We had intended some remarks particularly upon his other writings; but one of them, "Sartor Resartus," has already been noticed, and we have nothing to add. We are rejoiced to see the announcement, under the care of one of our most distinguighed literary men, of the Carlyle Miscellanies. We know not but these should be considered his most remarkable productions. They exemplify particularly his power of character-painting. Who remembers not the truly beautiful and spirited article upon Burns; the striking thoughts in his articles upon German Literature, Characteristics, Signs of the Times, and in those on Schiller, Goethe, Richter, Voltaire, Novalis, and Diderot?

دو

The late Review of Lockhart's Scott naturally meets quite various reception. For Scott has been overrated by the multitude, and is underrated by Mr. Carlyle, who confesses his "small inward vocation to this work. Scott has not addressed our profoundest faculties, nor advocated great principles of Truth and Duty, nor extended greatly the boundaries of knowledge, nor, consequently, much advanced the fortunes of man. But he has furnished the whole world with a great amount of innocent joy. His works have been as a place of recreation, accessible to all men and forever thronged. And we cannot but be grateful to him, by whom we have been so often feasted. Then he has given descriptions of scenery, manners, and character, by which we have been interested, and often deeply touched. The great characteristic of Scott is his Truth. He does not reflect upon things and modify them, and give them in new forms, and disclose their hidden meaning. The world is reflected in his mind as in a mirror. And though he lack some higher traits, let this be estimated at its real worth. It does not place him among the immortals, but it will prevent him from being soon forgotten. His vivid characters will not be of local, temporary interest, though clothed in the customs of particular places and times. A single spot has charms for the world, and a particular time may perpetuate its interests to all ages. Scott's power is indeed that of observation, sympathy, and description, and not in the highest sense poetic and creative. Therefore his orb grew dim before Byron, and not simply because Byron was a meteor, though he was a "wandering star."

Scott's power, we have said, is clearly to see, and set forth what he sees. Accordingly his merit lies in what he says, not in what he suggests. He is not a suggestive writer, and there

fore does not work strongly upon the soul. The world interests him for what it is. It interests Coleridge and Wordsworth, on the contrary, for what it indicates and wakens in the soul. And though their words may not please us more, they work more strongly within us. We doubt whether even an ardent admirer would say of Scott what Coleridge said of Wordsworth; that whenever he listened to him he seemed to hear " non verba, sed tonitrua!"

Scott does not generally go to the source of passion, and describe its pure working. He gives us its appearance and result in speech and action, but not often its struggle in the bosom. For dramatic talent he has been compared with Shakspeare. But however his close apparent magnitude may overawe judgment, the perspective of time will show his great inferiority. Scott's faculty was graphic, but Shakspeare's the true Ideal. Scott delighted to describe outward commotions, Shakspeare told their origin in the movements of the soul. Scott could portray what he had seen in the creation, but Shakspeare, independent of all particular observations, give a character, never seen, yet felt to be human, recognised as such if met, and thus in a sense add to the creation. And here is the difference. The inferior genius describes, the true Poet makes.

Still Scott's was a wondrous gift, a wondrous combination of faculty and disposition. To cleanse one's self from all selfishness and passion, as he showed his moral superiority to Byron in doing, to enter into another with such loving heart as to possess and be that other for the time, to enjoy equally, as we are told of him, the society of all human beings from princes to clowns; all this implies no slight energy of soul and element of greatness. And though he does not go down into the depths of human nature, he gives its manifestations with wonderful truth. Nor shall we cease to love such characters as Rebecca and Elspeth, the Antiquary and Old Mortality, though we never compare them with Hamlet, Lady Macbeth, and Lear! As we have meditated our subject one conviction has been ever rising in our mind, and now recurs with so much force that we must be excused for giving it utterance. It is the importance of mutual toleration among minds of different structure and tendency. Perhaps it is not an unseasonable suggestion viewed in reference to the present state of our own literary community. When the season of servile imitation is over, and men no longer resorting to a common fountain, which makes

them so many channels, begin to speak and act from themselves, there will be a variety of intellectual character corresponding to the differences at once of original endowment and voluntary aim. There is doubtless an ideal perfection of mind, which is a standard of judgment for all actual minds. But how few approach even the perfection of harmony, what we call balance of character; and perfection of degree belongs only to the Infinite. Yet towards both these perfections the earnest souls struggle. And because the essay of one, in the infantile effort of this world, goes in one direction, and of another in the opposite, why, in the name of all that is human and holy, should they live in mutual dislike and repulsion! Did they but know it, they are not foes, but each other's best servants and friends. For if capability of service be the qualification of a friend, they should be more friendly than if they were alike, as they can do more to supply each other's deficiencies, correct each other's faults, and raise each other towards the common perfection of all minds. Is there not indeed a deep meaning of good to yourself in the exhortation, "Love your enemy?" for, if you will, may not your enemy be your most useful friend? Our own community of mind has of late years had its decided differences of taste. And perhaps the selfexaltation and intolerance produced have not been less for the genuineness of the qualities which by one party or another have been prized and defended. But surely this hostility should cease. For all it concerns, properly viewed, is in union. "If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing?" Let not the man of practical strength think meanly of him, whose eye is upturned to visions of Beauty; for this Beauty is related with and may flow into the most common actions of life. Neither let him, whose imagination spreads for him daily feasts of ambrosia and nectar, with a worse intolerance despise the conscientious hard-working supporters of good social institutions; for there is a Beauty in their action, whose absence would sadly impoverish the Beauty of his thought. Let there be no mutual scorn between the Fine and the Useful arts, for they both receive an equal dignity from their union in the moral nature. Let the war end between Transendentalism and Common Sense. There is no "schism" in the true soul, in which both are perfect. And let us all strive after that charity, which, while tongues shall cease, and knowledge vanish away, never faileth.

C. A. B.

ART. V.-1. Reports on the Geological Survey of the State of New York, communicated to the Governor and the General Assembly, February, 1837.

First Annual Report on the Survey of the First District. By W. W. MATHER.

First Annual Report on the Second District. By Professor E. EMMONS.

First Annual Report on the Third District. By T. A. CONRAD.

First Annual Report on the Fourth District. By LARDNER VANUXEM.

Report on the Mineralogical and Chemical Departments of the Survey. By Dr. LEWIS C. BECK.

2. First Annual Report on the Geology of the State of Maine, accompanied by an Atlas of Plates. By C. T. JACKSON, M. D. Member of the Geological Society of France, &c. &c.

3. First Annual Report of the Public Lands belonging to Massachusetts and Maine. By the same. Boston. 1837. 4. Second Annual Report on the Geology of Maine. By the same. Augusta. 1838.

5. Second Annual Report on the Geology of the Public Lands. By the same. Boston. 1838.

E

We welcome these reports with great interest. They have afforded us much instruction, and have thrown much new light upon the before undeveloped resources and mineral productions of the sections of country to which they relate. It reflects great honor upon the Chief Magistrates of those States, that their influence has been thus opportunely exerted, in a way so directly calculated to advance the best and most immediate interests of their constituents.

It is one of the happiest omens of the times, that the Science of Geology, from its economical and practical bearings, as well as from its essential and almost unparalleled importance, as a high and noble branch of human learning and research, is beginning to receive, at all hands, the attention which it deserves. We speak here in reference to our own country, where by means of popular lectures, Lyceums, Scientific tracts, &c., a facility has been given to the dissemination of knowledge, rarely, if ever, equalled by any other people. No subject is

listened to with greater interest, by a popular assembly, and none inspires greater love and enthusiasm in the student. Its theme is the history, primeval and recent, of our planet, all whose phenomena and revolutions it attempts to explain. It is the ally of Scripture, for it gives unequivocal testimony in favor of the Mosaic records, as to the creation and the flood, by the disclosures which examinations are continually bringing to light, all tending not only to confirm the leading facts in the cosmogony of the historian, but establishing precisely the same order which he has assigned to the different epochs of creation, ending finally in man, whose remains have never been found in the fossil state, either by themselves or accompanying the bones or vestiges of other animals, everywhere so numerous, with which, had they existed on the earth at the same early period, we should now expect to find them buried in the same strata. We might have concluded a priori, that the coincidence, of which we have spoken, would have been found to exist, that there would prove a resultant harmony between the Works and Word of the Creator. This being the case, it were to be hoped that the friends of Geology and of the Bible, who find in one a confirmation of the other, might have been spared the wholesale sneers and ridicule which have been levelled against them by various infidel writers. It is indeed said, with some truth, that this ridicule has not been entirely unmerited, as some writers have shown a disposition to force the coincidence, or frame some new system, by adducing arguments neither derived from reason nor supported by common sense, and have thus, unintentionally, injured their own cause and laid themselves open to attack. This is much to be regretted, on account of a large class of persons who are honest in their skepticism, and who have taken up the subject unbiassed either against or in favor of the Scriptures; but who, if they are ever made to believe in them, through the discoveries of science, must be led on by a process of rational and philosophical deduction from well attested facts. It is believed that there is a large number of young men to whom these remarks will apply with much force; for their sakes, we say, let the subject be treated as it should be. Mere theologians, who know nothing of practical geology, are not the suitable expounders of its teachings, and they betray a latent skepticism, whenever they show their fears as to the results or tendencies of any physical investigations which may have a bearing upon revelation. The two writers who have