blended, and written as with a pen of steel. The same antithetical manner, precision of thought, and brilliancy of expression, that made the epigrammatic verse of the Wasp of Twit'nam prevail in his prose; and in none of his prose do they appear in such a vivid light as in the preface to his Miscellaneous Works.

We can only refrain from transcribing passage after passage by the apprehension of exceeding our prescribed space, and by the reflection that, as the works of Pope are so universally accessible, quotation would only tend to encourage indolence in the reader, who can turn to it readily.

Mr. Chalmers speaks of Johnson's dedications as "models of courtly address;" they might have been such in the reign of the dull Dutchman, George II., but now-a-days they read a little too much like the pompous flourishes of the ancient regime. Goldsmith's dedications are much briefer, but more to the point, and more graceful. In an introduction, despite of the triptology of his style, Johnson was at home. And his style was admirably suitable to occasions of moment and themes of weight and importance. From the sonorous music of his best writing, we can readily admit that Temple (as has been asserted) was one of the models of Johnson's prose. In point and vigor, Johnson was his superior, but he wants Temple's simplicity and ease. Johnson used to say, there were two things he knew he could do well-state what a work ought to contain, and then relate the reasons or deduce the causes why the writer had failed in executing what he proposed. The first of these talents he possessed to perfection, as we see by his prefaces, most of which were written to order, and are often vastly superior to the book they introduced to the

reader. The preface to Rolt's Dictionary of Trade and Commerce is a striking instance. Johnson had never seen the book, but was asked to give a preface, which he wrote accordingly. He said he knew what such a book ought to contain, and marked out its expected contents. According to Chalmers, the production was almost worthless. When a bookseller's drudge, the noble old moralist indited many an introduction to books of travel and science, school treatises, translations, catalogues. Only a few of these have been preserved in the correct editions of his works.

Johnson possessed great faculties of method and classification. He had clear and strong, though not fine and subtle powers of analysis and classification. Hence resulted this talent of telling what a book should contain. In a preface it was not his business to go farther. But in his lives and extended criticisms he was equally happy in assigning the causes of ill success and of certain failure, on particular grounds. Goldsmith's prefaces were less rigorous, less pointed, but more graceful and simply beautiful.

After the dissolution of the Johnsonian school of writers, we read few classical prefaces save by pupils of the old classical school. Irving is the last of these. Scott expended considerable pains on his introductions, and proposed rewriting all of his prefaces to the Waverley novels, just before his death. Much of Sir Walter's pleasantest writing occurs in these rambling preludes to his animating narratives. Bulwer's prefaces are distorted by the narrowest egotism and unbounded assumption, yet they are such as a man of his great talents alone would write. The poets have written the best prose and the best prefaces, too; such are (wide apart to be sure) Hunt's lively gossiping introductions, and Wordsworth's elevated lectures, for

such they amount to, on the dignity and nobleness of his

art.

We trust the day is coming when writers will return to the composition of prefaces, if only to preserve an historical interest in their works. Much of the interest of the old prefaces is derived from the names at the top and bottom of the page, with the date of publication. Prefaces thus afford authentic materials for literary history, and if carefully executed, for literary criticism. They preserve, too, a regard for the good and well-tested standard forms of writing, and in themselves require a species of talent that should not be neglected. To declare his principal aims, and explain his chief intentions, thereby giving the reader a proper clue to the argument of the whole work, with a candid and open avowal of deficiencies, is the proper business of a preface, and of a writer of books. To address his friend, or at least the reader, with cordiality or respect, in accordance with the spirit of the production; to bespeak his favorable notice, or seek to avoid unmerited neglect, is the province of the dedication. To accomplish these ends, a recurrence to standard models cannot be hurtful, since there is something of a formal, and, as it were, of artistical etiquette in the matter, and which is not to be lost sight of. The author, who is also a gentleman, and it is the effect of letters to make him such, will certainly endeavor to carry himself with as genteel an air on paper as in company. In every place, he will observe the universal laws of polite regard and the local observances of conventional decorum. One of these is to write a preface to every book he publishes, which should also be accompanied by a dedication. In the first, he addresses the public; and in the last he acknowledges the claims of private affection or personal

gratitude, of admiration for talents or virtue in one of the stars of contemporary renown, or of worth and excellence in obscure genius and unobtrusive merit. The preface pleads, apologizes, defends or attacks: the dedication conciliates and compliments. Let an author be friendless and humble, he still can appeal to the "gentle" reader for sympathy and confidence.

To the lovers of literature, and especially of its curiosities and antiquities, and we hope among the readers of the Miscellany to number many such, we dedicate this petit morceau of criticism and research.

NOTE.-The first paper of the first volume may serve for a general preface to this collection: at least in default of a more elaborate introduction.

XIII.

RELIGIOUS BIOGRAPHY.

WE believe Dr. Johnson was the first critic to complain of the penury of English biography. It was a complaint that savored more of hastiness and ignorance than the Doctor's contemporary admirers would have been willing to allow any reviewer to discover in him, but still it was such; and now that every pretender to criticism makes it a point to beard the rough but manly old dogmatist, we may allow ourselves the privilege of picking an additional flaw in his critical reputation (almost worn out by repeated attacks). It is certain, for his undoubted vigor and ability, no writer of eminence ever made so many and such gross critical blunders as Doctor Johnson. On real life and domestic morals; the character and manners of the Londoners; the hypocrisies of men of the world; the thin-skinned sentimentalities of pretenders to sentiment and criticism, he exhibited an acuteness of observation, a comprehensivness of judgment, and pungency of satire, that have never been surpassed. But in the field of literary criticism, requiring finer tact and a nicer perception, the grossness of his senses, no less than the obtuseness of his taste, rendered him unfit, physically and intellectually, to judge of poets and men of fancy.