which he formed, are still less like the genuine poetry of England. There is in all the poetry of Pope a great deal of good sense, an acquaintance, by no means superficial, with the manners of mankind, and those slighter and surface passions (if one may use the word) of the human heart, which break out in manners and temper and petty actions, but never give birth to any grand and overwhelming events, or lay bare the anatomy of the heart; there is also a considerable share of wit and understanding, great terseness and polish of language. But these are not the distinguishing qualities of the poetry of Shakespeare or Milton; these are qualities which foreign poets possess nearly in an equal degree with Pope; consequently they are not qualities that mark him out and set him apart as an English poet, possessing the grandest and most peculiar features of the nation to which he belonged. Pope also introduced another change into our national poetry, which still farther removed it from its genuine national character, and rendered a return to that character extremely difficult; we allude to his having been the first poet, or, at least, the first poet of great influence, who regularly made use of what may be termed poetical terms and phrases, in lieu of those terms and phrases which, whether poetical or not, gave poetical idea or feeling in all its warmth and vigour. From the time of Pope till very lately poetry has generally been considered to consist in, or, at least to be incapable of existing, without a peculiar language; and even if that language clothed ideas remote from genuine poetry, he who employed it was deemed a poet. Hence poetry was the indeed reduced to an art, in order to acquire a mastery in which it was necessary to study a particular phraseology, abundantly scattered in all the writers of what, by courtesy, was denominated poetry. If our observations regarding the essential difference between the British national character, and the character of other nations, be correct and just; and if we were also just in what we have laid down regarding the resemblance of our sterling British poets to that character, we need not prove, that the substitution of a peculiar language, however brilliant, metaphysical, or remote from the language of prose and common life, in the stead of the essence of poetry, as it shone forth in Shakespeare and Milton, must have most materially contributed to strip British poetry of its peculiar character, and to have stamped it with a resemblance to the poetry of other nations much less richly gifted. From this brief and rapid sketch of our Literature (so far as it appeared in those writers, who, treating of human manners, habits, and passions, wrote for the great mass of mankind) it will be seen, that though it improved with respect to taste, correct judgment, and elegance, it fell off with respect to vigour, comprehension, and boldness of views, as well as with respect to the living delineation of human passions. We have purposely left for separate consideration that portion of our literature which was occupied with subjects suited only to particular classes of readers. We allude to the state of political science, of political economy, and of science strictly so called. Our observations on these, however, must be very brief and general. Political science, or that science which treats of the origin, origin, nature, duties, and rights of government, could hardly be expected to assume a regular and noticed existence till the wars between Charles and his Parliament called it into life. Even here, however, we meet with much less regarding the principles of government than might be expected: the political writers of that period are almost exclusively occupied with discussing the points in dispute between the sovereign and his parliament; and though those who advocated the cause of the latter, almost necessarily referred to liberal principles of government in support of their positions, they by no means seem to have known or recognized those principles in all their bearings or purity. The fact is, indeed, that many of the most zealous opposers of Charles were not in the least inclined to extend to the great mass of the people those political rights and privileges which they claimed for themselves, and in defence of which they put to risk not only their own lives and fortunes, but the peace and prosperity of the nation at large. It was not till the period of the Revolution that the great mass of the people were represented by writers on government, and especially by Locke, as being parties in the reciprocal rights of sovereigns and subjects. This author swept away the doctrine of the divine right of kings, and of non-resistance and passive obedience, and substituted the doctrine of a contract between the sovereign and the people a doctrine which seems to have maintained its ground till the period of the American Revolution. Political economy was still less a science, during the period of which we are treating, than politics; the particular circumstances of the times, indeed, especially the esta- 1 blishment of the Bank of England, the state of the coin-the esta blishment of the funding systemand the South-Sea scheme-gave rise to many ingenious and some profound treatises on different branches of political economy. But in none of these treatises can we trace even the outline of general principles. Towards the close of the period of which we are treating, Hume published his Essays: in some of these there is displayed a surprising degree of acuteness and comprehension on particular topics of political economy; while, in others, there are predictions which have been so completely falsified as to prove, that his mind did not embrace political economy as a science, nor take in all the elements of which it is composed. In science, strictly so called, England shone most while Newton lived; before his time, and since it, this country has not been particularly distinguished for the higher departments of pure science. In a succeeding Chapter we shall have occasion to prove that the mere mathematical sciences are not so congenial to the developement and growth of intellect, or to the intellectual character of the British nation, as those sciences which depend more on experiments, and on deductions from those experiments; at present we shall merely remark, that while all would agree that Shakspeare, Bacon, and Milton, in the character of their intellect, as displayed in their writings, were purely British, no one, however justly proud of Newton, could point him out as characteristically British in his genius. With regard to the changes in the intellectual habits and pursuits of the people during the period of which which we have been treating, it is difficult to find evidence by which it could be ascertained. There are, however, some circumstances which seem to prove, that a habit for reading was created during the Reformation, and that it grew, but very slowly and by no means extensively, during the seventeenth century, and the first half of the eighteenth century. The great change in this respect has undoubtedly taken place since the accession of his present Majesty prior to that period, the ignorance, superstition, and imbeci lity, as well as the indifference, of the great mass of the people to pub. lic affairs, was most striking. Very few of them comparatively could read; and it is probable their reading was confined to Fox's Book of Martyrs, Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, Robinson Crusoe, and works of a similar description. Even those in the middling ranks of life possessed few intellectual habits or pursuits, and these underwent no material change, certainly, till within the latter half of the eighteenth century. CHAPTER CHAPTER II. State and Character of Literature in Great Britain, from the Accession of George III. to the beginning of the French Revolution. As S the object of this part of our work is merely to give a slight and general sketch, neither the nature of that object, nor our limits, will permit us to dwell at any length on the topics which that object embraces: we must barely touch upon the most prominent parts connected with literature and science; or rather, by drawing their character in a few words, depend upon our readers seeking out evidence of the justice of that character in other works. It is extremely difficult to ascertain the real state of any nation, at any particular period, even though not very remote; we mean its state with respect to the portion of intelligence and information to which it had attained at that period, the comforts which it enjoyed, and the various advantages which it possessed. We who live in the present times (with the exception of those who are near the usual limits of human life-threescore years and ten) can form only a very imperfect idea of what was the state of this kingdom and its inhabitants at the accession of the present Sovereign. We know, generally, that with respect to improvements of all kinds, England was then in a very rude state; there were comparatively few turnpike roads, the modes of travelling were very uncomfortable, and 1817 the rate of travelling extremely slow and precarious; consequently the communication among the different parts of the kingdom was not nearly so frequent, easy, and general, as it is at present. Another circumstance which distinguished those times from the present, was, the paucity of newspapers, and other publications intended for general perusal and information. We particularize these two points of difference, because they are not remotely or slightly connected with the immediate and proper topic of this Chapter. It is often asserted, that literature and science were at a higher pitch at some past period than they are at the present time: but though the talents and information of literary and scientific inen may have been superior at that period, it may well be doubted, whether literary aud scientific knowledge was at any previous time so widely or speedily diffused as it is at present, and indeed has been during the greatest part of the reign of George III. The early part of the present reign was illuminated by several men of superior talents and information; but few of them, in any line of literature, were distinguished for that particular description of intellect, to which we have given the name of British, and of which Shakespeare, B Shakespeare, Bacon, and Milton, are such shining specimens: we do not mean to say that few of the literary men, who flourished in the early part of the reign of George III. were equal in genius to Shakespeare, Bacon, and Milton; for that would be laying down a position, which none would be disposed to dispute, or call in question; but we mean that the character of intellect was not then decidedly British. Indeed, a variety of circumstances are always in operation, which tend to assimilate the literary character of any particular nation, to the general literary character of the age, though there always must remain some strong and peculiar marks by which it may be distinguished. In several of the great literary men of the period to which we alJude, there were, however, individual circumstances which removed their intellectual character, and the character of their tone of thought and style, farther from the national literary character, than the general circumstances to which we have alluded could, of themselves, have done. The truth of this remark will appear, if we consider some of the most eminent of those men -Johnson, Hume, Gibbon, Robertson, and Burke. The intellectual character, as well as the tone of thought in Johnson, indeed, is undoubtedly British, except so far as regards his taste and judgment in Poetry. To such foreigners as were ignorant of our great and unparalleled poets,-of Shakespeare and of Milton,-but who well knew the cold temperament of the British nation, its reflecting disposition, its habits of reasoning on almost every topic, and the little animation or fancy which are displayed in the common intercourses of life,-it would most |