young an age, to be able to form an impartial and just estimate of his compatriots, He was a busy actor, more than a spectator, in the circles which have given him an unfavourable impression; and his own passions were, at that period, too much excited to permit his reason to be unbiassed in the opinions he formed. In his hatred of what he calls cant and hypocrisy, he is apt to denounce as such all that has the air of severity; and which, though often painful in individual cases, is, on the whole, salutary for the general good of society. This error of Byron's proceeds from a want of actual personal observation, for which opportunity has not been afforded him, as the brief period of his residence in England, after he had arrived at an age to judge, and the active part he took in the scenes around him, allowed him not to acquire that perfect knowledge of society, manners, and customs, which is necessary to correct the prejudices that a superficial acquaintance with it is so apt to engender, even in the most acute observer, but to which a powerful imagination, prompt to jump at conclusions, without pausing to trace cause and effect, is still more likely to fall into. Byron sees not that much of what he calls the usages of cant and hypocrisy are the fences that protect propriety, and that they cannot be invaded without exposing what is the interest of all to preserve. Had he been a calm looker on, instead of an impassioned actor in the drama of English fashionable life, he would probably have taken a less harsh view of all that has so much excited his ire, and felt the necessity of many of the restraints which fettered him.”—pp. 301–303. It is evident from many passages in this volume, that Byron set a high value on education as a general principle. He acknowledged his conviction, that it had more effect in quelling the passions than is generally allowed: by expanding the mind, and giving to it sources of tasteful occupations, he thought that it filled up the time, that no leisure was left for the passions to obtain that umpire over the reason, to which ignorance and idleness exposes it. He referred to the lower classes, and particularly those of Italy, for a proof of the influence of passions over uneducated minds. Well-educated women, he observed, rarely, if ever, give way to any ebullitions of passion. Of mankind in general, he uniformly expressed an unfavourable opinion; but the Countess suspects that it was not genuine, but the result of a cynical habit, to which he too often descended; she has heard him oppose, one day, opinions which he warmly sustained the next, so that the impulse of the moment was always the guide of his conversation. There is no question but that he studied and deeply admired Shakespeare, yet on an occasion when his mind was obliquely directed, he did not hesitate to put forth the following criticism on the immortal bard: "All his vulgarism, are attributed to the circumstanees of his birth and breeding deprived him of a good education; hence they are to be excused, and the obscurities with which his works abound are all easily explained away by the simple statement, that he wrote above 200 years ago, and that the terms then in familiar use are now become obsolete. With two such good excuses, as want of education, and having written above 200 years before our time, any writer may pass muster; and when to these is added the being a sturdy hind of low degree, which to three parts of the community in England has a peculiar attraction, one ceases to wonder at his supposed popularity; I say supposed, for who goes to see his plays, and who, except country parsons, or mouthing, stage-struck theatrical amateurs, read them ?"-p. 356. Byron, it appears, took a peculiar pleasure in opposing popular opinions, no matter what the subject was. Here he showed great weakness, because his determined hostility was mere pride that led him to despise the multitude. He often declared, that nothing would give him a worse opinion of a book than to hear it was admired by the people of England; and he admitted that his dislike of the Duke of Wellington arose because they made him their idol. The notions of Byron on the professions of divinity and physic are common to many persons, who, like himself, are very careless about premises when they go about forming their conclusions. Medical men he thought little about, and one of his reasons appears to be that they do not sufficiently attend to idiosyncracy, on which so much depends, and often hurry to the grave one patient by a treatment that has succeeded with another. The moment they ascertain a disease to be the same as one they have known, they conclude the same remedies that cured the first must remove the second, not making allowance for the peculiarities of temperament, habits, and disposition; which last has a great influence in maladies. In the course of the volume, we meet with many passages put into the mouth of Byron, which deserve more the name of sermons than conversation; we mean to say that they are too moral, too demure, a great deal, for such a man; and we should not be surprised if some of the elegant and pointed terms, by which piety is made interesting, and religion clothed with beauty, represented as being used by Byron, were really no more than unconscious intercalations of the fair author herself. Her pity is called forth in very touching expressions, when she contemplates Byron turning his thoughts upon his daughter, She says, "There is something tender and beautiful in the deep love with which poor Byron turns to his daughter. This is his last resting-place, and on her heart has he cast his last anchor of hope. When one reflects that he looks not to consolation from her during his life, as he believes her mother implacable, and only hopes that, when the grave has closed over him, his child will cherish his memory, and weep over his misfortunes, it is impossible not to sympathize with his feelings. Poor Byron! why is he not always true to himself? Who can, like him excite sympathy, even when knows him to be erring? But he shames one out of one's natural and better feelings by his mockery of self. Alas!— His is a lofty spirit, tnrn'd aside and pride; And onward in its new, tumultuous course, To pause one moment in the dread career, And ask-if such could be its native sphere? How unsatisfactory is it to find one's feelings with regard to Byron, varying every day! This is because he is never two days the same. The day after he has awakened the deepest interest, his manner of scoffing at himself and others destroys it, and one feels as if one had been duped into a sympathy, only to be laughed at."-pp. 387, 388. Still recurring to her accusatory habit, the Countess holds out to our notice the unquenchable thirst for celebrity of Byron : no avenue to it was left untried, and the means by which it could be reached he never trifled about. Thus his weakness was manifested, by the frequent occasions on which he associated himself with those beneath him in rank, thinking he honoured them by his condescension, and expecting that they would make a due return in the submission which they observed. Another bad habit was, that of disclaiming friendships, which again arose from his aristocratic pride. Before setting out on his expedition to Greece, it appears that Byron was exceedingly anxious to proceed first to England, and she suspects that his main object was a reconciliation with his lady. But, here we must close the the book, feeling that we have gained quite enough of information to induce us to entertain a very poor opinion of the noble poet, in his capacity of a member of society. It would be easy to show that the debtor and creditor account which is given here between Lord Byron the good with Lord Byron the bad, goes nigh to make a bankrupt of his Lordship's character. The whole effect of the details may be summed up in a very brief way, and we give the recapitulation, which is exceedingly well done to our hand, by the accomplished author herself. "With such various forms of pleasing as rarely fall to the lot of man. Byron possessed the counterbalance to an extraordinary degree, as he could disenchant his admirers almost as quickly as he had won their admiration. He was too observant not to discover, at a glance, the falling off in the admiration of those around him, and resented as an injury the decrease in their esteem, which a little consideration for their feelings, and some restraint in the expression of his own, would have prevented. Sensitive, jealous, and exigent himself, he had no sympathy or forbearance for those weaknesses in others. He claimed admiration not only for his genius, but for his defects, as a sort of right that appertained solely to him. He was conscious of this foiblesse, but wanted either power or inclination to correct it, and was deeply offended if others appeared to have made the discovery."-p. 403. The volume really affords many interesting materials for useful meditation; and those who wish to see the results on the moral nature of one who has judgment, joined with good sense, and more than all, a thorough knowledge of busy life, will not fail to peruse these Conversations. 110 ART. XII.-Selections from the Edinburgh Review; comprising all the best Articles in that Journal, from its Commencement to the Present Time; with a Preliminary Dissertation and Explanatory Notes. By MAURICE CROSS, Secretary to the Belfast Historical Society. 4 vols. 8vo. London: Longman and Co. 1833. It is not our intention to undertake a review of this large work, its chief contents being of a nature altogether unsuited to our purposes; but, as the Preliminary Discourse prefixed to it, contains some interesting information on the general subject of periodical literature, we feel that it would be useful as well as agreeable to the reader to become acquainted with some of the facts. The invention of the noble art of Reviewing is traced to Photius, whose Bibliotheca resembled, we are told, in some degree, the early English Reviews, which aspired to no higher merit than that of giving extracts from new books. It consisted, exclusively, of abridged notices of the works he had read during his embassy in Persia, and was not designed to perform the office of a critical journal. France has the honour of giving birth to this species of publication. Denis de Sallo, a counsellor in the Parliament of Paris, and a man of eminent literary attainments, established, in 1655, a Review,-the Journal de Scavans,-on the plan of those which exist at present. It was a weekly publication, and contained reviews of the most popular and distinguished productions in every department of literature. The style of criticism was bold and sarcastic, and exposed the editor to the resentment of the authors he held up to ridicule. To shield himself from the personal attacks to which the severity of his criticisms made him liable, De Sallo published his Journal in the name of Steur de Hedouville, his footman. For a considerable time, he conducted it without any assistance from his literary friends; but, as he proceeded in his labours, he found it necessary to seek for contributions from others, and selected, as his coadjutors, some of the most learned men in France. Sallo, however, did not continue in possession of the reins of his literary government as long, perhaps, as he might have done; we are certain only of the fact of his having broken up his establishment without any apparent just ground. D'Israeli says, that after publishing only the third volume of his periodical, he felt the stings of the wasps who were irritated by his criticism, and that he was glad to abandon the throne; but the more probable cause of his renunciation was the interference of the Court, stimulated by powerful intriguers, enemies to the editor. The Review was conducted, in succession, by the Abbe Gallois, the Abbe de la Roque, next by M. Cousin ; at length, it fell into the hands of a Society, under whose administration it flourished, and acquired a high reputation. In 1684, the celebrated Bayle commenced the Nouvelles de la Republique des Lettres, which was admirably conducted; it was afterwards called Historie des Ouvrages des Scavans; and finally disappeared from the literary horizon. The example set by Sallo made its impression in foreign countries, and England was not backward in answering the call which it made upon her. The early English Reviews, however, were little more than advertisements of new works; extracts were made, but clumsily put together. The first of the publications mentioned is, The Weekly Memorials, or, an Account of Books lately set forth. It appeared in January, 1688. Several journals followed, founded on the same principle, but they were scarcely worthy of being classed under the head of regular reviews. The writer of the Dissertation next proceeds to show the origin of the modern method of treating books, and the following account of the Monthly Review is introduced into our pages with no small degree of pride, but with a sense of much gratitude for the liberal compliment which it conveys : "The system of criticism, now so popular, was first adopted in the Monthly Review.' This old and respectable journal was established in 1749, by Ralph Griffith, Esq.-a gentleman universally esteemed for his literary attainments, liberal opinions, and moral worth. He discharged the duties of editor for upwards of half a century. Those acquainted with the work, whilst under his judicious management, will acknowledge the literary talent and political honesty by which it was distinguished. In 1803, Mr. Griffith, junior, succeeded his father as editor, and continued his labours till May, 1825, when indisposition compelled him to relinquish a situation he occupied with honour to himself and advantage to the public. The different series of the Monthly Review' contain a vast accumulation of general knowledge, and many admirable specimens of philosophical and impartial criticism. It was the first journal which skilfully combined an analysis of books, with critical strictures on their character, and the topics of which they treated. Disquisitions on the subjects of works were only occasionally introduced, and were contributed by men of established celebrity in the republic of letters. The criticisms were, in general, neither too brief nor too elaborate; but gave a fair abstract of an author's productions, accompanied by a discriminating commentary on their excellencies and defects. Though the 'Monthly' has not maintained the same lofty ground as the Edinburgh' and Quarterly Reviews' in learned and profound discussion, it has occasionally sent forth articles of great attraction and permanent value. Its views on political subjects were always comprehensive and enlightened, and advocated, under circumstances the most discouraging, with firmness, talent, and integrity. On questions of a religious nature, it was favourable to the opinions of the Unitarian party; but its support was the result of conviction, and invariably rendered in a tolerant spirit. The rights of conscience were strenuously defended by its conductors. Persecution was never justified in the name of religion, |