nd that the successful unveiling of its disordered tissue
demands, in the first instance, the highest intellectual acuteness and
profundity. We here encounter the same obstacles as in metaphysics,
except that in the one case the phenomena investigated are subjective,
in the other objective. Both conditions have peculiar advantages; both
are open to peculiar difficulties, which it is unnecessary to discuss at
present. But the power which can grapple successfully with the vexed
complications of the one will be no less potent in piercing those of the
other; acuteness of analysis, sleepless insight, subtile thought, ample
constructive or synthetic ability, these are the only endowments out of
which any original success can arise in either case. What has Mr. de
Quincey achieved for the science of political economy? We might answer
by asking, What has Mr. Ricardo achieved in that department? Ricardo and
De Quincey had independently arrived at the same conclusions on the
subject at about the same time. The fact that Ricardo first proclaimed
to the world his revolutionary doctrines of rent and value has won for
him the lion's share of the applause they compelled; but that rendered
De Quincey's independent conclusions none the less real discoveries,
subtracted nothing from the aggregate of his real merit. The vast
obstacles which lay in the path of these discoveries can never be fully
appreciated, until we apprehend, to some extent, the apparently hopeless
and inextricable confusion with which the whole subject was at that time
invested: out of the blackness of darkness, out of the very heart of
chaos and anarchy rose two mighty luminaries, that have been polar
beacons to all subsequent explorers. De Quincey's writings on political
economy are partially fragmentary; that is, they do not exhaust the
subject as a whole, although thoroughly probing several capital points
upon which the entire subject turns. Sometimes he ostensibly limits
himself to elucidating and defending Ricardo's views; but the discussion
is conducted with so much ease and force and fertility of resources,
disclosing at times a depth of insight far outstripping that of his
pretended master, that we cannot resist the conclusion that the
doctrines which he defends are in fact discoveries of his
own--discoveries which, finding himself anticipated in their
publication, he generously turns to the advantage of his fortunate
rival. Although De Quincey gravely assures us