But, through the system of
anonymous contribution, this natural process lost ground from day to
day. The name of a writer being known only to a few, it became to
him an object not so much to write well, as to write fluently, at so
many guineas per sheet. The analysis of a book is a matter of time and
of mental exertion. For many classes of composition there is
required a deliberate perusal, with notes, and subsequent
generalization. An easy substitute for this labor was found in a
digest or compendium of the work noticed, with copious extracts- or
a still easier, in random comments upon such passages as
accidentally met the eye of the critic, with the passages themselves
copied at full length. The mode of reviewing most in favor, however,
because carrying with it the greatest semblance of care, was that of
diffuse essay upon the subject matter of the publication, the
reviewer(?) using the facts alone which the publication supplied,
and using them as material for some theory, the sole concern, bearing,
and intention of which, was mere difference of opinion with the
author. These came at length to be understood and habitually practised
as the customary or conventional fashions of review; and although
the nobler order of intellects did not fall into the full heresy of
these fashions- we may still assert that even Macaulay's nearest
approach to criticism in its legitimate sense, is to be found in his
article upon Ranke's "History of the Popes"- an article in which the
whole strength of the reviewer is put forth to account for a single
fact- the progress of Romanism- which the book under discussion has
established.
Pages:
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142