ls, "J. D.
W.," is understood to be James D. Whelpley, editor of the Review. Believing
Everett's principal doctrines to be radically erroneous, this critic
nevertheless excuses them, because he thinks we have nothing better! "The
views supported in the work itself," says his closing paragraph, "_are not,
indeed, such as we would subscribe to, nor can we admit the numerous
analyses of the English metres which it contains to be correct_; yet, as it
is as complete in design and execution as anything that has yet appeared on
the subject, and well calculated to excite the attention, and direct the
inquiries, of English scholars, to the study of our own metres, we shall
even pass it by without a word of criticism."--_American Review, New
Series_, Vol. I, p. 492.

OBS. 20.--Everett, although, as we have seen, he thought proper to deny
that the student of English versification had any well authorized "rules to
guide him," still argues that, "The laws of our verse are just as fixed,
and may be as clearly laid down, if we but attend to the usage of the great
Poets, as are the laws of our syntax."--_Preface_, p. 7. But this critic,
of the American Review, ingenious though he is in many of his remarks,
flippantly denies that our English Prosody has either authorities or
principles which one ought to respect; and accordingly cares so little whom
he contradicts, that he is often inconsistent with himself. Here is a
sample: "As there are _no established authorities_ in this art, and,
indeed, _no acknowledged principles_--every rhymester being permitted to
_invent_ his own _method_, and write by _instinct_ or _imitation_--the
critic feels quite at liberty to say just what he pleases, and _offer his
private observations_ as though these were really of some moment."--_Am.
Rev._, Vol. i, p. 484. In respect to writing, "_to invent_," and _to
"imitate_," are repugnant ideas; and so are, _after a "method_," and "_by
instinct_." Again, what sense is there in making the "liberty" of
publishing one's "private observations" to depend on the presumed absence
of rivals? That the author did not lack confidence in the general
applicability of his speculations, subversive though they are of the best
and most popular teaching on this subject, is evident from the following
sentence: "We intend, also, that if these principles, with the others
previously expressed, are true in the given instances, _they are equally
true for all languages and all varieties