ERRORS ALLIED TO GOODNESS. THEIR DANGEROUS TENDENCY, AND THE DIFFICULTY OF DISTINGUISHING THEM,

There are no errors of our nature more dangerous in themselves, or more pernicious in the example which they carry with them, than those that are well allied,— that perhaps spring from very excellence, and have, their origin in those qualities, which we are accustomed to esteem and admire. The faults that flow from a superabundant generosity of heart have been very properly considered as doubly detrimental to the cause of morality, on account of the insidious and imperceptible manner in which they influence society. The world in general is not inclined to take the pains of sifting characters before they imitate them, of separating what is intrinsically good and amiable from what is light, frivolous and disgusting. The bad therefore, are copied with the good qualities; and (what must be a still more revolting reflection to the moral mind) the good are thus made to be the vehicle and channel, by which the bad qualities become public and popular.

וי

How important then for the cause of morality is it ⚫ that some persons should take upon themselves the task of carefully examining the component parts of every character, which is likely to excite attention and imita, tion. If it be in the gross amiable, yet possess at the game time some few disqualifying traits, it should be

parcelled out into portions of light and shade; and the brightness of the one should be made so prominent and alluring as to strike and attract the attention at first sight; while the more darkened gloom of the other should be thrown into its kindred obscurity, and so concealed as to be entirely out of the way of imitation. The good qualities of the human heart, like tender and odoriferous plants on the face of nature, have their accompanying weeds or noxious properties, which, springing from the same source, are so closely commingled with the more valuable qualities of the soil, as greatly to hinder their growth, and progress to maturity. As, therefore, in the one iustance, all the care and skill of the gardener is required to separate the noxious and useless, from the wholesome and fragrant plants; so, on the other, a most familiar and intimate acquaintance with the human heart, and with the affections which regulate it, is necessary to distinguish its good from its bad qualities; in order to point out these for avoidance or eradication, and those for imitation and culture.

This task, always one of great difficulty and respon sibility has of late become still more so; for never did there exist such a strange heterogeneity of character, such a mixture of opposites, as in the persons of the present day. Human nature, it is true, has ever compounded of virtues and vices,

been considered as

of amiabilities and errors, artfully blended together; but those qualities have hitherto been easily distinguishable from each other, and have borne a plain and distinct character: whereas now, so imperceptibly have the mingled passions and interests of men refined away the

extremes of either, that the boundary line is lost, and those that are not blessed instinctively with a peculiarly accurate moral sense, have great difficulty in ascertaining at what particular point goodness of heart ends and depravity commences,-what is rectitude and what error.

Unqualified condemnation in such inštances would be as injurious and unjust as unqualified approbation. Notwithstanding the greater danger, therefore, which is attached to failings when they are so nearly allied to excellence; it is much more prudent to withhold our reprobation from them altogether, than to wound goodnesss by throwing out indiscriminate censure.

The Stage, which should always be regarded as a mirror, reflecting back the character and manners of the age, has often exhibited to our view portraits of this compound and motley cast; in this it has shewn its conformity to truth and to nature. But it is much to be lamented, for the sake of morality, that dramatists should have selected such characters for representation, when it is thus wholly out of their power to excite any feeling of abhorrence or repugnance against the objectionable part of the portrait. The good qualities consequently carry the general feeling in their favour, and the mind is seldom disposed, in the moment of approbation, to particularize those traits as an exception to this feeling, which perhaps a more minute examination would prove unworthy approval. Should, however, the dark and dangerous side of the character be recognized, at first sight, as disgusting or objectionable, we cannot, out of consideration for the better qualities with which it is associated, wholly censure it; or if we do, it

is a censure so mingled with pardon and with pity, that we begin almost to love the thing we condemn, and thus by degrees copy failings at the very time that our reason reprobates them.

What, however, the dramatist cannot effect,-by the assistance of great skill and discrimination may be accomplished by the moralist. The former has a more favourable opportunity of giving to his characters strength and force; but the latter, being allowed to comment and explain as he delineates, can point out the tendency of every particular trait, and thus keep his eye fixed conti nually on some moral object. The wholesome may be separated from the noxious qualities of the heart; and although perhaps it may not be possible to preserve either free from the taint of the other, their tendency may be made so manifest as to put the judgment on its guard; and reflection may be excited, at a time when reflection is sure to conduce to a moral purpose.

R.

READING, NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE STUDY OF MAN.

It is a common failing with those who excel in any particular pursuit to exalt the object of their studies to an undue interest and importance in the scale of literature. This is very excusable, when it is the accompaniment of genius, or of real excellence. But when it is practised by such as are only smatterers in any study, it becomes a species of pedantry, and should be ridiculed and reprehended as such.

The study of man is certainly one of great and paramount importance. For my own part, professing as I do to be a Cosmopolite, no one can be less inclined to under-rate its value, or contract its influence. It is a study, which furnishes us with the most ready and correct information on mankind in general, and gives us a clearer insight into life, than we can acquire through any other medium. Yet I am not willing to enhance its value and importance to the deterioration of any other useful pursuit, I cannot therefore, agree, with those superficial reasoners, who affect (as they term it) to know the world, and, in the arrogance of this flimsy knowledge, vainly imagine, that they know every thing which is valuable and useful, Some of these go so far as to maintain the utter uselessness of books, when compared with practical knowledge of this kind. Reading, they con