Angelo Maio discovered and published, about three years ago, the works of three Roman writers, supposed by him to be Leontius, Placidus, and Hyginus, who flourished about the close of the fourth century, or as the Review incorrectly states, after the commencement of the fifth. The work criticised in the present article is a new edition of Maio's publication, improved by the collation of MSS. at Wolfenbuttel, Gottingen, Gotha, and Paris. Dr. Bode, a scholar of high reputation, and who resided for some time in a New England literary institution, is the editor. The reviewer speaks of the Latinity as simple and easy, and, for the most part, classical in construction.
Article V.—1. "A Lecture on the Working Men's Party, first delivered October 6th, before the Charlestown Lyceum, and published at their request. By Edward Everett. Boston, 1830."
2. "An Oration delivered before the Trades' Union of Boston and Vicinity, on Fort Hill, on the Fifty-eighth Anniversary of American Independence. By Frederick Robinson. Boston, 1834."
3. "The Rights of Industry, addressed to the Working Men of the United Kingdom. By the Author of 'The Results of Machinery.' Philadelphia, 1832."
The Reviewer here commences with what we consider a naïve acknowledgment, viz: that he has not selected the works whose titles are placed at the head of this article because they are recent, or unknown, but merely with the view of directing public attention to the subject of which they treat. The Essay, however, is an excellent one, and shows in a forcible manner, by a rapid comparative view of the condition of the laboring classes in our own and other countries, how few just causes of complaint exist among our 'working people.'
Article VI. "The Ministry for the Poor. A Discourse delivered before the Benevolent Fraternity of Churches in Boston, on their first anniversary, April 9th, 1835. By William E. Channing. Boston, 1835."
The North American, in its last number, considered Southey a fine writer, but Washington Irving a much finer, and indeed 'the best living writer of English prose:' having, however, to review Mr. Channing in the present number, its opinions are conveniently modified to suit the occasion, and now the English of William E. Channing is declared coram populo to be 'equally elegant, and a little more pure, correct, and pointed than that of Mr. Irving.' There is surely something very absurd in all this. Mr. Irving is a fine writer, and so, beyond doubt, is Mr. Channing—but the Review seems perseveringly bent upon making the public think otherwise. What does the critic mean too by the assertion that Coleridge's reputation is greater in America than in England, and that he possesses very slender claims to the distinction of the first philosopher of his age? We should like to see some direct evidence of what the Reviewer has so roundly asserted, viz: that "Coleridge shews an almost total want of precision and clearness of thought." The works of the man are before the public, and we greatly prefer proof to assertion. We think this whole paper exceedingly silly.
Article VII. "A Preliminary Discourse on the Study of Natural History. By William Swainson. London, 1834."
We have not seen Swainson's work, and of course can say nothing about it—the present article however, which professes to be, but is not, a Review of it, we pronounce excellent indeed. It must be read to be thoroughly appreciated.