The Press.
London, England, 1858-01-02 00:00:00

tempt. The garb of the critic sat so badly on
the essayist that the critic himself grew
ashamed of it. He too would be a philosopher
Hence even the reviews of really new books,
and of writers whom correct criticism might
have refitted and elevated, grew to be merely
en expression of the writer's own opinions on
the subject-matter of the work before him ;
and the censorship of style, language, and
method fell into desuetude.
The first of these evils the University
Essays have contributed their share towards
removing. But the second they have not
touched. They have rescued the essayist
from his false position ; they have not restored
the critic to his true one. We are here, of course.
'speaking only of essays and reviews composed
on that scale of magnitude for which the quar-
terly periodicals alone can afford space. In
the three or four leading magazines original
articles and literary criticisms are still to be
found of a high order of merit, and perhaps
losing nothing by their brevity. But the field
is still open—perfectly open—for a purely
critical publication ; and how ready would be
the welcome accorded to it may be judged
from the avidity with which the summaries of
literature at the end of the Westminster Review
are perused. at present.
It must not, however, be forgotten that an-
other leading object in the commencement of
this series was the encouragement of special
knowledge. Contributors were to write only
on those topics which they had made the object
of independent study previously, and which
coming from them might fairly challenge con-
sideration. Now, the question arises how far
this theory, if applicable to each writer sepa-
rately, is not applicable also to their joint
labours—that is, to the whole volume they
produce ; and whether, if it be a rule that B's
essay should relate to B's special studies, it is
not equally fitting that " University Essays'
should have some reference, more or less
direct, to the special studies of the University.
There is no reason, of course, why a Cambridge
man should not be an authority on many sub-
jects which have no special connection with aca-
demical pursuits ; and none why, if he be sa, he
should not write an essay on it. But then
why call it a Cambridge Essay ? There can
be no objection to any body of young men
forming themselves into a literary fraternity,
and giving us the benefit of their opinions
upon every topic under the sun, from the cut.
of a petticoat to the :Sire of Plato. If they
have a university education, so much the
better. But we do object to a series of essays
upon general and alien subjects being entitled
University Essays ; and this not merely
because of the misnomer, but also because a
very excellent opportunity of public instruc-
tion is thereby lost.
In this matter the Cambridge Essayists have
been far greater transgressors than their
Oxford rivals. Of the Oxford Essays from
their commencement two-thirds are upon sub-
jects which university 'men may be reasonably
presumed, ceteris paribus, to know more about
than other people. Of the Cambridge Essays
little more than a fourth are of this descrip-
tion, and of the six essays contained in the
present volume only one—and that rather
accidentally than essentially—i e., the biogra-
phy of Porson.
Cambridge Essays for 1857 are faulty not
merely on the special ground hero taken, but
also on the general one that the selection of
subjects is heavy. 'There is not a single paper
of the more light and entertaining species—
not a single purely literary article. Law,
geology, agriculture, and electricity are the
staple of the volume—varied only by the
aforesaid sketch of Professor Porson, and a
paper on the Indian revolt. We are bound to
say, however, that Mr. Stephen's article on the
Criminal Law, be it technically correct or
otherwise, is uncommonly interesting, and
makes the crooked ways straight, or apparently
straight, on numerous important points. A
passage, however, on which ice are inclined to
differ from him is that which treats of the
influence of circumstantial evidence :
The true principle appears to me to be to estimate the
value of evidence entirely by the effect which it does in
fact produce upon the minds of those who hear it The
value of evidence is sorely measured as exactly by the state
of mina which it produces as a farceis measured by the
weight which it will lift. If a set of circumstances are put