If our editors are not as yet all independent
of the will of a publisher, a majority of them scruple, at least, to
confess a subservience, and enter into no positive combinations
against the minority who despise and discard it. And this is a very
great improvement of exceedingly late date.
Escaping these quicksands, our criticism is nevertheless in some
danger- some very little danger- of falling into the pit of a most
detestable species of cant- the cant of generality. This tendency
has been given it, in the first instance, by the onward and tumultuous
spirit of the age. With the increase of the thinking-material comes
the desire, if not the necessity, of abandoning particulars for
masses. Yet in our individual case, as a nation, we seem merely to
have adopted this bias from the British Quarterly Reviews, upon
which our own Quarterlies have been slavishly and pertinaciously
modelled. In the foreign journal, the review or criticism properly
so termed, has gradually yet steadily degenerated into what we see
it at present- that is to say, into anything but criticism. Originally
a "review" was not so called as lucus a non lucendo. Its name conveyed
a just idea of its design. It reviewed, or surveyed the book whose
title formed its text, and, giving an analysis of its contents, passed
judgment upon its merits or defects.
Pages:
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141