encomiums or cenfures upon the 
productions which they examined. ‘The 
public, however, by this method, were 
better enabled to form a juft notion of the 
book reviewed, than they ufually can by 
the modern method of criticilm. It may, 
indeed, be faid, that this mode is a dry 
and unentertaining one, when compared 
with the other. Here I apprehend fome- 
thing ought to be remarked concerning 
the entertainment afforded by reviews. 
If a reader wants to be pleafed with the 
ingenious manner of cutting up an au- 
thor, and expofing him to ridicule, he 
fhould firft put himself in the fituation 
of the poor wretch who is made the object 
of his amufement. Perhaps there is not 
a more diftrefling circumftance in life 
than this, though the generality of man- 
kind affeét to treat it as a matter of in- 
fignificance, and many as being one of 
juttice. A man of talent and induftry 
has probably fpent years in invelligating 
and elucidating fome favourite fubject, 
and either ftimulated by ambition, or 
driven by want, lays before the public 
the refult of his enquiries. If his re- 
viewer fhould chance to be in a capricious 
humour, or have fome diflike to the au- 
thor, he has a fine opportunity to gratify 
his bafe paffion by mifreprefenting his 
production. ‘This is ealy enongh, if the 
author is a man of no name; and there 
fhould be, as generally is the cafe, weak 
parts in the work. Little flips in point 
of argument, redundancies of expreilion, 
or inaccuracies of language, when care- 
fully culled cut, and properly exhibited, 
will not fail to produce a rifible effect, 
-and completely do the poor writer’s bufi- 
nefs. This is a game which is often 
played. PH a 
The moft complete way, however, of 
cutting up an author according to the 
eftabiithed rules of criticifm, is to begun 
with a flourifhing preface on the im- 
portance of that branch of literature in 
which he has engaged, and then to pro~ 
. _. Smoynce 
i. 
* 
